Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, 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

How to make an article I wrote not seem like promotion

I really hate having to keep doing this (I have incredible social anxiety), but I am an English Teacher in Hanoi.

During the height of COVID-19 measures here, I was without work and had little to do, so my neighbor suggested I write an article about his company (I am a blogger in my spare time), in order to keep myself busy. And for your reference, no, I am not being paid. It was a half-hearted suggestion that I thought was interesting.

So, I spent many hours looking at every resource I could to write my article. I used articles on this site about similar companies in other countries (Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibers) as a reference, in order to keep myself objective and neutral.

So, my article is up for a while and then it gets taken down as a draft for being "Promotional" and "Not detailed enough". I'm very frustrated at this very vague reason, get very upset at my hard work having been upset, and after the user who took it down refused to answer me, I go to User talk:Oshwah and User talk:Yngvadottir to try and find answers for what I can do. I try to be as transparent as possible (I dislike it as it makes me anxious, but I do so anyway because I hate having hard work wasted), and make the article even more detailed. Satisfied with my work, submit it for review, I go off to take a short break and I come back to see it has been rejected almost as soon as I had left my computer with the reason being "Promotional".

So, my question is: What else can I do? Again, I have made every effort to be transparent, have used multiple articles on this site as reference, and have tried as hard possible to use as neutral language as I can.

I had very much wanted to join this community, but with standards that are (to me) very inconsistent and who have people unwilling to answer me, I find it very difficult to justify having to do hours of citation gathering, hours of writing, and hours of proof-reading to make an article. I found this site lacking very much in Vietnamese business (in contrast with other countries), so I wanted to do something, but I find myself frustrated and confused.

What can I do? How can I put my article up? Can someone please explain to me these standards in a way that is simple because I really just want to contribute and not have any of my work put to waste?

I apologize for being rude, but I'm really trying and it feels like only a few people are willing to help me.

Thank you. KyleVietnam (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Rikkeisoft. Created as article, moved to Draft, then Rejected. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

KyleVietnam, it's not easy to write an article here. One of my first articles was immediately deleted after I published it, (not moved to draft, deleted altogether). I actually only wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and had no reason to want to write about one topic over another, so I completely dropped writing about things of questionable notability which could be seen as an effort at promotion. Wikipedia is, of course, not for promotion. For a year, I focused on writing about topics with obvious notability, while I learnt the ropes of various notability and content guidelines. So, if, as you say, you are interested in becoming a Wikipedian, I suggest you choose uncontroversial topics that no one could conceivably be paying you to write about and whose notability is without question also.

As for the draft in question, the notability guidelines for companies is at WP:NORG. You will need to demonstrate with sources that the criteria is met by the topic you are writing about. The article you say you are referencing for guidance is marked as an advertisement as well, by the way. If you disagree with the reviewers and are confident enough that you have satisfied NORG, you can request that the draft be accepted only to be put through a deletion discussion (see WP:AFD). I advised that this was an option to an editor once before, and the outcome was actually in said editor's favour.

Everyone is a volunteer here, and we see a lot of efforts at promoting people, businesses, views and so on. So, speaking for myself, I am happy to help an editor master the skills of writing Wikipedia articles while they write about History or Geography or socio-politics, etc. but I have learnt from experience not to invest in editors who want to first get a living person or a business on Wikipedia. That, those editors will have to figure out for themselves, with only minimal guidance.

If after reading WP:NORG, you have further questions about it, I will happily clarify it for you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me, Usedtobecool

I had no idea how to check if something was an ad or not. I guess it makes sense that this site would be skeptical. What if I did just say my article was promotion? Granted, I'm not being paid for it, but I would like the world to pay more attention to Vietnamese business. I have been here since just before the outbreak and it really seems like it would be nice to put more money into this country's economy. My idea was that if I did this with many different types of large, local companies, it would help make Wikipedia a more diverse site (in terms of Vietnam).

So, in that sense, you could call it a promotion (of Vietnam). But I only want to focus on companies that are big here and which are in the news or Forbes, for example. The economy here is still very small (People often earn less than a dollar an hour for working), so this would really be good for this country, in my opinion. Of course, I want to be objective and fair as much as possible, and I am really trying, but I feel that the world (especially America) doesn't know enough about this country and how modern it is. So, I want to fix that.

Do you have any further advice? KyleVietnam (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@KyleVietnam: I feel like you're approaching this incorrectly. Thoughts like I would like the world to pay more attention to Vietnamese business and it would be nice to put more money into this country's economy are going to focus your contributions and editing towards glamourising Vietnam subjects you write about. You're going to go out of your way to make companies like Rikkeisoft sound appealing. This is great for ad copy, but not for an encyclopedia. You are going to have to separate yourself from your personal feelings about these subjects as much as you can and write just the facts. Stick with neutral verbs. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:Thank you for your feedback. Speaking frankly, that's all fine. I, again, do want to be an unbiased editor. I have no intention of being overly glamorous for the sake of talking about how wonderful it is. But you will notice how I have tried to make it as unbiased in the article as possible (though I won't comment on the more obvious bias on other pages).

I will be frank. This site does not have enough representation. There is not enough diversity, in regards to Southeast Asian subjects, and it could stand to use more. If trying to improve the diversity on this site is a problem, then that feels like it's a race thing and I wouldn't be comfortable working within that environment, especially when I am dealing with subjects, while not notable within the West, are notable within the region itself.

It has been well-established that there is no conflict of interest. If I brush up my article and make it more neutral and just accept that it is "Promotion", can I have it back up? I just want to contribute without having any more problems. KyleVietnam (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@KyleVietnam: Wikipedia (English Wikipedia in particular) has very strict guidelines about what are reliable sources and paid editing (the latter had been a scandal a few years back). This may translate into a dearth of reliable Vietnamese sources or volunteers interested in the scope. While "increasing diversity" is a laudable goal, it is not the goal of Wikipedia: to spread knowledge that has been provided by reliable secondary sources. From the reviewer's comments, making the draft more neutral should resolve the issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

KyleVietnam, yes, there are people who are invested in getting some topics covered over others. That is how we make sure Wikipedia covers a broad range of topics. And, is therefore, to be welcomed. As you already know, I recommend against choosing companies, there are plenty of things undercovered about Vietnam or countries like it. It's ultimately your call, of course, but you ought to be prepared for all the pain of taking the more difficult road also. You can not ask the community to take it easy on you, or relax the standards for company articles from you, since, that is the worst area from which the integrity of Wikipedia is constantly under attack. You will need to figure out first which sources are WP:RELIABLE, and from among them which ones are independent (you should be able to filter out the paid-for pieces in those sources, WP:ROUTINE coverages, press releases from the companies, interviews, etc.) and from among the sources that remain, you'll need to make sure you have enough WP:SIGCOV left to support a standalone article.

Being from Forbes, for example, is not enough. It has to be the case that Forbes covered it because they genuinely thought the topic worth covering, and in their coverage, they presented enough encyclopedic information to support an article. Experienced editors who patrol the new articles and drafts can tell the difference by just reading a few sentences. So, if you are prepared for a baptism by fire, by all means, it's your call, but then it would be unfair to complain that other editors are being rough on you. Finally, be careful about the editor/article distinction. Reviewers called your draft promotional; the fact that, you, the author, would acknowledge a motive for promotion or declare a conflict if any, though a part of the equation is not the be all of whether an article is ultimately too promotional to be in mainspace (I inadvertently manage to write a completely promotional piece about a topic I had never heard of until that day, simply because the sources I was using were all promotional pieces, and I was not experienced enough to judge that fact). When the article is good beyond doubt, articles are accepted irrespective of creators' motives. In the case of your draft, it has no information that a regular wikipedia reader would be interested in. The information there is exactly of the type and format that a company's quarterly/yearly reports would include. It doesn't provide information to the general public, it provides information to potential customers and investors. It's not that that information is never to be included, but with only that, it is not really of any encyclopedic value. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I am neither a new editor, a Teahouse host, or a new pages/AfC person (because I know I am too much of an inclusionist and would just be trying to save all the articles). I've also cut back sharply on my editing since last summer, so I may not be known to some of you, but I've written and improved articles on a very wide range of subjects. I've been trying to help KyleVietnam. I have to say that Wikipedia must not let "what we think the reader will be interested in" become our consideration. That's condescending to the reader: we aim to be more inclusive than dead-tree encyclopedias with editorial boards, not less. It causes unconscious bias to become more entrenched, not to mention causing editors with different backgrounds and interests to drift apart (personally I find video games and almost all popular music deeply uninteresting, and I'm sure most editors find architecture, þættir, and traditional knitting patterns equally unappealing). So we aim for notability, and we let everybody choose what they work on. And we try to encourage coverage of topics on which our existing coverage is weak. Although I understand trying to guide a new editor away from a topic where the gauntlet can be especially hard to run, there is nothing inherently wrong with having articles on businesses; that's why we have a specific notability criterion. There is also nothing inherently wrong with foreign-language sources, including languages that relatively few native speakers of English speak, although I advised KyleVietnam to provide title translations as a courtesy, which is good practise. In fact I agree 100% with KyleVietnam, we should welcome improvement of our coverage of Vietnamese topics, because it is indeed an area where our coverage is poor. The article needs to demonstrate that the business is notable; the most obviously applicable criterion is that it is a major player in its sector in its country, and another is that it has been recognized, in this instance by Japanese companies and press. Beyond that, it needs to reflect what reliable sources have said about it. If that happens to be boring business-type stuff, well, that's what the article should have in it. I cannot trawl through the cited sources looking for press releases, but they appear to me to include major Japanese and Vietnamese news providers, so I think assuming promotionalism is deleterious to the encyclopedia, and I believe KyleVietnam. (I am rather shocked the article was quick-failed with an assumption of bad faith, and had a "stop!" template applied to it that should be reserved for obviously inappropriate drafts and those that have been resubmitted a number of times wkithout meaningful improvement.) Perhaps it would be good if other editors who can read Vietnamese and/or Japanese examined the sources, and so I rather wish KyleVietnam had posted this at the AfC help board rather than the general Teahouse. But please, we should not only not assume bad faith as happened here, we should also welcome an editor who can read Vietnamese and Japanese (and Russian, too) and writes good English, and whatever articles they choose to write. We need such editors and we blatantly need such articles, if only so we reflect a bit less the unconscious biases of editors like me. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, hello! Yes, I have seen your username in discussions before. I don't think I suggested there was anything wrong with writing about business; I only meant to make them aware of the painful reality (because they expressed frustration) that that is the area where we get the most WP:SPAs and spam, and as a corollary, that is the area where page patrollers and reviewers are likely to suspend good faith the quickest, and demand content standards atypical of articles that are just getting started, by new editors to add. My other point about whether the content is of interest to general readers, stems from the fact that the type of corporate facts that "would benefit investors and customers only" are the type of facts available on every single organisation. The fact that we don't indiscriminately cover companies but have a notability guideline means that that kind of information, even if it satisfies WP:V, does not add to notability, again, due to the fact that that's the kind of information you'd expect to be available for all companies. So, whether there is information available, and by extension, included, that's likely to be interest to the general public, is a short-hand to evaluating whether there is the type of coverage that satisfies WP:SIGCOV/WP:NORG. I have seen quality content contributors discuss the general accessibility of an article content with regard to the inherent quality that Wikipedia articles should strive toward (and the notion does find mentions here and there among the content guidelines), but that was not the reason I mentioned it. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sulfurboy, I see that you declined that draft for being promotional. Promotionalism means writing things like "This is the best company", not factually reporting that a company won some awards. In other words, promotionalism is a problem that can be fixed by changing the wording. Can you tell us one sentence that you think needs to be re-worded, and give an example of how you would re-word it?

