Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

What if the news media is just 100% wrong about a subject matter?

I'm not sure if I am in the right place but does the accuracy of Wikipedia matter? I am an environmental investigator and nine times out of ten, the media tends to print random and arbitrary things about toxic waste sites, oil spills, etc. This creates an echo chamber which causes more and more media outlets to pick up the same false information. A good example of this is the Porter Ranch natural gas spill. An activist went on TV and said that it was "the worst spill since Deep Water Horizon" but it wasn't. This statement was picked up by about 500 media outlets and now, in the history books, encyclopedias, this is what is printed, even though the original statement has no basis or sourcing. In the end, this false narrative is branded as fact. Fifty years later, it's history, even though it was never true. Does only sourcing matter and not facts, in these articles? Rightventracleleft (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft, one of Wikipedia's core content policies is verifiability, which is distinct from our individual interpretations of the truth. Understandably you consider your opinion on the subject to be fact (who doesn't? 🙂), but if everyone were to begin writing Wikipedia articles based solely on what they knew, it would become quite an unmanageable mess.

Note also that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs that may have occurred in history. As an encyclopedia, we seek to simply summarize what is present in existing sources, even if we find it personally unfair.

Hope this helps, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mathematically speaking, the Porter Ranch spill was measured in tens of thousands of pounds. Methane in the atmosphere is measured in the hundreds of millions of metric tons. The plume of methane over Four Corners region is one-hundred million metric tons. Those are not my opinions. Someone in authority made a statement they were being paid to say, it was sourced by hundreds of media outlets and now it's "fact." It would be nice if scientific fact would have more weight than a news reporter who was barely paying attention that day and scraping for content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft You are speaking to larger issues that are beyond the control of Wikipedia. If you wish to assert that a specific source should not be considered to be a reliable source, you may visit the reliable sources noticeboard, but you can't do that with the news in general. If you have sources that offer what you consider to be accurate information for a subject, you are welcome to offer them. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I could post the personal e-mails from a media outlet's journalists, to me, that show a pattern of deceptive reporting, but is Wikipedia going to no longer allow the Washington Post as a source? Just making a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft, unpublished sources are explicitly disallowed per WP:V. Trying to use such emails would also generally be in violation of WP:NOR.

I'd encourage you to click on the blue links in this message and my previous one: they answer several of the questions that you have with regards to Wikipedia. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft Given the rules under which we operate, the solution in such cases is to find other reliable sources that discuss the problem with the statement. We/you can then write about the discrepancy in the article, and cite the source. Unfortunately, if nobody has bothered to debunk a bad story, we can't do anything, since we are (intentionally) a tertiary source that writes about what others have written. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A good example of this would be Harvey Weinstien or Cosby, who had the power to suppress media. During those years that those voices were suppressed, the editor of the New York Times refused to tell the stories of those woman. Later, that editor left NYT and started his own media outlet, ProPublica, that - with no sense of irony, whatsoever - then stood up as the champions of the very women's stories that he suppressed. It's crazy to me that our media is broken and there truly is no source for facts. In that way, Wikipedia is broken. Often, the only solution for getting around a disreputable editor is to create your own media outlet. One then prints actual facts and gets told that it's not credible enough for Wikipedia as media outlets like Washington Post, New York Times, and ProPublica are trusted sources. What a convoluted world. And remember, it's only popular opinion that those are trusted news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 10:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

user:Rightventracleleft, it may be easier to understand if you think of Wikipedia as an aggregator service. Ultimately, we don't engage in any form of original research, and our only role is to summarise what's already been said in existing sources. (The usual example to illustrate this is that, had Wikipedia existed in Galileo's day, we'd have said unequivocally that the sun circled the earth, regardless of our own personal doubts.) Editing Wikipedia on current issues is surprisingly difficult and not something we generally recommend unless you're confident you can write in accordance with sources rather than with your personal beliefs even if you strongly disagree with the sources. It's usually easier to begin with writing about historic topics, where the consensus has settled and it's possible to work from published books and academic papers, rather than from (inherently unreliable and unstable) newspapers and websites. ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Then, bascially, nothing printed on Wikipdia has any credibility. What is the point of a website that only prints popular opinion and skews history? Ironically, I own a small newspaper that passes Wikipedia, so I am free to re-write history to fit scientific fact. That makes me laugh. Rightventracleleft (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary one. If you wish to bolster your secondary source, go for it, but Wikipedia has to make do with what sources are given to it (with said sources' reliability being discussed and agreed upon). Everything is gameable if you try hard enough. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Some argue that there is a point anyway. Whether you agree with any of it is up to you.

• Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet
• We Need the Wisdom of Wikipedia
• The Good Internet Lives On
• How Wikipedia’s volunteers became the web’s best weapon against misinformation
• How Wikipedia Prevents the Spread of Coronavirus Misinformation
• Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5 (one of my favorites) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
• Threatin: Moderators Flagged and Deleted Wikipedia Page Months Ago for False Claims [Transcript Available!] Adding this because it's funny. The article got recreated later, so there's an argument that the guy "won". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You may also want to check WP:General disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rightventracleleft: I am definitely sympathetic to your viewpoint. We would all rather have factual information here. Here's the problem – everyone considers their 'facts' the correct ones. In this case, yours may very well be true. But if Wikipedia just let anyone post what they believed to be factual we would be just as reliable as your uncle's wacky Facebook feed or Conservopedia. Therefore there has to be rules about sourcing - even if they're not 100% perfect. Do you have a source for a credible scientist stating that the Porter Ranch spill wasnt "the worst spill since Deep Water Horizon." If you do, then that's a valid citation for an argument. The rules here certainly aren't perfect but they're much better than having no rules at all. – Chrisvacc (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thought I'd throw in my 2 cents for whatever reason, seems like I have a personal disagreement with the application of WP:RGW but as a newcomer don't know how "set in stone" these rules are. Reporting accurrately is hard work and basing wiki content on pre-determined "verified sources" is something that I think is a problem, a bigger problem is the lack of media coverage on situations such as the one mentioned by Rightventracleleft is the product of a profit-driven media which are notoriously covering mostly subjects that get ratings up and avoiding most if not all content critical of their methods. In the end Wikipedia does act as an aggregator and is not capable of being the place to right wrongs. Hard work has to be put in to research this stuff and unfortunately that means most of these wrongs will never be righted.Rightverntracleleft, as an "environmental investigator" I think you would be a credible author should you choose to research and write academically on these issues of media coverage of your field. This is of course a big task and I'm sure you're very busy (just a thought:) and regardless I'm glad you brought this to my attention. Also im pretty sure if there's literally any reported proof of the claim being untrue that should be cause to remove that part (regardless of the prestige of the media that parroted it). Thankful for the wikipedia contributors as it is a magnificent and highly useful creation, unfortuantely true changes in public perception have to be made through rigorous, principled journalism and research before the truth arrives here :/ Gromte (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"The Media" is widely misunderstood. "Fernwood 2 Night" TV at the local Dayton Broadcasting Co. is mistakenly conflated with the NYT/WSJ/WAPO. Local TV stations tend to attract State beauty queen contestants and the like (recall that Sarah Palin was briefly a "reporter"), where they work for a few years, before going into residential real estate sales (or whatever) where they can make "real money." This is where people tend to get their idea of "The Media."

Contrast this with reporters at national print outlets: Getting a job there is like getting into Harvard or Yale, and yes, probably at least half of them are Ivy Leaguers (with all bias and shortcomings associated with that group). These large, dog-eat-dog newsrooms are a bit like science, in that among its prime motives is self-correction: Reporter "Billy" reports X. If Reporter "Sally" can blow "X" out of the water with a new story, she wins the Award "Y." Each reporter gets edited multiple times by a group of tremendously fastidious "nerds," half of whom went to Harvard, but who tend to suffer from social difficulties that make them ill-suited to investment banking.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:5580:2676:8231:5698 (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure Iridescent's example of Wikipedia in the age of Galileo is a good one, as the social circumstances are simply not comparable. Modern Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of finding scientific sources reliable on questions of cosmology, and ignores religious sources as unreliable on these questions. If you look at the article Universe, it gives an entirely scientific account of its origins, and covers religious sources as "stories" and "mythologies". Applying modern Wikipedia standards to the question of whether or not Heliocentrism is a true model of the universe, the first question is what the scientific consensus is in peer-reviewed scientific journals. But Galileo was dead before the first peer-reviewed journal was even invented. Galileo is notable as one of the pioneers of the scientific method; if there is not a community of people using that method and writing to document the results, it is simply not possible to get reliable information about a vast swath of human knowledge. Add to that the fact that freedom of speech was little respected at the time, that the Catholic Church was actively going around promoting geocentrism by force, and the possible lack of access to texts from Ancient Greece and other cultures that freely discussed heliocentrism, and I'd say it's simply not possible to satisfy Wikipedia's standards of source reliability.

Wikipedia discarded the slogan "verifiability, not truth" years ago, and I think a better way to describe what we do is "truth through verifiability in reliable sources". We do not simply print popular opinion; we actually specifically call out incorrect popular opinions on List of common misconceptions and many factual topic-specific articles, using sources that readers should consider reliable in correcting their own thinking. I'm sure Wikipedia publishes some false factual claim simply because the current best understanding of them is incorrect, but if there is room for doubt or an alternative point of view, we always report that, and even for factual claims where no one has any reason to believe they are false, well-written articles explain what evidence there is to support those claims, and point to more detailed sources which can be scoured by skeptics.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are considered reliable sources because they have a history of carefully fact-checking and rigorously sourcing their stories, and printing corrections when errors occur or when misconduct of its own employees is discovered (which is itself rare). They operate in a legal regime that strongly protects freedom of speech and independence of the press, and have a history of fighting suppression attempts with substantial financial resources—including defeating libel suits and even the U.S. federal government's attempts at censorship in court on several notable occasions. According to our coverage at Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases#Background, the New York Times was actually one of the publications that broke the story in 2017, and had reported on a specific case in 2015. It appears a significant challenge to reporting accusations earlier was that witnesses were unwilling to go on the record. Though this was no doubt a horrible consequence of Weinstein's influence and money, refusing to print stories that witnesses themselves won't commit to is in fact one of the ways that reliable media outlets filter out untrue facts and rumors. It is one of the things that separates a reliable newspaper from a celebrity tabloid rumor mill, and it is also something that helps protect the outlet against successful libel suits—for good reasons, as printing unsubstantiated false rumors can be quite harmful to the person in question. There are legitimate questions over whether the NYT should have put more resources into investigating, and you can debate over whether the choice of what the paper finds to be newsworthy carries some bias. It is difficult to argue, however, that what the paper does print is unreliable. Rightventracleleft, if you have evidence that specific Washington Post reporters have engaged in "deceptive reporting", you should contact the Post's Reader Representative (formerly Omsbudsman), and if your complaint is credible I would expect them to investigate and the organization—which takes its reliable reputation seriously—to correct the situation. That said, I'm sure a lot of critics of the Washington Post have complaints which are not all that legitimate, because they disagree with the topics covered or the facts uncovered don't support their personal views, and I expect those complaints to be rightfully ignored—otherwise they would be a source of bias, not a remedy to it.

This is not to say that any newspaper is perfect. Note that Wikipedia:Reliable sources says "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." We can take the specific factual claim mentioned as an example of how the Wikipedia verification process should work. This particular question benefits from considering the underlying facts carefully and applying basic Earth science and chemistry knowledge, while carefully avoiding any original research.

The specific claim in the article Aliso Canyon gas leak is sourced to an article in The Independent, which Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says has Wikipedia consensus is reliable for "non-specialist information" until at least 2016. The Wikipedia article claims "The Aliso gas leak's carbon footprint is said to be larger than the Deepwater Horizon leak in the Gulf of Mexico." and is supported by this text in the Independent article:

Its climate impact will be “humongous”, said Tim O’Connor, California director for the Environmental Defence Fund’s (EDF) oil and gas programme. “In terms of aggregate greenhouse gas emissions, it is far greater than the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster.”

Of course, it's him, and a few others, that I'm referring to. You're quoting one of the people who circulated disinformation. There is no science to back up the claim. The amount of natural gas, per day, leaking from that spill was statistically anomalous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Is said to be" is a weasel-word phrase, which I just tagged. Assessing the reliability of this claim, we can look at the genre and see that this is a technical claim being sourced to a news outlet, so the question of whether academic sources agree with this claim is a very legitimate one. We can also see that this claim is sourced to an environmental activist rather than an objective academic expert, so the claim might be hyped to express outrage at the latest disaster. Or it might be an accurate claim made by someone familiar with environmental disasters, which is why the Independent found the quote credible enough to print. Looking at Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, I don't see any coverage of the estimated greenhouse gas emission from this disaster. Between those articles and specialist sources like [1], I see numbers for a much larger methane gas emission from Deepwater Horizon, and obviously a lot of oil. The Aliso disaster released methane directly to the air, so knowing the amount of that released the CO2 equivalent can easily be calculated. Deepwater Horizon, however, discharged oil, ethane, and methane to the ocean, not directly to the atmosphere. Some of it was burned by people (which converts in some ratio directly to atmospheric CO2), some of it was digested by microorganisms (which converts it to CO2 dissolved in the ocean, some uncertain amount of which may evaporate into the atmosphere over time), and some of it dissolved into the ocean (of which some uncertain amount may evaporate into the atmosphere over time). From the limited number of sources linked above, it appears there is scientific uncertainty on how much methane was consumed, and I don't see any comprehensive estimate of greenhouse gas impact. It's possible there are reliable secondary sources that evaluate these uncertainties and can say definitively the impact was smaller or larger than the Aliso. It is not our place to do that analysis, but it would be a great exercise for an interested editor to do a thorough search. In the meantime, I think this verification process has raised enough doubt to strike this claim from Wikipedia as unreliable, given it is a very specific technical claim made in a non-technical publication by a person who has not been established to be a technical expert and who has obvious potential bias. I have tagged this claim as "dubious"; if my logic sounds reasonable, I propose moving it to the talk page with a copy of this explanation. (That will prevent it from getting re-added to the article without proper consideration, if that's a concern because it's bouncing around in a lot of sources.)

This claim is not important to the Aliso leak article; it is enough to explain to readers what the greenhouse gas impact of this disaster is on its own merits, which the article more or less does (though it could do a better job explaining how this affects CA or US emissions reductions goals). It is more relevant to the Deepwater Horizon articles, and there it's actually fine to just say calculating the greenhouse gas impact is complicated, that there is no scientific consensus on the various numbers, and maybe share some conflicting estimates.

Rightventracleleft, you didn't say why you think Aliso wasn't "the worst spill since Deep Water Horizon", even though you seem to believe that strongly. Wikipedia filters unreliable claims by rejecting out of hand any claims without reliable sources; I would hope other editors would be friendly and ask you if you can point to any rather than simply ignoring or rejecting your assertion, but in any case it always helps to cite them when arguing that a claim that already has a reference is incorrect. This is a bit of a weird case where other reliable sources help raise doubt about the original claim but don't necessarily contradict it directly, and the reliability of the original claim has to be considered closely before intrinsic doubts are justified, and different editors might come to different conclusions about whether the sourcing there is sufficient. It helps to supply details of why such sources should be doubted, keeping an objective and non-emotional tone. In this case I found rather subtle aspects of some Wikipedia policies to cite, though you need not be nearly as long-winded as this post. 8)

Anyway, I hope this helps restore some credibility to Wikipedia's processes, even if it takes some time to refine any given article to meet the project's goals for quality. -- Beland (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The claim is important to residents of Porter Ranch who lost millions of dollars in property value, over a false claim. The Aliso Canyon spill was only pumping out 90,000 pounds a day. Methane or natural gas in the atmosphere is measured in the hundreds of millions of metric tons. No reasonable scientist could argue that spill had even the slightest effect on cumulative greenhouse gasses. It was a fart in the wind. I'd gladly share my article about it, that I wrote on my own media outlet, but after I published a t-shirt that was critical of the New York Times, I received a notice from the CEO of GoDaddy telling me they were banning me as a customer, thus deleting my opinion and whole newspaper. Of course, the CEO for GoDaddy is on the board of directors for the New York Times. When I contacted NYT to ask them to assist me with the return of my media outlet, they did not write back.

Rightventracleleft (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

issues with the way certain characters are displayed in google chrome

As visible in this screenshot, it seems certain characters are not displayed properly in chrome: https://i.imgur.com/5NR13kE.png

The plus sign is visible in some locations and in other locations the plus sign is partially poorly visible. I was wondering why this is. I'm viewing the page in google chrome at the default zoom level. Zooming in resolves the issue, but I reckon the page should look ok at the default zoom level. 85.148.91.183 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried changing the way the Math extension renders? Under your Preferences, go to Appearance, scroll down to the Math section, and pick a different radio button. After saving, see if that fixes the problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of using any Math extension. Surely you don't need any extensions to view mathematical expressions on wikipedia? In the chrome Appearance settings I don't see any math section. I'm on a windows 10 computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.91.183 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, in firefox, it looks better, though it's still curious that some plus signs are rendered crisp while others are rendered fuzzy (again at the default zoom level).

https://i.imgur.com/4x8qvLG.png

I am referring to the preferences for Wikipedia. Mediawiki uses the Math extension (which incorporates LaTeX) to create the appropriate subscripts, superscripts, and other formatting. You'll notice that the font type for equations differs from that of prose. You could try rendering them as .pngs to see if that fixes your problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, under "Math", I have selected "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" and the page Geometric progression renders fine for me in FFox. You need to create an account in order to set the preferences. If I go to that page in Chrome, while not logged in, it is also rendered fine though. Make sure are not changing the magnification (press control-zero), though that doesn't break the rendering for me either. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an account at wikipedia, but I reckon the math should also render ok for people who are just casually consulting wikipedia without having an account. I did pay attention to the zoom settings to ensure they are at 100% since I know that bigger or smaller zoomlevels can create issues with properly displaying the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.91.183 (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, using Chrome on Win10 on a 1920x1080 17" laptop while logged out (i.e., as though I had no account), it renders fine for me. What display size and resolution are you using? Might it be something in your display settings? Is your Chrome up to date (I'm at 81.0.4044.138)? Do you have another browser you can try? You might want to mention this at WP:VPT, which is for technical issues like this. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Owned Image targeted for deletion

Hello! I uploaded a personally owned image and it has been targeted for deletion. I thought I made the necessary copyright claims on the image's file page. Apparently I didn't do enough. It is File:General H.H. Arnold High School Crest.png. I appreciate any guidance. Thank you! Major Major 26 (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Major Major 26: On File:General H.H. Arnold High School Crest.png, in the red box it says "Reason for the nomination: COM:DW of tile mosaic". It's common for Wikipedians to add links with cryptic abbreviations. Click that link and it will explain that the photo was nominated for being a derivative work. GoingBatty (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Major Major 26: When you use the "Ask a question" button on this page, you don't need to do anything to sign it – it's automatic. If you edit an existing section, simply end your post with ~~~~ (don't type your name after or before). It's a good idea to use the Preview function to see what your post looks like before publishing it. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. How/where do we refute an image being a derivative work? The object in the image is U.S. government property, owned by the tax payer (public). It was a permanent fixture in a public/us government building, in the floor, which people walked on for more than 50 years. The building was completely demolished in 2015 and this former section of floor was not buried in a land fill only after enough concerned alumni argued that it be spared. Now the former piece of floor resides on permanent display in the new federal government building as a piece of the Department of Defense School's history, not a copyrighted work of art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Major Major 26 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Major Major 26: You can post your argument at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:General H.H. Arnold High School Crest.png. It's a good idead to ping users who you want to see what you wrote so they get a notification (unless it's on their talk page, in which case they are notified anyway). For example, on that Commons page, you'll want to start your posting with :{{Re|elcobbola}} since elcobbola is the user that proposed deletion. (A lot of editors are busy enough to where we won't necessarily see something new in a thread if you don't ping us, which is why it took me a while to respond here – I just noticed your response.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

ANOTHER question (I feel like i'm over using the TeaHouse)

I want to make my signature different colors like Deepfriedokra but I am having trouble doing it. This is what I have: User:Da niHart08|< s pan style="color:00FFFF">Da ni< span style ="color:0 0FF 7F">Hart</sp an>08 </ span >]] [[User_talk:DaniHart08& #124;(Talk) It keeps saying that the HTML is wrong, but I don't know whats wrong with it. Can someone help???? Or can someone just tell me how to do it??? P.S. I know there are some spaces where there shouldn't be any, but I had to make sure you could see what I tried to) DaniHart08 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC) DaniHart08 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@DaniHart08: If you want to use code without making it show up as code in the appearance, use <nowiki>. Also if you want to learn how to make a custom signature, I would suggest you read WP:SIGTUT. That page will provide you with a tutorial on how to make your own signature. Also please read the signature policy to make sure that your signature follows the rules. Thank you -Examknow^talk 17:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There are many errors and I'm not sure whether you are trying to make italics or bold. Is this what you want: DaniHart08📔 (Talk). PrimeHunter (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DaniHart08:, a few things:

1. There is a stray </b> tag that isn't closing anything.
2. If you're using hexadecimal values, you need to add # before the 6 digits.
3. The links aren't closed with [[ at the front and ]] at the back respectively.
4. You need to use a | to separate the link between the link and the text that you want to link with.

With all that said, please review MOS:COLOR, as colours that blend into the white background are discouraged. PS: If you need to display code, you can wrap your code in <pre> HTML tags, which will stop it from rendering. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all! I figured it out now! I really love the Teahouse, I don't know what I would do without it!!

DaniHart08 (Talk) 17:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Great! I am glad we could help. And by the way, nice signature :) -Examknow^talk 18:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@DaniHart08: With regard to the current color scheme above, I'm afraid it has insufficient contrast to be compliant with MOS:COLOR. According to this tool, the contrast ratio for cyan on white is only 1.25, failing the WCAG2 standards. BTW, one more little trick to save some of those few precious characters available for sigs is that you can use three hex digits for colors if you're willing to limit yourself to 4,096 colors. E.g.: #6f3 is the equivalent of #66ff33; #def is the equivalent of #ddeeff. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, is this good: DaniHart08 (Talk). 14:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)? If so, yay, because I really like it.

