Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nithiin1983 (talk | contribs) at 14:57, 31 July 2020 (→‎How To Change My User Name??: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Publishing Status Please

ReyanshGaur (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had created an article REYANSH GAUR . I want to know about my article status. please Guide and Help ReyanshGaur (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy - draft is in this editor's sandbox, not submitted to Articles for Creation: User:ReyanshGaur/sandbox. The editor's User name is the same as the subject of the draft (a young boy). MANY! of the 'references' are images of newspaper pages, and thus copyright violations (?). David notMD (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks alot sir, Yes i noticed that admin and article are same "REYANSH GAUR". I by mistake created editor account in the of reyansh ( of which i want to publish article ). i have created my new account. can it be possible to get this article publish from new account (my name shishir gaur). please guide.

please help and short out this — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReyanshGaur (talkcontribs) 13:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now Draft:Reyansh Gaur. Not submitted. If submitted, highly likely Rejected. May contain copyright images and references (screenshots of newspapers). David notMD (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The OP has been indeffed for promotion and NOTHERE, and the draft has been G11d. JavaHurricane 07:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Company page Sadas wih new references

Hello, I would like to create a company page for Sadas, an Italian multinational computer technology company. I created a trial page in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox and I am following some suggestions received in previous topics. I kindly ask for some feedback before the publications in order to respect Wikipedia best practices. In meanwhile I keeping updating the trial page with new references for each paragraph. Thank you for collaboration }} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giuseppe Ardolino: It rather looks like your employer and CEO has already most of the work for you over on Italian Wikipedia (see https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Roberto_Goglia/Sandbox), and that you've simply copypasted a translation into your own sandbox without crediting him. You've even left in some of his original Italian headings, wrong bold formatting and promotional bullet links. Which three sources do you feel will best meet our notability criteria outlined at WP:NCORP, and why isn't there yet an article on this company on Italian Wikipedia?  Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick Moyes (talk) thanks for your feedback. The account of CEO has been created 3 years ago, while I created my own account some months ago to create ex-novo the page. The trial page in my sandbox is the result of numerous updating following feedback of Wikipedia collaborators (not the simple translation). I updated my page by eliminating the bullets as you suggested (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox). I am keeping for collecting new references. You don't find the Italian page, because, as a company choice, it's more important English Wikipedia in order to boost the internationalization of the company. I will read the criteria outlined at WP:NCORP, I will update you on these topics in the next days after reading WP:NCORP. Thank you so much}} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

subject where is my 53 deleted videos and emails

I will get a suppeno if I hath to I want my 53 deleted video and email back with sofialynnadkinsrobertson from jimsnedegar 184.13.62.145 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. This is a forum to help new users edit Wikipedia; I'm afraid your question is incomprehensible to me. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their 53 deleted videos are on Comet Neowise, and will not return for millennia. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation makes as much sense as the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that "suppeno" is "subpoena", and what we see above is technically a legal threat. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I worked that bit out - but the rest was complete gobbledegook. It would be churlish of me to block (per WP:NLT) when I've no idea what they're on about, nor have the will to find out. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appears Sofia Lynn Adkins Robertson is a real person (Facebook, etc.) but still does not resolve the mystery of this query . David notMD (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Gert

Hurricane Gert was a Category 3 But it says 2. It Should say 3 (Lolasaffy (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lolasaffy. If you have a really good, 'reliable' source, you may either edit the article in question, or post the link on its talk page and suggest the change. I realise you are currently trying to tread carefully, so perhaps the latter suggestion is most sensible. Then, if nobody disagrees, after a week you could go ahead and WP:BEBOLD and make the change. Either way, check out what existing sources the article is using, and always plan to work collaboratively with other editors to agree what's best for an article. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Too late - user blocked. Disruptive editing; WP:CIR. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For other readers: the above account was WP:NOTHERE and was attempting to change tropical cyclone intensities from the official ones to those given by a certain website called "Force Thirteen", an unreliable website/YouTube channel run by a self-declared meteorologist with no credentials. JavaHurricane 07:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move Draft to an Article Page

Please someone move my Draft:Karangsambung-Karangbolong to an article page. I have made improvements to this article based on the review of several administrators. However, one of the administrators advised me to ask here so that the process of moving the draft to the article could be completed immediately. I need your help. Thank you Amon18 (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you have misunderstood what the administrator told you. The box on your draft says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,077 pending submissions waiting for review." What is the reason for your draft to be approved immediately and be given preference over the other three thousand? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that I have corrected the article according to the writing guidelines on Wikipedia. The second reason, because this article contains the national geopark in Indonesia which has been officially recognized by the Indonesian government. I think that's enough to turn this draft into an article Amon18 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are your reasons for why the article may be accepted, but there is no way for articles to get prioritized for reviewing. It is not a queue. Reviewers pick what they want (with perhaps keeping one eye on the oldest drafts). Be patient. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick fix on a page

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Conley It reads Brian Paul Conley (born 7 August 1961) is an English comedian, television presenter, singer and actor. Conley has been the host of The Brian Conley Show, as well as presenting the Royal Variety Performance on eight occasions. In his 40-year television career, he has starred in multiple award-winning television sitcoms including Time After Time and


The link to the show "Time After Time" is not the right tv show at all. I don't know how to change it and thought I would tall someone so they could. Ezz9 (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ezz9, link removed. It appears there is no article for the UK version of Time After Time. Thanks for bringing it up. If you want to know how to use links on Wikipedia, I suggest reading WP:CHEATSHEET which has all the basic formatting of Wikipedia. — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 08:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia In Search Results

Hi all,

Recently, an article I created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nookazon) was approved for creation in the Articles for Creation scheme. However, my article, despite being approved, does not show up on Google search (I searched for Nookazon, nookazon, Nookazon wiki and Nookazon wikipedia).

Is anyone able to explain to me how articles appear in search results? Is there anything that I need to do to get it in search results? And finally, does this need me to add a redirect to the page?

