Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

Loads of sources for a statement

Hi, so now I want to know why in articles some sentences have several citations. Is one not enough to refer to? What is the benefit of citing many sources? Thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, 314WPlay. Welcome to the Teahouse. Sometimes sentences contain several separate facts, with one source not being able to verify all of them. That's why multiple sources are cited. It's important that we don't rely on multiple sources to imply something that neither of the sources does; this is what we call synthesis. You might find occasionally in articles on contentious subjects that several sources are used to support the same fact; this is editors trying to prove that the information contains due weight. It's rarely if ever a necessary thing to do, as talk page discussion can handle this. Zindor (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay Zindor summed it up very well, but for more info you can read this essay - Wikipedia:Citation overkill. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Especially in the sciences, I sometimes see a primary source that first introduced an idea (often the main topic of the article or a major subtopic) paired with a seconary/tertiary one that is a review of the topic (especially of its history). That way we give direct credit for the originator and as a key ref to trace citatations for research purposes but also meet WP:RS that it actually is the authoritative or original publication. But I agree that these can often be split into separate sentences or separate locations in a sentence. "The Smith theorem was proposed by Smithy Smith in 1894.[ref to Smith's 1894 work][ref to major review of the field that identifies this as the original pub and eponymous nature]" DMacks (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zindor, Timtempleton, DMacks and anyone else: Thank you for creating a welcoming environment and your answers. Would you mind working through an example with me? Take the article defining Expatriate and the sentence "This has caused controversy, with many asserting that the traditional use of the word has had racist connotations." Why six sources there? 314WPlay (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay, "many" is a WP:WEASEL word. I read two of the sources and neither said "many ...". So, the best guess is, they are used for WP:SYNTHESIS. You can't verify the claim but if you question it, the author may challenge, doesn't each source convince you that at least one person thinks it is racist? And isn't six "many" enough for you? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: But then does that mean that the sources are being used to imply something that none of them say? 314WPlay (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

314WPlay, please read the six sources and see if any one of them says the thing that they are being cited for. If any of them does, just leave those for verification and remove the rest. If none of them do, then we'll know the answer to your question, won't we? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, I think that this is probably quite a contentious issue and given that the article says "many", it is right that several sources are given there. Having now read the sources, I am convinced it has racist connotations (or at least is considered by many to have such) and I don't think I will be using the word. Thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

My edit button does not work

here

Good morning, Hoary (talk). I am slowly fixing the vague and unverifiable sources you advised I do to make my draft acceptable. I was trying to modify the first section of my draft to substitute unpublished (unverifiable) references with published (verifiable) ones , but my edit tab does not seem to work. I will still have to wait some time to access Ecuadorian newspaper sources to put newspaper titles and dates to the newspaper clippings I have used in my references which you have rightly described as "vague." They say they cannot access their archives because of the pandemic. This is what they wrote:

"Dadas las condiciones actuales de trasmisión del COVID – 19, tanto en el país como a nivel mundial, la Biblioteca de las Artes tiene restringido el acceso y los servicios que ofrece a sus usuarios, como medida de prevención. Por el momento, no se puede acceder al Archivo El Telégrafo. Por lo mencionado, lamentamos no poder ayudarla con su requerimiento en las próximas semanas. ¿Hasta cuándo necesita esta información?"

Given the actual conditions of COVID-19 transmision in the country as well as world wide, the Biblioteca de las Artes has restricted access and services if offers its patrons, as a precautionary measure. For the moment, the archives to Telégrafo cannot be accessed. For the above reasons we are sorry not to be able to help you in your request in the following weeks. When do you need the information?"

Reviewer Marchjuly (talk) recently wrote: "Since you're still working on only a draft, other editors are pretty much going to leave you be and might only edit the draft if there's a serious policy or guideline violation that they feel needs attention." It was my understanding that I had six months to address these issues before I resubmit the draft. Thank you both for the attention you are giving to my Wikipedia draft and for answering my question.Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Oscar Waldoosty. Criterion WP:G13 says "Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months" (my emphasis). So it's not a deadline for resubmitting, it is simply whether you appear to have abandoned the draft. If you are still working on it, there should be no problem. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine (talk). I believe I have found the problem. Somehow my editing function has switched to a new format. I will explore it and see how I can edit my draft under this new format. The old format was similar to the one I'm using now to write to you and I had become (ahem) quite proficient at it.Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Oscar Waldoosty, it sounds like you've switched to a visual editor and got stuck with it for some reason. When you open your draft, look for a button/option that says "Edit source" which will open your draft in an opening window that works the same way as talk pages like this one. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you so much, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC).Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Gen 8 Pokemon

Are there any pages for specific Galar Pokemon yet? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: We have the article List of generation VIII Pokémon. I'm not sure what a Galar Pokemon is. Generally, we don't have articles for specific Pokemons like we used to. See WP:POKEMON and Wikipedia:Poképrosal for some more info about why not... I'm sure there's plenty of discussion elsewhere though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well there are Plenty of Pokemon that have theier own specific page on Wikipedia, e.g. Bulbasaur. Galarian Pokemon are Pokemon that have been introduced in the 8th generation of the Pokemon franchise. I was just wondering If their will be any or planned on creating any pages on Pokemon from the Galar Region? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: There are some, but not that many -- see Category:Pokémon species. Whether particular Galarian Pokemon species articles will be created depends mostly on external factors -- that is, are there independent reliable sources that write about the Pokemon species in an out-of-universe way (how they were developed, how they were promoted, how they were received). If such sources end up getting created, then they would qualify for an article. Of course, there has to be someone interested in writing the article as well, but there is no apparent shortage of people who want to write about Pokemon species on Wikipedia. Hope this answers your question! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It does! Thank you! UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How do you join a WikiProject?