DaniHart08 (Talk). 14:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

A question

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu, indenting added by Berrely

what is this for 2600:1700:F660:4430:D2E:C53A:7F04:2118 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's for questions about editing Wikipedia. Hillelfrei ^talk 18:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

why is this called teahouse 2600:1700:F660:4430:D2E:C53A:7F04:2118 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A Teahouse is a friendly and chill place in real life, so too on Wikipedia. Hillelfrei ^talk 18:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

what happened if someone vandalized this page 2600:1700:F660:4430:D2E:C53A:7F04:2118 (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It would get noticed almost immediately and reverted. Hillelfrei ^talk 18:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Answering Questions

Can only Hosts answer questions? Obviously, even if this was the case you'd need some prior knowledge (and sometimes sources) to answer them, and being new I probably wouldn't be able to answer many if it wasn't exclusive to Teahouse Hosts, but I was just curious. ~ Frostedchicharrones 💬 19:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Frostedchicharrones, and welcome to the Teahouse! Anyone can answer a question, as long as they have sufficient knowledge and can provide a well thought out answer. Satisfy my curiosity though: have you been editing Wikipedia before, perhaps from a different account? You seem to have caught in pretty quickly, find the GOCE, and gotten a fancy customized signature very quick. Stay safe and all the best, -- puddleglum^2.0 19:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense- I didn't think it would be host only, but it's always best to ask. As for your question, no, I have not. However, I have been on several other wikis, mostly about video games and other content. Since those sites had similar coding/formatting, I was able to pick up editing and basic coding for things like color and other text customization on Wikipedia relatively easily, although I do prefer using the visual editor in general. Thanks for asking! ~ Frostedchicharrones 💬 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Frostedchicharrones Why does your name link to Wikipedia:Editor assistance rather than your User page? And for your current color choices, I find the name very hard to see on the screen because it is too pale. David notMD (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello David! Yeah, I see the issue, and I know why it happened. Basically, in the tutorial for signatures, (although I'm not sure why), it replaced some of the username links with WP:EA. I just went along with it, but then realized it was incorrect. I forgot to change it because some outside matters came up. I've fixed it now. As for the color, yeah, I see what you mean. I changed it just now- does the color now have an adequate amount of contrast? ~ Frostedchicharrones 💬 22:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Frostedchicharrones to my eyes, that is little better as far as the color goes. A light grey or a light yellow on a white background, neither has very good contrast. Once upon a time i might not have had a problem with it, but my eyes aren't 20 any more, nor 20/20. In the edit view where it is light black or dark grey on white, no problem. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Frostedchicharrones You can use this tool to calculate the contrast. Per MOS:COLOR, you should get a "YES" in at least "WCAG 2 AA compliant". —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, AlanM1- that made things a lot easier. I've upped the contrast to levels that are adequate. I'm glad David brought it up- I hadn't really considered how other people's vision would affect the way they saw it. ~ Frostedchicharrones 💬 13:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

how can I send a private message to user when no links appear to do so?

• NOTE: Some postings in this thread are not in chronological order and therefore may not be responding to those above them. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

My name is Mark Graham. I manage the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive. My email is mark@archive.org.

Please feel free to email me (what is your name and email address?)

You wrote "they are not crawling." - We add, on average, more than 1 billion URLs/day to the Wayback Machine. (this is not what I am seeing, the saved website are saved under "Alexis Crawls", but they stopped a few years ago. I actually went and clicked on top saved website and each one yields error 500 which says we are busy right now. I read the Forbes Article about the Wayback Machine. I have researched the Wayback site. Sure CNN is often saved, but I am talking about less popular webpages, they are no longer saved. I understand Alexis which is part of Amazon was doing the crawling, but now Alexis is unlinked from Wayback. I don't know why but I read that years ago) Ty78ejui (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You also wrote: "I noticed Wayback sends Cookies to people's computers. This is done to sell information to third party companies." - We do not do that.

If a Web archive is excluded from the Wayback Machine there will be a clear "excluded" notice and this is done when we get a legitimate request, under the law, by a rights holder.

- Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C102:7B25:EC48:71DE:24D7:F67C (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I can answer that question. I looked at all the cookies in my computer and I noticed some from The Wayback Machine in my cache of cookies. This is not to say, they are third party cookies, but they are cookies, even if I am not logged into Wayback and I don't have an account with Wayback which I do not have. I don't see why we have to exchange private emails at this point when everything is already out in the open. Ty78ejui (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to send a private message to a user who is a "paid person" to ask him an embarrassing question without shaming him by posted it publicly, but he has disabled the link for that. I feel he is biased. Is it possible that it is not possible to send a private message to some users? Wikipedia is hardly bias free due to him having to disclose his paid status, I can see that this is a vector for corruption. Ty78ejui (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)  Ty78ejui (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ty78ejui, and welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, you can't. The feature allowing one to email a user is strictly opt-in by the recipient, and Wikipedeia does not have any internal "private message" function. All on-wiki actions are publicly visible except for a very few processes limited to admins or to functionaries. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: If you want to leave a message for a user who has decided to not provide their email address, do it on their talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding to the points above, there's an entire Wikipedia page about Conflict of Interest (which includes people being paid to edit articles, among other things). You might have read it, but if you haven't, I strongly suggest you do. It explains both the procedures you should go through when dealing with it (which includes a link to the COI Noticeboard), and how having a COI and being biased are two completely different things. ~ Frostedchicharrones 💬 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

He is a corrupt person who goes around changing my links away from Archive Today to the Wayback Machine and he gets paid by the Wayback Machine. If my links are changed to Wayback Machine, all the person needs to do to delete an link they don't like is excluded it from the Wayback Machine. I work hard to create a back up to Archive Today and each time, he a paid user ruins my links. Ty78ejui (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: Kindly stop casting aspersions on other users, even if they are bots. I am assuming you are referring to GreenC bot, which is an automated account that converts Archive Today links to the Wayback Machine as some pages cannot be archived with Archive Today. This was discussed in this Phabricator ticket and talked about in WP:ARCHIVETODAY. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is why I wanted to send a private message as a corrupt person will naturally refuse to discuss any issue in private and then scream that he is being maligned if any public mention is made of the situation. It is very cleaver way to avoid criticize while being undemocratic and breaking the rule of good faith. If he is in good faith he would allow a private message. Ty78ejui (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, this is completely untrue. Everything can be added to Archive Today. The Wayback Machine is the one that in which many things can be excluded. Your use of the word "Kindly" I find to be offensive as if I had done something wrong by speaking up for myself. I was in the past occasioning throwing Wayback a bone by sometimes saving pages on both Archive Today and Wayback, but I will stop doing so as the paid people are now in charge of saving Wayback Links. I also contacted the Wayback Machine to ask why they had stopped crawling and got no reply from them. I will be deleting my Wayback Book Mark and I will not go there anymore. I noticed Wayback sends Cookies to people's computers. This is done to sell information to third party companies. Wayback is so poor that if I find a Wayback Link I have to save it in Archive Today to make sure it is still saved and won't be removed late. I found that Wayback was useful back when they were crawling, but now they are not crawling. (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a technical issue that is known but the fix is not deployed yet. Hopefully it will be deployed in the next day or two. Ty78ejui I assume this is not on Enwiki where you are seeing it? (for the record it is a bug in InternetArchiveBot not GreenC bot) -- GreenC 22:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking up for yourself does not include accusing someone without evidence. An issue was detected and a fix is in the works. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please explain this technical issue, so I may fully understand it. What does InternetArchiveBot do? The fair solution would be to save the links to both sites, if that was possible. Ty78ejui (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If the link is archive.vn or .md or .ph the bot does not recognize it as an archive and converts to Wayback by default. You can avoid the problem by using archive.today which is what they recommend we use on Wikipedia. But the problem should be fixed soon. -- GreenC 02:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I see, so I could improve my links by not using .vn is what you are saying? I found that the older .ph .fo all stopped working after a while. This appears to be a natural process. From time to time the extension changes because many sites set up blockers to block Archive Today, but they want to get away with posting horrible things online, but they don't want anyone to save these things and later be held responsible. Anyone who wants a site removed can have it removed and some of the sites I am indexing all removed themselves from Wayback. When Alexis was crawling many sites were saved many times on Wayback, but since Alexis Crawls no longer saves sites on Wayback, I don't think there are any crawlers at work. You say they are, but each time I go to a site, I never see recent saves from pages, unless I was to personally save them myself. I can not estimate the date in which Alexis Crawls stopped working, but I am thinking around 2011? It would be super great if I could count on everything being saved by a crawler which could have saved a number of things that were deleted that I was interested in. I save things as much as I can but I am only person and my saves can only help in a small way. I will accept a private message if you send one on wikipedia. Ty78ejui (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added a new reference on the article chemical garden and I have used the today link instead of vn. I hope it will remain a part of Archive Today. Ty78ejui (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Uploading a Photographer's Picture I Have Permission To Use

I have written permission from the photographer to upload one of her original photographs as the display image for the Wikipedia main article for a band. She wishes to retain full copyright, but she has given me written permission to use the image for the purposes of the image display for the Wikipedia article of this band: The Buttertones

How should I upload the image (resolution/size dimensions??) and under what licensing etc. options should I select?

Cheers CascatheBrash (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia only licenses are not acceptable. You can find which licenses are acceptable on Commons:Commons:Licensing. Ruslik_Zero 20:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello CascatheBrash, and welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, you don't. Wikipedia only accepts a grant of permission when it mis a free licence such as CC-BY-SA, permitting anyone in the world to use or modify the image, subject only to giving proper attribution or credit. Otherwise, unless the image fits the very limited criteria for using a non-free image under a claim of fair use, Wikipedia cannot use the image. "Permission to use on Wikipedia" is of no value at all unless it includes a full, permanent free license. Some image creators are willing to release a low-resolution version of an image. Some are not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

College board is for profit change my mind!

 Courtesy link: College Board

College board is for profit change my mind!

If you look at the GAINED REVENUE that college board EARNED in 2017, it is CLEAR that college board is a FOR-profit company. I hate college board CollegeboardL (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@CollegeboardL: Please bring your objections to the relevant article's talk page and provide sourced arguments. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Being a non-profit means that there's no owner that gets to take the profits home at the end of the year. It's possible for a non-profit to have high revenue, just like it's possible for a for-profit organization to have no profits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Incineroar

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu

Critique Draft:Incineroar JTZegers (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been declined five times. That is more than adequate critiquing. It now redirects to a list of Pokeman characters. David notMD (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of China and Taiwan's talk page redirect

I noticed this talk page User talk:The United Kingdom of China and Taiwan from the user named in the subject just redirects right back to the user page. This is slightly concerning. (I didn't revert or warn about anything from this user yet.) What should we do about this? Is this allowed? Randompointofview (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Pinging @The United Kingdom of China and Taiwan: before I forget. Randompointofview (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Redirect has been removed by Nick Moyes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Randompointofview, for reporting this. It's an interesting username, just on the fringes of attracting a softblock for breaching our username policy (WP:USERNAME) by referencing a controversial topic which some might find offensive (bullet 1 of WP:DISRUPTNAME) and also for suggesting a multiple user account (WP:SHAREDACCOUNT) - about 1.4 billion potential users (according to this page!). I will, however, keep an eye on it. (@331dot, Cullen328, and Yunshui: - any thoughts on this?) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to respond, Nick Moyes, but I have been traveling today. I agree that this username is problematic for the reasons you stated. Unity between China and Taiwan is highly controversial, the notion of a united Chinese kingdom is both controversial and probably fringe, and the name implies shared use. The name may be so fringe that nobody can take the notion seriously. When I Google the exact phrase "United Kingdom of China and Taiwan", I get zero hits except for this Wikipedia account. So, that leads me to believe that there is no such organized group, and that this account most likely represents an individual with grand ideas. So, I recommend continuing to monitor the user's contributions and considering administrative action if disruptive behavior occurs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328, I've now left them a note, asking about their username, and will monitor. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How to add citations to an article.

FYI

 – Section heading formatted by Tenryuu

I was told I must include citations in an article I've been trying to submit to Wikipedia. I can't figure out how to add citations to names and subjects in my article. My article is about well known guitarist/composer/orchestrator and member of the Wrecking Crew group of studio musicians, Don Peake. Ekkie101 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ekkie101: Please refer to WP:REFBEGIN to learn how to add citations in Wikipedia's style. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If you find the article on 'Referencing for Beginners' rather complex, I can offer an alternative guide I have prepared (see WP:EASYREFBEGIN). I have not looked at Draft:Don Peake in detail, but please be aware that individual members of a notable band rarely merit a page of their own unless they have reached 'notability' on their own as a musician, per WP:NMUSICIAN. It was only very recently that Jungkook (from BTS) merited a separate page after their individual chart success. Be aware that, as a mate of the article's subject, you do have a strong Conflict of Interest. Thank you for mentioning that on your userpage, but do remember that we can only accept content based upon reliable, independent published sources. We care not a jot about what the subject wants to add about themselves, even if they ask you to. So, by way of example, if there's nothing published in the public domain that allows anyone to verify that he "earned a United States Coast Guard 100 ton Captains License for mechanical and sail in 1983", then please remove it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(I'm sure that Nick means that it has to be published so the general public can read it. He doesn't mean that it has to be in the public domain, which is about copyright law.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating a Sidebar for "History of the Humanities"

Is there anyone who is willing and able to help me create a sidebar for the topic "History of the Humanities", or the "History of the Western Humanities"? This field of study is on history from a cultural perspective. It differs from the usual perspective on history from the political or economic view. The History of the Humanities includes the history of religion, philosophy, and law, their writings, and history of the arts: literature, architecture, sculpture, painting, music, and the minor arts. It is a class offered in most liberal arts colleges. Many WP articles on this vast array of topics could benefit from a recognition of its different more 'human' perspective on history, but more importantly, the connection to other articles under the same category that a sidebar would offer would, imo, genuinely enhance the encyclopedia experience. (I looked and didn't find an existing template, but if someone else knows of one already made, please tell me as I need to use it!) Otherwise, someone, please help me make one. I've never done one and would like to know how. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, it's not technically all that hard. Have you found a similar one that you want to copy? Once you've found a good model ({{Psychology sidebar}} is a big one), you pretty much copy the content to a new template page, and swap in the names and links that you want to have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay so you're having faith that I can figure it out huh? Aw-ight then! I'll give it a go! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing So as it turns out, it seems your faith is misplaced. I copied the psych sidebar into my sandbox. I attempted to substitute the appropriate other topics. I attempted to preview and submit, and it comes up blank. Nothing is there. Nada. Zilch. I am probably missing some slash or dot in the right place or some such programming rule from Hell designed to annoy and frustrate all the rest of the world that is not a programmer. I got nothing man, and that was actually a good bit of work with nothing to show for it. Please feel free to go to my sandbox [2] and take a look--edit at will. Please. I'll be in your debt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Hi, I decided to step in and fiddle with your sandbox. Some links were improperly closed and I have switched to <onlyinclude> tags to make it visible on the page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

May all the blessings of all the gods of all the universes fall upon your head! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu The above is for you! I got all the red out, added a perfect photo, and I absolutely love it!! Thank you again. Now I need to know how to get it out there so people will use it. Can I make one of those quick and easy templates for it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Once you have the template finalised, you can. If you follow the format of ____ sidebar that'd be great. By the way, you're using the wrong brackets to notify me and WhatamIdoing; use curly brackets, not square ones. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Sorry! And thanx again! Do I just add that to the top of the rest or what? And thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Me again. Can a page have more than one sidebar? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Can a page have more than one sidebar? To the best of my knowledge usually only one sidebar is used in an article. You could also use navboxes, which are essentially horizontal sidebars, and place them at the bottom of articles. That too can be made a template. You may want to read WP:NAVBOX (WP:SIDEBAR leads to the same section) to get an idea of what a good sidebar/navbox has. Even further reading: WP:NAV.

Do I just add that to the top of the rest or what? Copy and paste the template code (and the documentation) over to the new template page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I read it before coming here to ask. I just didn't understand it. So many of the instructions on WP use what seems to me like special terms that I don't know the meaning of--after I've muddled through it, I understand what they meant, but before? "Copy and paste the template code--I guess that is the tag syntax thing above?--and what documentation?--to the new template page??? What is the template page? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Template code refers to everything within and including the <onlyinclude> and <noinclude> tags. You would have to create your own documentation; you can take a look at Template:Psychology sidebar/doc for ideas. The template page would be Template:____ sidebar where you fill in the blank; documentation would go in Template:____ sidebar/doc. I need to get some sleep; another editor will be able to clarify things for you. Have a good night. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining things. Good night. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

COI, NPOV and sources

My first attempt to write an article Draft:New Ideas Chamber Orchestra has been declined twice because of non-neutral writing style and insufficient sources. I do have a conflict of interest writing about this subject, but if I understand correctly, as long as the COI is not visible in the article, everything is fine, true?

Now I think I've done my best to 'neutralise' the language, and remove content that is unsupported or irrelevant, but before I submit again, could someone look through the article and tell me if it's ok or if there's more to be done? It would be really helpful! ChamberContemp (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ChamberContemp, and welcome to teh Teahouse. There are still formatting issues, and possible sourcing issues. The list of "famous people they have performed with" is perilously close to name-dropping, which is a form of p0romotionm, even if the statements are all accurate. Some professional reviews of the work of NICO, properly cited, would help significantly.

Oh, don't linmke more than once to the same article, as you did to the founder's article. Refer to people, such as the founder, by surname alone after the first mention,, unless there mare multiple, people with the same or very similar names, so that confusion is likely. I hope that helps a bit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: I have left a {{Connected contributor}} template on the talk page to show that ChamberContemp has declared their conflict of interest. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I guess I'll have to put in some more work, I'll try to find some reviews. I don't think there are reviews in English though - would it be ok if I used reviews in Russian or Lithuanian languages and translated the content that I need from the reviews myself? I am qualified to do that, but I won't have the way to prove that my translation is correct. Another problem with reviews is that they are often full of metaphors and all that, so it's hard to imagine it as content for Wikipedia. is there a common way to solve this? As for the "list of famous people NICO has played with", as well as "famous festivals and venues in which they performed" - I know it sounds like advertising. But when talking about music ensembles - they're pretty much the most important things in the ensemble's history and one cannot simply leave those out. Of course, the statements must have their sources, but in this article's case - they do. Or am I getting something wrong? ChamberContemp (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Lauren_London_photo.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lauren_London_photo.jpg I need help setting this photo for Lauren London on her Wikipedia page Ahshion1 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ahshion1, and welcome to the Teahouse. That file is about tom be deleted as a copyright infringement, so adding it toi any article would be unwise and pointless. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ahshion1: Replied at Talk:Lauren London#Mistake. GoingBatty (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How old is everyone on Wikipedia?

--Hoi mate (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hoi mate: Hard to answer, it varies greatly. Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia? does include age statistics. Hillelfrei ^talk 00:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians indicates that about six out of every seven editors are adults. More recent research says that the most active editors are young and middle-aged adults. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Yes, That is correct, With the education teachers provide with technology makes our students SMARTER therefor middle aged adults or 8-13^ year olds are sharing what their knowledge that has been taught to them :) --Western Heights College (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Parameters for citing newspaper articles

Is a newspaper's location no longer desired when its articles are cited? I refer to the May 12, 2020, revision of Robert Warwick in which cities were removed from citations. I am also curious about the change of "work" to "newspaper", since the "cite news" template still has "work". In future citations of newspaper articles, should I omit the city and manually change "work" to "newspaper"? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Teblick: When I'm citing The New York Times, I don't add that the location is New York or that it's published by the New York Times Company, as I think that just bloats the reference section. However, if it's a newspaper with a common name or a less popular newspaper, the location could be important to help the reader understand the source of the newspaper (see Template:Cite news#Publisher). Also, |newspaper= is an alias for |work=, so changing from one to the other doesn't impact the way the reference is presented to the reader (see Template:Cite news#Periodical). Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

GoingBatty Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teblick (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

i feel like an idiot asking this

Stupid question

I want to add something to Ian Curtis' page, about his first seizure, as to quote Bernard Sumner. Problem is, it's in the 2007 documentary Joy Division. How do I source a documentary? Nolanisntfunny (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nolanisntfunny. You should be able to use the template {{cite AV media}} per WP:SAYWHERE. However, before you add something such as that to the article, you might want to take a look at WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:INTERVIEW, and also perhaps consider discussing this at Talk:Ian Curtis just to see what some others might think. Even though Curtis is dead, Sumner isn't and WP:BLP would still apply to any content about him (directly or indirecly); moreover, things which might have been said during a interview as part of a documentary are likely going to be considered WP:BLPSPS type of source depending up who said them and who they are about. If Sumner's comment is about himself, then it might be OK; if, however, he's talking about others then it might not. Because things might be a little more complicated here than they seem, it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

how can I view the main page from 10 may 2020?

How can I retreive the main page content from 10 may 2020? There is a person I want more information on. 69.148.173.121 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 May 10. If you ever want to see a previous day's Main Page, see WP:MPH. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine started archiving it regularly in June 2004. It currently does it dozens of times per day. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Confusion around a reversion of my edit

After working to resolve the listed issues with this article: Miguel Gutierrez (choreographer), the edits were immediately rolled back. There was only one citation in the article, and much of it was copied directly from other sources. Is there something different I should have done here? TravisAmiel (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@TravisAmiel: I don't know why Materialscientist reverted your edit, but I see a message on your talk page claiming your edit "did not appear constructive". As part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I hope the two of you will discuss improvements to the article at Talk:Miguel Gutierrez (choreographer). GoingBatty (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@TravisAmiel: The reversion has been undone. Keep up the good work to improve this article! GoingBatty (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding another page in my name, one for demonstrations in education

How can I add another page in my user name. I want to set up a page so that I can put a demonstration on there for students. Can someone please direct me on how to do this and what guidelines I must follow? Thanks --Carrolquadrio (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Carrolquadrio (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Carrolquadrio. You can set up any number of additional user pages with the format of User:Carrolquadrio/anything, substituting any word or phrase for the "anything" in my example. This is fine as long as your goal is to assist in improving the encyclopedia. Please read Wikipedia:School and university projects for more information that will be useful to you as an educator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Cullen328 that is definitely my goal, I appreciate the assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrolquadrio (talk • contribs) 06:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Carrolquadrio: Just to forewarn you: our on-site notification system has a major flaw in that it does not function on user subpages. So you'll probably be best advised to ensure you add each new sub-page you make to your watchlist and ensure you have email notifications enabled. That way, you're more likely to be alerted whenever one of your students makes an edit there. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes that is a great tip thank you. I am will need all the luck I can get. One task I have set myself is to get students to think about how (and when)they upload images. So I might use the subpage more as a space that only educates, they can go back and do the activity in the learning forum. Just sorting it out in my head. Too many students to let them loose editing on my sub page I think, but maybe I will build to this. Thanks for the engagement--Carrolquadrio (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Carrolquadrio: One approach you could consider is to create some content on one of your own subpages, and get them each to follow a set of instructions which will involve them copying that content over to each of their own pages and then editing and working on it there. (You could even go so far as to help them do this by treating your page as a template and getting them to substitute your content onto one of their subpages. eg with a command like {{subst:User:Carrolquadrio/demo}}). I hope this helps, and don't forget to remind them that we're here if they get stuck and need help. (By the way, I love your photo on your userpage, so I'm pinging Clovermoss at 'The Signpost' who I'm sure will find it one of those things that really 'makes her happy'.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Love the idea that you are sharing my dogs to make someone happy, what a lovely gesture for both of us. I like your idea also of having my page as a template, especially in the early days when students are overwhelmed by all the new concepts and tasks. We ask them to put the "I'm a Newbie" template on their user page, this could be one such thing that would be easier to just move over to be honest. Good tips Nick, thanks for taking the time.--Carrolquadrio (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Review of improvement, Danfoss

I hope this is the right place to ask? I have been doing some improvements on Danfoss. I had some issues with being too much like an advertisement and not encyclopedic. I think it's better now, but still not perfect. I tried to remove the templates myself, as far as I understand from Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_to_remove, that should be OK, even if I'm the one who made the improvements. However, that was reverted with a suggestion to let some else review the changes.
So: Can I get someone else to take a look at the page and tell me if the templates can be removed, please? Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Anders Kaas Petersen: Welcome to the Teahouse. After taking a quick glance at the article, I think it's the sentence structure being used that is making some editors feel that it is too promotional and lacks an encyclopedic tone. Some things:

• Comma usage. Linking fragments together creates run-on sentences that don't look great on an encyclopedia. Other times they shouldn't be there (for example, The company also expanded its activities into hydraulics; the first hydraulic component was produced in the factory in Nordborg in 1964. My suggested corrections in red).
• Headings. They don't sound neutral, like "Expansion to the world".
• Relevance of some sections. I'm not sure if "Ownership" and "Executive leadership" are big enough topics to warrant their own sections.
• Citations. Some citations in the "Activities" section would be preferred.