Also, do you have any serious doubt about whether the article would survive a trip to AFD? The WP:AFCPURPOSE has nothing to do with promotionalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Cool. Thanks for the tips. I didn't know what AfC's purpose was. Facepalm Sulfurboy (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Sulfurboy, do you have any specific examples of what should be improved in this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Mike Greenhaus

Thank you once again for all your help with my article on Journalist Mike Greenhaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Greenhaus) Last week an editor was kind enough enough to give me some feedback and, after some back and forth, they determined that I had enough sources to prove notability (three articles that met the criteria). I added the top 3 to the top of the page as they suggested and resubmitted and another editor immediately declined the article and said I did not have the right sources. This is my first bio so I want to make sure I get it right but wasn't sure what the best next move was Thank you so much for your help Caryplace7 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Caryplace7 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Caryplace7, if two experienced editors are giving you contradicting information, I'd recommend discussing it with the two of them. I could provide a third opinion, but then that would be just that. It sounds like the issue needs discussion among the three of you, not a fourth vote. Do note that a draft review provides an opinion of one experienced editor, not the official judgement of Wikipedia, so there is always room for further discussion and clarification. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much. How do I go about starting a conversation with two editors at the same time Caryplace7 (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Caryplace7: Since this appears to be relevant to the draft itself and not advice in general, I suggest starting a discussion on Draft talk:Mike Greenhaus and pinging the two editors with {{ping}} (← read the documentation) there to notify them both. Just make sure to sign so that the notification goes through. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your advice on how I can go about getting an article published. The editor who denied my request has not responded to my talk page, even after you pinged them. The other editor i brought into the conversation also confirmed again that he verified three independent sources. What would you recommend is the best next step to help the article get published? I have confirmed a number of independent sources, links to other wiki articles and worked to massage the bio itself. I am happy to do whatever is needed but feel a little lost Caryplace7 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You say that "The editor who denied my request has not responded", but I notice that the editor who most recently declined your draft was not one of the two whom you pinged in your message on the draft's talk page. That may be why he/she didn't reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey David. Thank you for speaking with me The editor who rejected my bio did so because they claimed I did not have enough independent sources which I did have. In fact, another editor had already verified that I had 4 independent sources and also verified that there was no conflict of interest. When I brought that up to the editor who denied my post they never reponsded and talk:Usedtobecool was kind enough to oping them to see if they could respond to my concerns. They have not responded in a week. I don't want to resubmit and then get rejected again so I was not sure what the best next step is Caryplace7 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the editor who most recently declined your draft was not one of the two who was pinged on the draft's talk page, so it's not surprising that he/she didn't reply. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is my first biography so please forgive me if I am following the rules incorrectly. While I was in discussion with an editor about the topics I mentioned, I resubmitted which I now realize I should not have done. Is it appropriate to leave a note on the bio I am working on listing that I had gone other and had multiple independent sources verified and that we had any conflict of interest issues vetted already? And, if so, where should I leave that information? Just trying to do things correctly so that I do not get declined again (at least for these reasons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryplace7 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Caryplace7 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Been sanctioned?

Hi. Asking again since posting from a few minutes ago is not in list of asked questions.

So, as a relatively inexperienced editor focusing on Killing of George Floyd article. I learned videos are original sources whose audio/visual info requires RS. Received OR warnings. (Received reporting threat from user that didn't read talk/examine video. Maybe user didn't like info???) Finally understanding, provided RS for an edit 16+/- hrs ago; edit was accepted as DONE; Now I can't access article's talk page or my watchlist. Have I been sanctioned? (After providing an accepted edit with supporting RS?) Thanks for reading the question's preamble, and thanks for the help. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

No you haven't been. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, Pasdecomplot. The first time I got one of those Discretionary Sanctions notices on my talk page I was scared witless! "What have I done?", I thought. The answer was Nothing, except that I had chosen to edit a page on a topic that was currently attracting huge debate, vastly different opinions, and liable to attract lots and lots of disruptive edits. So, for certain very specific topics, we place an alert on all editors pages who have made edits to that topic. It formally advises them that we will tolerate far less disruption (from anyone) than we normally might. So, for example, making more than one revert in a 24 hr period on such a sensitive topic would be far more disruptive there than it would be on a less contentions subject, like the Mona Lisa. So, you've simply got a DS notice; should you subsequently act disruptively, you can't say you weren't warned when you get summarily blocked from editing. There's nothing personal in that notice at all. I would say that getting a DS Notice is rather like the old fashioned British method of 'Reading the Riot Act', although under the terrible situation we have been seeing this week, that metaphor is really rather too close for comfort. Take care, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot The important thing is on the top line of the message you received: "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It just to make you aware of the policies. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: There are a few topics on Wikipedia which are prone to a higher volume of edit warring and controversial edits. Another area is post-1932 US politics. Like Joseph said, it's a form message warning editors planning on participating to not be reckless with their edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you still unable to access Talk:Killing of George Floyd or your watchlist? -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoary Yes. Cannot access talk, can read watchlist but not access posts. (No reply command here either. Direct entering reply in edit function.) -- pasdecomplot (talk) 12:31, 04 June 2020 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

pasdecomplot I can't think of any "reply command". (I'm editing this, now, just as I'd edit anything else.) When you look through your watchlist, it should have links to the articles concerned. When you click on these links, are you not taken to the articles? -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoary wrong nomenclature? The reply command box normally found on pages is not here on this Tea House question. Perhaps my mistake in assuming it should be. pasdecomplot (talk) 13:09, 04 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pasdecomplot: When you say you can't access Talk:Killing of George Floyd do you mean that you can't read it or that you can't edit it? You won't be able to edit that semi-protected page until your account is autoconfirmed, which will be later today. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph cc Hoary Thanks David. I was contributing to the protected article through suggestions, and accessing all functions of talk for follow up, but access was stopped. Thus, I thought something had changed. I look forward to regaining access and contributing. Again, thanks for all the comments and help to the question from all contributors.

pasdecomplot (talk) 13:14, 04 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, pasdecomplot, I took the liberty of looking at your global stats and recent en-wp contributions. It appears that you’re not active on French or Hungarian Wikipedias where they are trialling a new reply tool, and you normally use the mobile web interface with "advanced mobile contributions" (AMC) enabled. The only relevant Reply I can think of is the the one at the bottom of the "non-read-as-wiki-page" discussion view (I have no idea what this is called) after you tap into a topic/section. Is it possible you dropped into "read as wiki page" somehow? Unfortunately, I don’t think they add any tags to distinguish the two different modes. Following on from what David Biddulph said, the George Floyd talk page was protected for two days but is unprotected now, if I’m reading the log right. As Teahouse is in the Wikipedia: namespace rather than Talk:, I’m not sure if the mobile topic view (with its reply box) appears here? Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (10:24 Sun 07, AEST) 00:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

pelagic Hi and thanks. The issue have been related to auto-confirmation as well. Might English Wiki add the AMC interface? At present, I don't have access to some editing tools, nor to undue commands- periodically talk posts appear in duplicate, and undue commands generate errors in hop processes. Possibly the AMC interface would solve these issues. I'll take a look. But do you know whether or not plans are in place? Thanks again. pasdecomplot (talk) 15:15, 07 June 2020 (UTC)

Stigmatizing of some of my contributions

Good morning; I have now and then contributed from my field of expertise, ophthalmology; and have created 5 pages: three about (living) major innovators in ophthalmology, one about a new surgical technique introduced by one of these three and another page on a syndrome described by another of these physicians; a term that has become widely acceepted in medical terminology over the last years.

The pages are: Josef Flammer, Daniel Mojon, Burkhard Dick, Flammer syndrome, Minimally invasive strabismus surgery

These 5 contributions have been marked with a COI notice by a major "Wikipedian" who goes as Doc James. I have tried to make clear that I do not have any connection to these individuals other than knowing them (ever eye doctor in Europe and many in the rest of the world do), have not worked for them, do not work for them etc. To no avail. The stigma - yes, that's what it is - remains on these pages and, frankly, it is a blot on the reputation of these scientists ! My declaration of having no conflict of interest on talk pages elicited no reaction, Doc James did not anser my emails. This is very frustrating and tempers the motivation to do something on Wikipedia EN. I would apprecitate your advice. Is there some place on W where I can file something like a complaint ? Best 15:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)George G Milford (talk)

As you are the person who created the articles, not appropriate for you to remove the COI tags, even if your connection to the people and topics are related to your shared profession, and you have attempted to contribute via neutral point of view. You were correct in stating your lack of close connection on the Talk pages. In time, other editors with add/subtract to the articles, and in time an editor will decide the tags should be removed and will do so. A COI tag does not disparage either the creator/contributor nor the content of the article. It only cautions readers that the article may have conscious or unconscious bias because of the creator/contributor's connection to the topic. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: is there any reason you posted about referencing on George's userpage, rather than on his talk page? That seems most unusual. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@George G Milford: Just adding a big "thank you" for wanting to bring your expertise and knowledge to Wikipedia, and please don't in any way feel "stigmatized" by someone putting that notice on an article that you created. (It's even worse when someone puts it up for deletion on the grounds of non-notability - I know, as it has happened to me and to probably to every other experienced editor who has been around for some time here.) Just to reassure you: our Conflict of Interest page states right up at the top: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." But I do tend to agree with you that, at first sight, none of the articles you created or edited seem biased towards promoting someone or something, though, as suggested above, it is best if you let other editors remove the COI notice in due course. And I also agree with you that it is unlikely that anyone without specialist knowledge of some very technical areas is ever going to write about them with any competence. In my own capacity as an experienced editor, but a non-geologist, I have currently 'adopted' a retired professor of marine geophysics and we have worked together, with me helping them understand how we edit here so as to encourage them to mobilise the maximum knowledge with the minimum of pain. I've guided them in how to declare on their userpage (see here) their own specialist connection with people they know or the areas of their work they have contributed to; I'd be happy to show you how to do that too, if you would like me to. It really is nothing to feel insulted by, and declaring that one knows someone who one is writing about is perfectly OK, and quite normal. It takes just a few moments of adding a little template code to one's userpage to ensure full openness.

Finally, it's worth saying that directly emailing another editor is unlikely to elicit any more response than pinging them directly in a discussion. (One does have to include the other user's name and sign the post correctly in the same edit if they are to know that you've replied to them. See this for how notifications work). As you've probably also realised, Doc James, is a practicing ER doctor, so I think they can be forgiven if they missed seeing your replies, or were simply too busily engaged elsewhere to respond. If you're willing to leave it a while longer, I'll take a look at each of the articles you mentioned in more detail and see if we can resolve some of this. It would also be good to improve your citations, especially as including hyperlinks to the online articles really helps other people find the sources more efficiently, and would be a good thing to see in your future contributions here. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC).  

Thank you so much Nick Moyes, your advice is much appreciated ! Best George G Milford (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In answer to Nick's question, I commented on George's User page because my comment there did not have anything to do with his question here. David notMD (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand your answer to Nick's question. Isn't George's user page the place for him to tell us about himself or his Wikimedia-related activities, and his user talk page the place for other editors to communicate with him? Have I misunderstood? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Of course I meant to leave my comment on his Talk page. Have moved it there. David notMD (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@George G Milford: we'd define a close connection as (a) knowing the people personally or (b) personally using a niche procedure or (c) citing your own work. Do any of those apply? Guy (help!) 08:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Guy as stated above: in a small field like ophthalmology, most of those who are active - like attending meetings and conventions while this was still possible - know most of those who contribute, invent, research. And you talk to them during the break etc. That's the "knowing personally". BestGeorge G Milford (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

George G Milford, understood. Small pond, not that many big fish. So be conservative, post the content on Talk first so others can have a look, and that fixes the problem. Guy (help!) 16:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"As you are the person who created the articles, not appropriate for you to remove the COI tags" I thought we'd put this canard to rest a long time ago.