Hello! I was wondering how do you join a WikiProject? VolgaDnper1488 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse VolgaDnper1488. You can learn more about them at Wikipedia:WikiProject, but there is no formal joining up process. Wiki-projects are simply groups of editors who have coalesced around projects with specific themes to improve articles in that area. Whilst you can add your name to their participants list if they have one, there is no real need. Active projects may steer editors towards certain activities, so monitor their talk pages as well as the main project page. Most have an article assessment chart which shows you how many articles are relevant to that project, their quality and their importance, as identified by that Project. Clicking one of the numbers in that chart gives you a list of articles - often a great way to find articles of a quality or priority that matches your editing interests (High importance stub articles are those crying out the most for improvement) Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@VolgaDnper1488: Every WikiProject is different. The main project page will normally tell you where to add your name to the list of participants, but it's not required. You usually just edit the page and add your name to the list below the last entry. If it's not obvious, you can ask at the project's talk page (click the Talk tab while looking at the main project page and add a new section). Note the dates on the other posts on the talk page – some projects are inactive/abandoned. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Signatures (With Colour and fonts)

This may not be a very important question, but I just joined wikipedia over a month ago, and I have seen many good, many bad edits. Some edits in talk pages and user pages have colourful signatures and different fonts. I have been getting the hang of the functions in the editing window, but there is only one function I do not know about. I usually sign my posts with tildes, but to make my edits unique and recognisable, I want to know how this function works. Thanks! EpicRice (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC) EpicRice (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello EpicRice, when you go to Special:Preferences, and scroll through it, you should see an option to change your personal signature. If you can write wiki markup or html code well, you can do it yourself. You could also copy some other user's signature that you happen to like and just change the username in it to yours. Please see WP:SIG, especially the WP:CUSTOMSIG section. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@EpicRice: It's a good idea to test the code in your sandbox before saving it in your preferences. After saving it in your preferences, you should also try it in your sandbox (i.e., by typing the four tildes and previewing it) to make sure it does what you expect, and that you have at least one working link back to your user or talk page (per WP:SIG). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia say about representing castes on articles of living persons

Hello, I am a less experienced user on Wikipedia and I need help.

One user Fylindfotberserk insists on placing castes on the Early Life article of Neil Nitin Mukesh. The source for the castes he has listed is a YouTube video where his father is seen mentioning the castes of his grandfather and grandmother. Is this necessary to be put in the article?

The user has now had his page fully locked to prevent me from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:4004:395f:cfca:977e:6652:cb28 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the article's talk page. Talk:Neil_Nitin_Mukesh#Recent_removal. The consensus is to include the caste. You may participate in that discussion if you wish. RudolfRed (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, different editor put in the block (which expires today) so that a discussion could take place at Talk, and another editor who for the moment removed the caste-related sentence entirely. IP 2409 blocked for personal attacks in edit summaries and on other editor's Talk page. Everyone, chill. David notMD (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

E.A. Wickham

Is E.A. Wickham of Council Bluffs related to the brothers Owen (The O.P. Wickham House) and James Wickham, also of Council Bluffs? I'm asking because I believe E.A. Wickham deserves an entry.

From your Wikipage: The page "E.A. Wickham council bluffs" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.

Bennett Building (Council Bluffs, Iowa) McDonald and McDonald served as the supervising architects. E. A. Wickham and Company of Council Bluffs was the contractor. The building rises 86 feet (26 m) 3 KB (278 words) - 10:44, 28 January 2019

O.P. Wickham House The O.P. Wickham House is a historic building located in Council Bluffs, Iowa, United States. Brothers Owen and James Wickham were born in Ireland, and 2 KB (163 words) - 20:40, 7 May 2018

Citation: https://www.nytimes.com/1925/03/12/archives/missing-contractor-a-suicide-in-home-ea-wickham-found-in-council.html 70.59.161.208 (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

IP, I don't know if he is related. He may or may not qualify for an article -- I searched some news archives for him, and found mostly coverage of his suicide. If you want to write an article about him, I'd recommend collecting the 3-10 best sources about him and asking here for further guidance about drafting. Volunteers here can help assess whether he qualifies for an article once you find good sources. I found a few, as follows:

• "Wickham Found to Have Taken Life in Cellar". Beatrice Daily Sun. 1925-03-13. p. 6. Retrieved 2020-09-18.
• "Financier Is Sought in Iowa". The Des Moines Register. 1925-03-10. p. 1. Retrieved 2020-09-18.
• "Suicide Left $500,000". Sioux City Journal. 1925-05-21. p. 2. Retrieved 2020-09-18.