I hope that helps somewhat. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Tenryuu:, and thanks for the advice. Commas have never been my strong side, but I will try to pay more attention to them. This will help me to improve the page, I think. --Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

HELP: Unjust deletion from user:GSS, draft:vibease

I've been working on my page for a few days. I'm new and I'm trying to learn to meet all requirements. I'm an employee of the company. I feel user:GSS is unreasonable for invoking speed deletion, while I'm still a discussion with other wiki admins to improve my article.

user:GSS at first rejected my draft due to insufficient coverage. After I added more reference, All my references are from top media, Wired, Forbes, Fast Company, TechCrunch.

user:GSS then said I'm doing promotion and ask for speedy deletion.

Vibease deserved a page in the Wikipedia, because vibease produce the first vibrator that can be controlled by smartphone. The earliest article to proof was Feb 2012. Please see all the other references. It's not self-boasting. Paul Handri (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You "must" stop accusing me everywhere you post your comment and I take your comment "Perhaps user:GSS has an personal issue with a vibrator" as a personal attack which you repeated for the third time. Also, you are not being honest in regard to your paid editing status and I have off-wiki evidence to support my claim. GSS ^💬 07:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

GSS, with all due respect, please SHHH. Just forward it via email to an admin. And Paul Handri, you might want to read the essay on my userpage. The community allows paid editing. It tolerates it in the absence of a better solution. If you expect it to be easy, you'll need to adjust your expectations. I know of no member of the Wikipedia community that approves of paid editing. And the content of the encyclopedia is controlled by the community. You need to stop the personal attacks now. It certainly won't serve to further your goals, and what you are doing doesn't further Wikipedia's goals. Think we'll tolerate both very long? You only have control over one, and you need to exercise that control now. John from Idegon (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Paul Handri: Discuss content, not contributors. Your comment above that GSS objects to is inappropriate and will probably get you blocked if you continue. @GSS:The user said above that they are an employee of the company and their user page has declared their paid status since 2020-05-11T06:01:52Z. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@GSS: :@John from Idegon:

I'm sorry. I was frustrated. I will remove all my personal comments. If that's allowed. How do you keep saying I'm paid contributor? Yes, in the past the company paid someone from Upwork to do an article. WHich the article got removed. The company didn't know they can create the page themselves. Thus I decided to create this page. For someone who got paid, I dont' think he/she will be so persistent. I have spent 3 days for this article. I'm willing to send you KYC if you need to prove my identity. Video call is welcome.

@GSS: :@John from Idegon: if you want to verify my identity, please cc the email to dema [at] vibease [dot] com. YOu can talk directly to the founder of the company to verify my identity.

@AlanM1: my bad. sorry.

If because I received a salary from the company and this categorized as "Paid", then I'm ok. My impression of Paid, someone outside the company, received payment to create an article

Sign your posts. It isn't optional. If you are tasked as part of your job to edit Wikipedia on behalf of another person or legal entity, then you are a PAID editor, irregardless of whether your relationship with the entity is contractual or employee/employer. John from Idegon (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Noted. While there is no formal request from my boss. He asked why can't vibease in the Wikipedia. Thus I write this page. I don't get additional pay for creating this page. I'm happy to provide any information to prove I'm working for vibease. Like I mentioned, last year, the company paid someone from Upwork to create vibease page. Because we thought wiki can only be created by the admins. I just learned about signpost. Paul Handri (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Paul, the fact that you work for the company is not a point in your favor. So do you assemble dildos or test them? Because if you work in marketing, promotion or advertising (or any other job that involves communication for them), you are a paid editor. If you simply work for them, you have a WP:COI. When your boss asked why your company didn't have an article on Wikipedia, you responded by creating one. Perhaps this all would have gone smoother if you would have instead found out what it takes to get an article on Wikipedia. You clearly haven't a clue still. The answers lie here and here. Your not helping your cause by the way you aee acting. No entity is "entitled" an article here. This isn't social media or a business directory. And we (every Wikipedian except paid editors) are volunteering to edit Wikipedia. A very small number of us also volunteer to help new editors. I won't waste my time helping people like you who are here to promote something. Expecting that on your part is at best ignorant, in the middle rude, and at the extreme immoral and tantamount to theft. Do I come barging into your model railroad club or birdwatching society and demand that you stop what you do for fun to help me make money? That's what you are doing. John from Idegon (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: What do you mean by "So do you assemble dildos or test them?" You are getting personal. Even though you are an editor, it does not entitle you to make fun of me. I was frustrated, I apologized for my mistakes. But it seems you want to continue in this path. You called me "extreme immoral and tantamount to theft" because I'm making a smart vibrator?

Perhaps you want to read this https://www.fastcompany.com/3029634/the-difficulties-of-running-a-sex-inspired-startup Probably we are not the noble company. Wikipedia is for public knowledge. I'm not claiming I'm entitled. I just stating the facts because the company made significant contribution in the vibrator industry. I'm not here try to sell my products. There are other companies who claimed they first one to create the first smart vibrator. Paul Handri (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey!! I suggest everyone sit back and have a cup of tea. Appears that Paul (finally) gets that being employed by a company counts as PAID and has declared so on user page. Perhaps that and who owns or does not own a vibrator can be set aside. David notMD (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The draft has been declined twice, and appears that Paul is continuing to try to address those comments. I suggest the Speedy be taken off and he be allowed the time to work on the article. My own opinion is that all of this information should be removed ["In 2012, together with his co-founders Steven Kik and Hermione Way, they launched a crowdfunding campaign to mass-produce the Vibease. The initial campaign was rejected by Kickstarter due to adult product restrictions.[5] [6] Eventually, in 2013, they had a successful crowdfunding campaign through Indiegogo platform.[7][8] In order to learn more about building a succesful startup, in 2012 the team joined startup accelerator The Founder Institute.[9] In 2013, they joined HAX Accelerator to learn about manufacturing in Shenzhen. [10]"] and the article go forward as a Stub. My thinking is that how a start-up got funded is not relevant. David notMD (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi :@David notMD: thanks for looking into this. I'm willing to remove the kickstarted comment. Actually I added this because one of editors suggested that. I'm afraid if I remove most it. there is nothing else to tell. I have removed the product list. Paul Handri (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bilby: @John from Idegon: @GSS: We are still in discussion and someone deleted the page. Paul Handri (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Can I re-create the page? Paul Handri (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Handri:Deleting editor was User:Jimfbleak. Make your case on his Talk page. (Be diplomatic.) Based on what I see on his Talk page, he will respond on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Paul Handri If you wok for a company (including as an unpaid intern) and it is any part of yo0ur job responsibility to promote or market the company or its products, or you are assigned or requested by your boss or other company officials to write a Wikipedia article, you are a PAID editor here, even if you receive no extra money specifically for writing the article. All the restrictions of WP:PAID then apply.

If an article or draft is essentially promotional, as the recently deleted draft was, it may be deleted by any admin at any time, whether it is being discussed or not. A purely factual draft, not emphasizing the company's mission or vision, and supported largely by cites to independent published reliable sources might well be acceptable. I rather suspect that the company is in fact notable. It would be best if someone other than you were to write such a draft, however. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel: Paul has declared PAID. David notMD (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: the page has been deleted. Can I send you the draft for your review?Paul Handri (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Paul Handri As an admin, I can see deleted pages, and I reviewed the draft briefly after it had been deleted and before making the above comments. I am not sure if I would have deleted it when it was deleted, but if the deletion were challenged as improper I would endorse it as perfectly proper. That is why I wote above If an article or draft is essentially promotional, as the recently deleted draft was .... You should address the deleting admin, Jimfbleak at [[[User talk:Jimfbleak]], if you want the page restored, but it might well be that it would be better if the draft were restarted from scratch, and if it were done by someone other than you. You may quote my comment that the company looks possibly notable if you wish. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ::DESiegel! am I allowed to recreate the draft? I don't want to get blocked. I have talked with Jimfbleak I just found some of the suggestions I received from other editors are subjective and can be conflicting. But the biggest issues are the references I gave are deemed not independent / possibly paid. Which is subjective. Paul Handri (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC) How can I defend myself on this? The media that wrote about our product not 2nd tier media. Forbes will be required to put "advertorial" if they wrote a paid content. Since my product is tech-related, it is obvious it was covered by tech media. Because it's a vibrator. Not many traditional newspapers or media can write about vibease.

How do I get someone to write about it? If I'm not allowed to pay someone and the person has no benefit from writing it? Paul Handri (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked at Jimbleak's comments on your Talk page. He did not block you from going forward, suggested what to add, and even made suggestions as to what types of basic information can be sourced from the company's own website. If Vibrase decided to pay someone who is not an employee, that person would have to declare PAID and COI as you did, so no gain there. So again, I suggest you ask Jimbleak to reinstate the draft with a commitment to avoid any promotional sounding information and to continue to search and add reliable source, independent refs. I know I recommended deleting the funding information, mostly because that stuff tends to be rehashes of company press releases. Lastly, I also advise against any attack on other Wikipedia articles about smart vibrators. David notMD (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks :@David notMD: About the funding, Jimfbleak actually suggesting putting sales number. I'm confused.

My impression resubmitting a deleted article can be deemed as spam and can get block. Thus I need to check with Jimfbleak. Are you able to reinstate my draft? Or should I create a new draft? Also I want to ask a genuine question with respect, can I hire one of the editors from here? I'm not sure if we hire another random guy from Upwork. it can make things more complicated. Paul Handri (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Paul Handri, declaring your COI gives you a degree of protection from blocking as long as you are seen to be trying to follow our rules. Paying an editor here would just put them in the same Paid editor position. What I could do is post you your infobox and (unchecked) references without the text, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: If you can put it back. That will be great. I can start edit again. I will get more feedback from other editors. Thanks!

again sorry for my unprofessional comments. Paul Handri (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Akshay KumarAlia Bhatt wikipedia

I was reading Alia Bhatt,s wiki yesterday and first line is written as(Alia Bhat is an actor and singer of Indian origin with British citizenship). I have a objection on it as citizenship is not a big achievment by anybody specially a person like Alia Bhatt who is recognised in India as top actress.Why someone written in the first line?I fixed and removed then I got warning from a person who written that.She born in India works in India so why we have to be proud of her being British?Is that person degrading India?Also she is not a class singer.Should,nt mention that as well.However rest paragraphs about her acting is ok. Aligulla (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Aligulla Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you disagree with the placement or inclusion of any information, you should discuss the matter on the article talk page. When you do, please just focus on the content, and do not accuse other editors of undesirable motivations. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Aligulla, Wikipedia's articles about people routinely state their nationality in the first sentence. Why should Alia Bhatt be an exception? Maproom (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, Aligulla, no Wikipedia article about anyone should include information in order to demonstrate an "achievement" or "make us [who?] feel proud." This would constitute Promotion, which is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia. Articles are supposed only to state facts about (in this context) people which are corroborated by citations to Reliable sources, and should do so in a neutral manner without making any judgement as to whether those facts are 'good' or 'bad'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.24.23 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

About Alia Bhatt wiki

I got few responses as I talked about first paragraph of Alia Bhatt,s wiki.Comments saying its allowed to write someone,s nationality(as Alia Bhatts citizen ship is written British)as I felt somebody tried to make it as her big achievment.I have a question to those who tried to justfy why British or Canadian nationality is being mentioned and not Indian for those who got Indian citizenship?Show me other actors wiki where is written in the first line (any actor) got Indian citizenship.It definitely shows mentality of some people who degrade their own country.....well done and carry on. Aligulla (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Aligulla. The place to discuss this is Talk:Alia Bhatt, which you have not so far done. Articles about people usually name their nationality in the first line of the lede. --ColinFine (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Not all editors here are Indian. There are also some people who write about things not related to their country (like me), so your "shows mentality of some people who degrade their own country" statement makes no sense.
2. It is a common practice to write a person’s nationality and occupation (or what they’re known for) in the first sentence. Not just in Wikipedia, but even in other reputable encyclopaedias like Encyclopædia Britannica.
3. If the first sentence was legally required to have only the major achievements a person had achieved, we wouldn’t have to write a person’s nationality anywhere. What did Franklin D Roosevelt do to be born an American? What did Narendra D Modi do to be born an Indian?
4. Since Indians can not hold dual citizenship, it would be incorrect to call her a British Indian actress or vice versa.
5. The article’s first sentence is "Alia Bhatt (/ˈɑːliːɑː ˈbət/; born 15 March 1993) is an actress and singer of Indian origin and British citizenship, who works in Hindi films". It clearly says that she is of Indian origin.
6. Please name a non-Indian actor who got Indian citizenship before you ask us to "Show me other actors wiki where is written in the first line (any actor) got Indian citizenship."

And by the way, you’re using a comma instead of an apostrophe.

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"I got few responses . . . ." Aligulla, you got three responses to your previous query (#94 in the current contents list of this desk). All of them addressed the mistaken concerns you raised there, but instead of responding to them there you have completely ignored them and raised the same mistaken concerns again, which RedBulbBlueBlood9911 has patiently and extensively addressed again. There seems little point in the volunteers here responding to you further if you ignore or fail to understand clearly stated replies that correctly explain basic Wikipedia policies and practices. Such behaviour may be deemed to fall under Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point" if you persist with it.

In any case, as ColinFine has advised you, the appropriate place to pursue such concerns is at the Talk page of the article. Regarding the article, I note (for the benefit of other users) that you have already received a 48-hour block for edit warring there, but have yet to make any use of its Talk page. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.24.23 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The previous thread, with its answers, is at #Follow-up to Akshay KumarAlia Bhatt wikipedia. David Biddulph (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

About Alia Bhatt wiki

What about second line?Highest paid actress of 2019.Does all sources say?I could,nt find in forbes and many others as some of saying Deepka and Kangna.It should be written as (one of highest paid actress of india). I read your previous comments and agree we can write someone,s nationality or origine but my piont was not in the first line. I do not trust people who write in wiki and if some one change and they give warning and have write to block.This thing will take off people,s trust on wiki. Aligulla (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aligulla: Please discuss any issues or suggestions about the article on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't keep starting new sections. I have merged the 3 sections on the same subject. Now please read the multiple answers which you have received. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft to Wikipedia

Hello! I wrote an article about a heritage Tunisian singer Saliha (singer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saliha_(singer) and other articles still in Draft. Can I submit it on wikipedia or am I waiting? if an article on draft and I am self-confirmed can I submit it or not? Thank You MagieRouge (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@MagieRouge: Your draft is currently in the review backlog. You are welcome to continue working on it while waiting. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Someone please decide whether audio of her songs and text of lyrics allowed. David notMD (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Saliha_-_Mil_ghourba_fnani.ogg for example: MagieRouge, clearly this is neither a photographic work nor "official texts of legislative, administrative or legal nature and their official translations"; is it (A) "an anonymous work or pseudonymous work", or (B) a work whose last surviving author died over 50 years ago? -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: It falls under this bullet point: "It is another kind of work, and 50 years have passed since the year of death of the author (or last surviving author)". The singer died in 1958 so 62 years ago. Moumou82 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

But Moumou82, the person singing (in front of an orchestra) words written by one or more people to a melody written by one or more people is not the sole author of the song. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: The article in French has more details on her songs and the example above is a traditional one, meaning the lyricist and composer are unknown. I just verified all files on Commons and they are either in the same case or the lyricist/composer also died more than 50 years ago. Moumou82 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That's excellent news, Moumou82. -- Hoary (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a Reference / Citation to the 'Superman Returns' Article

May I add a reference / citation to the Superman Returns article where it is stated that "Singer and screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris came up with the idea of publishing a prequel limited series, spanning four comic book issues." ? Nickkoshy (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nickkoshy: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you have a reliable source, you can add it to an article. If you are unsure if the source is reliable or have any other concerns, you can discuss them at the article talk page: Talk:Superman Returns. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nickkoshy: Looking at your particular example, reference #44 already supports that sentence. GoingBatty (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thank you for the reply! I am trying to get the hang of editing on Wikipedia. I had looked at reference #44 in the Superman Returns page, and yes, it supports the sentence. The reference I am thinking of adding has an additional bit of information for the previous sentence. Please advise.

Hello, Nickkoshy. If the source in question is reliable, and you think the extra information is encyclopaedic, then you can edit the article to add the information and the new source. If anybody disagrees and undoes your edit, you can discuss the matter, according to WP:BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Thank you for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickkoshy (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Why was my edit "not constructive"

My edit was removed by "I dream of horses" without reason

Hi, I am trying to do good and fix a simple error on the President (card game) page. there is a missing "not" in the sentence:

In any event, the players who receive cards from the bottom positions always hand back an equal number of any "junk" cards they do not want. They are obliged to pass back their lowest cards.

There is an obvious error here: passing back "junk" cards which they do not want means that they are not obligated to pass their lowest cards, as they may choose to keep two-threes and pass back a four and a five, since a pair of threes (although lowest cards) can be an advantage over a single four / single five cards.

Who is "I dream of horses"? did he/she not have the time of day to read the edit? 104.174.241.226 (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @I dream of horses: so she sees this.

Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry your edit got undone, I know that never feels good. It was likely undone because you didn't provide a reliable source for you edit, and it had a pretty serious change of meaning. In the future, make sure all edits are backed up by a source. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I suggest creating a discussion on the article's talk page and pinging I dream of horses with {{Re|I dream of horses}} there to ask them why they reverted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No source is cited for the rules. But the OP's preferred text has the merit of being consistent, unlike I dream of horses's. When I have played President, there has always been a free choice of which cards to hand back. You can even include one that you were passed, though this is very rarely good. A flaw in this account of the game is that it mixes rules "hand back an equal number if cards" with advice on skilful play "hand back 'junk' cards they do not want", without distinguishing the rules from the advice. This flaw is very common in accounts of card games written by amateurs, and tends to render such accounts worthless. Maproom (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Separate from comments on the game: If you disagree with another editor, focus on the content. Do not disparage the editor. Your comment asking if IDOH "...not have the time of day to read the edit?" was not constructive. David notMD (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing a draft/unpublished article

I'm currently writing my first article. I left and tried to reenter but now the article is missing the box which contains the buttons on linking at the top of the page and citing articles on the bottom of the page. Wyntontia (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wyntontia, are you using the source or visual editor? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wyntontia, I had no trouble editing the page, but I do not use the "visual editor". BY the way, I moved your COI declaraiton to your user page, which is where it belongs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I just got back to where I wanted to be. Thankyou both very much for responding so quickly. Thanks also for moving the COI. Is it obviously I'm very new? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyntontia (talk • contribs) 06:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We were all new once!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

my post

i have posted a article in wikipedia about my compiler language i created 2 years adn improving now. i have been editting article and sending 10 times but it was declined. i have given 6 referances but still some problem is there in it i cant understand why Barath kumar basker126 (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Barath kumar basker126, and welcome to the Teahouse. I went through your article (courtesy link: Draft:BA programming Language and cltator) and these are the issues:

• All six sources are classified as primary (directly related to the subject). Wikipedia needs secondary and tertiary sources (like articles in the news that clearly write about the subject).
• Since you are the creator of the programming language in the draft, you have to declare a Conflict of Interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest).
• You haven’t established the notability of the subject. You need to collect a few articles from newspapers and reputed programming-related websites that write about your creation.
• Wikipedia articles won’t usually have information on where to get a programming language (Which you’ve added) or information on commands in a language (unless the language is popular like Python).

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

editing in Wikipedia

will i get paid for editing in Wikipedia Shark shengu (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization almost exclusively created and supported by volunteers who edit for any of the following reasons:

• They’re fans or experts in some topic
• They have free time and happen to like editing Wikipedia

If you ever receive a message saying that someone wants to pay you to do something on Wikipedia, remember that it is most likely a scam, and it also goes against Wikipedia’s policies.

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Shark shengu Wikipedia will not pay you to edit Wikipedia. It is theoretically possible that you could offer your services as a Wikipedia editor as a business at your own place and on your own time so that others pay you, but while technically permitted, this is very difficult for people to do. Please review the paid editing policy and conflict of interest. The vast majority of people are here because they care about this project for some reason, not because they want to be paid. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I edit the width of an existing graph chart?

I'm trying to update data for Covid-19 in San Marino. I was adding additional daily cases from 9th May to 13th May. I put in all of the figures correctly and followed the template in the graph fine. But when I published it, the graph came out distorted because the coloured bars are now too wide for the data. I can't work out how to make the bars proportionally smaller. I've tried to copy other articles with countries with bigger Covid-19 cases but didn't see anything in them either.