Any clarification would be extremely helpful. Thanks Squid45 (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newly created articles are NOINDEXed until they have been reviewed through the new page patrol process (or 90 days have elapsed if not reviewed by then). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Intuition Systems was declined

Can you help me to fix the issues and repost? Asaianand (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Intuition Systems declined, edited by Asaianand (creator), and resubmitted. Asaianand should declare on User page nature of presonal connection to company, if any exists, as conflict of interest or paid. Product section should be deleted. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Cover songs

-Daniel Boaventura Hi I am a fan and would like to update Daniel’s album listings. However I was told only covers that are significantly noticeable can be added. But he is very popular in Brazil, Mexico and even Russia, isn’t it enough? Or any other ways I can eventually move towards my goal?? Pls help.I am new to Wikipedia and all my work today went down to the drain as I wasn’t aware of the rules.The discography I updated the other night was also deleted.... don’t know why...can anyone tell me? Thanks in advance. Boboxoxo0412 (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The revert was by an automated program that was designed to remove the Youtube link you provided but reached back to also delete the discography table (which you have since restored). The text of the article needs better refs. David notMD (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boboxoxo0412 Album cover images are pretty much always protected by copyright. Therefore they can be used on Wikipedia only under a claim of fair use, and must comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The sticking point her would probably be criterion 8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.} This is often interpreted to permit an album cover (or book cover) in the article about that specific album (or book), but not elsewhere unless there is specific critical discussion, cited to a reliable source, of the cover in the other article. That would be unlikely in an article about the musician.
If you just meant that you want a cover image in an individual album article, that should be OK if all the criteria are complied with, and if the album is notable enough for an article. It would mean writing up a fair use rationale for the image, but that can be done. Where and when were you told that the cover had to be significantly noticeable? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or did you mean cover versions of songs, Boboxoxo0412? that is a very different issue, and much more of a judgement call. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get content approved that's flagged as copied but is actually original?

Hi,

I'm totally new to contributing to Wikipedia so please excuse my ignorance on this.

I've created a page and added content but received a message that it looks like it's copied from somewhere else on the web and can't be posted.

this seems to be a piece of AI that's a little over-critical?

is it at all possible to get a human intervention to look at it?

thank you!

Templar Wales Templar Wales (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Templar-zapf-wales, looks like this has been answered on your talk page. :-) YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"D" is the queen of copyright infringement. Not an AI. It appears you created content on May 28 and it was removed May 29. D identified the websites it was copied from. Is it possible that this is content you created for Honoris, and Honoris now holds the copyright? That would mean you cannot add it to a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most illiterate article ever?

Hi there! I just came across the article on the photographer Sheila Metzner [1] and was seriously perplexed that practically not a single name cited in it is written correctly:

Diana Arbus = Diane Arbus Harry (sic!) Vinogrand = Gary Winogrand Jean Mare (sic!) = Jean Marais


As all the links in this grotesque article lead to Russian sites, I would not be surprised to learn that the author is one of Putin's bored hackers.


This is meant for your amusement only. Please don't correct the faults, because this is too silly indeed.  :)))) 2.205.22.194 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct lift from here without even the refs - presumably courtesy of Google translate.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned it up.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to Add a New Page

How do I create a Wikipedia page? Royalmarty (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Royalmarty and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new artifcle from a blank start is about the hardest Wikipedia task a new editor is likely to face (gettign an article to FA is IMO harder). Here are some steps which, if followed, often elad to succes. But it is a good idea to spend soem tiem editign existing articles first, to better understand how WSikipedia works.
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
User:DESiegel - A minor point. The use of the Article Wizard is never essential. The use of AFC is essential for a COI editor. The use of the Article Wizard is optional for anyone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New on wikipedia - trouble in publish

Hi, I am new on wikipedia . i made an article , I don't know how to publish it successfully. It has some issues and i am unable to understand the. Please help. Nidhi raman (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am new on Wikipedia. I made an article which shows some issues and i am unable to understand them and publish it Sandhya Raman.Please help Nidhi raman (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You bypassed Articles for Creation (a formal review process) to create the article. Do you still have questions? David notMD (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now, an editor has moved it back to Draft:Sandhya Raman because much of the content does not have references. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot get SPECIFIC information from editors as to what is the problem with my article

I am adding a bio to an existing page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_Academy_High_School#Notable_alumni

The article I am trying to get approved is this:

Text of proposed article.

MICHAEL ROBERT PHILLIPS

Born: March 18, 1937 (age 83) Philadelphia, PA Alma Mater: University of Illinois, BSGE

Hometown: Chicago, Illinois, U.S.

Military: Major Infantry Retired

Children: 5 7 Grandchildren 4 Great Grandchildren

Music History Produced and released First Digital Recording in the U.S.

Michael Robert Phillips (born March18, 1937) is an American music, video and concert producer who in 1978 produced and released the First Digital Recording in the U.S. - A Tribute to Ethel Waters featuring Diahann Carroll and the Duke Ellington Orchestra under the direction of Mercer Ellington.

Early Life and Education:

Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Varena Hill Phillips and Louis Bernard Phillips who managed an office for Quaker City Life Insurance Company. He was raised on the west side of Philadelphia until he was eleven when he moved to Chicago with his parents when his father was transferred to manage a new office.

Phillips attended Hyde Park High School in Chicago in 1952-1956 (1) that had over3600 students where he lettered in three sports  – Track, Baseball and Basketball, and in 1954 Hyde Park took the Basketball City Championship. Hyde Park had a number of notable alumni who went on to fame and fortune such as Tonight Show Host Steve Allen, Hollywood Movie Producer Ben Manaster, Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award recipient Mel Torme, R & B/Soul singer Minnie Riperton and the great Jazz pianist Herbie Hancock who performed in the school’s yearly Variety Show that was produced by Phillips.