None of these is that good, though. Mostly just brief notices re: his death. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Dead links

Hi, is there some kind of tool or magic way to fix external links in references that don’t go to the page they are supposed to? For example in 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, click on any of the links that say “Report” under the scoreline. If I can, I want to help improve this article by replacing the link with wherever that moved to. Otherwise it is not very good as a reference. Any help?  314WPlay (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@314WPlay: I recommend starting with the methods described at Wikipedia:Link_rot#Repairing_a_dead_link. Maybe FIFA changed their method for the URL naming of these reports, so there is a systematic fix that could be applied. If you figure this out, you may want to post at WT:SOCCER in case there are more affected articles, so Wikipedians can fix them all in one fell swoop rather than reinventing the wheel each time. Good luck, and let us know if you have further questions! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Thank you for your helpfulness. I was beginning to think it may be a bad question. That how-to guide seems interesting to look into. I would never have thought of posting at the football WikiProject talk page. It is very disappointing when I see “Report” under the scoreline and think “Oh I’d love to read the report on this match”...only to be confronted by error 404. Anyway thank you. 314WPlay (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Help for overhauling a scientific field page

Hi everyone,

I'm writing on behalf of a group of senior researchers in the field of Environmental Psychology. Our field's wiki page is considerably out of date, and represents the research in the field which more closely aligns with the goals of the field 30-40 years ago, rather than contemporary issues in the field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_psychology). Namely, if you look at the content of articles in our field's flagship scientific journals (like https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-environmental-psychology/ or https://journals.sagepub.com/home/eab), it is clear that the focus of the field has shifted considerably toward issues like sustainability, coping with and adaptation to environmental hazard risks, and intersections with health and wellbeing.

From an content perspective, we are in the process of gathering volunteers in our field to help organize and generate the content that would go on an updated, more accurate wikipedia summary.

But, my question to you is: how do we start? The page basically needs a complete overhaul and this is not our expertise. Any input you have for how to completely re-organize and re-write a scientific wikipedia entry would be greatly appreciated! STJZ816 (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you should start by describing your proposals on the article's talk page. Then you'll be able to assess how other concerned editors regard them. Maproom (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

That's good advice from Maproom. Other little tips might be

a) ensure if there's a group of you that you each edit from separate accounts;

b) you might wish (but there's no obligation) to mention your subject specialisms on your userpages

c) On the article talk page, cite some examples of bad content, and give an example of the text you're suggesting replacing it with.

d) to help get consensus for a re-work, you could lay out a summary of proposed article content or headings;

e) If possible, rework one subsection at a time, giving time for others to review(and possibly revert you) if they feel it's not an improvement.

f) waiting between edits avoids suddenly finding someone has reverted lots of work, just because they didn't like one bit. g) make changes in small edits, giving a clear WP:EDIT SUMMARY for each one. That helps both you and other edits see what was don, when and where.

g) don't write in academic-speak (aim at high-school/new undergraduate level at the very most, if you can).

h) avoid using WP:PRIMARY SOURCES, citing instead what others have written about that original research work (rather the opposite of how one writes in academic circle.

i) enjoy the satisfaction of working with others and of doing a great job.

Having taking a quick look at the Environmental Psychology page, I tend to agree with you that it needs a revamp. It ought to be a good springboard to many other articles here, and less of a listing of universities offering courses on the topic, which seem quite unnecessary to the article. I would finally just point out that Wikipedia has quite a poor record of covering discrete environmental or psychological issues, often consensus being sadly to rush to merge topics together with a WP:REDIRECT than expanding into discrete articles. (A sad and stark contrast to how it approaches trivia like TV programme and video game characters). Thus, the discrete article on Eco-anxiety recently went through this discussion which decided to merge it into Effects of climate change on human health#Mental health (though the content merging has still to be undertaken, and has thus far just been removed). Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Environmental psychology: The entire University courses section should be deleted - Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages. Likewise Other contributors - this is not a Hall of Fame, even if those people are subjects of Wikipedia articles. The history section has no references. The list under Bibliography should either become references or else deleted. The See also list needs trimming. Good luck with your endeavors. This will become a better article for your efforts. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

can't find advice on how to put a query in an entry

Is there any way to put a query into an entry? How? For example, I'm looking at an article that talks about someone working for "a Philadelphia tool company" in the late c19th. Well, if you know that, then which company? I'm almost certain that this must be the Philadelphia, later Philadelphia/Plumb / Plumb tool company, about which not much historical record exists (but the brand-stamped tools still do). I looked but I can't see how to place a query inside an article. Surely no article can't be totally definitive in everything it says, and surely there must be areas of reasoned speculation and so forth................

I'm sure my question isn't new--in fact it must be really common--but I can't find the answer after some looking.

Thank you, ww 68.146.192.74 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 68.146.192.74. I'd suggest using Template:Which here. If you click that link, there are instructions on how to use the template in articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, IP editor, but Wikipedia is not the place for reasoned speculation by its editors. Try to see Wikipedia as a simple collation of what other experts and reliable sources have written about a subject, with a lovely list of references at the bottom of the page to help you verify what has been collated here. If we were to stray into the realms of encouraging speculation and reasoned interpretation, we open the floodgates to all sorts of unsubstantiated opinion and bias. No - we actively ban Original Research. But, as Cordless Larry points out, when you encounter vague statements that need further explanation, you have the option of checking the citation and removing the content if the citation fails to support it, or marking the statement with various ways, such as:

• confusing worded statement...
• unspecified time period...
• some people stated things...
• it might have been this; it might have been something else...
• unsourced statement what need a source for verification...
• On rare occasions it might be appropriate to include a Hidden Comment, visible only when editing. But this would normally be done, not to add speculation, but to avoid speculation being added. Here's an example: In this sentence I mention that John Doe worked for an unspecified Philadelphia tool company. That previous sentence included hidden text which you only see when you attempt to edit the sentence.