Here is the article which I've recently edited. All of the data is correct, just need help with the display of the bars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_San_Marino

Thanks in advance Davidtunderthesea (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It scales automatically but you had the divisor parameter set manually, which was over-riding the automatic scaling. I removed it in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Did You Know? section

Hi! I'm pretty new and I have done some minor editing here and there, I saw something i thought might be a good "Did you know" section bit but I learned that it only takes facts from recently destubbed/created articles, unsure as to whether this includes edits made within 7 days. Thought this was kind of odd as there's some intersting stuff you can find that isn't so recently added. Not sure how set in stone the front page stuff is but i think there should at least be maybe a seperate "did you know" or one thats half and half new and old so engangement in new articles still happens. For reference the thing i thought would be interesting is that a guy got a brain surgery to correct a fetish for safety pins, probably not appropriate for the front page but i think this applies accross the board. 208.114.129.7 (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of DYK is to acknowledge articles (and editors) that have improved Wikipedia. Hence the criteria: new article, substantially lengthened existing article, and achieved Good Article status. With these limits, there are always enough submitted to fill the main page every day. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How to make your article online in Wikipedia

My article stays as Draft and not appears on wikipedia. How can I make it online? DDemberel (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You haven't yet submitted the draft for AFC review, but there is no point in doing so in its current state. Your starting point is to ascertain whether the subject satisfies Wikipedia's definition of notability, which requires significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources independent of the subject. If so, you could then look at the advice in WP:Your first article. Your draft is malformatted so you need to look at the Manual of Style, and when you have references you can find how to include them by looking at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft articles

Hi all, hope you’re staying safe. Just wanted some feedback on my draft articles and see if they require any improvement. All of them are on my user page. Any feedback or advice as a response will be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Sincerely, Kaito Nakamura (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kaito Nakamura: Welcome to the Teahouse! Nice job with the drafts. Here are some of my thoughts, with helpful links:

• It's too soon for articles on these future films
• Italics should be used for the titles of novels and films.
• Some references have the author's name listed twice. (This is a problem I see on other articles. Are you using a semi-automated tool to format the references? If so, which one? Have you reported a bug?)
• Draft:'Salem’s Lot (film) and Draft:The Tommyknockers (film) could each use a hatnote to help readers looking for the previous film adaptations.
• I hope the notes stating "It is unknown what number installment this will be in the franchise" are just reminders for you, which you would fix before submitting the drafts
• External links should each have a bullet. The section header should be "External links", where "links" is not capitalized.
• Some drafts use infobox film with deprecated parameters.
• Untitled Momo film should not be italicized
• The authors in Draft:Aquaman: King of Atlantis (miniseries) reference #2 are not formatted properly (another tool bug?)
• Remove duplicate wikilinks within a section of an article
• When formatting dates, there is no comma between the month and year
• It doesn't seem like you have enough information on Draft:Darragh Ennis to warrant his own article. This information could be placed in an article about the show (if it's not already there).
• Draft:List of American films of 2028 - way too early
• Draft:Steve Coulter (actor) needs independent reliable sources as references

Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Just a few points. Yes those notes are just reminders for myself and other editors. I will fix up the references. I will take every bit of feedback into consideration. Thanks heaps, really appreciate it. Stay safe. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Publishing an article

Hello ! I am just wondering how long does it take for an article to get published? I says Draft on my article. AM I doing something wrong? sorry I am just new to this. Many thanks. Maha92o (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Maha920 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not formally submitted your drafts for review; I will shortly add the appropriate information so you can do so. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Maha920 I would add that if you are associated with the subjects, you must read and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies first. The latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory if applicable. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Newcomer question about improving a company page

Hello, thank you for the plethora of newcomer information on the forum. I have perused several articles and want to determine the most efficient avenue for desired edits of a company page. I have a close connection with this company and do not wish to hire a paid disclosed editor at this time. What is the process for submitting proper improvements for others to review? The Talk pages are correlative, but I do not know if they are the best locations to request for volunteers. The Article is SPX_Corporation - I would like to improve it based on business information obtained from its public website. Thank you. DanLuke11 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC) DanLuke11 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to make suggestions on the article's talk page. I have trimmed the article's promotional content, in the past an assortment of conflicted editors has added promotional material, mostly unsourced, but some of it sourced to the company website, we require secondary, independent reliable sources for most content likely to be contested. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DanLuke11, and welcome to the teahousae. Please use {{request edit}} on the article talk page (here Talk:SPX_Corporation ) to request a specific change. Please give the proposed change is a specific "Change X to Y" format, and cite a reliable source for the suggested changes.

Since you say that you ... have a close connection with this company... you yourself have a Conflict of interest and should declare, that as specified in WP:COI. If yoiu work for the company (whether as an employee, contractor, or as an intern) or have a significant ownership interest or other financial interest in the company, you are considered a paid editor, and must disclose this as described in WP:PAID. This is not optional. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To add to DES's points above, DanLuke11: your first priority after the necessary declarations is providing sufficient independent reliable sources to establish that the company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. At present the article has not a single independent source, and so does nothing to establish notability. Once you start asking for changes, it is likely that somebody will examine it, and if they cannot find such sources, nominate it for deletion. I suggest that it would be a waste of time doing anything to the article until its notability has been established: which requires citation of at least two or three places where people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish substantial material about the company. Wikipedia has very little interst in what the subject of an article say about themselves, and even less in what they wish to be said about themselves. --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with ColinFine's comments above, DanLuke11. I did not realize the sourcing was so slight when I wrote my comment above. By all means supply independent sources before suggesting any other changes, please. Any editor could nominate the current article for deletion, and as it stands it might well be deleted unless additional independent sources were found to meet WP:NCORP. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I will be sure to comply with WP:COI DanLuke11 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Trying to use NextDoor but cannot login or create a signin without immediately getting a 494 error

2600:1700:8160:3530:FD1B:C163:A48:E3CF (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What is your question about editing Wikipedia? (That is the only thing this page is for). --ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what the NextDoor is, but I suspect the error is 404, rather than 494. --CiaPan (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a question on the Microsoft forums about a 494 error. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ahhh... I suppose if I were interested in Nextdoor and its possible problems I would make some search and give a more appropriate answer. :) --CiaPan (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with flagged article

Hello, I posted my first Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_US-China_Arts_Exchange) but it was flagged for:

• The neutrality of this article is disputed. • This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.

I had the writers of the article to redraft the text but not sure if it still passes the threshold for neutrality. Also, I added inline citations but had challenges with the formatting.

I'd be greatly appreciative if someone can help guide me to address the flagged items. Sumin Chou (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In the tags on the article, the words in blue are wikilinks to further advice. You don't have inline citations but you do have misplaced external links which you need to remove. You can find how to add references at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Reporting harassment from another editor

I hope you can help me. Another editor by the name of Andrzejbanas has been harassing me on wikipedia. He follows me every day from article to article and deletes all my additions, then writes threatening messages on to my talk page, saying that I am intentionally vandalizing wikipedia and things like "you have been warned before", etc. almost to the point where I am so disgusted, I feel that any contributions I make are in vain. All my work gets erased the next day, and then he fills up my talk page with warnings and threats implying that I am going to be banned from editing. I have told this stalker to report me to wikipedia if he feels I am intentionally vandalizing the site, but I told him to stop posting his nasty notices on my talk page, as I simply don't want to hear his overbearing nonsense any more. It's obvious he is just setting me up to get me banned from editing, and I don't know why he's chosen me to stalk. Is there a way you can tell this editor to stop harassing me every day and stop writing things on my talk page? I feel I have made a lot of worthwhile contributions to the site, but if he keeps erasing all my work every day and threatening me, I will just have to quit editing. The agrravation is unbearable. Thanks for whatever help you can offer.FrankensteinsDad (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I have been removing edits from this user as they are a) stating information that is not in their sources or using sites that can not be clarified if they are following WP:RS. I have tried explaining this to the user, but I feel like it has not been getting through to them that their edits have been against basic rules. I think a brisk view of our edit histories will clarify this.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link to one disputed article for interested editors. Universal Classic Monsters. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@FrankensteinsDad: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry you're struggling to having problems editing Wikipedia. Instead of directly editing articles, I suggest you post to the article talk pages (e.g. Talk:Universal Classic Monsters) to share your suggestions, and work collaboratively with other knowledgeable editors to come to a consensus on improving the articles. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I just want to know why I'm the only editor on wikipedia who has this one guy following him day after day, trying so hard to find some reason to revert everything that I do so that he can post insulting things on my talk page just to give me the appearance of incompetence. I don't see any other editors stalking an individual like he does to me. It's obvious that he is purposely targeting me for some reason, and I have no idea why. Was this person assigned to watch me as part of his duties? Am I under his supervision in some way? There are thousands of people editing the site every day, and yet every day I sign on to see this one individual reverting all my work and leaving warnings about how I may have to be blocked soon because I'm so incompetent. Is this normal procedure, or is this just one very sick individual who has no life? Go back over my history and you'll see how many times this one editor has targeted me and reverted just about every contribution I've made. There has to be a way to get him to stop targeting only me. This can't possibly be the kind of environment which editors are expected to deal with, is it?FrankensteinsDad (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to have the linked reference number not appear as a subscript?

Suppose that an article uses footnote-style referencing, so that references appear as bracketed numbers in superscript, like this. This is achieved e.g. using the following markup: <ref name="Doe 2020">{{cite journal |last1=Doe |first1=J. |date=2020 |title=An important article. |journal=J. Big Results |volume=21 |pages=234–235 }}</ref>. (It can also be achieved using the refn template.)

It would be nice to be able to refer to this reference directly, e.g. like this:

As explained in Ref. 1, …

But, apart from not being superscripted and not being enclosed in brackets, this '1' in 'Ref. 1' should have the same properties as the superscripted reference. In particular, it should have the following three properties:

• It should be generated automatically, from the supplied reference name in the wiki markup (i.e. the engine should know how to convert the name "Doe 2020" to the appropriate number);
• It should link to the correct entry in the list of citations.
• It should show the reference when the mouse pointer hovers over it (the same tooltip behavior as the superscripted reference).

It would also be acceptable if the reference number is enclosed in brackets (like this: Ref. [1]).

Is there any way to do this? Even after much googling, I haven't been able to find anything.

I do know that there are often workarounds. In the particular example I used above, one could write

As explained by Doe, …

Be that as it may, it would still be nice to know if it is possible to use ‘Ref. 1’.

References

Reuqr (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Reuqr: I believe the "workaround" you describe is the preferred way of doing it here, if you even have to mention the source at all (i.e., when describing a difference among sources). You usually just summarize what the source says and cite it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thank you for your answer. I realize that usually one just summarizes what the source says, and that in rare cases when sources have to be discussed, the "workaround" is preferred. Indeed, scholarly literature has the same guidelines. And yet, scholarly literature does allow for usage such as 'Ref. 1', recognizing that there do exist rare occasions when the usual and preferred ways of talking about sources result in awkward constructions. Is there really no way to at all to get 'Ref. 1' on Wikipedia? --Reuqr (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Reuqr: A little digging found the following, using {{Ref}} and {{Note}}, for creating a note, though the letter/number is manually assigned/maintained. I suggest a review of the docs and a little experimentation to see if you can make it work with existing notes/refs.

In the text, {{Ref|Ref III|</sup>Note III<sup>}}:

As explained in Ref. III, ...

In the notes section, {{Note|Ref III| III.}} {{cite journal ...

^ III. Doe, J. (2020). "An important article". J. Big Results. 21: 234–235.

Note that this is something of a hack, and probably relies on the {{Ref}} template doing <sup>{{{2}}}</sup> to do the superscripting of the second parameter. Not sure how advisable that is. Maybe ask at WP:VPT if there is a better solution – that's a better place for technical stuff. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thank you! Unfortunately, manual assignment and maintenance of the reference number would not be practical in larger articles (with many references) that are being actively developed by multiple editors. I will ask at WP:VPT. Again, thank you for your help! --Reuqr (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Question re: impact of edit to one of my music album credits

My name is Vin D'Onofrio and I edited my credit as the guitarist and soloist for Carly Simon's Moonlight Serenade release, for which there is a Wiki page titled Moonlight Serenade. Once I opened a Wikipedia account and made the edit, my name was highlighted and linked to a page that says I have no article in my name. I do not plan on writing an article for myself at this time. If the link to my name on the Moonlight Serenade page can bring up only the accurate musical credits I have on other Wikipedia pages ( Rod Stewart-Stardust and Chie Ayado-Goodbye Pork Pie Hat) I am fine with viewers being able to click on my name on the Moonlight Serenade page to see my other credits. If not, then I prefer to not have a link. Currently some of the references listed on the link to my name are not accurate.

For the record, I am not the actor with the same first and last name, we have different middle names.My middle initial is the letter "S". Thank you for your help.

Vin D'Onofrio Vin D'Onofrio (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. D'Onofrio, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! There's a link for your name in that edit because of the double square brackets surrounding it (like this: [[Vin D'Onofrio]]). That is the wikitext code format for a wikilink; when the page is rendered, the text within the square brackets will be rendered as a link to the wikipage with that title. Since there is no wikipage to link to, it shows up as a red link, which leads to a nonexistent page. The link can be removed by simply removing the square brackets, and in fact, I've already gone and done this for you here: [3]. If you go to the current version of the Moonlight Serenade article, you'll see that the link is now gone. There's more detailed information on the ins and outs of wikitext on the wikitext help page, if you're curious. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Art galleries and notability

Dear people, concerning the notability-criteria - is a gallery only notable when all the artists, who are presented by it, have a wikipedia-article? I tried to read through the "business-section" of the notability-criteria, but they aren't very specific on art. Is here perhaps an admin who is busy with art and could help me to understand what it would need to write an article on a gallery? Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent question, Gyanda. There have been lengthy discussions about this. Here is one. Bus stop (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh my god, this is lengthy. Poeh... you guys are really busy with this, very interesting to read though! Thanks for the link! LG, --Gyanda (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Gyanda: You can read the summary to the right of that long discussion, but the gist is that consensus leans towards having more coverage than just of various notable exhibits, in order to demonstrate a gallery is notable. So even if the exhibitors have articles, that's not usually enough for the exhibiting gallery to meet notability guidelines. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what i got from reading. Nothing is easy on Wikipedia... Thanks for your answer! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Great work you've done, Gyanda. I very much like all of the articles you've worked on or created, or at least the ones that I have looked at. I hope you keep up the excellent work. Please contact me if I can be of any help concerning the English Wikipedia. I may know very little about the English Wikipedia, but I will try. Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Bus stop! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Citing press release agencies

While adding references to Krampouz, I cited a press release hosted on a third party press release agency [4], then I later found the same press release hosted on the original publisher's website [5]. Is it OK to link to Business Wire and other press release agencies when citing a press release? If so, is it better to link to the same press release on the publisher's site? codl (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Codl: You don't want to ever use a press release as a source, no matter where they sit. Companies pay to release them, with no editorial oversight, so the info is not always reliable. Please see WP:RS for better sourcing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Then, why does {{cite press release}} exist? codl (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not Correct, Timtempleton. Press releases can be cited under the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF. They cannot, however, be used to establish notability and no article should be entirely or largely based on such sources.

Codl y0ou can use |agency= to indicate the agency through which a PR has been distributed. There is no particular advantage in going directly to the version on the company's own site, unless the content is different, which is unusual, Press releases can be used to cite specific facts about the company, but not to support the whole article nor to establish notability, nor for controversial or clearly self-serving statements. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Codl DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. Thanks! codl (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks. Thanks for letting me know. I’ve been making a habit of removing all the press releases I see in articles. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Need Help Meeting Notability Guidelines

Hello! I am a new Wikipedia user and am trying to get my first article approved. My first attempt was declined because it failed to meet notability guidelines. I was wondering if someone with more experience could take a look at the article (Draft:Adam Schleifer) and try to let me know where it came up short of meeting the guidelines and if it worth continuing to pursue this article. Thanks! Sshallam (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sshallam Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It seems that Mr. Schleifer does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, as merely seeking public office is insufficient. If he wins the election, he would merit an article as a member of a national legislature(the House). He also does not seem to meet the more general definition of a notable person. If he does, you need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him.

Some of your sources seem to be interviews with Mr. Schleifer, those would be a primary source and not acceptable for establishing notability. Wikipedia articles should only summarize what others say about him. I'd also suggest that discussing Montel Williams is unnecessary, as he was only a paid spokesperson for the company Mr. Schleifer worked against. That's called coatracking. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sshallam: I made some minor formatting edits, but it is still WP:TOOSOON. There may be more, but the only unelected candidate I've seen on Wikipedia with an article is Gina Ortiz Jones, but she lost and is running again - and the additional coverage she garnered barely meets the threshold, per consensus. Your best bet is to not resubmit unless he wins the election, or has a similar level of additional coverage as Ms. Jones. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How to edit

FYI

 – Heading created by Tenryuu

How do I edit Wikipedia articles? 47.18.47.43 (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. You can edit pages by clicking on the edit/edit source links at the top of articles. If you're new to editing, perhaps you would like to try WP:TWA, an interactive tutorial to learning how to use the site. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Check out Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You might also enjoy the tutorial at Help:Introduction. GoingBatty (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines

Deleted

 – Draft has been deleted for being promotional and user has been blocked for their name. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Bus Coach Drivers

Hi

I recently added an article about our Association and had the headline supplied as the reason for denial, I could really do with some assistance as a community organisation it would be advantageous to be able to be found and verified BACDAI (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

hello, BACDAI. I presume this is about Draft:Bus Coach Drivers Wikipedia articles are not for an organization to be ble to be found and verified. Wikipedia has articles about notable topics, including organizations. See our guideline on the notability of organizations. Notability is normally demonstrated by citing multiple independent published reliable sources The draft currently does not cite any independent sources. You should have at least three or four, different from each other, each ofm which discuses the organization nin some detail. Directory entries will not do, nor, will blogs or other personal sites. Nor will one-sentence mentions in news stories.

Also the current draft is quite promotional. and that will not do. Phrases such as seven drivers who had become so disillusioned with traditional union support decided the could do no worse. sound like an organizational flyer. A Wikipedia article must be neutral stating verifiable facts but not praising or attacking the group.

Also if you are associated with the group, yo0u have a conflict of interest and should declare it. If you are being paid in any way to write the article, or are expected to do as as part,of your job, you are a paid editor and must disclose this as described at that page, DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BACDAI: Welcome to the Teahouse. Aside from the layout (which is the least of your worries right now), are there any other sources not connected to your organisation that you can cite? You also say it would be advantageous to be able to be found and verified. You should know that Wikipedia is not a site for promotion (and will most likely get your account blocked) and that other venues like Instagram may better suit your needs. Also, you must declare your conflict of interest in regards to the subject. You may do so by following the steps shown here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair Use of a Newspaper front

Hi friends, I am pretty new to editing Wikipedia. I have started to fix up and fill in all the history of The Daily Collegian a student newspaper. The thumbnail image for our paper is a super old front page from 2008. It has the incorrect logo as well as a completely different style than we publish with today.

I uploaded a new front and it is tagged for deletion, which is fair. But I was reading through the Non-free_use_rationale_guideline and felt like a front page could be use as fair use? Please let me know if I am wrong but here are some of the reasons why I think it may fit the exception.

What proportion of the copyrighted work is used and to what degree does it compete with the copyright holder's usage? For example, if the image is a photograph or logo, the entire work is likely being used. A screenshot that reveals the most important discovery of a documentary or the ending of a movie, for example, though a very small portion of the work, may disproportionately compete with the copyright holder's use. In the case of a music sample, the length should be no longer than 10 percent of the song's original length or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter.

• This is just a snip of the front page, not the entire copy of the paper. they publish all of our copies for free online so I don't see it competing with the copyright holder.

If applicable, has the resolution been reduced from the original? In the case of music samples, has the quality been reduced from the original? What purpose does the image serve in the article? If applicable: Is the image a logo, photograph, or box art for the main subject of the article? Is the image being used as the primary means of visual identification of the subject or topic? (e.g., a corporate logo or the box art of a DVD)

• Visual identification of the subject or topic.

Does it illustrate the topic of the article? (e.g., a screen shot from a movie) Is it used for commentary on a particular topic? How?

• Yes, it is a better representation of what the actual product looks like than what is currently housed there.

Why the subject can't be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text or using free content media. If, for example, an image is a screenshot of a movie that is used for an article about the movie, or a corporate logo, there is obviously no such thing as a "free" version of it – all of the resources in the world could not produce one. If, on the other hand, the image is a photograph, the image is more easily replaced, even if Wikipedians may lack the resources to create a replacement.

• There is obviously no such thing as a "free" version of it – all of the resources in the world could not produce one.

Any other information necessary to assist others in determining whether the use of this copyrighted work qualifies for fair use.

• It's being used in an educational way?

Thanks for the help! NoahRiffe (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@NoahRiffe: It appears that the image is at File:The_Daily_Collegian_Front_Page_Jan_16.jpg on Wikipedia and at Commons:File:The_Daily_Collegian_Front_Page.jpg on Wikimedia Commons. The image is tagged for deletion on Commons because they only host free-use images. However, files can be used on Wikipedia under a fair-use license, like File:NewYorkTimesFrontPage-15Nov2012.jpg. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What level of separation do you need for acceptable sources?

Hello, I am trying to refurbish the Balboa (dance) page, since 90% of its content has been removed for not having sources. However, most of the information I've found online and in books seems to be published by Balboa dance instructors, dancers, or festival organizers. Where is the line on the "independent of the subject" in this case, since people with the most knowledge and research about a dance generally tend to be those that are involved with the dance in some way? For example, could these things be acceptable references:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=FQjS91tFgh4C&vq=balboa&dq=balboa+swing&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s A book about swing dancing authored by dance studio owners.

https://swungover.wordpress.com/ A blog run by a professional Balboa dance instructor.

https://www.retrorhythm.com/balboa A swing-dance history page created by Balboa dance instructors, which sometimes reference the above blog.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=lS076v-E-dYC&dq=balboa+salsa&source=gbs_navlinks_s A book written by a dance instructor, which includes some references to websites written by other dance instructors. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.ca/books?id=lS076v-E-dYC&dq=balboa+salsa&source=gbs_navlinks_s That covers your question. For anything else contact me on my talk page! Wale18 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Nude Photos on Wikipedia

So when editing the Sexual Intercourse Page can you put pictures of nude people having Sex "Fake Sex" or illustrated pictures? Can you put nude photos on Wikipedia, for pages that go with it? Wale18 (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wale18, technically Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED so in general it should be fine. Nevertheless here are a few points:

1. if it depicts real people, you may want their consent.
2. if they are cartoon or fictitious characters "having intercourse" then you may want to check Sex position or related articles to see if what you need is accurately described.
3. in general, for contentious topics, it is better for others to have a look first.
4. if your picture is deemed to be in "good taste" (no scenes of excessive encyclopedic content), you may want to request that your photo be blacklisted (so it is not used inappropriately)
5. artworks are usually better than self-drawn pictures.
6. You still would have to comply with WP:Image use policy. Image uploading is pretty complicated on its own.
7. For more assistance you may reach out to the appropriate WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality or the talk page of the page in question, Talk:Sexual intercourse. You may get more help from there.

Cheers, Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wale18: I am going to advise you very strongly against trying to add such pictures yourself. You are a new editor with not one single edit to any article as yet. You would be wholly mistaken if you imagined that you were the first person to think "hey, some photos might be nice!". So I'm pretty sure there is an established consensus there to communicate that topic in an encyclopaedic manner, but on the 'principle of least surprise'. Even before thinking about asking on the article talk page, take some time first to search through that page's archives for past discussions about it. Just because we have WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean an editor can add whatever images they want to, or against some previously established consensus. Commons is sadly full of really valueless sex-related images that people have uploaded there, as well as a handful of reasonably good ones. If they've not already been deployed in the last 15 years or so, it's unlikely you will suddenly be able to change that after 42 edits. My advice is to gain experience by working on less potentially contentious articles that really do need improving. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft disappeared

I signed up for a Wikipedia account. I created a draft entitled, Anthony Radetic. Draft: Anthony Radetic I even included an inbox. I cannot find the draft. Lipav123 (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Lipav123 (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Draft:Sandbox and welcome to, the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. as for your draft, I think yu never saved it. You have made exactly foiur edits to Wkipedia from this account: Two to Draft:Sandbox, One here to the Teahouse, and a very similar one to the Help desk. You could have made the edit under a different account, or while not logged in, but no one, under any account, had ever saved even one edit to Draft: Anthony Radetic. It is possible that the draft is still sitting in a browser session, unsaved. But if no0t, I think it is gone, and yu would need to recreate it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: - I assume that you intended to ping Lipav123 rather than Draft:Sandbox? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, David Biddulph. I think I should have stopped editing half an hour earlier. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I am new and wanted to create the Anthony Radetic draft under my username user:Lipav123. I see there is a draft now but I am not sure if it is under Sandbox or Lipav123. I also do not see how to save the draft for future edits. I appreciate your assistance. Lipav123 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Handling place of birth in BLP articles

Not a newbie, but this seems like the place to get a fast answer. For BLPs, what is the proper way to state place of birth and/or death, where available? I have looked at WP:MOS and camnot find a specific page. For example, is "Mister X (born 1980, Ste-Émélie de l'Énergie)" good, or is "Mister X (born 1980 in Ste-Émélie de l'Énergie)" better? If there is a guideline I have missed, thanks in advance for pointing me to it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: See MOS:BIRTHDATE and MOS:DATERANGE. Hillelfrei ^talk 03:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hillelfrei: thanks, I have looked at both of those items many times but they do not explain the proper way to state the place of birth and/or death.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: As far as place of birth or death, that isn't written next to the name the same way the birth or death date is. It goes in the infobox. See Michael Jackson for example. Hillelfrei ^talk 03:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hillelfrei: Thanks. What would you say to articles without infoboxes?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: You can add it whenever appropriate. If there is a "biography" or "personal life" or evevn "edfucation" section, it would be at the end of the section, something like "Smith died in 2000 in New York City" with the appropriate citation. If no such sections exists, which is common in stubs, it can be at the end of the lead in the same type of format. Hillelfrei ^talk 03:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

In general, ThatMontrealIP an info box should summarize information also present in the prose of the article. A place of birth can appear in the lead section, and/or in a section such as "Early life" or "Biography". @Hillelfrei: @Hillelfrei and ThatMontrealIP: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hillelfrei and DESiegel: Thanks. I've now realized what had me entirely confused. One of the examples used in MOS:BIRTHDATE is (Gro Harlem Brundtland (... born Gro Harlem; 20 April 1939) is a Norwegian politician ...}. I was reading Gro Harlem as a sort of Dutch (?) Harlem, as it sounds like a placename, and therefore thinking birthplace went in the date range. When I get around to it I will suggest changing that example to not sound like a placename.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Advice please - Copying and augmenting a Swedish Wikipedia article onto the English Wikipedia site

I was surprised to see that there is no English Wikipedia entry for the musician Hank C.Burnette (real name Sven-Åke Kenneth Högberg).