A cursory examination shows that at last one of the articles has nothing on its talk page to comply with the long-standing, present-by-consensus, requirement (highlighting in original; and present there for obvious reasons) "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article"; that warning is immediately followed by the equally-long standing notice: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning".

Note that the requirement is to explain what is non-neutral about the article, not simply to assert a COI; and that anyone may remove the tag if that is not done.

I also note that, from past discussions, Doc James is well aware of this requirement; it ill behoves a member of the WMF board to repeatedly ignore it.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Andy !George G Milford (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone has died

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

---

An anon user posted this to my bot's talk page. -- GreenC 19:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GreenC. I'm not sure how to respond to this, as it's not really a question; except to suggest that you could post on the IP's usertalk page, thanking them for the alert, and maybe asking why they thought you needed to know. But if you can't think of any particular reason, just the acknowledgement on your own page seems sufficient. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi GreenC. The IP probably read that this person had died (maybe they even knew the person), and then checked Wikipedia to see if there was an article written about them or if the existing article had been updated. The IP probably didn’t know how to update the article or didn’t want to try and update the article themselves because they were worried about making a mistake. So, the looked for someone who recently edited the article and that happened by chance to be you. Ideally, it would’ve been OK for the IP to be WP:BOLD and update the article because even if they made a mistake in the process it would’ve probably caused the article to be flagged for review and the mistake might’ve been caught by someone. For future reference, the same applies to you as well in that it’s OK for you to be BOLD and update articles if you feel you can; if you make a mistake, someone should catch it. Sometimes when the claim being made is unsourced, Googling the subject’s name (particularly for people who’ve recently died) can lead to reliable sources which can be cited.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this to the Teahouse’s attention. Someone has already updated the article, perhaps after seeing your post. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, GreenC. It does look like the IP saw your bot as the most recent editor and didn’t realise it wasn’t a person. And they say noobs can’t find a History pages! It’s unusual, but the Teahouse regulars have probably seen weirder. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (08:09 Mon 08, AEST) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Changing font type and size

I copied and pasted text fron notepad into an existing Wikipedia page, and the font typeand/or size that I pasted in was incorrect. How can I change the font type and size? Brianmarkle (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Brianmarkle and welcome to the Teahouse. Notepad edits generic plain text, and never exports any font settings when text is copied from it. The font family (Mono-spaced, sans-serif, or serif) used by the Wikipedia editing window is controlled in a user's Wikipedia Preferences, on the Editing tab. The exact font and the font size are controlled by a user's browser settings.

It is possible to use HTML tags to change the displayed font of rendered pages (that is after a save, not during editing) but it is almost always wrong to do so. By not trying to control these, one lets the user select appropriate settings for the user's own device. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brianmarkle. The formatting and syntax used by the Wikipedia software for pages often seems to move in mysterious ways, but I believe it does what it does by design. So, instead of directly copying-and-pasting content you’ve been working on using other types of software onto a Wikipedia page, perhaps try adding it to your user sandbox first. You can work out any formatting or syntax issues in your sandbox, and then add it to the relevant Wikipedia page when things seem good to go. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Brian, thanks for working to improve our information on Einstein's publications. I can’t see how this edit would have fixed the font size. The previous one looks like a copy-search-replace-paste including format via Visual Editor. @Brianmarkle: was it definitely Windows Notepad? Or did you copy-paste in Source and then switch to Visual mode? Just trying to get a picture of the process to understand how it might have produced unexpected results. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (08:40 Mon 08, AEST) 22:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see below that you re-typed it by hand. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (09:14 Mon 08, AEST) 23:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Layafette Square article has become a venue for discussing "2020 Attack on Protestors"

Concerning the Appropriateness of the section "2020 attack on protesters" in the Layafette Park article

The following was posted to the Layafette Park talk page on 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC). It presents my concern and a suggestion to resolve my concern.

I think this issue needs attention but in the Wikimonolith I am not sure where to address it. So I seek out the Teahouse council.

I was interested in information about Lafayette Square in order to "get the lay of the land". That is, I wanted to understand what Lafayette Square is to better understand the situation involved with the situation of June 1, 2020.

I read the article, and at the end, there was a section entitled "2020 attack on protestors" (NOTE added today, June 5: On June 5, the section title was revised today to "2020 Protestors" by an anonymous editor who "noted" in the edit summary that "This was not an “attack" (lacking any support for this claim considering it is a fact recorded in many reputable sources.)

The section's initial sentence is "Main article: Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church" followed by a brief very dense Synopsys of what occurred concerning the "photo-op" situation.

The event of June 1 is noteworthy; however, the addition of the section "2020 attack on protesters" in the Layafette Square Wikipedia article is not appropriate.

In lieu of a dedicated section, a reference to this attack on protesters (which is contained in an existing Wikipedia article in detail) should be used to note and provide the explanation of the attack. Most likely a "2020 attack" section, if retained, in order to keep up-to-date, will need to be revised and revised and revised which undoubtedly is not a desirable Wikipedia method (I don't have a reference for this particular situation but I imagine there is one somewhere.)

I looked to the Wikipedia article about Pearl Harbor as a "template" of how a notable historic event that occurred at Pearl Harbor was handled. The "Day of Infamy" attack on Pearl Harbor was not presented in a section of its own, but as follows in a section entitled "See Also".

Pearl Harbor attack

I propose that the Layafette Square article be modified so that the subject "2020 attack on protesters" is handled in the same manner as the "1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor" was handled in the Pearl Harbor article.

This change would be to remove the "2020 attack on protesters" section and replace it with a new "See Also" section containing the following reference link.

See Donald Trump photo-op at St. John's Church which provides information concerning police and National Guard troops using tear gas to clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square and surrounding streets in Washington, D.C., to create a path for President Donald Trump to walk from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church on June 1, 2020.

(Hmmm. Perhaps this long explanatory sentence could be edited into something a bit briefer.)

Normally, before making this edit, I would contact the editor of the original entry of this "2020 attack on protestors" information to obtain a consensus to the best course of action. Unfortunately, the editors ShayShayd and 73.85.202.217 do "not exist" so no direct communication is possible.

I could make the change I propose but might encounter a undo revert. So I make this Talk Page entry in anticipation that an Editor or Editors would assist in obtaining consensus help in drawing the appropriate action.

Lacking dissent or other comments, at some point, I will return and implement my proposed revision.

Osomite (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No one seems to read or write on the Layafette Park talk page. Today, June 5, so far there have been five edits made on this section. As I pointed out above, this section will be continuously revised and revised per the whim of anonymous editors. Layette Park, as a Wikipedia article, does not need to be a literal field of attack and parry.

Restating my resolution briefly: If a "See Also" section reference is good enough for Pearl Harbor, a "See Also" section reference will certainly be good enough for Layafette Park.

Please help me on how to proceed. Osomite (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Osomite. My suggestion to you would be to post your concerns about this at Talk:Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C. because that’s really going to be the best place to try and resolve this. The Teahouse isn’t really a suitable place to try and sort out things like this and it might actually make it a bit harder for others interested in subject matter to participate.

Editors interested in the park will most likely have its Wikipedia article on their watchlists, not the Teahouse; in addition, future editors interested in the square’s article will most likely be checking its talk page, not the Teahouse archives, for previous discussions about the article. Even if you think nobody is going to respond to a post on the article’s talk page, it’s still generally better to start there and make that your “base of operations” so to speak. Give the discussion a little time to breathe and others a chance to respond; if after a few days nobody does, then you can be WP:BOLD and make the changes that need to be made or you can seek opinions elsewhere per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.

Now, if you do decide to be BOLD, just mention the talk page discussion in your edit summary since that will let others know why you made the edit. If someone disagrees with what you did and reverts you, they’ll be able to explain why in the discussion you started. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly I appreciate the rapid reply to my query.

However, it seems you missed the crux of my issue while giving me a lecture about Talk Page etiquette.

What I posted here on the TeaHouse today was what I already posted to the Layafette Park talk page yesterday on June 4. I did not intend for the TeaHouse archive to become the "Location of Record" for my concern. I just wanted advice on how to proceed as the current situation of the Layafette Park page is really really annoying (yes, it might just be my ACD issues).

I came here for advice because the current "Layafette Park" "editors" are merrily editing without any attention to the niceties of the Talk Page purpose or of the overall intent for the article. And by the way, there really aren't any "Layafette Park" Editors involved in this recent spate of "2020 Protestors" event edits; it seems these anonymous editors are only interested in creating a second, substandard account for of the situation involving the "Trump Photo-op with a bible" contretemps that only they can explain. Clearly, as they are anonymous, they won't be providing the rationale.

So at some point, I will be WP:BOLD. In the meanwhile, the league of anonymous editors will continue to spin their wheels, round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel. Never-ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel. . .Yada. . .Yada. . .Yada.

Osomite (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies to you (Osomite) if my reply appeared to be lecturing to you. Lots of new editors come to the Teahouse for help so sometimes replies are also written with that in mind since others might also find the extra information, by chance, to be helpful. Anyway, I missed that you’d already posted on the article’s talk page about; so, again my apologies for not realizing you were just copying-and-pasting what you posted there into your post here (for future reference just in case you don’t know, it’s often sufficient to just post a wikilink to the discussion instead). I mistook that part of your post for being something you wanted to ask, not something you’d already asked. An oversight on my part that I wouldn’t have made if I had checked your contributions history. Anyway, I’m glad another host came along and was better able to answer your question. Hopefully, things will now be resolved through talk page discussion. Best of luck to you. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: Just for reference in case you didn’t know or for anyone else who might not know this, both ShayShayd and 73.85.202.217 do exist and you can post messages to them on their user talk pages if you like. They might not answer, but they may. Some registered editors have red linked user pages simply because they haven’t created one. You can also WP:PING ShayShayd to the article talk page discussion if you want (ping doesn’t work for IP accounts unfortunately) and perhaps they will see the notification the next time they log in and will respond on the article’s talk page. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you (Marchjuly). This is some good information. I have been involved in editing Wikipedia for some time, but I have never fully understood much of the various capabilities such as WIKILINK (I am so clueless I did not realize that there was documentation for the Wikipedia markup language until about a month ago). I have my difficulties with the totally on-line world of Wikipedia having started with computers way before there was an internet and I did my coding on punch cards which ran in batch processing on the IBM 7094 and CDC 6400 which had 32K of memory (no kidding, I still have my last Fortran program I punched into "IBM" cards from back in the 1970s (OMG, that was almost 50 years ago) and I worked with a man who was on the COBOL development team with Grace Hopper). Osomite (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Osomite. When you tried to correct a spelling error in your post with this edit, you accidentally introduced one in mine. My spelling of the park’s name was correct, and your change made it so the link I added to the article’s talk page no longer worked. While I believe this was unintentional, please try to be careful when editing or adding talk page posts. In some cases as explained in WP:REDACT, it’s OK to go back and correct/clarify your own posts, but you need to be very careful per WP:TPO about even accidentally editing posts made by others. Here at Teahouse, editors tend to be a little more understanding about such things when they happen, but on article talk pages in the middle of an ongoing discussion that might be a bit heated, such a thing can cause problems. Sometimes a good thing to do is to click “Show changes” before publishing a post, just to double check. Anyway, I’ve undone your edit and restored my post back to what it was before. If you’d like to go back a re-reccorect the spelling error in yours, you may. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(Marchjuly), you are correct. I should have left well enough alone, but let a little ACD paranoia affect me. I didn't realize I was editing your post, I am sorry. I will leave the Lafayette or is it Layafette typo remain lest I create more unintended mischief.Osomite (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

​It's OK to go back a correct or clarify your posts (especially if you're just fixing a typo) if you think it's necessary. Just try and follow WP:REDACT if what you "fix" could indirectly affect the meanings of anything posted in response to the post your "fixing". That wasn't the case here and I wasn't pointing out what you did because I was angry. I realized it was almost certainly done by accident, but even so we should try be careful that we only change on own posts and not someone elses (except when we've got a really good policy or guideline based reason for doing so). Nine times out of ten, the other person will realize it was just a simple mistake and most likely not make a big deal about it; however, it can be the kind of thing that really can irritate someone, particlulary if the discussion is heated and you and they are on opposing sides of the fence and have been going back and forth at each other for a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Osomite: You did the right thing posting on the talk page. Give it a chance for feedback. I like the way it is now, with a summary and also pointing people to the Trump photo op article. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

TimTempleton Thanks for the advise, I will give it a chance for feedback and will try to calm my ACD tendencies.