Hoping this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

$1 per edited article

I'm sorry if this is a tired query. I've been asked to edit articles for $1 per article with a loaned login/pwd. I assume this is very common, but is it something the wikipedia community warmly and eagerly embraces? ww 68.146.192.74 (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not permitted to share an account; each account is for the exclusive use of a single individual. You should create your own account, not use a "loaned" account. Paid editing is not against the rules, but you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to declare any paid editing relationship that you have, see WP:PAID. You must declare who is paying you and who the edits are for(if different than who is paying you). 331dot (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Editors with a COI (as paid editors clearly have) should not even edit the article directly, instead posting an {{Edit request}} on the article's talk page. Edits that are likely to be requested by such a paid-for scheme are likely to be denied, as they are usually promotional or the subterfuge would not be necessary. $1 for an edit ends up being a ridiculously small amount if you look at what professional copy-editors typically charge; or even in comparison to the minimum wage at your IP's geolocation in Canada. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Crikey. Most editors here contribute for love, not for money. At $1 per article, this IP looks like they could be doing it for neither! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Problem with bad AWB edits

Dear Teahouse host. I have been here before and have each time been helped by efficiently solving my problem or by showing me in a friendly, convincing way that I was wrong. Thank you so much! My problem today concerns interaction with an AWB user, who made wrong edits and ignores me when I ask him to revert. I have about 100 articles on my watchlist that I try to improve, mainly by adding new citations. In these citations I like to quote from the source to improve verifiability. These quotations often contain dates in old-fashioned formats that do not comply with MOS:DATE. About once a month AWB users "correct" such dates. I then write a note on their talk page and they, seeing their error, revert their edits. One of them even told me he reported this as a bug in AWB (I do not remember who). However, recently such a user ignores my requests. I am ready to just repair the damage but feel that it might not be the right thing to do. Please advise me. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Johannes Schade. I'm sorry to hear of your issues. I used to do a lot of spell-checking during my lunch breaks at work (with Lupin's spellchecker) and I often found myself either making - or about to make - edits I shouldn't have. When I got aleerted to my error (often by a 'revert notification), what I did was go back to the article and add the correctly quoted (but badly-spelled) text within a {{notatypo}} template or sic template, as seems most appropriate, so that it should either be ignored by the software, or ignored by the user doing rapid spell-checks. If they then fail to notice it and still endeavour to change it to a modern 'correct' spelling which doesn't conform with the quoted text, you have a perfect case to argue that they need to take more care. Equally, you can simply revert their edit with a 'not a typo' edit summary. If you need further advice, would you mind including some DIFFS to show us the type of problem you're encountering. We can take some more persuasive against any editor with a gung-ho attitude once they've been advised to take a little more care, but fail so to do, and I'd be happy to drop them a note to ask them to do that. (But you're both editing in good faith, so it would be a gentle request). Funnily enough, I've not used AWB for a couple of years and had thought the spell-checking element had recently been removed from it - someone else might be able to update me on that. Does that help you? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Nick Moyes. Thanks for your comments. I do not believe that a {{notatypo}} or sic would be appropriate. The URL for the DIFF is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederick_Hamilton_%28soldier%29&type=revision&diff=973202938&oldid=969767487. This concerns the article "Frederick Hamilton (soldier)". The revision is the current one, dated 15 August 2020. The user made 4 edits. The first 2 are valid corrections, the latter 2 are the ones that I try to make him revert. The 1st edit concerns a superscript. The 2nd edit rightly corrects "in" to "on". The 3rd edit changes the quotation "The irruption of Hamilton into Sligo took place on the night of the 1 July, 1642." to "The irruption of Hamilton into Sligo took place on the night of the 1 July 1642." (removing the comma between the month and the year). Similarly the 4th edit changes the quotation "Charles I. . [Accession] 27 March, 1625" to "Charles I. . [Accession] 27 March 1625" (again removing the comma between the month and the year). These edits were made on 15 August 2020. On 16 August I wrote a note on the user's talk page under the heading "Frederick Hamilton (soldier)" asking him to revert. Again on the 20 August and finally on 12 September. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: I've altered and reverted the two edits to direct quotations that you pointed out, so that they now match the cited sources. AWB users are supposed to take care that edits made with its aid are appropriate, but unfortunately there are lapses. Deor (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Deor, dear Nick Moyes. User:Deor, thank you for the fixes. Yes, unfortunate lapses. I feel I have wasted your time if this is all. I am a registered AWB user. My AWB's version is 6.1.0.1, which is current. This version includes a "General fixes" option that is checked by default. I always uncheck it when I make edits with AWB, which I seldom do. The "General fixes" include the fixing of the date according to MOS:DATE. When I run it on Fredrick Hamilton (soldier), it accepts the comma at the first place ("The irruption of Hamilton into Sligo took place on the night of the 1 July 1642.") but reports it as a defect in the second place ("Charles I. . [Accession] 27 March, 1625"), probably because it does not detect the quotes correctly in presence of the square brackets. It looks as if the user that I complain about has an older version that removes both. I feel that this is still a bug in AWB that should be (again?) reported. I have made searches in Phabricator but could not find a mention of "date format". Perhaps I should do some more testing and ask the user who caused the damage for the version number of his AWB. Perhaps he will tell us. There are probably other checks that should be made before reporting the bug. I wonder whether I am the right person to do this. Perhaps an experienced user with some links to AWB development would be better but I am ready to try. What do you think? Johannes Schade (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Deor and Nick Moyes: Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Vivo (technology company) (2 questions)