There is a Swedish Wikipedia entry which is a "stub".

I'm a fan of this musician, particularly his superb track "Spinning Rock Boogie".

I have found a Facebook page apparently written with his endorsement and his YouTube channel. So there is plenty of material to allow this entry to develop beyond a "stub".

Would it be OK to write an English Wikipedia entry for this musician and to copy what is already written on the Swedish Wikipedia page for him, and then augment it?

Or is there some way of mirroring the Swedish page into the English Wikipedia?

Many thanks for your help.... Wizzlewick (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wizzlewick, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are welcome to try creating an article about Burnette, and to make use of the sv-wiki article as part of it (see Translation for how you must attribute this). However, you should treat this as creating a new article - which is one of the hardest tasks in editing Wikipedia. You will need to show that Burnette meets the criteria for notability - references in the Swedish version might do that, I haven't looked (English sources are preferred in en-wiki, but not required: as long as the source is reliable, and independent of the subject, it can be used). Different Wikipedias have different policies, and just because there is a sv-wiki article does not necessarily mean that he will meet the criteria for en-wiki. His own Facebook and YouTube channel are self-published sources, and cannot contribute to notability.

As I said, I suggest you treat this as creating a new article, in which case, please start with reading Your first article, --ColinFine (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wizzlewick: welcome to the Teahouse! ColinFine was a little quicker, but I'll post my response even though it duplicates some of what he says: Facebook and a person's YouTube channel are not considered reliable sources at English Wikipedia, I'm afraid. The Swedish Wikipedia article doesn't actually have any sources that would be acceptable for an article in English Wikipedia, and I can't find anything in a quick Google search, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he would not be considered notable. Notability is the important factor here: primarily this notability guideline, but for a musician this is also relevant. As he was signed by Blue Horizon, it is possible that the musician-specific notability guideline is met. My advice would be that you create a draft article, using the Articles for Creation process, making sure that you include reliable secondary sources for all claims in the article. If something cannot be sourced, it unfortunately cannot be included. When you have created a draft, an experienced editor can review it and see whether it meets the requirements. Hope that makes sense. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Creative commons

Before I accidentally create a copyright violation: this means I can safely upload a picture to wikipedia, right? Licks-rocks (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

More than that, Licks-rocks, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, so that it can be used by any Wikimedia project. It will go along with File:Moycullen - Connemara Marble Industries marble - geograph.org.uk - 1608807.jpg and two other relevant photos from Geograph which are already in Commons. --ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

thank you ColinFine, I will be sure to do that, then! now to figure out how ^^--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

How to edit the title of a wiki page

Hi, am completely new to this so looking for some tips. Firstly, how do I change the title? There doesn't seem to be an Edit function for this? See attached url. The name is mis-spelt, should read Su, not Sui.

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

Secondly, I corrected the spelling within the main contents page but everything simply got reversed the next day. Did I do something wrong or is this simply someone telling me I'm wrong! If so, what is the etiquette for politely telling them that they are the ones who are wrong!

Thanks TanjungAru (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi TanjungAru, welcome to the Teahouse. There are often different ways to write foreign names in English. "Peter Lo Sui Yin" and "Peter Lo Su Yin" have around the same number of Google hits and both forms are used in references in the article. I don't know whether there are criteria to say one form is "more correct" but the article should be consistent witht the title and not break links. You changed "Peter Lo Sui Yin.jpg" to "Peter Lo Su Yin.jpg" in the image name in the infobox. The name of the image is File:Peter Lo Sui Yin.jpg so a red link was displayed instead of the image after your edit.[6] The title of a page is changed by moving the page. See Wikipedia:Moving a page. You cannot do it as a new user but there are valid reasons for both names so you shouldn't do it without discussion anyway. See Wikipedia:Requested moves if you want the title changed. Then the spelling inside the article can also be changed. See also Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Learning the ropes without getting hanged

So I'm brand new here (not a bot) and am just learning how this all works. I did make some mistakes just starting out (did I mention that I'm new here?), but the blowback was absolutely staggering. And then after only having an account for about 3 hours, someone then nominated my account for a speedy deletion. I mean wow, not very welcoming to new people who are just learning how to do this. I don't know if I was just very unlucky in my experience or if this place really is just a wild west of Reddit style trolls as well. All I'm saying is that my first few hours here were very unwelcoming. ThePoliticalAtheist (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello there, ThePoliticalAtheist, and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, you've inadvertently broken one of our biggest rules - hence the blowback. Problem is, this is an encyclopaedia about 'notable' subjects, and our userpage is purely for us to say a little about ourselves and our interests in editing this encyclopaedia. What you've done is effectively create an article about yourself, in totally the wrong place, and in a way that looks to others as wholly promotional. So, we have a system whereby pages that breach our guidelines (see WP:USERPAGE can be proposed for 'speedy deletion', as yours has been.

Had you wanted to have written about yourself -and assuming you were notable enough to meet our notability criteria (see also WP:NBIO), then the place to have done it was at Articles for Creation, where you would create a draft article, fill it with citations to independent reliable sources that talk about you in depth and in detail, and then submit if for review. We have a guidance page (shortcut: WP:NOTWEBHOST) which explains why it might seem to you like you've trodden on a landmine with your first step. And also WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY which explains why it is a bad idea to try to create an article about yourself here, rather than let someone else do it.

Having just looked at all your contributions, I can see you already created a draft article at Draft:Daniel Fisk Bennett, so having roughly the same content on your userpage is just not what we do here. I fully expect that page to be deleted very soon by a fellow administrator. But I should add there there is absolutely nothing to stop you then creating a new content which just says a few lines about you and your interests in contributing to this encyclopaedia. "Something along the lines of 'My name is Daniel Fisk, I love politics and hope to contribute in a neutral way to articles in my field of interest."  

What you've unfortunately done today is rather equivalent to someone getting into a car for the very first time, setting off up the freeway at full speed, then wondering why you got involved in a massive car crash, with everyone running to the scene. Like learner drivers, good Wikipedia editors start off slowly and learn the rule of the road before heading into mainstream traffic. I can't teach you how to drive properly from a single post here at the Teahouse, but do have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure and maybe browse through some of the key links at Help:Getting started, and ensure you understand Wikipedia:Notability (people), which is key to getting any article about a person into this encyclopaedia. Creating a new article from scratch is the second hardest thing anyone can do here. The hardest is trying to create one about yourself, especially if there aren't any independent, reliable sources you can use to demonstrate 'Notability'. In that case, it would be completely impossible, and LinkedIn would be a better route.

Hope this helps a bit, and sorry your first foray was a bit rough. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

We all have scars from our early days. Stuff heals. A very common newbie error is to think Wikipedia is social media (another is pasting in copyright protected content). David notMD (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do note, ThePoliticalAtheist that your account has in no way been proposed for deletion, it is only the page User:ThePoliticalAtheist that has been tagged for speedy deletion. A Wikipedia user page is primarily for describing the user as a Wikipedia editor including the user's activities, interests, and skills. It may also include views on Wikipe3dia policy or direction. It may also include limited biographical content so that others may understand the background from which you edit. It should not look like a Wikipedia article about yourself. Have a look at my user page or those of other hosts and responders you see here on the Teahosue for some examples. It is not ma "wild west" here, there are rules and guidelines, but they are somewhat complex and new users often fall afoul of them without any intention to do so. No oner thinks that you had IL-intent here, but many people do try to engage in self-promotion by building "articles" which really aren't articles about themselves on their user pages. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

While you are here, you should know that Facebook and YouTube are not considered citations that meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, as they are user-contributed without professional editorial management. If you truly believe that you are article-worthy, I suggest you copy all the content you created to a place outside Wikipedia and then try to come back via Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThePoliticalAtheist: Consistent with what others have said above, please consider the following. Before making an edit to an article on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia like Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta, ask yourself what your motivation is for making the edit. If it is to add to the encyclopedic content of the article in a way that you might expect to do if you were working as an editor of one of those other encyclopedias that I mentioned, and you are correctly summarizing what is written in WP:SECONDARY reliable sources, go ahead and do it, and cite your source(s). Otherwise, consider one of the many other outlets that may welcome the content. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

new user, crime and punishment (should be combined with the "new article" topic on teahouse)

Please help me i am new to english wikipedia. See Talk:Crime and Punishment DonGuess (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DonGuess and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you made a post, asking about the use of Russian in the novel at Talk:Crime and Punishment. I don't see anything obviously wrong with that post. Did you have a question about how to edit the English-language Wikipedia? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello,DES, thank you for the answer! Should i somehow connect my russian account to the english one? DonGuess (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If you use the same account name, DonGuess, the Wikimedsia softwarte connects any and all accounts on different projects that yoiu may have automatically, without you needign to take anby action. If you used a different account name, the accounts will be separate, and you should probably post a note on User:DonGuess linking to your other account, and not use both accounts here on en.Wikipedia. It is generally b etter to keep to a single account, although there can be legitimate reasons for using more than one, as long as this is properly disclosed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

References

FYI

 – Moved sections from below. GoingBatty (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Crime and Punishment". Hello I am looking for an experienced user who knows russian language

How can i find such user? I need help with Talk:Crime and Punishment. DonGuess (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DonGuess. You find what you need at Wikipedia:Translation or Wikipedia:Translators available. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

link in the Crime and Punishment article

FYI

 – Moved section from below. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Can i add the following reference in the External links>Criticisms section: Text about "Crime and Punishment" on "Polka" project or does it require a preliminary discussion? DonGuess (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: I see you already posted this request to the Talk:Crime and Punishment page. If it meets the Wikipedia:External links guideline (and presuming you have no conflict of interest), then you may add it without further discussion. I suggest you add "(in Russian)" after the link. If other editors disagree with your addition and remove it, this will kick off the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. GoingBatty (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, show me page about using curly brackets without any keyword as hat note. I can't find this what is it.

I saw strange hat note on Viral shedding. {{Influenza virus life cycle}} What is it? Is it similar Template:Short description? PoetVeches (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Ah, I see, it's just Template:Influenza virus life cycle. I have no questions, just found answer myself. Excusme for bothering. PoetVeches (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi PoetVeches. I already wrote a reply with more details so here it is. Things in {{..}} are usually template calls, in this case to display Template:Influenza virus life cycle. See Help:A quick guide to templates. It's not a hatnote. Hatnotes are only one type of template. Hatnotes are often (not always) at top of an article, but many other templates can also be at the top. Template:Short description is usually placed at the top. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No worries PoetVeches. In my view the best way to learn is to ask a good question and then answer it yourself before anyone else does! (I've just tweaked your post so that the link to the template is visible, but that the content itself doesn't display on this page.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

PoetVeches and perhaps other lurkers: Nick's edit was necessary because wrapping Example in double braces (curly brackets) WP:TRANSCLUDEs the page Template:Example (i.e., replaces {{Example}} with the content of Template:Example) when rendering the page. To prevent that (e.g., when discussing a template on talk page, like we're doing here), you can wrap the template page name with a template like {{Tlx}} with the code {{Tlx|Example}}, which renders as {{Example}}, providing a link to the template (usually displaying its documentation) instead of performing the transclusion. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Im making a page

but im getting comments

Aight. So i made a page on OHL player Nick Robertson. He was drafted by the Leafs, prolly gonna play with them next year. I'm getting told that A) He hasn't played in a fully professional league (even though players like Byfield and McMichael have pages and they haven't played in pro leagues yet)

and B) he's not notable enough, even though he led the CHL(OHL,QMJHL,WHL) in goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nick_Robertson_(ice_hockey) go see for yourself if he's notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanisntfunny (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

To somebody who knows more about sports than I do: This is about Draft:Nick Robertson (ice hockey). -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nolanisntfunny: Welcome to the Teahouse! At the top of your draft is a big red template with lots of helpful hints. If you click the [show] link next to "Improving your odds of a speedy review", you'll see that it encourages you to add a WikiProject template on the draft talk page. In your case, you can create Draft talk:Nick Robertson (ice hockey) with the template {{WikiProject Ice Hockey}}. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nolanisntfunny: Re: go see for yourself if he's notable enough, it's up to you to demonstrate notability with the sources that you cite in the article, currently:

1. An entry in a database, which is maybe suitable for citing statistics, and does nothing to establish notability.

2. Same issue as #1.

3. Might be OK. Find a couple more of these, from independent sources (i.e., the text should read nothing like this source so we know it's not just from a press release)

4. Might be OK.

5. Doesn't mention Robertson at all.

6. Exactly same cite as #2. You should instead use the same cite by naming it the first time using the "Ref name" field in the citation tool, which produces the code <ref name="USAHockey">{{Cite web |...}}</ref>, and then referring to it later with the code <ref name="USAHockey" /> (instead of using the citation tool). This is also discussed at WP:EASYREFBEGIN#Re-using a reference, again and again.

So, you currently have two sources that might contribute to establishing notability, based on general Wikipedia guidelines, and my complete lack of knowledge about sources specific to hockey. Also note that other stuff exists, so it's not a valid argument that there are other articles existent for non-notable players – Wikipedia has been less vigilant in the the past, and editors are constantly at work to delete articles that shouldn't be here (the process is non-trivial and takes a lot of time, as it should). Find some more sources and you should be OK. Please also see WP:EASYREFBEGIN for how to properly format cites – there's more to it than just bare links. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

1 and 2 are supposed to be about simple things like birthday, height, weight, stats. 3 and 4 are good. 5 is supposed to confirm the fact that the season was cancelled due to the Coronavirus. 6 is an error on my part. Nolanisntfunny (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

could you please remove this page that was made behind my back by my ex girlfriend i would greatly appreciate it

 71.225.182.229 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Which page? We have millions and this is the only edit by your IP address. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

user:PrimeHunter Can't you read their mind?? McClenon mobile (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP address geolocates to Philadelphia. Philadelphia incategory:"Living people" gives 24,182 results. So close. Or maybe it's about this page. Darn, already deleted in 2009. I'm out of ideas. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What is te best place to learn

what is te best place on wikipedia to learn and practice on edits ? Stonertone (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox, but your conversions into blue of your user page and user talk page suggest that you already know your way around Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stonertone: Welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to using the Sandbox, you may also want to try out Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure if you're looking for an interactive tutorial to Wikipedia itself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Stonertone: You might also enjoy the tutorial at Help:Introduction. GoingBatty (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

New article

Hello! what should i do if I want someone to make an article about a website in russian language? I am ready to help this person in any way possible.DonGuess (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC) DonGuess (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DonGuess. Are you asking for an article about a Russian website or an article about a website that is to be written in Russian? If it's the latter you are probably better off heading to the Russian Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DonGuess: I'm presuming you are asking about creating an article on the English Wikipedia about a Russian-language website. Since creating a new article can be challenging, I suggest you spend a few weeks improving existing articles here. When you're ready, I suggest you first read Wikipedia:Notability (web). If you are able to gather enough independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability, then you can follow the instructions at Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

GoingBatty, I personally think that the website is very notable because it contains wiki-like (I don’t mean that it copies from Wikipedia, it doesn’t) texts about russian literature and a Wikipedia reader who is interested in russian literature rather probably knows russian good enough to at use this website. But I don’t want to be blamed for conflict of interested (which happened with my russian account) so I’d like someone else to rate the notability for me. Thank you,DonGuess (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DonGuess. Wikipedia's concept of notability is, in my view, poorly named, because it is nothing to do with the quality, importance, fame, or popularity of the subject. We often see people saying "I think X is notable because" and giving a reason which has nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia-notable. I'm afraid your comment is in the same category. Apart from some field-specific criteria like winning major prizes, notability is almost entirely to do with what has been written about the subject: it is imossible to deteremine notability by looking at the subject itself.

This does mean that certain categories of subject are under-represented: there tends not to be much written in mainstream sources about film editors or YouTube personalities, for example - and the same is often true of websites, even if they happen to be a stunningly useful resource. So in order to establish that your site is notable you need to present at least three places where somebody wholly unconnected with the site has chosen to write about it at some length, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. These don't have to be in English, but they must be reliable, independent, and contain substantial material about the site. --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, I agree with what you’re saying, thanks for the answer! So what should I do if the object of the article I want to add is related to literature? Also please see [[7]], about Polka and my other discussion on Teahouse by the title “new user, crime and punishment”,DonGuess (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, DonGuess, I'm not sure what you are asking. You find suitable sources, or you give up on the subject. I'm not sure what relevance is to a question about specific wording in an existing article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: The general notability guideline is at Wikipedia:Notability. On the right side of that page, you will see a blue table with links to the more specific guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (books). GoingBatty (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• should be combined with new user, crime and punishment, I think — DonGuess (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC) [Note:This comment moved from section heading to end of discussion by Marchjuly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)]

Update to wiki page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Brandenburg I googled ILCP and it does exist and is a good site for anyone interested in nature conservation.

I am not savvy on editing--could someone update wiki site for Jim Brandenburg? Thank you! 71.226.224.219 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason that organization is in red lettering in the article about Jim is because there is no article about the organization. You can de-red it by removing the double brackets at both ends of the organization's name. OR, you can create an get accepted an article about the organization, it which case it would become blue lettering. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor. As that site's front page does not directly support anything in the article, I have moved it to the External links section. I also updated the cite to the page about Jim Brandenburg becoming a Fellow of the ILCP. I don't know if the ILCP is notasble enough for a Wikipedia article on the group. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Find signature based on user

Is there a way to find and display a user's signature based on his username? Any template? I'm asking this for my talk header. 3125A^{Talk!_{Contributions!}} 16:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi 3125A and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find most users' signatures on their replies on their talk pages by searching "User talk:Example". I'm not sure what you mean about this being related to your talk header. Hillelfrei ^talk 17:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know. I am learning template coding. Maybe I shouldn't put it on the talk header. 3125A^{Talk!_{Contributions!}} 17:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Qualifications For Published Autobiography

Is my write up qualified for Publication on the platform for public consumption? Thanks Eldgboye (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eldgboye: welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed the biographical text you had added to your user talk page, and posted an explanation there. If you want to try your hand at writing a Wikipedia article, please read this information first. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You removed my contribution!

47.195.3.60 (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

How rude! Wikipedia is bad! Do not use it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.195.3.60 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, your edits were not constructive to the subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeking Alpha -- Reliable Yay or Nay?

Hi, I am preparing to start editing Wikipedia and have come across your reliable resources part. I have a question- Is Seeking Alpha ok or not? Thanks Jim --Bravo7711 (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Bravo7711 (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bravo7711, Welcome to the Teahouse! The Wikipedia page for it (which is not a reliable source) says it provides crowd-sourced content. If that is true, each document from it might have to judged based on who the author is, and then if the author/s turn/s out to be known expert/s in the topic of the work, it may be cited with attribution. It is difficult to give a specific yes or no, without context. Generally, a question on reliability of a source should be presented as "Is this document a reliable source for making this claim in this context in this Wikipedia article?" WP:RSN is where these are discussed. Feel free to visit that noticeboard, read the instructions at the top, and start a post there to get feedback from editors more specialised in evaluating sources. I found one previous discussion on Seeking Alpha from a quick search—Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_289#Seeking_Alpha. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I need help

my little brother (actually no lie I have a little brother) keeps making edits logged out. it is logged out, as he does not know my password, but whenever he does that I need to quickly revert it. how do I stop him from making nonconstructive edits. I know it is a common excuse, but it is true. Firestar9990 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop him getting at a computer? No, seriously, Firestar9990, anybody may edit without logging in. If a particular IP address (or range of addresses) keeps doing unconstructive edits, than that address (or range) may get blocked; but short of that, there's nothing you can do except control his access. Alternatively, maybe you can get him interested in actually helping Wikipedia, especially if you can model that behaviour yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

thank you, colinfine you have helped me. Firestar9990 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy

I just want to ask, would you say this: "Although possibly declining in number in some areas, spotted hyenas are not protected outside of reserves and are considered problem animals in the 8th Schedule of the Parks and Wildlife." is more accurate than the original (" Although possibly declining in number in some areas, spotted hyenas are not protected and are considered problem animals in the 8th Schedule of the Parks and Wildlife.")? Obviously, I know they're protected in reserves (since that's the whole point of reserves: to protect wildlife), but I'm not sure if that's an accurate way of putting it.  Redstoneprime (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

(This is about Spotted hyena) - @Redstoneprime: Animals being protected inside reserves is invariably the case, and does not require specific sourcing. This sounds entirely fine to me, and may not even need stating. But if you do, it shouldn't need an additional reference. I think there's a modicum of being overly finicky going on regarding edits to this article at the moment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae Thanks. Also, I can understand why people are being a bit finicky, due to there not many reliable sources when it comes to more up-to-date research (such as how males can lead the clan, for example). Plus, doesn't "problem animal" refer to animals that attack/prey on humans and livestock/destroy crops (talking about individuals, of course, rather than entire species). Redstoneprime (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Overly finicky? I don't see what is not clear about our WP:Verifiability policy. The above is not a WP:Sky is blue matter. And "sky is blue" is an essay instead of a policy or guideline anyway, and has a counter essay.

Please don't WP:Ping me for any reply to me in this section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

help will i get blocked?

help will i get blocked if my friend and i´s youtube channel has a link to sandbox. i will not write any articles about the youtube channel. if i dint link from wikipedia is that fine?HElp WILL Y. HISTORIAN (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewhistory: Only people who write massively long topic-headers in block capitals get blocked around here :) serial ^# 19:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

- SO WILL I GET BLOCKED

YES YOU WILL, NOW LOSE THE CAPS. –Davey2010^Talk 19:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

hello, I'm new. I just got an article declined. I cant't work yet in source edit. i need to go back to the wysiwyg editor. How?