Phillips attended the University of Illinois in Champaign/Urbana. After a tour in the Army he returned to the U of I and while working on a research grant he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering in 1963. He began his MBA the following year at Roosevelt University in Chicago but did not finish as he was recruited to go to Phoenix to begin a new position as a Quality Control Engineer.

Military

After two years of ROTC at the University of Illinois, in 1958 Phillips enlisted in the Illinois National Guard as  a Private (2). After completing basic training at Fort Leonard in Missouri he was shipped out to Fort Ord in California where he completed Advance Infantry Training receiving the Soldier of the Cycle Award. Upon serving in the ranks for a number of years Phillips was sent to OCS and was commissioned as a 2nd Lt. After duty with the California National Guard to include commanding an Infantry Company, Phillips retired in 1978 with a rank of Major.


Personal Life

Married and divorced twice Phillips has 5 children, 8 Grandchildren and 4 Great Grandchildren.

Music/Entertainment Career

Phillips began his career in the recording industry in 1975 as a record executive and producer. Co-founder of Crystal Clear Records in San Francisco, this direct-to-disc record company revived the art of live recordings being transferred directly onto the master capturing the actual sound of a live performance.

In 1977 Phillips started Orinda Records in Orinda, California. The following year he was GRAMMY nominated as a producer in the category of Best Engineered Recording for A TRIBUTE TO ETHEL WATERS featuring Diahann Carroll and the Duke Ellington Orchestra under the direction of Mercer Ellington which was the FIRST DIGITAL RECORDING RELEASED IN THE U.S. (3)
Phillips produced over 30 albums in the Jazz, Pop and Classical fields and has lent his services to a number of live performances, shows, concerts and videos. Although his first love is being a producer, he has added strength which is maintaining strong P&Ls, developing logical business/promotion plans and maximizing ROIs, a trait that artists embrace.

Special Note: As part of the fun side of his personality, Phillips liked to bring up to the residents of Orinda how the town was named after his recording company (i.e., which it wasn’t). Needless to say, reactions were mixed, sometimes downright mean – smile!

REFERENCES

1. Hyde Park High School- Hyde Park Academy High- located at 6220 Stony Island Ave., Chicago, IL school records between 1952-1956. Enrollment records and Wikipedia info for Hyde Park Academy High.

2. 201 Files of the United States Army - Illinois National Guard – Arizona National Guard – California National Guard.

3. The Recording Academy, 3030 Olympic Blvd., Santa Monica, CA GRAMMY nominations/membership records.

EXTERNAL LINKS

Orinda Records (https://www.orindarecords.com)

Tarapchak1966 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tarapchak1966 - Do not add an entire biography of a person to the school article. First submit the biography of the person to Articles for Creation, as Draft:Michael Robert Phillips. I have not reviewed the biography above in detail and do not know whether it will be accepted, but what you want is to try to get an article on a person. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this relates to Michael Robert Phillips, rather than the school article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tarapchak1966 the version now at Michael Robert Phillips apparently has no cited sources. The draft version at Draft:Michael Robert Phillips does cite some sources, but the citations are not properly formatted -- see Referencing for beginners. More important than the formatting issue is that none of the pages actually linked to seems to mention Phillips at all. Now I suppose that a search starting from those pages would reveal at least mentions of him, but that is not sufficient. A source citation must specify the exact place where the source supports the statement. For a book or printed newspaper article, it should specify the specific page or pages. For an online source, it should link to the exact page where the information can be found, not to the home page of the site it is somewhere on. In addition, I suspect that at least two of the current cited sources will prove to have only directory information about Phillips. We need multiple sources that include significant coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions or trivial coverage. Does that help make the issues clearer? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I would add, Tarapchak1966, in future do not paste a copy of an article or draft here on the Teahouse. Instead just wiki-link to it. It is also not a good idea to have both a draft and an article about the same topic. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Special:ConfirmEmail

Please do repair: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ConfirmEmail >.

It sends nothing.

It does make these claims:


You must validate your email address in order to use email features. Click the button below to send a confirmation email to your address. Then, follow the instructions in the email. To check whether you have already confirmed, please see your preferences.


A confirmation code has already been emailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code.


Confirm email address Jump to navigationJump to search You must validate your email address in order to use email features. Click the button below to send a confirmation email to your address. Then, follow the instructions in the email. To check whether you have already confirmed, please see your preferences. Confirmation email sent.


Meaningless garbage.


Thank You,


Dhsert (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I do not know how the webserver got to think that my comment should be above the last one.

I do wonder whether the webserver has gotten confused.

Or, I might have pressed the wrong link or I do not know what.

Thank You,


Dhsert (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dhsert. You are addressing your annoyance to the volunteers who edit Wikipedia. Almost all of the people reading this page have no knowledge or control of the software. Please take this up at VPT. (But have you checked that you have given the correct email address, and have you looked in your spam folder?) --ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New Template:Pre-World War II European Yeshivos

A while ago, I made the Template:Pre-World War II European Yeshivos, however more recently I redid it in a more organized yet longer way. The new version is at User:Charlie Smith FDTB/W.I.P. (Work In Progress). I wasn't sure if I should replace the old template with the newer one, because the newer one is longer. I would like to hear other editors' opinions. Thank you. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Smith FDTB, I'd recommend asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism or just being WP:BOLD and changing it, and seeing if anyone else puts it back. (See also WP:BRD.) Good luck, Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

money for robbygordon

this is real. need to find how we can donate some money to robbygordon or his charaity 24.121.229.81 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for Wikipedia. We can't help with other matters. RudolfRed (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take for an article to go from ones' sandbox to approval or otherwise?