Osomite (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Font size too large in downloaded pdf file

Brianmarkle (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I edited existing text, initially by cut & paste from notepad. I deleted that text, and directly typed the new text. It looks good online, but the generated pdf has font too large. Brianmarkle (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brianmarkle: Please provide a link. I assume this is about List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Can you be more specific about what the issue is? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The text "There is also a separate reprint of Appendix II, it being the first published separate edition." is too large on the downloaded pdf of the article [List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein]. The online version looks ok.

The same applies to the text "Einstein: Antwort auf vorstehende Betrachtung", — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmarkle (talk • contribs) 23:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm new, so just testing on how to sign a comment. ~~Brianmarkle~~

Brianmarkle (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@TimTempleton

Please see my additions above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianmarkle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brianmarkle. If you want to practice how to WP:SIGN a post, please do so in your user sandbox; you can find your user sandbox at [[:User:Marchjuly/Brianmarkle}}. In addition, when you post new comments to any Wikipedia take page, please try and be careful to not accidentally edit or remove posts left by others like did here. Sometimes when we're in a hurry to post something, we may mistakenly edit or even worse remove post left by others. We don't mean to do so, but our edit might cause confusion or even worse been seen as a conscious attempt to change or delete someone else comments. There are some cases where we're allowed to edit another's posts (even remove them), but usually these have to do with serious policy or guideline violations, or because there are formatting or syntax errors that are affecting the ability of others to read the page properly. Probably a good way to check that you're not accidentally editing someone else's post is to click "Show changes" before clicking "Publish changes" so that you can actually see what's being added and what's being removed.

As for your question to @Timtempleton:, I've WP:PINGed him for you and perhaps he will come by and answer it or try and help you figure out the issues you still seem to be having. Please note for future reference that for a "ping" notification to work properly, you need to make sure the username is spelled correctly; so, in this case you'd ping "Timtempleton" not "TimTempleton" using the syntax {{ping|Timtempleton}}. This can sometimes be confusing because some editors have customized their signatures to appear a certain way even though their account names are different in someway; so, the thing to do would be to click on their signature and see check the name of their account.

Some more things about pinging someone. You don't need to overdo it: if they respond asap or at all, then great; if they don't, be patient, give them a chance to do so and don't keep "tapping on the bell" to try and get their attention. Some editors aren't online 24/7 and might not be around to notice you're pinging them, whereas some editors simply don't like to be pinged and just ignore them. Another thing to remember is that a ping will only work if you properly sign your post at the time of the ping. Pings won't work for unsigned posts even if you go back and try to add your missing signature later. So, you might want to click "Show preview" before clicking "Publish changes" just to verify that you've properly signed your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein, and was puzzled by all the empty span tags. <span id="schilpp_133"></span> even appears twice. What are these for? Are they necessary? Maproom (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Maproom, I am guessing other editors who've seen your question aren't sure either, nor am I. It's a featured list; I would not touch anything I was unsure about. I would post at the talk page, or try and find whether any of the major contributors are actively editing. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It would function similar to <a name="schilpp_133" /> – the link List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein#schilpp_133 scrolls me to that row. I assumed {{anchor}} produced an "a" element rather than a "span", but checking, this gives me a span: {{subst:anchor|202006090754}} → [] (need to view wikitext to see the result). Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (07:30 Tue 09, AEST) 21:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Maproom and Usedtobecool re. answer about span tags. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (08:03 Tue 09, AEST) 22:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Pelagic! I didn't get it the first time, but I came back today thinking I'd at least say thanks, and I think I actually got it this time. It's actually really well-explained when you pay attention. LOL! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brianmarkle: I see the font-size effect you're talking about in the PDF, but not in the "printable" rendition [1]

At "Antwort auf vorstehende" there are nested tables within the table cell; that paragraph appears in HTML as ...</table><p>Einstein: Antwort auf vorstehende Betrachtung</p><table>... and in wikitext as ...|} Einstein: Antwort auf vorstehende Betrachtung {|...

I assume the nested tables were unintended. Not sure if they are the result of a software glitch, or someone inserted them by mistake.

But at "separate reprint" it's just a <p> inside a <td>, which isn't abnormal.

I've lodged a report at Phab:T254836.

— Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (13:09 Tue 09, AEST) 03:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cannot find the page I created yesterday

New Page: Georges Kugelmann Created a page, clicked 'publish' and closed the computer. Cannot find it today. Never happened before. Where is it? Svarshavsky (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Svarshavsky, and welcome top the Teahouse. You have not saved any edit to Wikipedia since 12 November 2019, at least not under this account, until the above Teahouse post. It is possible that there was a communication failure between your amd the Wikipedia servers, or that you misclicked. computer. I can't tell, but it was never saved. (nor was i9t saved and then deledted.) I am sorry for any time and effort lost, but there is nothing that I can do to help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Svarshavsky, maybe your article that you write yesterday was deleted by Wikipedia !

this is written by Usernameformeisthis |———|___~" 02:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, moved to draft, allowing you to improve before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Submitting a personal biography

I am mentioned in a number of articles in Wikipedia and it would be good to have a dedicated page, for purposes of drawing together these references. Is it possible for me to submit an article in the the third person? It would be based on my biographical details available in the directory of the Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts. 2A02:C7F:183F:A300:94B5:99A0:CAF6:B5FE (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Although possible, it would be a bad idea. -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP, as I'm sure you can understand, autobiographies are more closely scrutinised. Many find the experience unpleasant. However, if you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest editing guideline and abide by it, you can do it. Be sure to use the Articles for Creation process as that guideline suggests. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I would add that details from one directory are unlikely to be sufficient for a balanced encyclopedic article. Significant coverage from multiple independent reliable secondary sources is the recommended minimum. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you tackle constant vandalism of articles by the same user?

As stated in the title, can users be reported if they're constantly vandalizing articles of a specific country? I have come across a user and they're constantly editing articles of a specific country with controversial statements and no citations to back it up. They've also got a few warnings on their talk page, so shouldn't users like this be taking precautions? Nodoodlesjustfacts (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nodoodlesjustfacts. Yes, if a user has been warned sufficiently (we have four levels of warnings), they can be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (or WP:AIV, for short). Not all addition of uncited facts is vandalism - only those definitely intending to damage the article, should be caused VANDALISM. As an editor yourself, you can leave an appropriate warning message for them. This is very easy if you have already enabled WP:TWINKLE in your user preferences, and the 'TW' tab at the top of your page in desktop view allows you to 'Warn' another user with a selection of different types of notices. If you care to either paste in their username, or a link to the article they've been editing, we can tell you if 'vandalism' is the right term, and take any necessary action. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)  

Thank you. They are adding statements that will contribute to an already hostile Nepal-India environment. And when checking his contributions page, they have added many controversial edits in Nepali articles. Most of his edits are about Indian influence in Nepalese cultures but with no valid citations, and also in articles where they're not needed. Most of his edits are also very passive-aggressive that works in favour of India, I'm unsure why he is adamant on editing Nepali articles and is aggressively determined to include India in all Nepali articles? When none of it is necessary. Their username is User:Gotitbro. The article they're constantly reverting edits of is [[2]]. All the removals of statements in this article are written in the explanation section. However, this user keeps reverting all the edits without reading them. While the dish itself is not Indian, they're adamant to put anything Indian related to this article for no reason. Momo is not part of India's national cuisine, but they're adamant to add India in the national cuisine list. For e.g, momo being sold only in India is not worthy of highlighting in a wikipedia, they're sold everywhere else in the world too. Or, that the "heavily influenced by Indian spices" have no validity, every country will have their own adaptations, and that has nothing to do with its origin. --Nodoodlesjustfacts (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Nodoodlesjustfacts - There are certain topic areas in which there are a special set of rules to restrict contentious editing. Many of these are areas of battleground editing that have been real battlegrounds in the past. These rules, known as ArbCom discretionary sanctions, are authorized by the Arbitration Committee and allow special sanctions to be imposed on disruptive editors. These areas include India. While the arbitration rules for India and Pakistan were largely intended to deal with quarreling between Indian editors and Pakistani editors, they would also apply to a quarrel between Indian editors and Nepali editors. I would advise reading about discretionary sanctions to see whether the editor in question should be warned about them. (A warning is part of the process.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The user above hardly seems to be aware of any editorial policies or sanctions and is brandying about accusations here and there. They first removed reliable references from the article and then its associated content in subsequent edits citing "no refs". The contentious history of the page can be gauged from the Talk page itself, the page was stable (by uninvolved editors) before a recent surge in disruptive edits such as by the user above, who has not only disruptively removed RS content but also added POVPUSH material at the same time citing blogs and cruft treating the article as their own WP:SOAPBOX. Despite repeated calls to discuss their edits on the Talk page, the user continues their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior. Gotitbro (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is about Momo (food). No vandalism is involved. Nodoodlesjustfacts and Gotitbro‎ are engaged in an error war there. Neither has tried to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The use above of the phrase 'brandying about accusations' has brightened the day of one Teahouse reader.SovalValtos (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Did someone mention brandy? Yes, that'd brighten up the Teahouse. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mention of any other drinks in a positive light is considered treason against the Teahouse. See WP:Constitution of The Teahouse for details. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

List of oldest fathers

Hey all. I was looking over this list and one of the entries, that of an anonymous 66 year old, has a link to a scientific study that says men are biologically infertile after 65. In light of that result, I think that a more rigorous standard should be applied on that page where we highlight cases that are genetically proven. What do you think of that? Who is the oldest genetically proven father? Thanks for comments. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) " This seems to favour 65–66 years as being a biological rather than a social age limit for fatherhood. " Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Geographyinitiative, and welcome to the Teahouse.The place to discuss this would be Talk:List of oldest fathers, but I am inclined to doubt that one study can be sufficiently definitive to totally rule out any man fathering a child at age 70 or higher. Humans are highly variable in matters of biology, and even something far to rare for a given study to see a case of will produce quite a few examples across the world's population. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I recommend consulting WP:WikiProject Medicine about health claims like this. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made a great post on Wikiproject medicine's page and one on the talk page. In the wikimed post, I directly ask them for scientific evidence that any man has fathered a child after age 66. It's a cool topic so please monitor and join in if you're interested. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

I would like help / additional perspective on whether the user Cavalryman is editing in a disruptive manner, specifically on Goldendoodle. The editors Recent history appears to be with an agenda against doodle crossbreed related pages and unconstructive vs constructive. Thank you. Mlepisto (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Mlepisto (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mlepisto, Calvaryman seems to be working to improve the page. It doesn't mean they're right, but they seem to be doing it in good faith and not obviously breaking policy. If you think their edits are improper, talk to them. Start a discussion on the article's talk page, or Calvaryman's talk page. It might be a simple misunderstanding. If you can't talk it out, ask for a Third opinion, and should that fail, file a dispute resolution case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Mlepisto, and welcome to the Teahouse. Just because an editor disagrees with you and removes llegedly outsourced or poorly source or unencyclopedic content does not make those edits disruptive. The place to discuss content decisions is the article talk page, in this case Talk:Goldendoodle. Presentation of and comments on sources is usually a vital part of such discussions. If a consensus once forms that certain content belongs min (or should be taken out), then (and only then) editing against that consensus may become disruptive. Truly disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI, but the conduct of all editors involved tends to be looked at closely there, and filing an unjustified report may bring sanctions on the editor filing it.