 Digig0th (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Digig0th - well, it looks like you did not gave reliable sources for your article draft, have a look over here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and try to improve your article draft with other, more reliable sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I am wondering what topics I should do as I just joined Wikipedia

Lamjustin045 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Lamjustin045 and welcome to the Teahouse. You may be interested in trying out our interactive introduction, The Wikipedia Adventure. If you mean "do" as in "create articles", it may be better to start by editing and doing other tasks than creating new articles, because creating an article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. As for which topics, we can guide you further if you let us know which areas interest you. Hillelfrei ^talk 22:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lamjustin045: We have over 6,000,000 articles here already, and of very varied states of perfection! Whether you're a pedant and simply like to fix grammatical or spelling errors, add better references, or want to add additional content based on Reliable sources to subjects you have an interest in, you're bound to find something here to keep you busy. Try Wikipedia:Community portal or Wikipedia:Task Center to give you a few ideas. Let us know when you've fixed them all! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Arzamas

I think, a reader of this Arzamas article could be searching information about the website https://arzamas.academy/. Should this link be added into the article? DonGuess (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: It looks a little promotional/business-like to me, rather than a genuine academy or university, so just adding it to 'External links' doesn't seem right - but then I've only quickly glanced at a Google translate version of the site. I would focus on actually adding factual content to the article - perhaps with a section on education or culture in the city. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:, Sorry, I think you might have misunderstood: this is an educational website and it is named after the Arzamas Society — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonGuess (talk • contribs) 22:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: Arzamas is a city near Nizhny and Arzamas Society is a defunct literary society in St. Petersburg. I don't see how the website is related to either, but I don't speak Russian, so maybe I'm missing something. If the website is WP:NOTABLE (doubtful), then it would be the subject of its own article entitled Arzamas Academy. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, thé problem is that there is an article about it in Wikipedia but it is in russian language I will give you the link later. Does that fact by itself make the website notable by the way? DonGuess (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: The fact that a topic has an article on another Wikipedia doesn't inherently make it notable for the English Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Translation. GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: I.e., Russian Wikipedia is a completely separate project from English Wikipedia (and all the other Wikimedia projects). Each has its own rules and procedures. English Wikipedia probably has the most restrictive rules regarding notability (I referred to WP:NOTABLE above) and suitability of sources (WP:RS). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: here is the article https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arzamas, as you see it’s actually spelled in English, that’s why I think it requires disambiguation page --DonGuess (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me assess whether the sources do establish notability of my draft article?

Hi, the initial version of my article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scantrust was declined because of lack of notability. The reviewer's comment was that "Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject". In the first version, I had indeed emphasised sources which were for the most part newspaper articles that contained quotes or looked like they were based on interviews. I now better understand the concept of secondary source, so I made efforts to collect sources such as book chapters and scientific articles which analyse primary sources that deal with the article topic. I now published a second version but have not submitted yet, as I want to make sure it stands a chance to be evaluated more favourably in regards to notability this time. I would very much appreciate if I could get feedback, in particular on whether references 1 to 6 can help establish notability. Please that note my COI is declared on the article talk page. Many thanks for your help! Factfox (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Factfox (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Factfox: Are those sources specifically and primarily about Scantrust, or do they just mention Scantrust in passing or as part of a general trend? They appear to be the latter, rather than the former. Here is a step-by-step recipe for articles that won't be rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Factfox, and welcome to the Teahouse. I looked through the first 6 refs, and I would saythis is improved, but not yet ready. Several points:

• In at least two cases, you have a |url= parameter which holds a link to a WorldCat (OCLC) listing. Please don't do that. The |oclc= will give that link. "url=" should only be used for a link that goes to an actual copy of the source. If no such copy is available, online, leave "url=" blank or just remove it from the template.
• Ref 1: Hyperledger Cookbook This looks likie the kind of source you want, but since I can't see the actual source, i can't evaluate it fully. You could use |quote= to provide a quote showing a key passage that supports the article. BTW, does all of chapter 10.2 support the articvle? if not, please use |page= or |pages= to give the exact location, unless the text does not have page numbers (aka unpaginated).
• Ref 2: "Blockchain for food: " Again no link to an online copy provided, so i can't asses the depth of coverage, but again looks like the right kind o0f source.
• Ref 3: EPFL Annual Report There appear to be only two single-sentence mentions of Scantrust. They are not unhelpful, but this is not an in-depth source, and you need several of those. Also please provide the date or at least the year, and the publisher in the ref.
• Ref 4: "Safeguarding township tourism ..." Again the looks like a good kind of source, but its discussion of Scantrust is quite brief.
• Ref 5: "Adopting Industry 4.0 Technologies ..." Again I can't asses the depth of coverage. Where there really 20, pages about Scantrust? if not either give just the pages you are citing, or give the exact page and the range for the whole as well, such as "Pages=5-6 [1-20]" (but just "pages=5-6" would be fine). Again |quote= might be useful if no online version is available
• Ref 6: "A Copy-Proof Scheme..." again this is the right kind of source, and again I can't see the depth of coverage. I can only see the abstract, which does not mention Scantrust. Be sure to include "url=access=subscription" to indicate the paywall, and the use of |quote= would help.
• also the lead section still has a bit of a marketing/PR tone, but that isn't severe enough to be a major problem. Still, try to sound less like a marketing flyer.

What is needed to establish notability is several independent published reliable sources, each of which has some depth of coverage, say at least several paragraphs devoted to Scantrust. A professional review of thither products would be particularly helpful. You seem to have the independent and reliable parts right -- many editors have trouble there.

Good luck with further editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be specifically and primarily about the article subject, but they do need to give some depth of coverage to that subject. A mere passing mention or a 1-2 sentence discussion will not do. @Factfox and Ian.thomson: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Newer users have a harder time gauging what counts as "in-depth" (which is a bit subjective), and any source worth citing at all that is specifically and primarily about a topic would definitely meet that criteria. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That is true, Ian.thomson but I fear an over-reaction. I have seen a new user given that same "specifically and primarily about" wording reject as a source a book about Jazz Musicians that devoted 5 pages to the career of a particular trumpeter, because the book was not primarily about that person, and I have seen claims that a "12 best {software type} of {year}" that devoted a dozen paragraphs to a product was not in depth because it was not "primarily about" that product. So I tend to object to that wording. I understand that it is meant to make clear that slightly more than passing mentions, say three sentences, is still not enough. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

DES and Ian.thomson, thank you very much, I really appreciate you taking the time to give your expert feedback.@Ian.thomson, I have read many things on notability and I must say it is to get it wrong or a bit off, so your guide comes as a neat summary of the key points to keep in mind. To your question, some of the sources have one or a few paragraphs, but not entirely about Scantrust. I understand they must not all contribute to notability. On the other hand in the first version, I had put a number of newspaper and magazine articles entirely on Scantrust, but they were discarded for having quotes and appearing like interviews, even though I thought that they could in part be considered as secondary sources, as they also had commentaries from the journalist. @DES, it is very nice of you to have taken the time to look through the references and give me very specific recommendations on what to improve. I will make the corrections and additions, and also have a few other sources that I didn't think of using and which could contribute to notability. If you do not mind, I will let you know when the draft is updated. Thanks again to both of you Factfox (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Joseph Pasinski III

• Draft: Joseph Pasinski III

Hello! I've written a short summary about someone who is closely related to me, in a neutral matter. I'm still working on some more credible sources, such as his music origins, so for now, I'm not asking it to be published but rather reviewed and suggested/declined about. Thank you for your time. -- Le Panini (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2020

You need to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft and save it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Le Panini —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Since you have a conflict of interest because he is closely related to you, please disclose that fact on your user page - see How to disclose a COI. GoingBatty (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: After that, I suggest you gather your independent reliable sources to determine if he meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians. If so, I suggest you follow the guidance at Help:Your first article to summarize what the reliable sources say about him. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Creation of the Maiara & Maraisa Page

Hello, I request the creation of the page: Maiara & Maraisa, referring to two successful Brazilian singers that I think is worth having in our articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicy john (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:REQUEST Zoozaz1 (talk 02:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Many editors do not consider WP:REQUEST useful, as the number of editors willing to create an article on a topic they know little/nothing about is small. David notMD (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrazny Komitet Application/Заявка в арбитражный комитет Википедии

Hello, please make an application for the Komitet for my unblocking Здравствуйте! Пожалуйста, подайте заявку о моей разблокировке DonGuess (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: The Teahouse is for help with the English Wikipedia. To request to be unblock on the Russian Wikipedia, please follow the instructions at ru:Википедия:Блокировки#Разблокировка. GoingBatty (talk)

@DonGuess: Correction - please follow the instructions posted on your talk page at the Russian Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Claims of suppression of corruption

FYI

 – The heading above was added by Tenryuu at 03:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC).

• Asuman Ozdaglar: (Redacted)Father (Wikipedia Entry)

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

She was born to İsmail Özdağlar and Zahide Özdağlar on 16 December 1974.[4] Her father was a (Redacted) former Minister of State between 13 December 1983 and 15 January 1985 in the 45th government of Turkey.[5] Asuman Ozdaglar is married to economist Daron Acemoğlu.

Wikipedia keeps removing that her father was a (Redacted) former Minister of State between 13 December 1983 and 15 January 1985 in the 45th government of Turkey.

Why does wikipedia which supports freedom of speech hides corruption? 73.170.116.146 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Daron Acemoglu: (Wikipedia Entry)

He is married to Asuman "Asu" Ozdağlar, a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)[10][19] and daughter of İsmail Özdağlar, a former (Redacted) Turkish government minister.

Wikipedia keeps removing “a former (Redacted) Turkish government minister”. When Wikipedia supports free speech why does it hide corruption and true facts? 73.170.116.146 (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.170.116.146. I think you’ll find the answer you’re looking for in WP:FREESPEECH, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:RGW and perhaps even WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPCOI and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikipedia article’s are only intended to reflect what written about something in reliable sources and content or claims which is likely to be contentious (particularly content about a living person) is likely going to be removed unless it’s something supported by citations to very strong reliable sources and isn’t considered to be WP:UNDUE. When there are disagreements over this type of thing the best thing to do is to follow WP:DR and discuss the content on the relevant article’s talk page. Repeatedly trying to add such content will not only likely continue to lead to it being removed, but may also be considered disruptive, edit warring or a combination of the two. Finally, please be careful about any claims you make about another person on any Wikipedia page, especially if they’re still living. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor. Wikipedis may support free speech in general, but it is far more important here that statements of purported fact are supported bt reliable sourcws. That ism particularly true when the fact is controversial, and even morwe true when the fact is about a living person.. In that last case unsourced negative or controversial statements need to be sourced or removed promptly. Pleas do not add statements to articles that nay person is "corrupt" unless you re prepared to cite a reliable source for it right away. mDES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! "Wikipedia" does not remove your edits, other volunteer editors remove them because you are not providing a reliable source for your claim. This is part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You boldly added a claim, and another editor reverted it. Instead of similar edits again, discuss it on the article talk page - Talk:Asuman Özdağlar, and provide your reliable sources. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:My Dream Beside Me

Hello! I started an article about a film entitled My Dream Beside Me. I was wondering if there was any current feedback on the progress I have so far. I'm going to get to further paragraphs in time. Also, it appears that it isn't labeled as a draft, but instead a full article, which is not the case. Is there a way where I can revert it to a draft state? Thank you for your time. Le Panini (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I moved your article to Draft space, you can find it at Draft:My Dream Beside Me. Once you are ready to submit it, you can click the AFC button and reviewers will give you feedback. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Please review Wikipedia:Notability (films) and add more independent reliable sources, such as reviews from more prominent newspapers and magazines. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film for how to organize your draft (e.g. the details of the critical response belongs in its own section). Films are released, not published. The Internet Movie Database is abbreviated IMDb. I suggest you choose {{cite web}} (instead of {{citation}}) for each reference, and fill out the |work= or |publisher= parameter for each reference. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips! I do have a collection of newspapers talking about the film, but they all come from the same site, which I already sourced. Is this still allowed then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Panini (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: If you have multiple newspaper articles from the same newspaper that each provide significant coverage to the film, it's OK to use each one. (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.) GoingBatty (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Understandable. FINALLY (I know, I'm sorry), normally I get multiple things of information from one source. When I try to cite the same source twice, the reference URL appears twice in the reference list instead of once. Does that make sense? How do I properly cite the source? Thank you for your time.

Le Panini (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Assuming you're using the source editor, you can give the opening ref tag the name attribute and then call it later. It would look something like this:

 <ref name="test">Lorem ipsum</ref>
 ...
 ...
 <ref name="test" />

will render:

...
...

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

How to add relevant citations for review and what are the fact checking sites which wikipedia accepts

Hi There,

I am trying to create producer's page. It is for one of my knowns. I am getting troubled finding proper citations that wiki can accept. Since it is my first time and I find it difficult as it got rejected. May I know what notable citations are accepted. And just to let you know. I am creating a page for well knowned producer in pollywood industries but yet to make some presence on wikipedia. Please help me out here Itsanupkumar (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Itsanupkumar. You have been given clear instructions numerous times on your talk page. Please click on the blue links there for further clarification.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Shantavira Each one of the decline and reject messages on User talk:Itsanupkumar includes an invitation to discuss the matter or to ask questions about it at the Teahouse. It seems a bit bitey to give the above answer in view of that fact.

Itsanupkumar, that said, Shantavira was not incorrect. Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics including notable people. Wikipedia defines "notable" in a special way, and notability is largely defined by citing multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. The reviewers believe that Draft:Anup Kumar (music producer) is not supported by such reliable sources. Note that interviews with the subject of a biographical article are not normally considered to be independent sources, and so they do not count towards notability. Note that most people are not notable ,in Wikipedia's terms. Also, Wikipedia articles must be neutral -- not written to praise or attack a person or topic.

Wikipedia does not have a specific list of acceptable sources. In general, sources must have some sort of editorial control, so that someone using judgement stands between the writer and the readers, and must have a good reputation for fact checking. One can ask about particular sources at the reliable source noticeboard. Also, sources establishing notability must not be financially or otherwise closely associated with the subject.

Itsanupkumar, Please do follow the links in this message and on the various messages on your talk page, and read the linked pages. Please do not keep submitting your drafts with minor changes. Note that no amount of improved writing will; convert a non-notable topic into a notable one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

100 meters and ethnicity I belive your artical is wrong Matthew Boiling ran a sub 10 second 100 meter

 68.79.207.23 (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you have a question? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

According to Matthew Boling (not Boiling) he ran a 9.98 but it was wind assisted and so does not count . His personal best for record purposes is 10.11. Meters (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How Can i add mine blog External links here

hi there , i got 3 alert from wikipedia some like this requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia and that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia, dear wikipedia i m new here i dont know how to use this and wr to attached link , i know i m not that perfect but i will learn , plz guide me in simple way how can i submit my story or link,

plz check this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thakurmanjeet777#May_2020

thanks and regard, Thakurmanjeet777 (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Not all that much we can say beyond what user:Liz already said: Do not add links to your personal blog to any article on Wikipedia. Your personal blog is not a reliable source for anything (see WP:RS, in particular WP:RSSELF) and it's not an appropriate external link to be adding anywhere (see WP:ELNO point 11). Meters (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is this article designated stub class?

New-York Central College: I want to remove the stub classification, but can't find what to remove. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC) deisenbe (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There are two separate stub features: stub templates on the article and |class=Stub in WikiProject tags on the talk page. New-York Central College doesn't have stub templates but Talk:New-York Central College has four |class=Stub. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Deisenbe: do you mean the WikiProject classifications on the article's talk page? The article itself does not have a stub template, but I see that the WikiProject banners on the talk page all say "Rated Stub-class". That classification can be changed if you edit Talk:New-York Central College and change "class=Stub" in the project templates to some other grade. The grades are described at Wikipedia:Content assessment. Hope that's what you meant? --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it exactly. deisenbe (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

what is south african emotional history

 Solby wolby (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Solby wolby: Welcome to the Teahouse, a place to get help with using or editing Wikipedia. If you have a question about a particular article, you can ask at the article's talk page. For more general topics, you could try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Copy right ? //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/m30_morter

I am using several military technical weaponry descriptions from Wikipedia articles for my book, being carful not to use any artistic views just the technical information about the subject. Can I use this information with out citation from the sources and copy rights of articles? Is their a Wikipedia copy right or citation that I need to use?

George Louisuhl (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Louisuhl, text on Wikipedia is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Therefore, if you copy text from the page, you will also have to release under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. You can read more here: WP:CC BY-SA and WP:REUSE

@Louisuhl: Welcome to the Teahouse! You might also want to read the suggestions at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Instead of citing Wikipedia, you might want to read the books and articles at M30 mortar#References and cite those instead. GoingBatty (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

New articles/pages

Hello there, how long does it take for an article/new page to be published on Wikipedia? I set up a page yesterday but it's saved as a "draft" so far.... Locky1986 (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Locky1986 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You created a draft, not an article. To submit it for review, add {{subst:AFC draft}} to the top,(as you see it when reading this page, without the nowiki tags I placed in the edit window to suppress their function here) and then you can submit it for a review. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Locky1986 I presume this is about Draft:"Who I Am" (Melanie C Song). Drafts most often get to the main article space by being submitted to mteh Articles for Creation process. There they are reviewed by an experienced editor, and if the draft is accepted, it is moved to the main article space. It is also possible for any autoconfirmed user to move a draft directly to the main article space, but then all the strict rules apply without time to refine the draft, and such an article might well be deleted promptly. I do not advise that route. AfC reviews are done by volunteers, and each reviewer picks which items to work on, in no particular order. Some tend to choose the oldest available, some the newer ones, so a review can happen in days or take two to three months.

Please be aware that Wikipeedia only has articles about notable topics, and most individual songs are not considered notable. Notability is most often demonstrated by citing multiple independent professionally published reliable sources that discuss the topic in significant detail. See our guideline on the notability of songs for more detail. In the draft you created as it now stands, there are several cited sources: a potify link, which will not help establish notability; an interview with the singer, which is notm considered independent and so does not help either; a Rolling Stone article which is of some help but is a bit on the short side for the purpose; an official video which is not independent and so does not help with notability; YouTube versions of the song which are not independent; a Yahoo news article which seems to be essentially an interview; and two chart listings which will have some value. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why did my Wikipedia edit get removed?

Why did my contribution edit recently get eliminated or eliminated? Nazeerahabdulrahman (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Nazeerahabdulrahman, it is considered improper to add references to articles written by yourself when there is no need to do so (i.e. the content is already properly cited). Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. --MrClog (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Nazeerahabdulrahman: It was removed as ref spam according to the edit comment. Courtesy link [[8]] It appears to be a link to a paper you wrote. You should put an WP:EDITREQUEST on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to here. Please I'm have regarding on how to publish Article, biography etc in Wikipedia. I publish a biography of one responsible international professor, but I don't know how the biography will be confirm on Wikipedia.

Article content

Tyler L. Adam (born 8 August 1968) is an American as well as international academic and media scholar. Birth and academic career Tyler L. Adam was born on 8 August, 1968. He was educated at the University of Florida (B.A. in Communication studies, 1990), M.S. in Communication Theory in 1992, and the Florida State University (Ph.D. in Communication & Educational leadership, 1995). He is an organizational specialist. He was a D'Aquin Endowed Professor of Communication at the University of Louisiana from 2006 to 2013, and was an assistant and associate professor of Communication at the University of Louisiana from 1998 to 2006. He began his career as a full time instructor in 1993 with the University of Arkansas at Monticello. Later life and career He has focused on internationalizing his professional network, thereby expanding his academic perspective. He held several appointments because of this global shift. Currently, he is in Dubai as Dean of Media and Mass Communication at the American University in the Emirates, located in the the smart city tech hub of silicon Oasis. Previous to that, he was in Nassau, The Bahamas as Dean of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning at the university of the Bahamas. He was also in Mexico City as a Distinguished Foreign visiting professor at Monterey institute of technology (2017-2018). As well, he was also based in Kuwait city at the Gulf University for science and technology as professor of mass Communication (2015-2016). He was also vice Dean at The University of Business & Technology in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (2013-2014). He also taught in Pescara, Italy, as Da Vinci Fellow of Strategic communication at D'Annunzio University (fall 2012). While on appointment in central Asia as a CIES Fulbright senior specialist, he was selected of Academic Affairs at the Kazakhstan institute of Management, Economics, and Strategic Research (2011-2012). From 2004 to 2010, he was the graduate studies director at University of Louisiana, where he mentored numerous graduate students into top Ph.D. Programs. In 2006, he was a JSA professor of Communication at Yale University. He was also a McGee fellow at specializing in New Communication Technology (NCT). During summer, 1997, he was appointed as visiting scholar at St. Benet's Hall at Oxford university. As well, he was a Debate Coach at the Florida State University from 1990 to 1993, a champion debater at the University of Florida from 1988 to 1990. REFERENCES 1. https://tyadamsphd.com/ https://www.globallisteningcentre.org 3. https://wcsajournal.com/editor-in-chief/ http://www.rogueoperativepress.com/ 5. https://wcsajournal.com 6 https://fulbrightspecialist.worldlearning.org/ 7. https://www.amazon.com/Electronic-Tribes-Virtual-Shamans-Scammers-ebook/dp/B003QMMHVY/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=tyrone+adams+book&qid=1589641370&sr=8-3 8. https://www.amazon.com/Competent-Communication-Work-Strategies-Standards/dp/075755217X/ref=sr_1_15?dchild=1&keywords=tyrone+adams+book&qid=1589641404&sr=8-15 9.https://www.amazon.com/Internet-Effectively-Beginners-Guide-World/dp/0321304292/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=tyrone+adams+book&qid=1589641404&sr=8-7 10. https://www.ub.edu.bs › 2018/11

spintronics: the dawn of quantum computing ... - University of The Bahamas Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abbas Kwarbai: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you would like to write an article on Tyler L. Adam, please go through the process over at WP:YFA and create a draft for the article. Please also take a look at WP:EASYREFBEGIN as your sentences must be cited to your references as shown. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abbas Kwarbai: I see you already have a draft at Draft:Tyler L. Adam. Please review the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people) to determine if he meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called "notability". If he does, gather independent reliable sources and summarize what they say. GoingBatty (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the positive response GoingBatty, I have gone through the notability, and found he is notable to be here in Wikipedia. And the links I used all response to content, so what should I expect now? As in, how many days now should I expect for publication on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How many days does it take to publish Article/biography on Wikipedia. Please someone should help me to edit the biography of Professor Tyler L Adam which is already on draft

FYI

 – Section merged from below by —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC).