How long does it typically take for an article to go from ones' sandbox to approval (and publishing) or otherwise (denied/make changes)? I have changes ready to go to the 'Edward Peak' article I put in, and I have another article I want in my sandbox for development. TIA. Cheers, Brett BrettA343 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC) BrettA343 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Edward Peak had been submitted for review, but you can continue to edit it. s noted, could be weeks to months for review. You should be able to start a new article in your Sandbox without affecting the draft. Or you can open a second sandbox. David notMD (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, BrettA343. As it says in Draft:Edward Peak, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,127 pending submissions waiting for review." Nobody can give you any better information than that. But you are quite welcome to begin another draft, (in Draft space or in your sandbox) while it is awaiting review. If you go to you sandbox, and get redirected to the Draft, you can pick on where it says "Redirected from", and that will take you to your actual sandbox, where you can edit to remove the redirection and put new material in there. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly David and Colin (I thought I'd seen a note saying not to touch it, but if I can, great!) BrettA343 (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why many cities on wikipedia do not list a source for elevation?

If you go to some cities' main wiki pages, and you see elevation in the sidebar, it sometimes will not list the source.

 Disoff (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Disoff. The answer is, because whoever put the elevation in, did not add the source. Ideally, everything in a Wikipedia article is cited to a source; but unfortunately, we are very far from the ideal. We have many thousands of seriously substandard articles, that probably would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today. But not many editors are keen to spend time getting them up to scratch (or nominating them from deletion if they cannot be repaired), so we are stuck with it. If you are interested in finding and adding those sources to the elevations, you would be adding to the value of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, ColinFine


testing pingDisoff--Disoff (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please help me in submitting a draft in Articles for Creation?

Hello, I'm an employee of Western Financial Group and have been asked to create an article about the company. There have been other pages referring our company, including Scott Tannas. Due to my COI, I'll be using the Articles for Creation tool to form a draft (notable sources included). I'm very new to the platform and would appreciate any assistance possible. Could someone please double check that I've correctly disclosed my COI on my user page before I submit the draft and provide any other help? I'm trying to keep within guidelines. InsuranceFan89 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@InsuranceFan89: First of all, I must thank you for being honest about your relationship. as far as the disclosures go, they are complete for now.
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.

I hope you find this usefull to create your draft. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit source on talk page

I'm sure this is a dumb question, but I can't figure it out...when I go to a talk page (or post here in the teahouse), I only have the option to use "edit source" as opposed to visual edit. Is there some setting I need to change to try to fix this? I have looked everywhere and can't figure it out. Thanks in advance. Jiffy.morton (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiffy.morton: Welcome to Wikipedia. You're not missing any settings. The Visual Editor is disabled for talk pages. See more info on other limitations here: WP:VE RudolfRed (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Not sure how I didn't see that before. Jiffy.morton (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jiffy.morton, You can, however, get around this by replacing the "action=edit" in the link with "veaction=edit". Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE HELP ME WITH MY FIRST SUBMISSION

I wrote on the topic Surabhi Prabhu . My article needs edit . Can someone help please . She has all the leading papers like The Times of India[1] , Deccan chronicle[2] articles on her , I have attached only two articles , there are many articles from reputed Newspapers on her . She is very popular in modelling as well . Her Tv presence in series is also well known . This was my first submission ever , can someone help me edit this topic so that I understand my mistakes and further don't repeat in my next topic . please help in my edit and bring this topic to the main space please. Google has all her credentials, I have tried to research as much as I could . please help , please add or delete whatever you feel is unnecessary from the draft of Surabhi Prabhu. PLEASE HELP !! Boatti (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Courtesy link. Draft:Surabhi Prabhu Sourcing seems too light, aside from fawning India celebrity press. This feedback is given at the draft page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Boatti and welcoem to the Teahouse. Please read the steps in the section [[#Could someone please help me in submitting a draft in Articles for Creation?}}]] above this.
The two sources you cite above are both interviews. As such, they are not considered independnet soures. To demonstrate the notability of your subject, you would need multiple published independent reliable sources each containing significant coverage. This means multiple paragraphs about the subject in each source, at a minimum. It also means no press releases (or stories clearly based on press releases), no fan pages, no directory entries or passing mentions, no wiki pages, no blogs, no online fora. Writing a new Wikipedia article is a hard job. Also, please don't write here in ALL CAPS. Thank you. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply . I have all the reliable sources on the draft , kindly please read it . All the sources are from reputed papers . Here I posted only two press release , but if u go on the draft you will see many reliable independent sources . kindly review it . thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatti (talkcontribs) 21:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boatti. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have jumped into one of the most difficult tasks that an editor can face on Wikipedia: creating a new article. People have given you advice, but I'm not going to wade through twenty references seeing if any of them are satisfactory, ie. independent, reliable, and substantial. Please see CSMN, and present the two or three highest quality sources here. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure , Thank you.[1] [2] , [3][4] , The Times of India is like Newyork Times , it is very reliable ,independent source and reputable . Thank you for all the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatti (talkcontribs) 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told several times, Boatti, reliability of the source is not the only criterion. Did you read the page I directed you to? The first Times of India source might do, but it says very little about her, and will not do on its own. Also, if you look at WP:RSPN, you will see that some editors regard the Times of India as "generally unreliable" (though there is not an agreed consensus on that). Your second reference is based on an interview, and the other two do no more than mention her. If those are your best sources, you should stop wasting your own and other people's time on this article. Perhaps it will help you understand the issue if I explain that 1) every claim in a Wikipedia article should have been published in a reliable source, but 2) Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject says about themselves, or what their associates say about them. It follows that if you cannot find sources that are wholly independent on the subject and contain a reasonable amount of information about them, there is literally nothing that you can validly write in an article about them. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, Boatti, the page I meant to link to was WP:CSMN. My apologies.--ColinFine (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible duplicate of 2 articles under Molecular Cell biology