I took a quick look at Goldendoodle and its talk page, and saw nothing obviously disruptive about any of Cavalryman's edits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Concur. C's deletions primarily of unreferenced content and content sourced to goldendoodle associations = not independent. David notMD (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

How to put in profile

How to input profile 2601:1C2:E00:CCD0:4D93:6202:A0A6:1E3A (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In short, don't. Wikipedia is not social media and does not contain "profiles" of individuals. It is, instead, an encyclopedia, like Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta, containing well-researched and -cited articles (like a magazine or newspaper) about notable subjects, summarizing what independent, reliable sources have chosen to write about the subject at length. Please see the blue links if you would like further information. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nurse Practitioner: Dispute an article/Edit a semi-protected article

Hello, I'm new here. I created my account because I want to help better the Nurse Practitioner(NP) article, before moving on to create new content. The NP article is heavily politically biased and draws much of its content from unsourced statements, a single anti-NP lobbying group(TAFP), or incorrectly cited articles. Google and other cites link to this article and it is causing damage to the NP profession through error, and by being used to push a political agenda. I want to clarify, better cite, and adjust the highly negative tone of the article. How do I become able to edit the article? How do I call for correction or dispute resolution? How do I build consensus? Multiple users have called for a removal of the term "midlevel" and this has not been done. I am sad and frustrated that a wikipedia article could be this biased, I like wikipeida and want to make it a better place, please help. Concernedcitizenforaccuracy (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concernedcitizenforaccuracy (talk • contribs) 10:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Nurse practitioner is semi-protected, which means that new editors cannot edit the article directly, but can propose specifically worded changes on the Talk page of the article. You have already made a good start by listing at Talk examples of what you consider to be inaccurate content. David notMD (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

how to create a page on wikipedia for my website?

hello,, I have a website (www.inside.ps) and i want to create a page on wikipedia for my site, how can i do that? please support. Issa.3esa2 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If your website is notable, then other people, unrelated to it, will want to create an article about it. Please don't attempt to do this yourself. Please read WP:COI. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please also be aware that you may not use Wikipedia to create a CV on your userpage - it will be deleted if you try. I advise using LinkedIn for that purpose. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Issa.3esa2: Please also see WP:NOTPROMO. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with starting

Hello, I recently just joined Wikipedia. I’ve been going through some tutorials and stuff but I’m still not sure how to do a certain thing. So any help would be greatly appreciated! I search for an artist on Wikipedia and nothing came up. So I have a bunch of information and would love to create a Wikipedia page so that we when other people search the artist name some info would pop up. I am not sure though what the best way to do this is. Thanks again for the help! Christoher3130!! (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Christoher3130!!, welcome to the Teahouse, perhaps this might be of help ... Help:Your_first_article. Hope this have been informative for you, CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with starting

Hello, I recently just joined Wikipedia. I’ve been going through some tutorials and stuff but I’m still not sure how to do a certain thing. So any help would be greatly appreciated! I search for an artist on Wikipedia and nothing came up. So I have a bunch of information and would love to create a Wikipedia page so that we when other people search the artist name some info would pop up. I am not sure though what the best way to do this is. I am mostly doing this on a mobile device but don’t mind switching to a laptop if you think that might be easier. Thanks again for the help! Christoher3130!! (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I've merged this with the previous section. The first thing you need to do is to ascertain whether the subject meets Wikipedia's criterion of notability. If he does, then (as the answer to your previous question said) you can find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is

(Even when it's good: a comment.)

Wikipedia "is, instead, an encyclopedia, like Encyclopædia Britannica or Encarta [...]."

I think I've read this or a similar claim several times in well-meant answers on this and similar WP pages. But I doubt that many of the people such comments are addressed to are familiar with either. Encarta was short-lived and is long dead. Britannica will perhaps be found in those libraries in English-speaking areas that haven't yet been closed and are still actually funded.

So the comparison would not be likely to be helpful even if it were accurate. And I don't think it is accurate. Today's FA is Wolf, an article on which appears/appeared both the other encyclopedias, I'm sure. But what percentage of the other FAs this month would have (had) articles there?

Are there better comparisons to offer to the would-be authors of promotional articles, genealogies, Deep Thought, crystal ball emissions, etc? -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: When I write that, I intend to just explain what an encyclopaedia is (if they don't want to follow the link), not to say they're equivalent in style, value, etc., the purpose being to mention encyclopaedias that two different age groups of people may have heard of. Encarta was quite a popular bundled product in the 90s, and Britannica should be familiar to anyone over about 40. I think it's a useful, different, approach than flinging alphabet soup that they won't read. If someone has a more popular and recent example than Encarta, I'm all ears. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'd guess that Encarta will be hazily familiar to a minority of people who are in their thirties or above, and Britannica (as bound volumes) to larger minority who are now in their forties or above and once had access to a good library. I have only the dimmest memory of Encarta, and am currently dissuaded/prohibited (?) from entering a library to refresh my memory about Micro/Macropædia, but I don't remember either as citing its sources. I'm pretty certain that Macropædia did so only exceptionally and the others not at all. The article "Gray Wolf" in Britannica online cites no source whatever and starts off with an ad for its paid service with the line "Trust the Experts"; whereas a good en:WP article never demands the reader's trust. Most people will, I think, be very much more familiar with en:WP than with either Encarta or Britannica. Of course en:WP contains a vast quantity of near-junk, but why not point people to its WP:FA and WP:GA? -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point, Hoary! When I was young, I would spend hours browsing through my grandmother's 1971 Britannica set (from before they split it into micro and macro). I also loved the wonderfully eclectic Pears' Cyclopaedia. Guess it's no surprise I'm now here on WP. And, yes, I'm over 40 years old! But not so old: the set was somewhat out-of-date by the time I was old enough to read it.

It is a problem: there are large groups of people who don't know what a traditional encyclopædia is, nor how to look up a print dictionary by alphabetical order, ...

It's not just "my kids' generation", but also an issue for what the WMF would consider "emerging markets". They commissioned a usability study (sorry, don't have the link handy right now) in Pune, India, and part of the feedback was that some subjects didn't know what an in-text hyperlink was. Presumably those users are more comfortable with visual sites like YouTube, Pinterest, and Instagram where the main clickable elements are big pictures.

I wish I had an answer; how do you explain an encyclopaedia in a world where Wikipedia is The encyclopaedia?

— Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (13:48 Tue 09, AEST) 03:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Pelagic, you point them to several good examples of what it does. FAs and even GAs may be too bulky, and I'd hesitate to recommend any list of model articles because these might thereby become more attractive as targets for vandalism. But each time one might grab a fresh handful from here. ¶ I too had a well-thumbed copy of the Cyclopaedia: a fascinating book, as befitted a subtly translucent soap. But unfortunately the Cyclopaedia didn't have space to cover such essentials as gunk or evil numbers. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted articles

what happen to deleted ir removed articles? Are these archived or permenatly deleted? 70.126.211.74 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Access to deleted pages. GoingBatty (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the best way to create a wiki article for a person?

My uncle recently passed away and as a memorial, I want to create a wiki page in his honor. He was a 2-time academy award-winner for the Disney CAPS system and Digital archiving respectively, and a pioneer in digital imaging technology. This would be a great way to memorialize him and am looking for the resources into how to format, content, and getting the article approved. please let me know.

https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/jim-houston-dies-engineer-and-two-time-oscar-winner-was-61/

Below is my initial write up for the article.

James D. Houston, Upper Darby High School Class of 1977 (2002 Hall of Fame) Cornell University, 81 Astral Physics, and Computer Science James D. Houston was a pioneering digital animation designer and engineer, awarded the Technicolor, Herbert T. Kalmus Award in 2014 “For his leadership and contributions in the application of digital technologies to motion picture production processes. Mr. Houston played a key role in the development of standards related to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and sciences’ Academy Color Eroding System (ACES), as well as production and design.” S.M.P.T.E. (Starwatcher Video) Academy Awards, Scientific and Engineering Award 2007 Academy Awards, Scientific and Engineering Award 1992 “James D. Houston received the Academy Scientific and Engineering Award for developing CAPS (Computer Aided Production System), which revolutionized computer animation. This system was the first that allowed artists to color penciled artwork in the computer and digitally merge it with painted backgrounds. He has worked to define the Second Golden Age of Disney Animation in such movies as Little Mermaid, Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin.” UDHS Filmography Volcano, 1997, Visual Effects, The Net, 1995 Visual Effects Alladin 1992, Miscellaneous Jingle All The Way, 1996, Visual Effects Fantasia 2000, Visual Effects Trail Mix Up, 1993, Visual Effects Beauty and the Beast, 1991 Visual Effects The Rescuers, 1990, Visual Effects Drewski120 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse Drewski120 Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, If two academy awards aren't notable I won't waste my time. He is named in a few other Wikipedia articles as well example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Animation_Production_System — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewski120 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Drewski120. I'm sorry about your uncle, and I can understand your wish to create a memorial; but please don't do it on Wikipedia. People who try to create article for reasons other than improving Wikipedia tend to have a miserable and frustrating time (and I realise that you want to add to Wikipedia as well, but nevertheless, you have another motive as well). Furthermore, people who write about relatives and other subjects they are close to tend to find it difficult to write sufficiently neutrally: we refer to this as editing with a conflict of interest.

Wikipedia only accepts articles about subjects that are Notable in Wikipedia's sense, which is less about what they have done, and more about what has been independently written about them. If your uncle meets those criteria, then there could be an article about him; it will not be your article, you will not have control over its contents, and indeed you will be discouraged from editing it directly, though you will be welcome to make suggestions. All information in the article should come from reliably published sources: your personal knowledge cannot be accepted. So, perhaps you can see that, whatever your intentions, it may not come out as the memorial you would choose. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Plunged to Guaranteed Jackpots to $20 million dollars for both Mega Millions and Powerball

How come Powerball and Mega Millions have to change their jackpot drop to $20 million dollars if someone wins this jackpot? Mariokart581 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mariokart581. This is a forum to ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia, if you have any such questions feel free to come back here and ask. Kind regards, Hillelfrei ^talk 17:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Pakistani Peace Laureates

Hello Aguy777, I saw your message on my Talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saqib_Jamshaid ). Can you explain which editing has been undone/ reversed? I could not get your point. Please explain so that I may continue make further additions in the page. Saqib Jamshaid (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is now explained on your talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I would want to appeal this from happening!