I had just recently come across the aforementioned article and I have two issues:

• Half the page length is a table listing all the smartphones made by this company. Many smartphone entries are unsourced in the list. Should every single smartphone be listed or only the ones for which existence can be verified or only the ones which have their own article?
• I edited the article to do the following:
  • Remove unsourced information about the company name that was present in the article for more than a year
  • Remove other unsourced information which I couldn't verify
  • Rephrase a sentence

I promptly got a Level 3 warning from one Seemplez, which I think is either assuming bad faith or being too strict. Is my edit really bad?

- 45.251.33.71 (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP user, I believe that your edit is correct. As per WP:VERIFY, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed", which is exactly what you did. I have reverted the revert (i.e. gone back to edits you made). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302 and thanks for explaining that my edit was okay. As for the first question, do you know what can be done? (My IP is different as I am on a dynamic IP range) 45.251.33.17 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I add some images in an article?

Hi everyone. Just need some little help. I was wondering how I can insert images in an article. I've been reading some copyright rules so I became hesitant. Thanks. Apollogone (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Apollogone, are you thinking of any particular images? If you are, where are they at present? Maproom (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Referencing styles

The inline parenthetical citation style, or something to that effect, was recently deprecated in a WP:CD discussion. What exactly is this? Also, what are the different citation styles? Warm regards to anyone who can clarify this. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HalfdanRagnarsson. I'll kick off with a partial answer (as I'm about to be called away). You can read more on Parenthetical referencing here but, in essence, it's when we cite published works inline within a sentence, using the author's name and year hyperlinked to the citation list (e.g. Moyes, 2015), rather than having a superscript number which links to a References section lower down.

'Deprecated', I'm sure you know, simply means we've now agreed not to do something we used to happily think was OK). Parenthetical referencing is mostly used in printed works, academic journals and legal cases where hyperlinks don't function. But online, we mostly use Inline Citations with their nice, tidy superscript numbers in square brackets. To see the difference that the recent discussion has had on one exemplar article, look at the lead paragraphs of the article on "Actuary" as it was prior to the recent change of referencing style (see here), and then compare it to the current layout at Actuary (just in case it should get changed, here's a permalink).

Personally, I'm please it has been deprecated, though I use it myself in my printed publications, and accept that for a few types of articles involving mathematical symbols or equations, using superscript numbering (instead of author date in brackets) is not appropriate. There is not expected to be a mass change overnight, or rejection of articles based on citation style. The summary of the closure rationale can be read here. Forgive me for not expanding on the full range of referencing methods (which I believe we should generally reduce into one main acceptable style). Basically, my brain freezes over unless it's an inline citation (see WP:REFBEGIN for an easy Wikipedia guide, or WP:ERB for one of my own). I will ping DESiegel who I know is a whizz at understanding all our citation styles, and might well be delighted to expand further. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I for one am surprised by the consensus to deprecate, HalfdanRagnarsson. I had opposed the deprecation, Nick Moyes. But it is important to understand what this consensus is, and is not. First of all, it only applies to what I might call "plain text" parenthetical referencing, wqhwre what appears inline is something like (Smith, 1983) with no wiki-link to a bibliography. It very specifically does not apply to referncing using {{sfn}} (known as "shortened footnotes") where a reference number appears in the text, which links to (Smith, 1983) (or better (Smith, 1983, p57)) in the reference list, and that in turn links to an entry in a bibliography. Nor does it apply to the somewhat similar system using {{harvnb}}. It does not mean that all articles using the now-deprecated system will be converted promptly. It does not mean that any automated bot to convert articles is authorized -- any such authorization would require a separate consensus. It does not mean that drafts at AfC may be rejected or declined for using the deprecated style. It does mean that editors are urged not to use the now-deprecated style. It also means that any editor who wants to convert the deprecated style to a non-deprecated style may do so without first establishing a consensus for that article, and on the other hand that converting to the deprecated style, or reverting a co9nversion from it, will require a local consensus, with specific reasons why that is better for that specific article.

I am not going to try to explain all the acceptable citation styles here. Besides, there is no list of approved styles. Any style which fulfills the purpose of referencing, and provides the needed information, and is consistent within a single article, may be used. The basic purpose of a reference citation is to allow the reader to find a reliable source that supports a statement or statements in an article. This inclkudes a direct link oif the source is online, and suffici8ent bibliographic information to find it in a library or to purchase the work if it is offline. It also means enough information to find another copy (if one exists) if a link to an online source goes dead. Secondarily, a citation should provide enough information to allow a reader to make a quick judgement of the reliability and value of the source without following a link or finding the physical source. To this end, the title of the source, and name of the containing publication are essential. The name(s) of the author(s), date of publication of the source, name of the publisher, and the location of publication are all highly desirable when they are known. Identifiers such as an ISBN or OCLC id (for books) or DOI (for online documents (or others such as the PMID for medical papers) are highly useful and should be supplied whenever they are known - they allow citation templates to automatically generate useful links.