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_communication_(biology) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_communication_(biology) seem to be about the same concept. The 2 articles should be merged. However there are some difference in perspective, such as the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_communication_(biology) says more about communication through cell-cell adhesion and RNAi and the other article tells more about local and long distance signaling. Both articles are small in size, and it seems they should be merged. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RIT RAJARSHI: I've tagged the pages as such, but I don't know enough about biology to decide whether they are the same subject. The process of a merger proposal is outlined at WP:MERGEPROP. If you're certain they should be merged, you can be bold and do it yourself. If you want more input from the community, I suggest you go to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects (Biology, Molecular Biology, etc) and leave a link to the discussion (Talk:Cellular communication (biology)#Possible Duplicate? Suggesting Merge.). The steps for performing the merger is at WP:MERGETEXT. Good luck!  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 03:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby: Thank you I would take long time to learn how to perform the merger by myself, but I think it should be discussed in the community by more people. Thank you for adding the tags on the articles. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book Contributor Citation

Hi! Just wondering how to/if it is necessary to cite an author's contributions to various books. For example: I'm making a page of an author who has written essays included in different author's books. How do I cite that or do I just use a typical book citation? Nutellab (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nutellab. It is rarely appropriate to cite anything at all by the subject of the article. It is certainly appropriate to include a selected list of their works (not necessary an exhaustive list); but the citations in an article should be there to verify the information in the article, and should therefore nearly all be to sources wholly independent of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nutellab The documentation for {{cite book}} shows how to cite a particular chapter or section in a book, when there is reason to do so. It (and o0ther Cite XXX templates)can also be used to build a bibliography, although that is not the only way to construct one. ColinFine is correct that it is rarely appropriate to cite work by the subject of the article, unless perhaps to source a quotation. For a bibliography (selected publications), if you list title, author, date, and publisher, and when available the ISBN or other ID number, that is usually sufficient. A publ;ished book is its own source for its existence and contents. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ColinFine and DESiegel! You were both very helpful, I'll keep those parameters in mind as I edit the page. Thank you so much again!

Adding References

 StrawberryHedgehog (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Hello Wikipedia experts![reply]

I’m a middle-aged woman with no Wikipedia or programming expertise. I want to edit the article on the Lockheed Martin Shooting entry to include substantial evidence that this allegedly inexplicable act of workplace violence was actually a hate crime that could have been prevented had the company taken seriously years of reported racist incidents by the eventual shooter, including the man literally telling coworkers, “One of these days, I’m going to kill a bunch of n——-s and then shoot myself.”

I have two additional (legitimate) references I want to add, but I don’t know how to do so: when I try to add references in the editing mode, I can’t even see the ones already there.

Can someone spend ten minutes either adding the references for me or teaching me what to do? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer me.

Best wishes, Sonia Thacher — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrawberryHedgehog (talkcontribs) 05:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find advice at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or if that still seems complicated, StrawberryHedgehog, you could post a request on the article's talk page, with an informal citation to your sources. --ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My own 3D models are being reported, removed or deleted

Hi all! First of all, thank you very much for accepting me on Wikipedia and for your warm welcome, support and for providing important information (considering I am new here), I truly appreciate it! Please, I need your help:

I am publishing my own 3D models and renders on Wikimedia Commons and I add it in some already published articles on Wikipedia, so people can see an actual 3D models of the specific item/subject. We live in 21st Century and many people use 3D models, especially younger generations. You can zoom it, rotate it in order to see it from different angles and download it in many different formats and then use it for educational purposes or your own projects. As you can see, I am giving my 3D models for FREE and I am happy if I can help and share my projects with others. I have created my own folder DAPE on portal 3DfindIT.com and all my 3D models on Wikipedia/Wikimedia lead to that folder, so people can download it in many different formats for free and use it for their own projects or educational purposes, as I already mentioned earlier. Even although I explained that many times, I still get notifications that my models are reported, on list to be deleted, removed from articles, etc., because they are "not mine"? Still, 2 moderators supported me when I explained that models are mine and I own copyrights. What to do to be removed from deleting items list and to finally make it clear that I am using my own 3D models, my own copyrights, my own DAPE folder (on 3DfindIT.com) and I followed all rules by Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons? Thank you very much in advance, I appreciate your help! Dape13 (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Dape13 (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, I see that you are already discussing this with the user who removed them. They have said "your images really have little value in an encyclopedia. The STL was was of very poor quality". Theroadislong (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong! The STL is the only format which Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia accept, there is nothing I can do about it. Still, they are not so poor as said, but you have to be in engineering or 3D modeling area to understand this. And this is the reason why they said it has little value, because they do not have a bigger picture and understand engineering, mechanic and 3D modeling area. I will try to contact authors of specific articles in future and ask if they want 3D models added or not, I think this is fair, your opinion? I just have to find out how to do it, considering I am new here. And thank you for your understanding, I appreciate it! Dape13 (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello Dape13, and welcome to the Teahouse. While I recognize your edits are well-intentioned, I’ll have to agree with the other editors that your 3D models and renderings add little encyclopedic value to the articles. A still image (or multiple) of an object conveys enough information for the reader to understand the subject that we do not need a digital rendering. We also do not need to be able to rotate or zoom in on an object, especially wince there’s no color, it’s showing up glitchy, and completely does not work on mobile phones (or mine at least). Wikipedia is not a web host either, meaning that we aren’t here to provide downloadable content; instead, Wikipedia is supposed to simply inform the reader of what an object is. The illustrations are supposed to complement the text. While you are certainly allowed to put them on Commons, that doesn’t mean it should be incorporated into a Wikipedia article.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 07:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Ganbaruby! First of all, thank you for your super-fast response and explanation, I honestly appreciate it. Still, I have to say I am confused: 3D models are allowed on Wikimedia Commons with the purpose to be used for Wikimedia articles. I have also found article with 3D model and this is how/why I started adding my 3D models in articles with the purpose to make it even better. I also see computer animations and video clips added in articles (which is great!), but 3D models are now welcome? As as person of common sense, I do not see any logic in this. We, as a intelligent human species are always questioning everything and trying to improve things. This is why we have our modern science and medicine on such a high level. Shouldn't Wikipedia be improved, too? Every single engineer does use 3D models in 2020, especially students. I spoke with them and they very often use Wikipedia to find out more about some things and they would also like to see 3D models and this is why I started editing existing articles and adding my 3D models (for free) in order to improve things. I really cannot understand how that can be "unwanted"? Few moderators supported me and said what I do is good idea, but some of them disagree and this is why we have this situation. As much as I can see, it is all just a subjective opinion of individuals here: some moderators think it is great, some of them do not want 3D models in articles. I really cannot understand how it can hurt by improving things? Can we make some kind of compromise to add 3D models ONLY in engineering, mechanic and tool field related articles, please? If somebody wants to find our more about V8 engine on Wikipedia, they would also like to see 3D model of V8 engine, trust me on this one. I have a good attention and would like to make things even better, not worse (especially for younger generations, students who are from those fields and use Wikipedia as a source of information). I honestly hope you will understand my point and my good attentions and will support me, so let's make one step forward and make Wikipedia modern website in 21st Century. Thank you very much in advance! Dape13 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dape13, please discuss this with the editors at specific article pages in reference to specific images. I also do not find them a helpful addition to the article spark plug, at a minimum. (I haven't reviewed your other edits.) It's possible that 3D renders could be useful for other articles - for example, where photos are unavailable. You also might want to visit the Wikipedia Graphics Lab[2] and the Commons equivalent[3] to see if there are any requests that you can fill using your 3D modeling expertise. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calliopejen! I agree with you 100%: I will ask in future authors of specific engineering/mechanic subjects if they want me to add 3D models or not. You agree, that is OK? Can you just help me how to contact authors, send message, please? I am still new here, still learning and do not want to cause any problems, just would like to contribute. Thank you very much for your understanding and support! Dape13 (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hi,how can I sign my comment in an animated;or at least,stylish way? ISL fan (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ISL fan: see Wikipedia:Signatures for instructions!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @ISL fan: See WP:CUSTOMSIG for how to change your signature and some rules. I don’t know if it’s even possible, but do not animate your signature. Some editors will find it intrusive and distracting if there’s constantly something moving in the corner of your eye. You are allowed to make it colorful though, like mine.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 07:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @ISL fan: WP:CUSTOMSIG describes the subject in general; Wikicode/HTML/CSS coding is up to you. Remember that not everyone has "normal vision", nor are they using the same display devices. Please don't go crazy with it; readers' focus should be drawn to content, not signatures. A sig's primary purpose is to identify your username accurately and provide a link that other users can use to communicate with you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know everything on Wiki is TRUE?