Please I need to someone to assist me to review my article ( biography of Professor Tyler L Adam) and I want to know how many days will takes for publication Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome top the Teahouse your draft Draft:Tyler L. Adam has not yet been submitted for review, but before you do submit, please be aware that we need in depth independent sources to establish notability and Amazon is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Borrowing instructions from another host here - You created a draft, not an article. To submit it for review, add {{subst:AFC draft}} to the top,(as you see it when reading this page, without the nowiki tags I placed in the edit window to suppress their function here) and then you can submit it for a review. However, if you submit it as it now exists it will be declined, because references need to be embedded in the text. See instructions on how to reference WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Once submitted, it takes days to weeks, sometimes months, for a reviewer to act on the draft. An alternative is to make the draft an article yourself. If you do this, I can assure you that the article will then either be reverted to draft or else nominated for deletion. It needs improving. David notMD (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

ADMIN HELP NEEDED: Much of content of draft appears to have been copied from https://wcsajournal.com/editor-in-chief/ David notMD (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

NOT NEEDED ANYMORE: Draft nominated for Speedy deletion because of copyright violation. David notMD (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding information about Formula season 2018

Hello Wikipedia,

I had a question about editing. I have been trying to ad some additional information and some subtle changes. But It has been corrected again. I was asked to give a credible source so I gave the source. but it was again deleted and restored back to before.

What Am I doing wrong here?

Kind regards Baeron. Baeron28 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Baeron28. I see you have applied the same edit three times to 2018 Formula One World Championship, and SSSB has reverted it each time. I know nothing about the subject: I don't know whether you are right, they are right, you're both right, or it's a matter of interpretation. But I do know that the way for you to proceed is to open a discussion on the article's talk page Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship, and try to reach consensus with the other editor. Please see WP:BRD --ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Baeron28: it's an interpretation error and this is my bad for not explaining it in my most revert.

Where f1.com lists NC we put something more specific (DNF, DNQ etc.) So where it says DNF in the source you cited that doesn't correspond to DNF at 2018 Formula One World Championship. Instead the DNF in the source is is referenced in the article by the dagger which indicates a note which says something along the lines of "driver did not finish but is still classified as he completed 90% of the race distance".

The finishing places which we use in our (WP:F1's) articles (and therefore the results matrices) corropsond to the column on the far left of the source you cited, ([9]) the column which says a time or DNF is then used to determine if the note:"driver did not finish but is still classified as he completed 90% of race distance" applies to drivers who were given a number in the far left column, in this case it does. Hope this is a helpful explanation and apologies for not being clearer earlier.
SSSB (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi how do I allow people to hoover over my name and get information on myself to do with acting

Hi how do I allow people to hoover over my name and get information on myself to do with acting Andy Parkers (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andy Parkers: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, not a social media network. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged per our autobiographical policy as it is extremely hard to write factually about oneself. Perhaps LinkedIn, Facebook, or Instagram would suit your needs better? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

John Henshall (Photographer) – could I please seek advice on the issues and deletions?

How can I retain the hard work I did in getting the 'John Henshall (Photographer) submission onto Wikipedia? The facts that were put up were factually true and cleared with the man himself. What evidence do you need – please? Also, there was no financial implication in any way. I can provide further detail and advice as to why I felt that John deserved an entry – especially as he received an Honourary MA from The University for the Creative Arts. There was a link to the oration speech if you care to look. I would like to get it right – so any helpful advice would be welcomed?

The link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henshall_(photographer) White.BS (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You wrote as an Edit summary "All information is correct and is confirmed from John himself." The editor who removed all the content did not contest its truthfulness, only the lack of published references in support of the factual statements. What John says (to you or in interviews) is not considered a reliable source. David notMD (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Separately, you have been asked on your Talk page to explain your connection to John_Henshall_(photographer). Do you know him personally? Are you working on this article for him? Are you being or have been paid or otherwise compensated? Please cease editing until you address this. David notMD (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Receiving an honourary MA from The University for the Creative Arts would not make anyone notable in Wikipedia terms and the fact that you gave the oration speech implies that you have a conflict of interest which you need to declare. Theroadislong (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Oisso Sabas

Nyakunga (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nyakunga: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about how to edit Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Protecting A page

Resolved

 – OP directed to WP:Requests for page protection. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Greetings seniors, I have come across a page which was unnecessarily edited regularly and some editors have deleted the content regularly requesting you to let me know can we protect such kind of pages and if yes what are the criteria for doing that.--Thoufiq313 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Thoufiq313 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thoufiq313: All details can be found at WP:Protection policy and requests can be made at WP:Requests for page protection.
SSSB (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You will see that Draft:Sri Niranjana Swamy was given move protection to protect against the move war in which you were involved. The draft can be submitted for AFC review, rather than being moved prematurely to mainspace without review. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph Sir, Thank you for the information, Point noted Sir. The page Draft:Sri Niranjana Swamy was edited regularly but not yet approved requesting you to enlight me on the issue so that I can fix the problem.

SSSB Thank You Sir, The information was Useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoufiq313 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Help to edit Evidence-based education

I would like to make some significant edits to this page but want to be respectful of the other editors. I think the charts should be removed because they have no date, are not verifiable, appear to be out-of-date, and are too difficult to keep up-to-date. I would replace them with other information that would allow the reader to find the current information they may want. See my comments on Talk:Evidence-based education. I have reached out to two former editors but have not received a reply as yet. The article also needs an introduction and new information to make it more accurate and current. Can I just go ahead and make the changes, or is there some other protocol? Thank you. John (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jnhmunro: I see that you posted on both Talk:Evidence-based education and Talk:Scientifically based research. Some suggestions:

• You could add {{Merge}} to the top of both articles to help advertise your suggestion.
• You could consolidate the discussion on one talk page. To do so, you can have both {{Merge}} templates point to one of the talk pages, and then add a note to the second talk page pointing to the first.
• You could also post your draft on a separate page, such as User:Jnhmunro/sandbox, and provide a link from the talk discussion to your draft.

Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do as you suggest. John (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Citing Pages in a Multi-Page Document vs. Only Including Said Pages in a Subset Document

I have an instance where an outside source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promessa_Organic) has suggested including a cover letter and only certain pages (Page 77 and 79) in a .pdf file documenting a 'Proof of Concept' test relating to promession (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession), and I am questioning the validity of that approach, as opposed to citing those pages in the reference in the (existing) WP article, but including the whole document in a .pdf. The whole document is currently of undetermined length (I just haven't asked how long it is) and was written by an external company to the outside source. The .pdf document (whether the 3-pager or the whole thing) would be stored by Promessa and referenced by a URL in the WP article. The problems with their approach, as I see it, include:

• The pages in the current short .pdf document mainly contain images of a test result, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of other images that may give conflicting test results.
• WP users wanting to validate information relating to the test can't see any (unknown) context around the test that may or may not be in Pages 1-76, 78 and 80-end.

Basically, I think the whole document - currently only in paper form as I understand it - should be converted to a .pdf and included by Promessa.

ADDENDUM: What a complete and utter waste of time Wikipedia's archiving bot (Munninbot) makes of this Teahouse sometimes. It archived my question (above) "because there was no discussion for a few days" when I entered it on May 14 and it's only May 16 now (i.e. a "couple of days" is not "a few days"). I'm dealing with a company in Sweden re this matter and am waiting on a related response to an email I sent to them on the 14th, Marchjuly's first response gave me lots to look up, I'm not full time on this and I sleep sometimes. And why is MY question archived anyway? I see questions that have been dormant since May 10! What's the hurry re archiving after only 2 days (or even "a few days" when the last response has questions)? Timing of this bot should be corrected. BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly's response from Archive added by BrettA343.

Hi BrettA343. Your question seems to be a mix of multiple questions involving various policies and guidelines, so I'm not sure what you're trying to ask or where to start. Sources cited in Wikipedia articles need to meet WP:RS and not be WP:UNDUE. If a source is deemed reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, all that it needs to be is published and accessible so that anyone who wants to verify the accuracy of the source can do so. The source doesn't need to be readily available online and it can even be behind a WP:PAYWALL or otherwise cost a fee to see as long as it can be verified by someone who wants to do so; so, there's no need to upload an entire document or link to an entire document for verification purposes as long as it's possible to verify in other ways as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. Being available online and in its entirety certainly makes a source easier to assess, but it's not something that's required. Finally, official documents, etc. often fall under WP:PRIMARY and although they can sometimes be cited, there are limitations to how they can be used. So, the first thing you might need to do is assess the reliability of the source itself and determine whether it's a PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source based on the the way its being used. The place to discuss such a thing would be on the relevant article's talk page or at WP:RSN. Once it's be determined whether the source is reliable, then perhaps the next thing to figure out would be to how best cite it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) Has the document been published by a reputable publisher, BrettA343? If not, the article probably shouldn't be citing it at all. It doesn't matter whether a resource is online or not: what matters is that it has been published, so that in principle (eg via a major library) a reader could obtain a copy.

Certain information can come from the subject's own website (see PRIMARY), but it doesn't sound as if the information in question is appropriately sourced, from your description. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: It appears that the bot that archives this page is Lowercase sigmabot III. It looks at the User:MiszaBot/config at the top of the Teahouse code, which is set to archive after 48 hours of inactivity. You mentioned that there are discussions that haven't had activity since 10 May that haven't been archived. I think part of the issue is that the #Deletion of file section was not signed properly. I've added {{unsigned}} to that post, in the hopes that the bot will archive a lot of the old discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: The discussions last updated on 10 May have now been archived. Thanks for bringing the problem to our attention! GoingBatty (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Discography

In an article about a piece of music we often add a discography. Recordings are provided with a date (year). Do we prefer the recording date or the (original) release date of the recording? e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Concerto_(Brahms)

Thanx for helping! MMenz (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@MMenz: From perusing Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style, it appears we use release date. GoingBatty (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

how do i undo edits?

how do i undo edits?

FYI

 – Merged section below Hillelfrei ^talk 02:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I made some edits and didn't know i had accidently deleted image/table. i don'y know how to fix it. I need to "undo" those changes. Digig0th (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Digig0th: You can access the page history on the top right, and you will see an "undo" button by each edit. Hillelfrei ^talk 02:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

New fact for Jennie Kim fanpage (with source)

Hello, on Jennie Kim's Wikipedia page it's shown that Jennie's only Music Video Filmography was her SOLO Music Video. Yet Jennie also starred in GD's Music Video to 'THAT XX' (year:2012 title:THAT XX director:Han Sa Min( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Dragon_videography ) role:female lead role) [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j57IzkTFnT8 ] which is clearly written in her Wikipedia page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennie_(singer) [On September 1, Jennie made her first public appearance as the lead actress in G-Dragon's music video "That XX" from his solo album, One of a Kind.]] yet not included in the Music Video Filmography. Please fix that if you can. :) The fact is also included on That XX official Wikipedia page [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_XX [The music video features G-Dragon playing two parts: himself, and the cheating boyfriend of the female character (played by Jennie from Blackpink).]]  Xlivrey (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Xlivrey: Welcome to the Teahouse! Please note that Jennie (singer) is an encyclopedia article, not a "fanpage". Please post your suggestions to improve the article on the article's talk page: Talk:Jennie (singer), along with any independent reliable sources you have. Thanks for your interest in keeping the article up to date! GoingBatty (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Please how many days or hours does it take to publish article/information/biography/ history in Wikipedia.

Please I want to know how many days does it take get confirmation of one's article publish in Wikipedia. How did the reference reviewed please. Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abbas Kwarbai: Welcome back to the Teahouse! When you submit a draft article, it could be several weeks before it is reviewed and you receive feedback. For more information, see Wikipedia:Drafts. GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abbas Kwarbai: When discussing articles, please provide a link so others can better assist you. If this and your other question below are regarding Draft:Tyler L. Adam, please see your talk page at User talk:Abbas Kwarbai#Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Tyler L. Adam. The draft was deleted because it appears to have been copied directly from another site in violation of copyright laws. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the wisdom behind writing Retrieved in any article

How can my article be received ? Can I use books from Amazon as a reference. For example the biography my self, can I use books that I'm their author as a reference? Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back, Abbas Kwarbai.

Books from established publishers can usually be used as references but not books from vanity or self-publishing outfits.

When you are editing Wikipedia, you should not be citing your own works, at least not through direct edits. You can make an edit request on the talk page of an article where you think citing a work of yours would be helpful, but let an uninvolved editor make the decision. We're working towards an encyclopedia that does not involve self-promotion or self-dealing on edits, as much as possible. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft getting rejected again and again

Can someone look at this draft which I have edited again and let me know why it gets rejected ?

Hello Sir, hope you're all doing well. My question is I am trying to make a page for an Indian Cinematographer, but the draft get reject again and again, Can someone help me out with this draft please? I'm new to wikipedia edits. Thank you so much. Here is the draft: Draft:Vishnu Sarma -- Kjsarat (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kjsarat: Have you read the detailed messages left for you, most recently at User talk:Kjsarat#Your submission at Articles for creation: Vishnu Sarma (March 24)? Have you read the pages that are linked (blue-colored) in them? Do you have specific questions about how your article relates to those guidelines? Writing a Wikipedia article is one of the hardest things you can do here. I can't imagine trying to do it without having gained a lot of experience making improvements to existing articles. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft has been declined (not rejected) twice. The reviewer left notes and links to guidelines. After the last decline, you have not made any major improvements to the draft. I see the problem as that your references are only very, very short mentions of Sarma being a cinematographer, and thus do not establish his notability vis-a-vis Wikipedia's criteria. David notMD (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi,

I'm trying to make a userbox. I have edited WP before, but I only made this account a couple days ago. I understand that you have to make a page in a User namespace (either yours or UBX's) to put the userbox in but because I'm not autoconfirmed yet, I don't have page creation rights. Due to this, I submitted a draft for review from my sandbox to be published under the title 'User:UBX/CGPGreyCatan' but it got declined saying that it was blank but it does has a userbox on the page. Have I done something wrong, or is my sandbox just not working?

Thanks in advance for the help, Giraffer (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Giraffer, welcome to the Teahouse. You used a process for submitting articles. There is no article on User:Giraffer/sandbox so it was treated as a blank submission. Page creation is limited by namespace. I think you can create User:UBX/CGPGreyCatan directly. Otherwise you will be autoconfirmed in two days. "This user is still waiting for the Settlers of Catan video..." is cryptic and sounds like a possible error when no such thing is mentioned in the link target. A Google search shows a connection but few readers will get it. If you don't want others to use the userbox then you can place the code directly on User:Giraffer. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll wait until I'm autoconfirmed to manually create it and then I'll get rid of the link to the article. Giraffer (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Images with incorrect copyright attribution

I've found images in an article I'm editing that do not have the correct copyright tag. What are the rules about reuploading these images with the relevant tag? Robbiegibbons (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robbiegibbons - maybe this may be of use for you Image_use_policy#Copyright_and_licensing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

What if the topic that you are writing about is worthy of having a Wikipedia page, but there aren't enough sources? For Draft:Nitro Type, everything mentioned was self evident just by going to nitrotype.com. Anything that you couldn't learn from there I sourced as well. Nitro Type is a really big site, with millions of races each day, so it seems wrong that it would get declined because of not enough sources. Could you guys maybe reconsider please? Apparently I am not the first to try and write a Wikipedia page on the matter, so it seems like others are running into the same problem. DVORAK Typer (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC) DVORAK Typer (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

HiDVORAK Typer, User DGG declinded your draft, perhaps you contact him directly to clarify what the reasons for the declination might have been. Reasons for the declinations are giving in the infobox on the Draft Page - looks like your draft reads like an advertisement and this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Have a look over here: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DVORAK Typer. Indeed you are not the first: many many people who come here do not understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. In order to be a neutral encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is basically not interested in what a subject says about themselves: it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. So, while certain non-controversial factual information may come from Nitro Type's own website, the bulk of any article about it must come from sources wholly unconnected with it, and only such sources contribute to its notability. --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DVORAK Typer. Currently Draft:Nitro Type does not include any Independent sources at all. Such sources Are essential to establish the notability of the topic. All cited sources now are to nitrotype.com, or nitro-type.fandom.com/wiki. Might add that a fan wiki is pretty much never a reliable source here, and simply should not be used. Also the draft as it now stands is far too detailed for the subject. Wikipedia is not a game guide or how-to manual for games or software of any kind. It is also not for promotion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Your first sentence ... worthy of having a Wikipedia page, but there aren't enough sources is a contradiction, revealing a mis-understanding. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (a WP:TERTIARY source), it doesn't have articles that are directly about subjects. Instead, it summarizes what independent reliable WP:SECONDARY sources have written about the subject. If those sources do not exist in sufficient number and with sufficient detail and depth, a policy-conformant Wikipedia article cannot exist because it would have no (or insufficient) useful content. There is no concept of "worthy of having a Wikipedia page" as a value judgement (which we would not be worthy to make); it's all about WP:NOTABILITY, as evidenced by sources. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that all makes sense. But how can a page like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Middle-earth_characters exist? There are literally no sources, and nothing that could not be learned just by reading Lord Of The Rings. I am literally a huge fan of LOTR, and think it should be allowed to be an article; which it is, but I mean really? However, this journey has actually been in a way encouraging. I had always though that Wikipedia was literally terrible, but it truly is hard to make an article, you guys really care about credibility. DVORAK Typer (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@DVORAK Typer:List of Middle-earth characters is allowed to exist without sources because it consists of links to articles about the characters, each of which has sources. That means each character has been written about enough by people unrelated to the author.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 14:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My draft

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rajesh moturu

My article is in the draft how the article will publish like how many days it gonna takes time for publish Abhi.rajesh (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Abhi.rajesh. You have not submitted your draft for review, so it will never be published until you do. However, there is no point in submitting it, because it has no chance of being accepted. You have headed it "profile", and that is exactly the problem: it is written in promotional language appropriate to a profile. But Wikipedia does not contain profiles: not one. It is an encyclopaedia, and its articles are neutrally written summaries of what independent published sources have said about notable topics: nothing else. Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia, and writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you are or become notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word), then somebody will eventually write an article about you. It will not be your article, you will have no control over it, and it will not necessarily say what you would want it to say: your role in it will be limited to makeing suggestions for edits.

If you want to help us improve Wikipedia, you are most welcome; but I advise you to give up the idea of writing a new article for some time - until you understand how Wikipedia works. When you think you are ready to create a new article (preferably not one about yourself), please study Your first article carefully, as well as the other links I have given above. But creating a new article, even where you don't have a conflict of interest is very difficult, and you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing time if you do so at present. --ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

submit article for review

Hi,
As a newbie in Wikipedia I have a very basic question, that I seem not to find an answer to. I finished writing an article (in my sandbox) and want to submit it for review so it can be published, but I see no such link/button.

Thanx, Danishom (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Danishom, don't worry, please have a close look at Help:Your_first_article#CreateyourDraft ... you just have to add the Submit tag {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft+Publish Changes to submit it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Danishom, by the time I got there, the button had already been added. I would like to note though, that, as a biography of living person, the article requires inline citations, in order to be accepted. Please consult WP:REFB and add citations to reliable sources for all claims made in it (WP:V). Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Seconding that without references, User:Danishom/sandbox will be declined. David notMD (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Danishom. I have added a header to your sandbox with a submit button. However, I advise you not to pick that button yet, because your draft is unreferenced. Every single claim in a Wikipedia article should be dsourced to a reliable published source; and while it is not compulsory to cite the source for everything, reviewers will probably not accept a draft - especially a biography of a living person - without extensive citation. While your draft is well-written and well laid-out, I suspect you have made the same mistake as countless other new editors, and written from what you know, rather than from the sources. Original research is not permitted in a Wikipedia article, and that includes any information not previously published.

I also note that you have uploaded all the photos in the darft, claiing them all as "own work". In most countries the copyright in a photograph is with the photographer unless there is an agreement to the contrary; so I am a little dubious about the copyright status of some of these. It also makes me wonder if you might have a conflict of interest in writing about this subject. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Verifiable sources for living person

Hi,

As a first timer, I am not sure how to add to a thread (edit the sources?), so I am opening a new Q. 1. As was suggested by a user, I added a {{AFC submission|||ts=20200518150434|u=Danishom|ns=4}} but it displayed the above but no submit button
2. More important, I am writing a article about a living (89 years old), globally renowned scientist and innovator.
I am told that ALL content will require inline citations to independent reliable sources.
If I am writing about his childhood and his years through WWII, how does one get independent reliable sources? e.g. if the house he lived in was bombarded by the allied forces, do I need a reliable source for that? If he was arrested and jailed by the Czech communist regime, do I need to go into the archives of the judicial system of Czechoslovakia from 1948? Do I need to present a birth certificate to prove that he was born in Budapest in 1931, as appears in the article?
This all seems highly improbable

Thanx Danishom (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Any material for which you can't provide a reliable source should be removed from the draft. Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. The advice you received from the editor who added the submit button was "I advise you not to pick that button yet, because your draft is unreferenced", so your draft will obviously be declined.. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have put nowiki tags around the submission template in this question, because your edit had submitted this Teahouse page for AFC review. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Lparrty?

2600:1700:3542:A30:ED21:6433:F1EB:BC22 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP. What is your question? Hillelfrei ^talk 15:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft procedures

I've noticed lately that a lot of drafts are being moved into the article namespace by the authors themselves. Most of the time they're not ready for prime time. When I see them, should I move them back to draft? Fuddle (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fuddle: hello! Hope you're well. I would say to check it as if it were a new page created in the mainspace. If it's a copyvio or obviously promotional in a way no cleanup will fix, just nominate it for speedy deletion under the right criteria. If you think it will survive AfD (articles for deletion), then leave it be. If not, I would take a look at the behavior of the page creator. If they have show understanding of notability and other guidelines, draftify; otherwise, take it to AfD. Hope that helped, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Note however, Fuddle that no confirmed editor is ever required to use draft space. If an editor who wrote a draft wants to insist on moving that draft to mainspace, and understands the consequences of doing so, it should not usually be moved back against the drafter's wishes. In such a case maintenance tags or even an immediate AfD may be the way to go, but for an AfD one should be particularly careful to do WP:BEFORE and consider WP:ATD. @Rotideypoc41352:. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Citing a source from non-traditional media

Hi, thanks for the invitation to tea-house. I am in the process of re-writing an article that has been poor for years. I have a question regarding adding sources from non-traditional media. Would such sources, such as online simulations, industry professional blogs, other websites, company white papers or articles on pre-print servers be best inserted in the "External Links" or "Further Reading" sections. More specifically, I have a source that is from a non-mainstream publisher, the work itself is useful so I'd like to include it, but I'm unsure about suitable methods... Many thanks. EmdFish123 (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@EmdFish123: Wikipedia:External links has lots of information on what can be linked and what should be avoided. If this doesn't have the specifics you're looking for, you can post the specific URL on the article's talk page and engage other editors in a discussion to determine consensus. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, EmdFish123. If these "non-traditional media" are actually being used as sources, that is, to support factual statements in the article, they should be cited and wind up in the "References" or "Notes" section. "External links" is for online sites that are not being used as sources, but have relevant information. Particularly the site for the subject, or for other people or organizations mentioned in the article. "Further reading" is for publications that were not used to hel;p write the article, and are thuse not being used as cited sources, but which might allow the reader tro learn more about the topic. Thease are often, but not always., printed publications. The question is one of function, not of medium. Cited sources do not have to me from a mainstream publisher provided that thy are reliable and support statements in the article. And if a source is not reliable, it probably does not belong in Further reading either. It might go in External links if a reader needs to understand the content of the site to understand the topic. In particular if the site is a well-known but biased one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you. The source is being used as part of the article, and it is of academic quality, but is not from a publisher that seems to be acceptable by other editors. Their reasoning was cyclical in that it was from a publisher 'deemed' predetary, however that list is now out of date and the publisher does not satisfy many of the criteria that would render it predetary. Further, the status of the publisher shouldn't deminish the article itself if it is of high quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmdFish123 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Writing a new article about a renowned nuclear engineer from USSR

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, but I would like to add an article about Viktor Dmitriev - a nuclear engineer from USSR whose work was key in discovering the cause of the Chernobyl disaster. He is deceased, so it would not be an article about a living person. I have read the guidelines on notability and I will wait until I get more experience editing articles. However, in the meantime, could you please advise on the best way for me to get started? Thank you very much in advance. AnnaBu1985 (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@AnnaBu1985: Welcome to the Teahouse! When you're ready to start an article about Dmitriev, I suggest going through the procedure over at WP:YFA; there is an article creation wizard that will help you create a draft. In the meantime I suggest looking for reliable sources on Dmitriev to build up a good foundation for when you're ready. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello AnnaBu1985, and welcome. Writing an articled from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. Below are some steps that, when followed carefully, often lead to success. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I publish?