The most commoin style her eon wikipedia is the CS1/CS2 styke, which is generated by the varius Cite Xxx tempaltes, such as {{cite book}}, {{cite Journal}}, {{cite web}}, and m,any other listed at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Thes templates were originally quite separtate, but now use a commo0n code base, with only minor differences to accommodate the special aspects of each type of source. CS1/CS2 is a home-grown style of citation. It is largely based on the methods spelled out in the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS or "Chicago") but borrows from several other establish style guidea and some parts were jsut invented here. Other styles such as Bluebook (for legal topics, mostly) AP, APA, MLA and others are used in some articles. All of these are acceptable, and none has been deprecated. If we ever do mandate a single style, my bet would be on CS1, but I don't seriously expect that to ever happen. But I could be wrong there.

I hope this has been helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What to do with a rude comment on a Talk page?

Hi there to Teahouse helpers! I found a rude comment on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jayne_Wrightsman

The comment is anonymous and 8 years old. What's the best way to handle that: Archive it, or just remove it by editing it out? If I should archive that Talk page, how do I do that? How do I easily archive a Talk page, like I have seen some Talk pages with links to their archives? Is there a script to do this? Nickgray (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are some excellent questions, Nickgray! First off, just delete the edit with an edit summary like "deleting old, insulting comment", and simply leave it at that. It's shameful that remark has languished there for so long - especially now that she is recently deceased, but some talk pages rarely get visited, and this looks like one such. Never archive a talk page purely to hide old comments, or only to show the recent ones unless the talk page itself is extremely active and becoming bloated with new threads. I say that because it is very helpful to quickly see at a glance that a talk page is genuinely inactive, rather than have to click from an almost empty talk page to go to an archive link, only to find there's just one old and trivial post within it. I'm happy seeing just one edit to a talk page made pre 2005 as it instantly tells me this is a page with little activity - and that's fine. For that reason I won't go into how to archive a talk page unless it's a necessity elsewhere. Come back if you ever really need that advice. Hope you find this reply helpful, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Nick Moyes! I removed the comment and will leave it at that. Now I know what to do for the future, too. Have a Happy Friday Nickgray (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I make an article

How can I make my own article? What steps do I take to do so? Emojiidays63 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Emojiidays63, you can have a read of Help:Your_first_article for a guide to writing your first article. When choosing a topic to write an article on bear in mind that the subject needs to be adequately notable for inclusion in Wikipeida and there must be independent reliable sources establishing the notability of the topic. As I see you are quite new to Wikipedia, you might also find it useful to play Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure which is a good way to learn about editing Wikipedia more generally Pi (Talk to me!) 15:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Emojiidays63 That's a good answer from Pi, but I've just had to reject your request to be added to our list of Teahouse Hosts, as you clearly haven't yet got enough experience of the basics of how Wikipedia works. Whilst that isn't a problem in itself (everyone has to start somewhere!), please don't waste people's time seeking permissions or involvement in things until you have gone through the initial learning curve of basic editing. That said, anyone is free to answer another person's question at any time here (so long as they give helpful and welcoming answers), but the Teahouse is a good place to watch, listen and learn from others. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How to address broken links?

What is the best way to fix broken links if the original content no longer exists? Is it preferable to link to the internet archive version of the page if it exists or to find similar content on a different site? 71.215.10.121 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a very sensible question; I think the answer is 'both', and which is best depends on what you can find! Sometimes a new source gives a better verification of a statement than an old document, but at other times it is worse. I do find a lot of people mark references as 'dead links' without even bothering to Google search the citation title and spot that there's simply been a reorganisation of the source website and urls have changed. Any effort you can commit to fixing broken links is much appreciated. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

One thing no editor should so is simply remove a dead link without replacing it. The original dead link URL is often essential to finding an archived copy, or finding the new location of the original document. It is not a bad idea to find an archive of the original while the original is still live, and the archive can be checked to be the same as the original, and supply it in the |archive-url= and |archive-date= parameters to a templated citation. Doing this in advance means that a dead link will usually cause no problem at all. One can both find an archived copy, and also a second source that supports the content (to be in a separate citation), particularly if the second source is not as good. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Link rot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please evaluate my edits

I've been told that my 2+ month edit in Ionization energy may ALL BE REMOVED if I don't address my minor faux pas such as something about using pronouns, and "original research" (yet i merely make assumptions from a table, at least to the best of my understanding). As all people know when they worked arduously all for a trifle edit which will eventually be removed, I shall not only be exasperated at my own idiocy, in fact knowing myself, i shall be involved in another flippant war/debate. Nonetheless, i came here to ask for more experienced, and veteran editors opinion on my edits. I didn't go to WP:WC because I want to get a consensus from all people. And, if you indeed found something erroneous, please address me about it. Thanks y'all and have a nice day! Ice bear johny (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Ice bear johny (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

making assumptions from a table to the best of your understanding is the very definition of original research. David notMD (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