What prove does this website have that it is all true?  Factors Guy! (Say hi!) 07:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Factors guy: There’s no proof. In fact, not everything on Wikipedia is true, and we already admit that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia’s high traffic means that it attracts all kinds of vandals with ill intentions, ranging from blanking pages, personal attacks on others, or deliberate hoaxes to fool others. We have a variety of systems in place to catch vandals, but we do miss a couple occasionally, which is why we try to enforce editors to provide reliable sources to back up their claims. Though there are tons of vandals, there are many more good-intentioned volunteers that patrol pages and make sure we get as close to the facts as possible.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 07:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In short, see Wikipedia:General disclaimer. For a longer version, listen to this guy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is truth? In all seriousness, though, @Factors Guy: look for small blue numbers like [1] and they'll direct you to a references section. These references should give as much information as possible for helping someone (legally) find a copy of the reliable source cited (the "proof"). I usually say "professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources" instead of "reliable sources" because that's what most reliable sources are (though some other kinds of sources can be reliable in some cases).
Now, this doesn't prove that the statement is necessarily true, but if it isn't, it's not our fault. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Arthur O'Book, Book Title: Subtitle Example, pages 0-00, Example Publishing Company, 2030.

Inserting photos which were now deleted?

Dear Wikipedia Team, Dear Member who deleted our photos, we have started a Wikipedia Post for our University and had added relevant photos. These were now deleted and we can not seem to find out why? These photos were taken by our own photographer and we own the copyright for them. Please could you help us to reupload them? Thank you in advance. Best regards, SRH Dresden School of Management Team SRHCampusDresden (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SRHCampusDresden, and welcome to the Teahouse. The editors that deleted the images did leave the reason why on your talk page at Commons, which is that the images were advertisements. If you have any further questions, leave a message on those editors’ talk pages.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 07:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SRHCampusDresden, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion (which means "telling the world about something") however laudable the subject. While we loosely talk about "X's article" or "an article for X", a more accurate expression would be "Wikipedia's article about X". If we have an article about your campus, it does not belong to you, you do not have control over its contents, and generally it should not contain what you say or want to say, but only a neutral summary of what people unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you. I cannot see the deleted images, but the editor who deleted them thought that they looked like advertisements, and that is definitely not the function of an image in Wikipedia: images in articles are there to help the reader understand the subject.
A couple more points: I'm afraid that your user name is not acceptable: Wikipedia does not allow usernames which imply that different people are using them, or suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation. Since you haven't made any edits other than this one, the easiest thing is to abandon it and create a new account: each person who is editing should create their own personal account: they may use their real name (as I do) or a pseudonym; and they may suggest their affiliation (eg "Paul at Dresden SRH") but should be clear they are individual accounts. If these accounts are to be used to edit articles about the School, then the editors who create them should read about editing with a conflict of interest; and if they are in any way paid or employed to do so (as is implied by your "SRH Dresden School of Management Team"), you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor. You should create new account(s) and make this declaration before you do anything else here. --ColinFine (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer. In the lead, first paragraph, the link to quantum Turing machine is red. How do I fix this? Hmanburg (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hmanburg, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why those links are red is because the article for those subjects haven’t been written yet. We consider Simple English Wikipedia as basically another language Wikipedia, so even if quantum Turing machine exists as an article here on the English Wikipedia, you can’t reach it with a normal link on the Simple English Wikipedia. Interlanguage links do exist, but their policy is to “keep at a minimum”. A solution is to actually create the article at the Simple English Wikipedia about the subject (here’s how).  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 07:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ganbaruby Thanks! I'll probably take a shot at making that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmanburg (talkcontribs) 08:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an inactivity in Wikiproject Molecular Cell Biology articles?