Destiny-Dragonets (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Destiny-Dragonets, and welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you are talking about Draft:SeaWing tribe? They answer is that you may or may not be able to publish this draft as Wikipedia, depending on whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Specifically, can you find three professionally published sources where people who have no connection with Sutherland (or their agents or publishers) have written at length - at least three paragraphs - about the SeaWing tribe? If you can find these three (two might do, if they are longer), then you can use them - and write the article entirely from what those sources say, not from what you know; and then pick "Submit your draft for review".

If you cannot find such sources, then I'm afraid the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and any further time you spend on this draft will be wasted, because it will never be accepted.

If you haven't yet read Your first article, I recommend you study it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Destiny-Dragonets: There is already information about these fictional dragons at Wings of Fire (novel series)#SeaWings. Instead of writing a new article, maybe you could help improve this article with additional reliable sources. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note also, Destiny-Dragonets that when writing about fictional topics, that is aspects or elements of a fictional work or series, one must explicitly indicate that the topic is fictional, and not write about it as if it were an actual thing in the real world. See WP:FICTION for more detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Can You Threaten Me Max Linton (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing, Max Linton. I will permanently block you from editing if you ever try to post anything again like the pathetic drivel I've just had to delete from your sandbox. Grow up and go play elsewhere, please. Happy now? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

lol dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 01:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll eat your child Le Panini (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Maths

 Adetolabanjo (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adetolabanjo: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia, perhaps in regards to math? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

What's a barnstar? I noticed that some on some user talk pages, people receive "Barnstars". Clarification? Dragonlover21 (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Dragonlover21 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Barnstars are a way to recognize other Wikipedia editors for their work. There are several different types of barnstars, for various activities. For more information, please see WP:BARN. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Report

How do i report someone who keeps reverting my edit even though i am providing sources and at time provided the same article he posted but also one line he emitted cause he wants to create controversy by being on one side? Truthwins018 (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Truthwins018 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Instead of reporting users, you should first exhaust all possibility of discussion on the article talk page. If such discussion fails to resolve the matter, you should move to dispute resolution procedures. Reporting someone else will result in your own behavior being examined as well(see WP:BOOMERANG) and it cannot be guaranteed that it would end well for you. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, @Truthwins018: never copy text from another site onto Wikipedia. Even if you were right, that action is wrong and worth reverting. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Is quoting part of an article fine?Truthwins018 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Truthwins018: Yes, some sourced quotations are fine - see Wikipedia:Quotations. GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a trial page to print out to work with?

Hi! My name is Jan. Id there a test or trial wiki page form that I can print out to work with so I can familiarize myself with who it looks and where things go?TiBUchon (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC) TiBUchon (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@TiBUchon: If you're looking for a page to test things out, you are always welcome to use your sandbox to try things out. If you would like something closer to an orientation course, try out The Wikipedia Adventure. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Picture of blank wiki page for reference

FYI

 – Merging section with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I am new here and I am in need of a blank wiki page layout for reference while creating my first page. One that will show where all the information should be added to the page. I would like to print it out so that I can look at it as I create the wiki page. Is there one? I have not been able to find one while researching. TiBUchon (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@TiBUchon: I suggest you use Help:Your first article, and refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. GoingBatty (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TiBUchon. I would echo what GoingBatty says: please study "Your first article", and understand that getting the format of an article right, though important, is of far less consequence than getting the sourcing and citing right. Formatting can be easily corrected, but creating an article about a subject which turns out not to be notable is a waste of effort for you and everybody else. --ColinFine (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How to label sections

Hello, I'm JazzClam, an anagram for my real name, but you can call me jazz, or clam, or anything you like really. But ever since I've been wondering how editors are supposed to label sections of an article. for example, somehow i discovered that the Cooley LLP law firm is the law firm for wikimedia is cooley, as far as i know. this is not spoken of in cooley's article, so how would i label this section? or what section would i put it in? Thanks for the help JazzClam (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@JazzClam: If you only have one sentence or even one paragraph, it might be better in the existing History section than in its own section. The best place to ask questions about an article is the article's talk page: Talk:Cooley LLP. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

One more quick question...

Hi, so, my last question was answered quickly, so I decided to ask one more. I was wondering, how do I clear my notifications page? Thanks, Dragonlover21 (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You have asked the same question at the "help desk". Please look for answers there, not here; and in future avoid asking the same question in more than one place. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sugerencia para mejorar wikispecies

Wikispecies está muy bien; pero tiene un problema: para saber de una determinada especie, debes de conocer el nombre de esta; pero, ¿que pasa cuando encuentras un animal y no sabes como se llama?

Wikispecies debería de incluir claves dicotómicas que ayuden a localizar la especie de la que trata a la vez que ayudaría a conocer la diferencia entre especies muy similares. Por ejemplo.

Me encuentro un ave y voy a la entrada "Aves" de wikispecies. Un lugar determinado me pregunta si el ave tiene las patas palmeadas o no; supongamos que sí; entonces me enlaza con las anseriformes. Ahí me pregunta si la membrana de las patas une 3 dedos o 4; si la respuesta es 4, me enlaza con los cormoranes, y así sucesivamente hasta llegar a la especie concreta, donde puedo ver todas sus características.

Le agradecería me enviase un correo de respuesta a (Redacted) para saber si ha leído este comentario y que opina al respecto; pues soy nuevo aquí y no sé si podré seguir este comentario o volverlo a encontrar.

Gracias 87.125.183.232 (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Esta es Wikipedia en inglés, deberías dar ese feedback en Wikispecies. --Esteban16 (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, this is feedback regarding Wikispecies. --Esteban16 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverting

What is reverting and how to revert?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwins018 (talk • contribs)

Truthwins018 A curious question, since you seemed to know what it was when you asked your last question. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes i have an idea of it cause i kept getting reverted but do not understand it fully

Try Wikipedia:Reverting. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How/whether to deal with problematic users

Hi!

Though my user is old, I have only recently become more active in editing Wikipedia, mostly by patrolling the "recent changes" page. There I came across a user making unsourced edits going against the existing sources, Frontier Place. I reverted the edits and warned him, but I kept watching his edits. He is very active, and does a lot of good work, but communicates very little and often makes controversial, unsourced or sometimes outright wrong edits. For example, over the last weeks he has been changing all mentions of "Stockholm Metro" to "Stockholm Tunnel Rail". This seems to me to go against the talk page on Talk:Stockholm_metro, where the conclusion seems to have been to use "Metro", which also seems to be used for most other European (partly) underground public transport systems. He also removed a lot of mentions of the Åland Islands being Finnish, removed mentions of Sweden as a country in favor of the European Union, was banned for 72 hours for sourceless edits of several pages on the coronavirus epidemic, and all of this with basically no communication, sources or public reasons.

It also seems really likely to me that the account belongs to the same person as Linde Place, who was blocked for using sockpuppets to circumvent a ban. Their contributions are extremely similar, and Frontier Place starts editing about two weeks after Linde Place's users were banned. I left a message on the talk page of the user that signed the sockpuppet investigation, CFCF, but he hasn't replied, and is semi-retired.

My question is what to do about users like this? Should I tell someone, and if so, who?

Many thanks in advance for your help! Knuthove (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Knuthove, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have raised at least two distinct issues.

• If an editor makes what you think is an incorrect or ill-judged article edit, or one that violates a previously established consensus for the article, I advise following the Bold, revert, discuss cycle You revert the edit, and then start a discussion on the article talk page, pinging the editor you reverted to invite him or her to the discussion. If possible, engage the editor and try to discuss the reasons why the edits are well-judged or not. Focus on content, not contributors. If the editor refuses to engage, or just repeats the edit and will not listen to or consider discussion, you can pursue dispute resolution. Do not repeatedly revert. In many cases that would constitute edit warring which is never helpful, even if you are correct abnout the content issue. There are a few limited exceptions: These are listed on the page about edit-warring linked above.
• Of an editpor is acting improperly -- making insults or violating conduct policies, raise the matter on the user's talk page first. If mthat does not work, follow the advice in WP:DR on conduct issues. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• If you suspect that a blocked or banned user has returned under a new account, or that one user is operating multiple accounts improperly, go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and follow the instructions there. Do not make such accusations or suggestions anywhere else. Remember that several different editors may have similar editing patterns and interests, unless th4ese are very unusual indeed.

I hope that advice is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you DES! That was helpful. I will read the articles you linked, and probably try to take it up directly with the user. Knuthove (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A final follow up question: When it says on the user page that LindePlace is "blocked indefinitely", and I can't see that he has been unblocked, or that FrontierPlace has indicated that that account is a clean start, then that would mean that if they are indeed determined to be the same person, then it would be a violation of the ban, right? Knuthove (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Knuthove Quite probably, but you can't be sure and have no need to make such a determination. A clean start will not normally be publicly announced or disclosed. In any case that is for the SPI or a possibly blocking admin to determine. Starting the SPI and providing any available evidence is all that you need to or should do in such a matter.

Note that a block is not the same thing as a ban, although banned users are normally blocked. A ban is a determination that a specific person should not edit Wikipedia, for a specific time or indefinitely: it is made by community consensus (often at WP:ANI) or by ARBCOM. A block is a removal of permission settings preventing editing by a particular account, for a specific time or indefinitely, normally made by an admin. A ban may be enforced by a block, but many blocks are not bans. Editing in violation of a ban or block is normally grounds to block the account used to make the edits, and to extend the ban or block on the person making them. A block applies to an account, a ban to a person. However a person whose account is blocked should not use or create another account to avoid the block, nor edit without logging in to9 any account. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

DES, again, thanks! I was not aware of the difference between blocks and bans. I will submit a case to the SPI through Twinkle, and have them take it from there. Knuthove (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixing wordplay

Hello, Is it alright if I changed rather minor things like wordplay/poetic parts of a page? I have done this a couple times now because some pages really don't feel like they are interesting to read. Thank you

Tomas UrBoiDankMeme (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Here, for example, you're not using the term "wordplay" as I understand it. You're not fixing, removing, or adding wordplay. I think you're just asking about rewording. Can you reword for better effect? Yes. Can you reword for added wittiness? Wikipedia is not intended to be witty. Can you remove words that are superfluous? Yes. Can you change words from others' taste to your taste? I'd advise you to do so only after thinking hard. For example, there's nothing wrong with the word though, and changing it to although serves no purpose that I can think of (even if you spell it right). Thus I wouldn't change start to begin or vice versa; but I would change the pompous commence to one or the other of those (unless, of course, it was in a quotation). -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I edit the wiki without getting warning?

I am trying to edit the wiki about 'K-Startup Gran Challenge,' but admins kept send me warnings. I am working for the program. Jhbang321 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If you mean that you are working for the program whose Wikipedia page you are writing about, then stop writing about it. For more detail, please read WP:COI. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jhbang321: However, you can suggest changes to K-Startup Grand Challenge on the article's corresponding talk page: Talk:K-Startup Grand Challenge, provide create your user page with a statement saying that you are working for K-Startup Grand Challenge. I added one on the talk page for you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete My Thing (Wait, What?)

My family determined that I should write an article about My Dream Beside Me, a 2014 film about Mary Kay and Paul Rich. After searching through the only sources, and reading about the notability policy, it doesn't fit the criteria. How can I get this article terminated? Don't worry, I don't mind.

Le Panini (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Le Panini. You can request the deletion of any page where you are the sole or only significant contributor by placing {{db-author}} on the page, preferably at the top. Strictly speaking by posting you have granted Wikipedia a permanent right to use your contributions, even if you later change your mmind. But such a request ius almost always grahnted unless another editor or editors have/has made significant edits to the page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Also...

FYI

 – Merged section with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What's the sandbox? What does it do, and how does it work?

Le Panini (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini. A sandbox is a page used for making test edits, to see what they do and understand how they work. Some users a;lso use it for starting a new draft of an article. A default sandbox is available for every user. Yours, for example is at User:Le Panini/sandbox. You may create additional sandboxes such as User:Le Panini/sandbox2 and User:Le Panini/sandbox3.

There are also testing sandbox pages associated with some templates and a few articles. There are for trying out new versions before making edits in the primary page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Le Panini: The sandbox is a space for you to test wikitext, templates, whatever you like. You can use it as a private space to draft articles. People will leave user sandboxes alone for the most part, so long as the sandbox doesn't have copyright violations or other policy violations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How to write article?

FYI

 – Heading created. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Everyone . How can I write an article that is approved? What type of reference i should use for my articles ? Sogand Kamranii (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sogand Kamranii: Assuming this is about Draft:Tina Akhondtabar, the older version Draft:Tina Akhoondtabar has been declined three times and finally rejected since the person is clearly not notable enough to merit an article. (Other draft and article pages about the same individual have been created and deleted a few times, both before and after that draft was rejected, and a number of different sockpuppet accounts have been involved.) No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I have an article created by another unbiased editor?

I have an article that I feel should be added but I am personally involved in the subject matter. What can I do? Rightventracleleft (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rightventracleleft: If you are personally involved, you should declare your WP:COI on the article's talk page with {{connected contributor}} and on your own user page with {{UserboxCOI}}. Once the draft is fleshed out you should restrict your contributions to edit requests on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What can I do... about having the article created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 05:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Rightventracleleft, the first thing you should do is mention here the name of the article you are proposing.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For posting an Educational article

 DIXIT2306 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to post and article or Educational information to provide better information regarding the Indian youth and for all who need the information.

Https://www.drsarkarinaukri.in is the place where i am shring the information right now.

Hello, DIXIT2306, Your "generosity" in "sharing" a commercial website with Wikipedia goes against Wikipedia's mission, which is not to promote Sarkari Naukri. You don't appear to be here to make an encyclopedia,--Quisqualis (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

DIXIT2306 Please understand that Wikipedia is not for merely providing information or merely educating people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about topics that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My article submission for my own company was decline.

I recently created a page for my own company but it was declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cytron_Technologies. I try to write it from the neutral party, no selling, no promoting, validated references and I follow how my peers writing for their own company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adafruit_Industries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SparkFun_Electronics

I want to know how can I improve the article to be published. is remove the product section works? Engtong (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Engtong: Welcome to the Teahouse. The issue the reviewer had was the tone you used, which is promotional. An example is The product was unveiled in 2018 and managed to run a successful crowdfunding campaign at Kickstarter; emphasis added. There are also details that do not matter to a casual reader, such as where all of them are in purple color PCB and in purple color packaging. There is this sentence: simple design of manual test buttons is the signature feature of Cytron Motor Driver made its [sic] stand out from its rivals, which compares the product to competing brands, and is absolutely not neutral and serves to promote the product. The content under "rero Educator Conference" only speaks to its purpose and does not provide any other details besides that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Engtong, it is pretty hard to write about your company neutrally, no matter how hard you try. It's better to leave it to other, more experienced writers to deal with it and I recommend you edit something totally unrelated. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you ensure that we have good evaluation of sources? Good quality of sources used

How do you ensure that we have good evaluation of sources? How does the Wikipedia experts herein ensure that new editors are thorough with the sources selected before proceeding to the "citations added" section? Habelgmsa (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

All new articles, either at Draft stage or when created directly as an article, are scrutinized by one or more experienced editors who choose to do that sort of work on Wikipedia. The sources used are checked to verify their Reliability and that they actually do support the facts that are being cited to them. Also, these reviewers will check that everything in the article is cited to reliable sources.

In the case of a Draft, the reviewers might themselves add better sources, but if they cannot find such sources they may Decline the Draft, meaning its author is asked to improve it before resubmitting it (other editors can contribute to this). If the author is unable or unwilling to do so after several resubmissions and declines, they may decide that the subject is unsuitable, and Reject the Draft.

If the article is created directly, without going through a draft stage, it will be similarly evaluated, but will likely be judged to a higher standard, and may be changed to a Draft or deleted entirely, depending on its potential or lack of it. Newly created articles are usually reviewed fairly promptly by the New Pages Patrol. New articles are not made visible to the web crawlers that compile search engine indices until they have been approved by the NPP or after 90 days, whichever comes sooner: Drafts are of course never visible to the crawlers.

Some new editors may ask at the Help Desk, Teahouse or Reliable Sources fora such as the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about whether their sources are suitable; I believe most do not, so they are judged as part of the review process.

Once an article has been accepted, various editors interested in its subject will add it to their watchlists, which will alert them every time an edit is made to it so that they can, should they wish, check the edit's quality and any new source it may have cited.

I've doubtless left out some details, which others will, I am sure, add. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.24.23 (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism section within Wikipedia

What is the vandalism section within Wikipedia? Habelgmsa (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Habelgmsa:, hi, sorry what exactly do you mean by this? As in, where would you go to report vandalism, or where our pages on handling vandalism are? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Habelgmsa:. You might find what you are looking for at Wikipedia:Vandalism.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Article wrongly made a draft and put for AfC

An article I created has been made a draft and put for AfC by another user.

The message I received says that it was due to the article not following the Neutrality, Verifiability and Notability guidelines. However, the contest does follow all guidelines and it was already reviewed by a fellow editor/moderator.

The article in question is Satguruma Paramahansa Sadhvi Trideviji

How can I report the unjustified behaviour from this user? Iair.rozen (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Iair.rozen: – while it can perhaps feel as if a move to draft space is some kind of unfair treatment, it is in fact a way of trying to save an article that does not meet the minimum requirements for a Wikipedia article. An experienced editor moved an article you had created, which was nowhere near ready to be part of the main encyclopedia, to Draft space so that you could work on it further. You moved it back to the main encyclopedia without addressing the issues, and now it has been deleted as unambiguous promotion. Important: Please have a look at the note the other editor left for you on your user talk page, where you were asked to declare whether you have a conflict of interest, before you made any other edits. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 08:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user

How do I know that I am an autoconfirmed user? Frankhad (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Frankhad. Well, you aren't one yet, but when your account is 4 days old and you have made at least 10 edits, you will automatically be assigned that user right. You can find what user rights anyone has by going to one of their userpages and clicking 'User contributions'. At the bottom of that page, click the 'User rights' link to view what user rights they have been allocated. (See here for yours). Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Religious Article Problem

While browsing the "Very likely has problems" section of the "Recent Changes" tab. I saw an edit on the Shia Islam Article placing "PBUH" after every reference of Muhammad. PBUH means "Peace be Upon Him". The purpose for the edit was labeled as "Kindly use "PBUH" (Peace be upon him) with the name of holy prophet Muhammad PBUH last messenger of ALLAH. As you writes the name of ISA AS." I am very for properly labeling religious figures, and this is, through a small bit of research, the proper way to label Muhammad. However, this is slightly confusing, as any person visiting this article without knowledge of this fact may be confused by this, taking it for vandalism. Adding PBUH after every reference of Muhammad also makes the link to Muhammad's article turn red, as there is no article named Muhammad PBUH. How should I fix this issue? I think i could fix the problem with people taking the extra "PBUH" by placing a note at the bottom of the article describing that PBUH means "Peace be upon him" and that this is the proper way, or should I just revert the PBUH-ing. And how should I fix the link? Should I remove PBUH in that circumstance or should I place PBUH, outside of the Muhammad link. Like this Muhammad PBUH.

Thanks JazzClam (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@JazzClam: Please remove it if it has been added after the name. This is discussed in the Manual of Style. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:YolBonadea Thank you very much for that, I did not see that in the manual of style

submit article

How do I submit my draft article JKDonehue (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC) JKDonehue (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I submit my draft article : International Law of Maritime piracy. It is completed and I am ready to submit it I can find a 'submit for review' button I have tired the source editor ; writing in {{AFC submission|||ts=20200518123308|u=JKDonehue|ns=4}} but that did not seem to work. JKDonehue (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi JKDonehue I have put a {{draft}} template on the page so you now have a blue button to submit (remeber to publish changes after pressing) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Now at Draft:International Law of Maritime Piracy. I recommend the creator address the comments added to the draft while waiting for a review. David notMD (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please I want to reintroduce Tyler L Adam

I want to reintroduce professor Tyler L Adams to wait Wikipedia. I'm looking for someone to review it. Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abbas Kwarbai: Your draft was deleted for copyright violations. Have you read the note that David notMD left on your talk page? Also if you do have a connection with Adam Tyler or if you are being paid to create the article you must disclose it. See WP:DISCLOSEPAY for more details. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been paid to introduce professor Tyler L Adams. He is my mentor who has being helping me on my researches. So, I'm drafting the Article about him which is not correlate to any website write up about him. Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Abbas Kwarbai: Being your current professor, you clearly do have a WP:COI. That's nothing to be ashamed of - just be open about it and follow the instructions at WP:COI to make transparent your personal knowledge of the subject. You can do this by putting a COI declaration on your userpage. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So yes, you can start over. I recommend you declare your relationship to Adam on your User page and then create/submit a draft via Articles for Creation. The problem with your deleted draft is that you had copied content from websites and pasted that into your draft. To succeed, the facts must be true (and referenced), but the wording yours. David notMD (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

delete entry

How do I delete an entry in the history list? 75.170.42.233 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The only way is to ask an oversighter. See WP:Oversight. --ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

How to delete a hyperlink in my article that I have put in for review.

How to delete a hyperlink in my article that I have unfortunately put in for review.

Draft:Jules Franck Mondoloni Under the heading Publications - Media - Museum collections - Galleries[edit]

Published books illustrated by Jules Franck Mondoloni: Hello: I don't know how to delete this written below. I wanted to change the hyperlink by deleting then replacing, and this is what now appears in my article.

 ,SortField:!n,SortOrder:0,TemplateParams:(Scenario:,Scope:Default,Size:!n,Source:,Support:)))) Filitosa, 1987
,Scope:Default,Size:!n,Source:,Support:)))) Lumières de granite: la Corse à l'aube de son histoire, 1990

My user name is Reknil43 and my article is Jules Franck Mondoloni I need help with my references too. I am 77 years old and find it a daunting task to understand how to correct my mistakes and, such as above "deleting a hyperlink", as well as creating the references that include the pages references. I mistakenly entered my article to be published too soon. I thought that I could still edit it as I did in the sandbox. Reknil43 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

New article

I have made up a new draft article for well-known sportswear company Castore. It is very odd that they do not already have one. A reviewer refuses to approve the article on the basis that the company do not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia, which, for anyone living in the UK, seems patently bizarre when they are the main sponsor of the country's most famous tennis player and the kit provider for one of the UK's biggest football clubs. How can I challenge the decision of this one reviewer? Bluegene18 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)