No no assumptions. Assumptions are merely [educated] guesses. My inferences come with references. Furthermore, I strive to find backing sources to prove my inferences. So far the only parts of which i am actually clueless is for Lead's ionization energy, and that I could say i made an assumption for that part. But for the sake of the articles wholeness, I made a compromise only once. Nonetheless, i fixed some of my grammar/pronouns in the page, albeit the references i did not fix for i deem them paramount (only as further reading) to the study. Thanks! Ice bear johny (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Ice bear johny Are you using references to support your inferences (you keep writing "my), or are the inferences themselves published content? The former is still original research, hence forbidden. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I take from sources first (except the lead thingy because i did that for two days yet no source still). The "my" pronoun, i use because I'm not used to an omniscient view when writing. Anyways thanks! Ice bear johny (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article about Dax (self-driving robot)

Hey all! I've used Wikipedia for years, and just recently I created an account to become an editor. I want to write a stub article about a self-driving robot (Dax) that's been doing deliveries in the small town of Philomath Oregon during the pandemic, but the company that makes the robot is a research and development company, and Dax isn't the only thing they've made. I have a few links to some recent news articles about Dax, one of which I'll include: https://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2020/meet-dax-philomaths-delivery-robot/

I also have a pretty big conflict of interest, (I live in Philomath and work for Nova Dynamics), so I guess my questions are:

(1) What would the best ways be for me to go about writing this article considering my conflict of interest?

(2) What should I title the article? I was thinking of titling it "Daxbot (Robot)", because if I title it "Nova Dynamics" then it seems roundabout to write the article about Dax. Lizzythetech (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lizzythetech: Please review WP:PAID first, because unless you want to claim that you came on the idea entirely yourself and do that entirely at home (i.e. not during working hours), you gonna have a hard time here. After that, please review WP:NPRODUCT. If the subject doesnt meets WP:NPRODUCT, you are wasting your time. Then I would suggest that you use the article wizard to create a draft version. Once you finished that, you can submit it for review. If you need help during any of these steps, please ask again. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thanks! I just did that, and I'll look through it again before I write the article. I'm want to make sure that I abide by all of the Wikipedia bi-laws and guidelines, and stay very transparent about my conflict of interest. Thanks for the offer of help! I might take you up on that if I get stuck.

Deletion of Images

Hi, How can I request the deletion of images that were being tested & inadvertently uploaded ? ApplePieMom (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@ApplePieMom: try tagging them with {{g7}} Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Camden Monarchs Afc is declined

I am not able to get some specific comment to understand the reason of decline this page (Draft:Camden Monarchs).

I have used reference which are already used in reference of other wiki pages. Requesting to either fix or help me to fix if any issue exist.

In between I have added another reference link and done minor edits. Please review and help me. Vsp.manu (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Vsp.manu I believe your draft currently does not passes specific notability requirements. See notability (clubs) to learn more. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear ~ Amkgp, Thank you for your guidance. I have gone through your suggested link to learn more. And I feel References give are supporting the notability. Also few American Basketball Association (2000–present) teams(like San Diego Guardians, Jersey Express, Dallas Impact etc) have their published wiki page having more or less similar information given on their wiki page.

Also this team Draft:Camden Monarchs is listed on wiki page of ABA as well. So please guide what more to explore and include or which part I should exclude to accept this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsp.manu (talk • contribs) 06:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC); edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsp.manu (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Drafting an article while another one is pending review

Hello, I have just submitted a draft article, however since I do not have enough time to wait (about 2 months it mentioned), I want to draft another article (on the same topic) in the meantime. Is there an option for me to do so, as my sandbox now provides a redirect to my draft article? DogeChungus (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DogeChungus, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, certainly. You can have as many sandboxes as you like, called for example User:DogeChungus/Another subject; or you can create your draft in Draft space, with names such as Draft:My other topic. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying, have a nice day! DogeChungus (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking further, I see that your sandbox has already been moved to 1999 Indian general election in Kerala: congratulations. So as well as my other suggestions, you can reuse your sandbox by going there, and then following the link at the top that says " (Redirected from User:DogeChungus/sandbox)" to the actual sandbox; then edit it to remove the "#REDIRECT". But why would you want to create another draft on the same topic? --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How to correctly cite a 18th century Czech cookbook and other cleanup

I got randomly directed to this page, and want to use it as a place to improve my editting skills

Magdalena Dobromila Rettigová

It references an 1826 czech cookbook

Czech -> "Domácí kuchařka aneb Pojednání o masitých a postních pokrmech pro dcerky české a moravské"

German -> "Die Haus-Köchin oder eine leichtfassliche und bewährte Anweisung."