I wonder why both of my of previous accounts tlc6just and Just6ntlc got banned from editing other than User Talk? Mariokart581 (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to return to your original account and request unblock, instead of creating new accounts. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The reasons are at User talk:Tlc6just and User talk:Tlc6just. Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (14:00 Tue 09, AEST) 04:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

First proper article already up for deletion ...

Hi all. I have some experience with Wikipedia, have been contributing little fixes here and there, and spent this weekend writing my first proper article here: fast.ai. After just a few hours it's already up for deletion and I'm a little discouraged. The reason for deletion would be the "promotional" tone which is unintentional, as I have no affiliation with this research institute at all. I just know and respect it for the MOOC they provide online, and thought a page would be appropriate as both founders also have a wikipedia page (Jeremy Howard and Rachel Thomas). I'm not sure how to proceed. I've been trying to edit the article and removed some stuff, but now it feels like maybe it's gotten too short? I guess I don't really understand the inclusion criteria. Could you please guide me on how to improve the tone, or help editing it so it's more neutral? (because honestly I don't really see the problem). Any advice on how to avoid this in the future? I'm not sure I'd want to spend another weekend on a new article, researching references etc, just to get it deleted :( Any help would be much appreciated! Paritalo (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Fast.ai -- puddleglum^2.0 19:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

References should not be the company's (or person's) own website except for the most basic of facts. David notMD (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Paritalo: Welcome to the Teahouse! The inclusion criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It looks like you're receiving good feedback on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast.ai and your talk page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello there, I recently came upon a page (The_Short-Tempered_Clavier_and_other_dysfunctional_works_for_keyboard) where there are evidence of edit warring. I would like to know how is this supposed to be handled. Thank you! The creeper2007^Talk! 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The place to discuss is on the article's talk page: Talk:The Short-Tempered Clavier and other dysfunctional works for keyboard. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The thing is that the users engaged in the war wouldn't

Hello The creeper2007, I haven't checked the history of the article but general advice would be, if someone is clearly edit warring, first step is usually to let them know at their user talk page that edit-warring is a bad idea, and that they should use the talk page of the article to resolve matters instead. If someone breaks the three-revert rule, you can report them to the edit-warring noticeboard at WP:ANEW. Sometimes, editors will engage in edit wars avoiding 3RR. In such cases, you can seek help from an individual administrator at their user talk page, or report the user/s to WP:ANI. Read the header at ANI carefully, and consider it carefully before actually starting a discussion at that noticeboard, since the standards for actionable misbehaviour is a bit high over there, and so is the potential for unproductive drama. Contacting individual admin has the added benefit that an admin's talk page is usually much like the Teahouse, where you can ask for general advice, or for action, and they will either help you or refer you to an alternative, if you are right, and if you are wrong, explain to you, why you are wrong. It's better to be proven wrong at a user talk page than anywhere else on Wikipedia, because of the marginally better privacy and less public attention given to that space. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

But the issue is that there are one person who insists on one change and there are multiple users that was agent it. any help? The creeper2007^Talk! 18:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:IXL Learning

I have written and submitted an article about parent company IXL Learning. Inside, I wrote about its divisions and acquired divisions, and one of those acquired divisions is ABCya.com. ABCya.com already has its own official article, though, so how should I overcome this? Should I summarize on on my article, just link to the article on its own, or leave it out? I asked this question before, but I didn't get the answer I was looking for specifically. Thank you for your time. Le Panini (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Le Panini (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Usually, it's appropriate to just have a section starting with a hatnote: {{Main|ABCya.com}} and then a summary paragraph. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I've got. Thank you! Le Panini (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: Presuming Draft:IXL Learning becomes an article, then it would also be appropriate to add a link from the ABCya.com article to IXL Learning. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Page denial

Hello,

I am new to wiki and trying to create a page for a person i am a fan of. I cited most of the sources i could find and a short bio. Can you help it get approved? Davidmurrietta (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Davidmurrietta. I gather this is about User:Davidmurrietta/sandbox. Currently the tone of that is totally unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Such phrases as: she fell in love with acting and modeling; Alexandra enjoys modeling but acting is her biggest passion.; She is a very creative person  ; Alexandra enjoys sharing her fashion, lifestyle, beauty tips and other posts; Her YouTube channel has really taken off and has become one of the hot premier viewing channels ...; With her growing success, Alexandra stays focused; Alexandra has taken a piece from each project with her on her journey, and much of the other language in this draft is quite unsuitable for Wikipedia. It sounds like a blog post or a magazine article much influenced by marketing efforts. Oh and the subject should be referred to by last name only after the initial mention, never by first name.

A Wikipedia article must be strictly factual and neutral in tone. It must not express opinions abo9ut the merit or value of the subject, although it may report such opinions expressed by named persons who can be cited. And a Wikipedia article must certainly not speculate on the future activities of the subject, or indeed o9n anything. The only possible way to make this a possibly valid article would be to delete the whole text, and start from nothing.

I looked very briefly at the sources cited. IMDB is not considered reliable. Other Wikipedia articles should never be cited. Neither should Amazon pages. Pinterest is rarely a reliable source. None of the other sources cited seem to be independent published reliable sources that each discuss the subject in some detail. If the sources you cited are the best that is out there, Creteau is not notable and drafting an article about her is a waste of time, IMO. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding relevant material

how do I add relevant info without it being removed? Mirett (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Start by behaving like a grown-up, and not making additions like this one. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As IP 219.88.224.229 you were blocked for a month on 3 June for vandalism (there was also a prior one week block). Creating the account Mirett and editing a draft started as 291.88.224.229 is sockpuppetry. A sockpuppet investigation has been created. SeeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/219.88.224.229. David notMD (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

can anyone send me link to learn or pay how to create a business page

 Ab441846 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not for promotion. It is an encyclopedia with articles on subjects which are notable by Wikipedia's definition. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Who is sbrwv2? I’d like to correspond with him about the royal laundry article. Thanks

 151.196.12.109 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The best place to discuss that article is at Talk:Royal Laundry. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

updated wiki page with biography template

i am a new member with the username david murrietta. I created a page with a biography template, but i am unable to edit. How can i lower the level of protection so that i am able to edit my own page?? Davidmurrietta (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Theroadislong has stated that Alexandra Creteau doesn't merit an article in Wikipedia. You are able to edit your sandbox (as long as you do so in compliance with policies concerning sandboxes and the like). -- Hoary (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft is at the bottom of User:Davidmurrietta/sandbox. You can edit it by first clicking on Edit on the top bar menu. The proper way to use the draft template is to replace content in it with your content, rather than putting your content at the bottom. In its current state, your draft is so NOT an article that the suggestion was to delete everything and start over. Minimally, as you write about this actress, references go in each section, and all the subjective wording about her stays deleted. David notMD (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Davidmurrietta Please also note that Amazon, IMDb, instagram YouTube, resumes.actorsaccess.com, Pinterest and Wikipedia are not reliable sources and will need to be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Newry

I'm having a disagreement with another edotir regarding my edit, Newry being awarded city status is a very important event in the history of Newry and it deserves its own paragraph to highlight its importance. Another opinion would be appreciated. Devokewater (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment left at Talk page of article, where you had already appropriately opened up a discussion. David notMD (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Devokewater (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Formatting

Draft:Nokia C series (Cricket wireless)

In the aforementioned draft, I have a formatting issue; The second section starts before the first infobox ends. How does one ensure that the section starts after the first infobox ends (by automatically adding blank lines)? I couldn’t find any information on that... RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Use {{Clear}} —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @AlanM1:! RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 12:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Translate to English + add an association logo

Hello dear community,

I am used of publishing articles in the French Wikipedia but I am new in the English one. I would like to publish the translation in English of an article written in French, and I have two questions:

- firstly, I am not familiar with the translation tool. I have begun to translate my article with it but I had then to do it with a classical draft, an submit it to review. Is it the easiest/right way ?

- secondly, I would like to illustrate my article with the logo of the association, as it is done in the French version. But I am lost in the legislation of the English Wikipedia at this point: can I do so ?

French article: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A9d%C3%A9ration_internationale_de_football_corporatif

English one (draft): Draft:International Federation of Corporate Football

Thank you for your help,

Warmest regards

 TheSkimask (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation and at WP:Logos. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you David for your answer ! --TheSkimask (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Just checking I am doing edits OK!

Hi,

I love Wikipedia, and as you can see have done some edits over the years. I'm sure they're all OK.

I was going to do some today (on BBC Radio 2), and I noticed the page's Talk page had comments in it, describing various issues.

Should I have been adding anything to the Talk pages of ones I have done in the past? Or are my notes that I submit with a change enough?

Many thanks for any advice. Uk.seedy (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Uk.seedy - welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is held in the essay BRD. You're never normally required to discuss a change on the talk page before making it; but if anybody disagrees with it, that will probably come to the talk page for discussion anyway, so if you sense that your change might be at all controversial, it is a good idea to discuss it first. You never need post on the talk page just to say you've made a change: anybody who's watching the artice will see it in their Watchlist anyway. (Make sure you use informative edit summaries, though). --ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Uk.seedy, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you make a major change to an article or one dealing with controversial issues in an article, or one whose purpose is likely to be unclear to other editors, it is not a bad idea to explain your intent on the article talk page. But as long as you are using good edit summaries, you do not have to explain edits on the article talk page. If you wish to discuss how any issue should be addressed in an article, the article talk page is the best place in most cases. And if someone reverts one of your edits and you disagree, follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and discuss the matter on the article talk page. That is my advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

OK many thanks indeed for your help!

Uk.seedy (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

issue with a flagged page

I am trying to set update a page which has been flagged in the past. How can I do that? GeorgeBowers19 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeBowers19. If by "flagged" you are referring to "maintenance tags", you are free to fix the problem at hand and then remove the tag. The only article you have contributed to which contains such a tag is Patokh Chodiev, which is tagged because a major contributor to the article in 2017 was somehow connected to the subject of the article. This is one of the hardest tags to be removed, because you have to ensure that the connected contributor has not edited the article in a long time, and that the article is, by now, written neutrally, and this is difficult if you don't know the story of how the tag got there originally. Hillelfrei ^talk 14:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with updating images on two living persons biography page

Hello, I am asking for help with changing the images on two individual biography pages. Both images are outdated and if possible would like to have them refreshed to new images. These images are the correct photos to be used and permission has been granted by the photographer and musicians. I can answer any questions relating to the image and/or provide proof if required.

I hope somebody can help me.

The first article name is [Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike] and wiki page link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitri_Vegas_%26_Like_Mike

This is the currency image which is many years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitri_Vegas_%26_Like_Mike#/media/File:Dimitri_Vegas_&_Like_Mike_in_TomorrowWorld_2013.jpg

This is the new image which is the current photo: To use the file in a wiki, copy this text into a page:

To link to it in HTML, copy this URL:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dimitri_Vegas_%26_Like_Mike.png

The second article name is [Lost Frequencies] and Wiki page link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Frequencies

This is the currency image which is many years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Frequencies#/media/File:2016_Open_Beatz_-_Lost_Frequencies_-_by_2eight_-DSC_5232.jpg

This is the new image which is the current photo: To use the file in a wiki, copy this text into a page:

To link to it in HTML, copy this URL:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lost_Frequencies.jpg

Hope you can help me please :) Alex R101 (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, I have left you some info on images on your talk page, both of these new images have been tagged for deletion because they are labelled as copyright "EDOUARD JANSSENS" and there is no evidence that the copyright holder has released. Theroadislong (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note: No need to display apparently-copyvio images. I've commented them out. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing Information

I frequently go to the link below which is the information for the brand Hard Rock Cafe - on that page here on Wikipedia, there used to be a list of all the Hard Rock Cafes around the world & the dates when they opened, closed, moved, re-opened - it is now gone, the information is no longer on the page & I feel this was an essential part of the information provided - where did it go? why was it removed?