It looks like many of the Wikiproject Molecular Cell biology articles lacking details and remaining unimproved for years to decades. Recently I noticed an article whose title does not match with its content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_topology). Looks like there are scope of lot of improvements in many of the articles, which are not happening. Is there a deficit or reduction of contributors? Also is there a general reduction of wikipedia activities? How can we again increase activity in Wikipedia? With best wishes for Wikipedia RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RIT RAJARSHI: This sounds like a Wikipedia editor's origin story. Really. That's actually how I got started with editing as well, noticing that there's a gap in Wikipedia's coverage that I can fill. The thing with molecular cell biology is that it's so specialized: everyone can probably edit an article competently about their favorite sport or their hometown, but I would say very, very few people even understand how cells work, and even less that have such an understanding they can edit a Wikipedia article about it. Be the change you want to see in the world.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 10:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Statistics and Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 10:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganbaruby:Thank you. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Martin (garden designer) Reference link number 13 is broken. How to remove? Kwaizzz (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited, so broken ref is now #11 ("Oprah"). David notMD (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One should not remove such links, Kwaizzz. Ideally, one fionds an archive version if available, and supplies the URL to the archive version, using |archive-url= and |archive-date= if in a citation template. Failing that, one marks it with {{deadlink}} so that someone else may do the replacement. The original URL is often a key clue to such a replacement. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwaizzz: I googled the title "when jamie durie met oprah", which led me to an archive site. I updated the cite with the archive and author info at Special:Diff/970345360. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the content rejected?

There was editing on the title: "Cure", some content was undone, although it is a research study by Dr. Asad Ayub, qualified doctor. HomeoNews (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added content to Cure without providing a reference. In addition, medical/health articles require a high standard for references, explained at WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going further, and to be blunt, your contribution was badly-written, badly formatted, rambling and nonsensical waffle, which I'm afraid has no place in this encyclopaedia. Please take more care in future, and avoid adding opinion or uncited statements. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I wonder if this content was a garbled machine translation. Both waffle and wtf.Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 19:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. No piling on the newbie. David notMD (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes omitted to mention that the rejected content was also advocating a quack remedy. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowhunters New Glaad Nomination

HI. Shadowhunters (the tv show) just got nominated for the first ever Fan Favorite Glaad Award. Can you please add the nomination in their Accolades section? Source: https://donate.glaad.org/site/SPageNavigator/GLAADTVFanFavoriteAward.html

Voting for the Fan Favorite is only on July 30, 2020. Ashleexry (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleexry, This has been done (not by me though).[4] Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melinta Therapeutics

I noticed that in the brief entry on a company named Melinta Therapeutics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinta_Therapeutics) it states the company is located (present tense) in Connecticut, but to the right, the summary says the headquarters is in New Jersey. I wonder which it is. Sherlock1895 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sherlock1895:, Welcome to Teahouse. You can copy the reference of present address (current location) and replace the old location with citation showing new location and also brief description in Edit summary. Thank You— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 12:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation unorder

I'm checking what's possible, as alternative to a title-link in Citation. Trying |lay-source= does not display at all, so that's why I'm here.

* {{Citation|last1=Laurent|first1=Peter Edward|title=A Manual of Ancient Geography|date=1840|chapter=Germania|pages=163-168|publisher=Henry Slatter|place=Oxford| lay-source=[[The Oxford Classical Dictionary]] }}

  • Laurent, Peter Edward (1840), "Germania", A Manual of Ancient Geography, Oxford: Henry Slatter, pp. 163–168 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help)

preceding unsigned (Sechinsic) 80.62.116.87 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad-hoc solution
:* {{Citation|last1=Laurent|first1=Peter Edward|title=A Manual of Ancient Geography ([[The Oxford Classical Dictionary|laysummary]]) |date=1840|chapter=Germania|pages=163-168|publisher=Henry Slatter|place=Oxford}}
  • Laurent, Peter Edward (1840), "Germania", A Manual of Ancient Geography (laysummary), Oxford: Henry Slatter, pp. 163–168
preceding unsigned (Sechinsic) 80.62.116.87 (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP editor Sechinsic. It is not clear to me what you are trying to do here, but the above citation is malformed and would be reverted or changed in an article. "Laysummery" or better "lay-url" should point to an external page where a non-technical or less-technical version of a technical source may be found. If and only if a lawsumery link is provided, |lay-source= gives the name of the source where the summery is to be found. This should not be used as an alternative to the title link in a citation.
What is your actual goal, here? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to clear search suggestions from history?

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse - I'd like to find a way to clear the search suggestions that pop up every time I place my mouse cursor in the search box. There must be a history cache of some kind that stored a list of old searches, and that remain status quo, unchanged for years. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ProfFromChiTown (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ProfFromChiTown, Those stored searches are not from Wikipedia, they're likely from your browser. If you have Chrome for example, it remembers your searches. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try hovering over the drop-down list - if you gat dustbins at the end of each line click on these - or try hitting delete whilst hovering over a line - or right clicking and see if you can delete that way - failing that, please tell us which browser you are using and someone will know if they can be deleted, and how - Arjayay (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ProfFromChiTown: You'll probably find something relevant here. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bot that's stopped working

Hi, the bot called SDZeroBot seems to have stopped working - it used to update the page below twice a day but it hasn't done so in about 3 days now. How does this get fixed/notified? TIA! Page I'm looking at is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AfC_sorting/Culture/Biography/Women MurielMary (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MurielMaryand welcome to the Teahouse. SDZeroBot is run by SD0001 whose user talk page currently says SD0001 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. and whose most recent edit was on 25 July 2020. I suspect any fix will need to wait until that user's return, I'm sorry to say. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into that so promptly, much appreciated! MurielMary (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Talk page

Hi, I would like to submit my Talk page article for review by an experienced editor, just to make sure that it's technically and procedurally correct and abides to all relevant Wiki guidelines and regulations. Even though it's not a regular article for general publication, can I still use the 'submit for review' function in Sandbox? The draft can be viewed here, and my conflict of interest is detailed on my User Page. Thanks in advance, Capt. Quinlan (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Capt. Quinlan and welcoem to the Teahouse.
I take it that you intend this for posting to Talk:German Gorbuntsov or perhaps for linking to from that page? I would say, do not use the submit button,. as that process is intended to drafts of articles, and this is a draft of an article talk page post or perhaps a critical essay. We don't really have a process for reviewing such lengthy critical comments, and you being a declared paid editor makes this particularly tricky. I'm not sure what to advise. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DESiegel, thanks so much for that. I had intended to post it on the Gorbuntsov Talk page. Perhaps it might be possible to find an editor with an interest in Russia or Russian media who has background knowledge and a passion for the subject - and therefore willing to review. Or maybe I could try on Help IRC chat to find an editor willing to take this on. I appreciate it's long, and that has implications for a paid editor. But aside from my COI, it seems to me that it's patently obvious that the guy is the victim of a Russian smear campaign and that context needs to be explained. Also, it's in the interest of the community that Wiki is not used as a platform to spread lies and Russian Government disinformation (which is also against many Wiki guidelines.) Perhaps bullet points at the top, so that only those who wish to, need read the whole text? Any help moving forward would be greatly appreciated - Capt. Quinlan (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Capt. Quinlan: There is no process for review of things to be posted to talk pages. I will say that it is very verbose for something to be posted to a talk page, so much so that other editors may not care to read it. Leading with specific issues to be addressed might be more effective. Also you may want to proceed piecemeal and fix bit by bit of the article so that your criticisms are more digestible. When you're ready to post to the talk page, just go ahead and do it. To get more attention to the article, I'd recommend posting at WT:RUSSIA--not the whole text, just a short 2-3 sentence summary of the issue and an invitation to visit the article talk page. WT:RUSSIA is where users interested in Russia tend to hang out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Cain

The herman cain death some of it were speculation of how he contacted covid 19 let's get rid of it and just post that he died from covid 19. Brad Essex (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brad. This is something you should most likely bring up for discussion at Talk:Herman Cain since the best place to try and resolve and disagreements over the article's content. Please also note that even though Cain is dead, WP:BLP would still apply to any discussion about him since he's only just died. So, please take care of what you post about even as part of larger discussion on the article's talk page. Try to frame your argument in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and support any claims you make or try to debunk with links to independent reliable sources that support your position. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird box

Dumb question. In the article Alden Richards, there's this weird extra box on the bottom row on the Television part under Filmography that I've been trying to remove but unsuccessful. What could be causing that? I tried to remove the extra pipe but it's removing the entire row other than the Title. It looks good though when I preview the changes. - SUBWAY 00:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Subwaymuncher, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a bit of a puzzler. In looking at the table, I believe the issue is being caused by the fact that the last element in the table is defined as a header. I'm only guessing here, but I have a feeling that the wikimarkup interpreter assumes that there will be at least one data element following the header; without it, it has trouble formatting the table properly. Changing the last header element to a data element seems to fix the problem. If anyone else has any ideas, please feel free to add to this answer. CThomas3 (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

How can I submit a draft for review?? Spinelli Nutelli talk 02:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinelli Nutelli: Put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article in code view. I've done this for you, so your article is submitted and pending review. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youuu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinelli Nutelli (talkcontribs) 14:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to review and publish a page

Draft:Mike L. Whaley I have been working on this page for sometime and have added in links and references and citations and have not been reviewed again. Please can I get some feedback and possibly help to fix it up so it can get published?

Any advice would be welcome

Thanks Dreamskygirlsa (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Dreamskygirlsa (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamskygirlsa, I just declined your draft. Please gather significant coverage of Whaley in reliable sources before resubmitting. As a rule of thumb, this is generally a minimum of three relatively in-depth newspaper articles (interviews don't count). If such sources don't exist, Whaley doesn't qualify for an article. Good luck, Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an endorsement?

Would this Twitter like be considered an endorsement for Claudia Conway? Thank you [1] Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content that violates any copyrights

How can I know that a content from a book or website or newspaper or Journal violates any copyrights. Satya Jaimala (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if material has been published elsewhere it is subject to copyright. For more detail see WP:FAQ/Copyright. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how to improve this draft Draft:Ali Mansour ?

how to improve this draft Draft:Ali Mansour ? -41.233.134.125 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC) 41.233.134.125 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted on the draft by reviewers, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You have not shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor or the broader definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 92.73.156.108 (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

move a draft to mainspace / waiting for review

Hello, a few weeks ago I asked to move an article from my sandbox to draft in order to be reviewed and eventually move to the mainspace > Draft: Piero Atchugarry Gallery. Today I notice that my account is being "autoconfirmed" so I'm allowed to move the draft to the mainspace by myself. Can I go on with it (even if I'm still waiting for the final review) or it would be better to wait for the review anyway ? Thank you Donà Anna (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donà Anna Unless you are very experienced with creating articles, I would strongly advise you to allow the review process to go forward. If you move it to mainspace yourself and there are issues with it, the article will be treated more harshly than it would be if it were reviewed as a draft. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll wait as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donà Anna (talkcontribs) 14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How To Change My User Name??

Hey I want to change my user name so, How can i send request to change my use name??

My Current user name is User:Nithiin1983 this is my real name so i want change the user name.. so please suggest me how can i change it??

Nithiin1983 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Nithiin1983 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]