Hard_Rock_Cafe  HRC WORLDWIDE (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

HRC WORLDWIDE Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is nothing wrong with you asking here, but the best place to ask this question is the talk page of the article, in this case, Talk:Hard Rock Cafe, only because the editors that follow that article may be more familiar with the subject. In addition, if your username is that of an organization, you will need to change it at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

HRC WORLDWIDE Seems it was removed a couple of weeks ago: [3]. And if WP:COI applies to you, please follow that guidance as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why this information was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRC WORLDWIDE (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

HRC WORLDWIDE The edit summery said Other restaurant articles don't have a massive list of locations, especially unsourced; and this has been tagged for three years. Probably very outdated. The place to discuss this would be the article talk page, as mentioned above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft : Seyed Kazem Noor Mofidi

Hi, I translated article from Persian Wikipedia about Seyed Kazem Noor Mofidi, Can anyone help me to publish that as an article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Seyed_Kazem_Noor_Mofidi Aflantwo (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Aflantwo Note that what is acceptable on the Persian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on the English Wikipedia. As you were told by the reviewer, you are lacking independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. I would strongly suggest that you stop attempting to create new articles until you have a better grasp of what is being looked for. There are millions of existing articles that need editing. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: you are here too man! haha! he is a representative of the Supreme Leader! I added rich and reliable sources now! I just asked he has general notability or not?! because I must spend time for him! also more people similar to him are on Wikipedia, look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Experts please first search more about him also about emam.com, thanks Aflantwo (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

I'm not saying this person is not notable, but you need the sources to demonstrate that and support the content of the article. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: man as an ayatollah his name written in Iran history he is Nancy Pelosi of Iran, haha. I added source from Imam Khomeini's comprehensive website (Iran previews supreme leader ) and also IRNA, ASR IRAN, but they are in Persian! 6 references is not enough for 3 lines about him? Aflantwo (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

@Aflantwo: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you add references to the "Biography" section of Draft:Seyed Kazem Noor Mofidi as well before resubmitting your draft. For each of the non-English references, could you also please add an English version of the title in the |trans-title= parameter? Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk)

Aflantwo, Please listen to the advice suggested to you by 331dot and GoingBatty. Otherwise it may be declined again or rejected by the next reviewer. Thank you ~ Amkgp ✉ 16:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Amkgp:,@GoingBatty: Yeah, of course, I will add a reference for each sentence, I'm translating that from Persian version and it can take few hours before submitting again I will ask from youAflantwo (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo @Amkgp:,@GoingBatty: Can you review my draft again? Can I resubmit now? Aflantwo (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

@Amkgp:,@GoingBatty:,@331dot: I edited and also I add reliable sources and official sources like "Ruhollah Khomeini Official Website" is it ok now? can I resubmit it? Aflantwo (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

@Aflantwo: Thank you for adding the |trans-title= parameter to some of the references. Could you please add it for all of the non-English references? Other parameters would be helpful too, like |date=. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GoingBatty yes, sure Aflantwo (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Aflantwo

Question about citations

Hi, I was wondering about some citations I have made on an article I made. My draft was declined initially due to bad referencing/citing. I was helpfully informed by the editor who declined the article that I should avoid references to self-published sources (by the band in question I am writing about) and YouTube videos. I have a couple of references to YouTube still cited and a few self-published sources but mostly from Discogs and AllMusic. The self-published sources are purely the band giving information about their own members, is it ok for me to keep these citations? Thanks.

--Isaac B (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Lucky Chops

@Vgj843df: There is a comprehensive list of commonly-discussed sources for music-related articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. You will notice there that Discogs is considered generally unreliable because its content is user-submitted/self-published, as is YouTube.

That leaves one reference to Allmusic, which is considered "generally reliable" (with exceptions). However, a single reference to a reliable source does not a notable band make. You'll need to find more independent sources with significant coverage to show that this band is notable enough for inclusion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

does 1/4 annealed loos its stength after 50 years

 2603:9001:B03:EAD7:55DE:ABD7:84F5:DD6B (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about how to use Wikipedia. For other questions, try WP:RD. RudolfRed (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted info

Hello, Information I’m trying to add and edit about an actress keeps getting deleted for supposed “copyright violations” but all I’m trying to add is her birthday, education, and birth name. Other information that another user added to the section is not cited and has remained up. I’m so confused and frustrated. The thing I’m getting messages from just deletes the info I’ve worked on for hours without telling me why it’s a copyright infringement.. it’s no help at all. Idk if it’s a bot or a person but so frustrating to work of this for so long, making sure I do everything correctly, and then they just delete it. HtheLondoner (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two separate issues. It is strongly discouraged to add birthdays and real names unless they are properly cited (see WP:DOB). This was not a copyright violation. Separately you added a photograph and the editor told you that the picture was a copyright violation, not the details about her birth. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• (pinging HtheLondoner) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

page "reviewed"

Hello, I received a notice from another Wikipedia user that a page I created "has been reviewed." As best I can tell, the user made no substantive changes to the page, nor can I find any indication on the page that it "has been reviewed." What does "been reviewed" mean in this case? Is this a regular thing that Wikipedians do for each other's pages, or does it just mean they read it? FWIW, the page is: East Side Freedom Library Thanks! NuthatchYogi (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You can see evidence of the review in the page log. This review is carried out under the new page patrol process, and one significance is that new articles are NOINDEXed until either they have been reviewed or 90 days have expired. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, David Biddulph. As an editor, do I need to think about intentionally creating logs for certain actions, or does this happen automatically? NuthatchYogi (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Actions which need to be logged are logged automatically. As an editor you don't need to worry about it. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Publish article

how many edit I have to do. For creating article ??? Bijoyonline30 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Before you can create an article, your account needs to be autoconfirmed, which requires not only at least 10 edits but also at least 4 days since account creation. I notice that you have added a large number of red links to the encyclopedia. Have you read the guidance, and have you convinced yourself that each of those subjects satisfies Wikipedia's definition of notability? Before you try to generate a new article, please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijoyonline30 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

editing or adding to a story

How to I get someone to help me edit a story? 194.179.61.173 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP, if you want to have a go at editing yourself, see WP:TUTORIAL. About asking, use the talkpage of the article in question, or you can try the wikiprojects listed on that talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gråa, Thanks for responding. I meant more to pay and have an IT person do it for me. The page already exists but there is a lot is missing, it's quite a huge story and honestly, I don't have the energy for it, I'm retired. Thought there might be experts who would do it as a service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.61.173 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not how it works here - incredibly, Wikipedia is written and maintained only by volunteers. If you mean story as in the plot of a story, you could place the {{no plot}} tag at the top of the article to draw the attention of editors. Hillelfrei ^talk 18:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello unregistered (IP) editor. There are people who will edit Wikipedia articles for a fee. Many of them are dishonest, and will "guarantee" that an article will be accepted and remain live, when they have no power to ensure anything of the sort. All paid editors must disclsoe that they are paid, whom pays them, and for what articles. Many reviewing editors tend to apply rules more strictly in cases of paid editing. I*f the requirement of disclosure is not followed, the undisclosed paid editor is very likely to be blocked indefinitely, and the article may be deleted, although this is not required. Some paid editors do make many positive contributions, but most are not well thought of. Depending on the exact subject, you may be able to interest an experienced volunteer editor. That will not cost anything, and may well get you a better result, but there is no way to know in advance if you can attract such interest. The advice by Gråbergs Gråa Sång above is good. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Forex scandal is the article that the IP editor is referring to [4]. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Given this is an existing article, you could create a new section on the Talk page of the article, explain what changes you think are needed, and provide references. Volunteer editors may or may not look at what you provided and decide to incorporate changes into the article. (Big) problems are that the article does not get a lot of readers, the Talk page fewer, and editors have not really been active in editing the article or discussing it on Talk. Your best path is to register to be a Wikipedia editor, open up the article by clicking on Edit at the top menu, and making the changes yourself - adding references as you go - and then at the bottom write a brief Edit summary of what you did and click on Publish changes. David notMD (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Next step for AfC?

Thank you for reading. I created a draft at Draft:KyleMcMahon that I worked with two of the more established editors to fix up. I did the edits that both of them suggested regarding swapping out a few links, etc. I'm just not sure what the next step is now? Does it automatically do something? Am I supposed to do something? I've done some minor edits on a few other pages but don't want to create new pages until I get the first one finished.

Thanks again for reading and for your help. FrankNSteinJr (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

FrankNSteinJr, welcome to the Teahouse although I am sorry to tell you that the mentioned draft is completely empty but it seems like you had a typo, found Draft:Kyle_McMahon and I added the necessary tag so it should be reviewed soon, although it can take some weeks because of a huge backlog. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - FrankNSteinJr - the sourcing in your draft doesn't demonstrate the subject's notability. There are a few dead links, blog posts and advertisements for podcasts, but no in-depth profiles of Kyle McMahon. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your assistance. I've found a pretty in-depth piece from 05/2020 that is part researched article and part interview, but I don't want to mess up the work of the other editors so I'm not quite sure how to incorporate it. It's essentially going over parts of Mcmahon's life through quotes and research, but the facts are already in the Draft itself. So I'm a bit confused if I should include it or what to do. I left the link at the talk page of Draft:Kyle_McMahon for review and assistance.

Thanks kindly FrankNSteinJr (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I keep forgetting what to do

 Hikari04 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hikari04: It would help if you could tell us what you are forgetting to do. Interstellarity (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-free image upload

Hi there, I am trying to add a non-free image to a wiki page. I have permission to add the image to a wiki page, but not for others to use. How do I upload this with the copyright sign attached to someone else's page?

Thanks for your help. Wasuwatanabe (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wasuwatanabe: Welcome to Wikipedia. Permission to use the image only on Wikipedia is not acceptable. If the image is not licenced in a way that allows for any reuse, then the image will need to meet all the criteria at WP:NFCC to be used at Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rudolf. The rationale (doctrine and policy) for NFCC is clear, my problem is not the comprehension of the rationale, but the physical loading of the image itself. Under the NFCC doctrine, I have an image which meets all the criteria of the wiki NFCC exceptions and now I wish to load it onto a wiki site but do not understand the cascade of steps needed to place the image next to the text in the article and need help to be guided through the image upload process. Any tips would be super helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasuwatanabe (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasuwatanabe, If the image meets all relevant criteria, you may upload it at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. I think the final page will include instructions as how to insert it into an article, if it is unclear feel free to come back and ask here. (If the image does not meet the necessary criteria it will be deleted, so I suggest only uploading it if you are sure that it does to spare yourself the time.) Hillelfrei ^talk 00:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hillelfrei ! I have managed to get to this stage, how do I then get it from that point to being able to insert it into the text? When I try to upload it using the 'image' button in the editing phase I can not seem to find it? Wasuwatanabe (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasuwatanabe Once the image is uploaded, you just need to enter the file name in the code. Here's more info: Help:Pictures TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! very helpful Hillelfrei and Timtempleton appreciate the advice Wasuwatanabe (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wasuwatanabe. In the non-free image rationale, you said that the image would be used in an article called Wikipedia Henry Kulka. Obviously, there is no article by that name and the article in question is actually Henry Kulka. It is essential to accurately state the precise article name. I corrected that obvious error and added the image to the article. Your non-free use rationale is unconventional and quite lengthy. I hope that it will work out but if you run into any problems with the image, I will try to help you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 appreciate your help!Wasuwatanabe (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Need help with new wikiproject: List of police killings of unarmed Black U.S. citizens

Hi! I'm a long-time user (lurker), new contributor to Wikipedia. I'm made a suggestion for a new wiki page at the village pump - "List of police killings of unarmed Black U.S. citizens" - that was moved to Wiki projects by a longtime user.

It's been 48 hours and I haven't seen anyone jump on it so I'm soliciting help here.

There were over a 100 cases in 2015 alone, and will entail creating pages like 'Killing of Elijah McClain' (this incident has no record on wiki) so this is not a small undertaking. I'd rather not do it alone. Anyone interested?

If you need persuading here are some reasons this is useful and important:

• the only known database is mappingpoliceviolence.org, therefore this list will serve as an important cross-reference
• there are individual pages for 'Shooting of Tamir Rice' and a few others but no list that gathers all the known police killings of unarmed black US citizens
• the most of the information I found on killings are on news websites that may stop hosting that information resulting in the details of the cases disappearing from easily searchable public record on the internet i.e. google
• many of the officers responsible were either never charged, prosecuted or convicted, in the event their cases are reopened this will serve as public record Mobius278 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

File Gheorghe Buzoianu.pdf

I uploaded the file as a pdf format. Why did it come as a jpg rather than the normal wikipedia format? I don't know how and where to create the copyright licensing template. There is so much info, its quite overwhelming. Domnica Lungu (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the file format, this doesn't look like something that belongs in Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons), so I suggest that you just let it be deleted. I notice that you are creating User:Domnica Lungu/Gheorghe Buzoianu. The PDF/JPEG would not serve as a source for this. Instead, you need independent, reliable, published sources for everything that an article says. (And for this purpose, mere publication via Wikimedia doesn't count as publication.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Signature

 36.37.194.89 (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question? -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

About a program/page

Can anyone tell me what is The Wikipedia Adventure, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC) MRRaja001 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

MRRaja001, it is an interactive educational game with the goal of making it easier for new editors to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks mate!!! - MRRaja001 (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone help me edit?

Hi everyone! I am making a new wiki about a new programming language Draft:Supernova_(Programming_Language). Can anyone help me edit it or maybe give me some links to a source? Any help will be appreciated. Thank you! ThisIsMyWikipediaName111 (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThisIsMyWikipediaName111: Sure, i can help you out. What do you need. Can you elaborate a bit. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThisIsMyWikipediaName111: An new article on a software product will only be accepted if it meets our notability criteria, which you can find at WP:PRODUCT). You should also read the essay on what this means for programmes at Wikipedia:Notability (software). If you bear in mind that Wikipedia isn't here to be used to promote every single product under the sun, you'll need to find around three good quality, independent sources that talk about this product in detail if it ever is going to be accepted. As you say, this product does come across as a new programming language. So, until it has been accepted and written about by the wider community, it's very unlikely that you'll be able to find the sources you need for it to be accepted here. Links to sites like sourceforge are not going to be sufficient, I'm afraid. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC).  

Suggestions/next step for Afc

I've been editing articles on Indian tech personalities and created a new one which is in the Afc process. I went through WP:N and made sure to get distinct mainstream citations meeting WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I would love some feedback. I also added it to the Biography project to get more eyes on it. Draft:Sriram_Krishnan is the article.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Vipulsshah (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vipulsshah: I saw the draft. It Fails WP:GNG. Most of the references and citations are from tech websites which is not acceptable. Recently a person with similar position called Sunder Madakshira article was deleted because of this. Please refer to WP:GNG, WP:Note, and WP:INDY to get clarity on how these things work. Feel free to contact me for any further queries, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

COI Issue on Kevin Andrew Tan Article

Hi everyone, I need help with the cleanup for this article Draft: Kevin Andrew Tan. The cleanup page said that WP:Teahouse can help with this one. I see that the article already has COI Disclosure on the talk page. What else needs to be done here? Does the article need to be trimmed down on the Achievements section? The notability issue never goes away. Hopefully, this can get fixed asap. Thank you. Kileyco17 (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

HiKileyco17 and welcome to the Teahouse, please have a close look at the instruction of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The creator and other editors of the draft were declared paid editors (later blocked for being sockpuppets of one editor). You previously attempted to create articles about properties owned by Kevin's company. What is your connection to the topic of the current draft? If you have a COI or Paid, that should go on your User page. David notMD (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Article replaced with copyvio contents

When patrolling the dead end category, I came across the article on Bullwhip effect. The edit history shows that there was a fairly well-developed article there already, but in the last few days one editor has replaced most or all of the content that was there with what appears to be copypasted from elsewhere. I've inserted various maintenance tags into the article and asked the editor in question to explain themselves on the talk page, but I think the article should also be rescued somehow, possibly rolling it back to where it was before this editor got involved. However, I wasn't sure if that's the right approach, and if so how to do it (or whether I even can, myself), so thought I'd better come ask those in the know what should be done? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing I've reverted back to the last version without copyright violations, as our articles shouldn't be containing copyvios, even if it's just whilst we try and get the user to talk to us. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflict BUT I WORKED SO HARD

I was editing a redirect page called List of diacritics, and I'd worked to make it an actual list, but then Edit conflict happened, but i don't want to lose my precious work!!! Bumsowee (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Bumsowee. An edit conflict does not mean you will lose your work. It means that someone else was working on the article at the same time and finished before you did. Usually, you can just merge the two using the Two Column Edit Conflict tool by activating it through the "Beta Features" section on your Preferences page (more info at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Two_Column_Edit_Conflict_View ). However, you may have to work to merge both edits manually if the edits are to the same part of the article. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No, there wasn't an edit conflict. List of diacritics redirected to Diacritic#Types. This contains lists of diacritics. You started to turn the redirect into a list. Lord Bolingbroke reverted you. The lists within Diacritic#Types are greatly more informative than your list-in-the-making, so I'd definitely side with milord Bolingbroke on this one. That's not to condemn your ambition. If you think you can do something better, then I suggest you work on it in User:Bumsowee/Sandbox or similar, and, when you're confident that you've made it superior to Diacritic#Types, ask on Talk:Diacritic about substituting it for the redirect. NB it should treat diacritics for a variety of scripts (not just Roman), should name the diacritics, etc. Or you could work on improving the article Diacritic, which is not well organized. (A longish section on "Diacritics specific to non-Latin alphabets" is followed by a much shorter one on "Non-alphabetic scripts".) -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary (talk · contribs). I will work on it :)

Discussion at WP:VPT#Is Special:Diff/961602526 kosher?

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPT#Is Special:Diff/961602526 kosher?. I hope it's okay to crosslink a new discussion like this. If not, please delete my message. Thank you, THQ volunteers. 🙌 Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Page cleansed by subject organization

It appears this Wikipedia page was "cleansed":

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

Per this news article:

https://lighthousenow.ca/article.php?title=SSRCE_s_Wikipedia_page_cleansed_of_unflattering_re

Re-instatement of prior version may be needed? 24.215.92.187 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, current version is crappy, but this version [5] isn't much better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we shouldn't be restoring back a load of unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of at least two UPE accounts noted on the article talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Query of attack page

Hello Wikipedia editors. My name is Mark Di Stefano, a journalist in the UK. I am looking for assistance relating to an attack page that was set-up after I recently left the Financial Times. You can see the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Di_Stefano. Editors have already flagged that this looked like an attack page and seemed not to raise to the standards of the website's notability guidelines. I'd like to flag, as the subject of the page, these concerns are correct. Little to no biographical information of mine is included in the entry. This is just designed to attack me personally. The second to last paragraph also includes a defamatory claim that I used illicit means to gain private information. This claim is based on a single tweet. It is also incorrect.

I am posting here because I'm not sure how these things are usually done. I wanted to be as transparent as possible and not attempt to edit a page of which I am the subject.

Mark Markdistefano (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Markdistefano Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As a guard against impersonation, please confirm your identity with Wikipedia by sending an email to info-en@wikimedia.org per the instructions at WP:REALNAME. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I agree that Mark Di Stefano article is massively focused on the negative controversy, and as such I have started a deletion discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And I put a note at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Di_Stefano. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Question from Amany N Mohamed

After Greeting, I made some changes in the history part of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_multiplexing) and others in the biography of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatim_Zaghloul) and all changes were removed. Could you please tell me the reasons for removing them? Thanks Amany N Mohamed (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amany N Mohamed and welcome to the Teahouse. If you check the "View history" tab of each article [6][7], you'll see who removed them and their stated reason why. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And Amany N Mohamed, if you would like to ask those editors for more information, or to explain to them why you think your edit was a good one, the best place to do so is on the appropriate article's talk page (Talk:Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing or Talk:Hatim Zaghloul): start a new section explaining what you would like to ask or explain, and remember to ping the editor in question. See WP:BRD for how this works. --ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Arnold S. Monto: How do I remove a middle initial from headline?

TeaHouse friends, I am the creator of the entry Arnold S. Monto. How can I delete the middle initial "S." from the headline? My understanding is that by removing the middle initial it will improve the search results. There are no others with the name of Arnold Monto so the initial is not necessary. BTW, this is my first created/acceptyed article and couldn't have done it without you. Terrimellow (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Terrimellow! See WP:MOVE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Gare de Verneuil-sur-Avre

The infobox under services needs to be aligned so that its exactly below the services header, currently the space between them is too big and looks untidy; Gare de Verneuil-sur-Avre. How can the infobox be aligned?

Thanks Devokewater (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Devokewater, it looks dreadful because there is a long infobox and no text (and no sources). If you don't want to put the effort into turning it into a proper article, fine: nor do I. But worrying about the layout is like painting the windows before the house has been built. --ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine Just curious how to move it.Devokewater (talk)

Why have my contributions to the "List of Aviation Firsts" been disregarded?

Why have my contributions to the "List of Aviation Firsts" been disregarded?

In the past week or so -- and I do NOT understand half of Wikipedia's coding marks; but I try to contribute legit content -- for example, I added within the last 10 days or so:

- First Indoor Flight - first humans to fly on jetpacks (and cited several major examples) - Today, I added: First sea-launched flights (both east to west and vice-versa)

I believe these are LEGITIMATE categories that aren't on there, yet because of specious reasons like "formatting" which I do NOT know 100%, they are removed. So, what you are saying is that you are disregarding CONTENT over form? Then how reliable does that make Wikipedia if you are putting format over content? Instead of helping contributors like me who less than versatile in doing the proper formatting, you can WORK with me so that these "contributions" do get added.

I sure hope your actions are more sincere than your seemingly specious maneuvers.

Conphucius / Myles G. Conphucius (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Conphucius. You are addressing hundreds of editors, quite possibly not including the particular editors who reverted your changes. Please discuss this on the article's talk page Talk:List of firsts in aviation, with those editors, DonFB and CrazyBoy826. Please see the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle for information about how this works. --ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Protocol for retiring defunct IP account and neutralizing sock concerns, after registering new account

Recently an IP address I had been using to edit (maybe 500-1000 total edits) went permanently extinct.

I've registered an account and started editing rather than use a new IP, but want to post in ongoing discussions that involved the old IP, without raising concerns of sockpuppeting.

The question is whether there is any step that needs to be taken to preclude SP issues other than identifying the older account when rejoining any discussions where the old IP was used. I have already posted that information on my user and talk pages. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like my own Artist Page.

hello, I'm a verified artist on spotify that goes my the name 'Anjel' and was just wondering if there was a way to have an Artist page written of me to be linked onto my about page. Thanks. 85.210.119.185 (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)