English --> A Household Cookery Book or A Treatise on Meat and Fasting Dishes for Bohemian and Moravian Lasses

I've been able to track down some of the details online, but want help checking my citation as I clean up the page and remove external references
  

Mmcdougall (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC) Mmcdougall (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mmcdougall: For things like this, I recommend starting at WorldCat. I put the title into their search and got a few hits, one of which is from 1826 (bingo!). Then you can use the WorldCat URL for the 1826 book to automatically generate a suitable citation using the "cite" button in Visual Editor. I would add the English translation in the trans-title field after you insert the citation. Do you want to try this, and report back with any issues? (Not sure if this is the sort of suggestion you were seeking... let us know if not.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mmcdougall: I'm thinking I may not have answered your actual question, and I have a couple of other thoughts. If your question was: Is this a good citation? Yes, it is a good citation. I think it could be improved with the WorldCat method I describe, though -- WorldCat has some additional bibliographic details etc. Also, now that I look at this, this is not actually the best sort of reference for the statement you're citing. It would be better to cite a secondary source, particularly given that the article describes the cookbook as "legendary". We'd want a secondary source describing the publication of the book and calling it "legendary" (or similar). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Yay! The pointer to WorldCat was definitely helpful. Also, I didn't know there was a visual editor for citations -- I've been hand-coding all my citations. I welcome any other tools for generating good citations, and will continue to try and improve the article in question with a reference from there. I'd love a sanity check on my edits - I mostly wanted to do enough research to leave the article better than I found it. I went into the edit session thinking I could just turn the references into citations, but none of the refs were usable. Mmcdougall (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally, do we just delete this section of the teahouse after you're done helping me, or what? In any case, thanks for the tips. Mmcdougall (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Do not delete or change stuff at Teahouse. It gets archived. Your own Talk page under different rules - mostly you can delete if you wish. David notMD (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Does this my articles meet stub standards?

I have made a stub article that I want to publish, but I am not sure if it will meet stub standards. Does it, and are there any other changes you would make to the article (you can modify it yourself if you want)? Thanks in advance. Rzed786 (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Rzed786, Hello there!

Firstly, I agree that this is a topic that we need to build on. I would recommend that you work on doing a round of edits (including revisiting / revising the lede) on the article to bring out the true functionality / features of a CEK machine. E.g. what does "targets functional interpreters" mean? For reference / guidance you could take a look at the SECD machine article to see how the concept is framed and presented there. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Move refused on technical reasons

The Belvoir Castle of the Knights Hospitaller is quite famous under this name. There is another Belvoir Castle in England, with far fewer Google hits, but that one was registered under this name, forcing the other one to register as Belvoir Fortress, which is by far less common and even less accurate as a term, for several good reasons. I have easily moved Belvoir Castle to Belvoir Castle (England), but was blocked from moving Belvoir Fortress to Belvoir Castle (Israel) for unexplained technical reasons. I guess it crossed ways with some older redirects or who knows what regarding the English castle. I have now tried Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests, but have no idea if I did hit the right spot - is mine officially a "Technical request", and more specifically: an "Uncontroversial technical request"? Too much Wiki-lingo, not transparent enough or user-friendly wizards for editors who know about their topic, but can't or wouldn't sit & study Wiki code forever. Thank you for your advice! Arminden (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: To be honest, I don't know offhand whether it falls into that category, but I've gone ahead and done the move for you. I do see a fair number of reliable sources that call it "Belvoir Fortress" but Belvoir Castle does win in terms of hits on webpages (can't easily assess re books). Since the person who originally moved it from Castle to Fortress didn't provide an explanation, I went ahead and moved it back. If someone disagrees with this move, there should be a discussion about it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! If interested, here (at the bottom of my talk-page) are the arguments I've put together for the "cause". Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that the Belvoir Castle in Israel is better known that the one in England. When I did a Google search for "Belvoir Castle", the first 30 hits were all for the one in England. Ok – that's a consequence of the Google "bubble", I live in England. So I tried again, using another search engine that I'd never used before: of its top 30 hits, 28 were for the one in England, one for one in Dhaka, and one for the one in Israel. Maproom (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Cropping of image?

I want to know about how to crop an image?Not only that but also tell in details how to crop out one particular person from an image from an image of 2 persons? Riya Iyer S Menon (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Riya Iyer S Menon: You're better off asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Teahouse is a site for questions about editing Wikipedia. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Riya Iyer S Menon: Alternatively, I think c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop can do it for you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to use a cropped region of an image in a Wikipedia article, there's no need to actually crop it (and so no need of help from the workshop). You can instead use CSS to specify the region to display, as shown with examples at User:Maproom/cropping.   Maproom (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding New References

Hello, They are saying I am making disruptive editing by adding links. I can show you thousands links like I was adding. That situation is Incompatible with Wikipedia. Iwontgo (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Iwontgo: The other users were correct to revert your link additions. Edits are judged against Wikipedia's policies, not against other articles that may or may not comply with our policies. If you can show us thousands of other spammy links, please call them to our attention so we can remove those too. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: So, You are saying There is no links coming from blogs? They are not spammy links according to me like I was adding. But I am saying where were you when those links were added?

Also, please note that this is a single-purpose COI spammer abusing multiple accounts.—J. M. (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@J. M.:You are still accusing. How many users are there on Wikipedia? Someone can work on the same subject. You think you know everything, but you're using Wikipedia to your advantage.

my contributions were reverted by a bot

I added information to a stub article at https://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crooked_knife

I've been doing research on this Native American tool called a "crooked knife" or mocotaugan. Wikipedia has only a stub on the subject, so I had resources to add. I was careful to follow wikipedia guidelines and policies:

I provided info about an existing external link that no longer works as intended. I added external links to a couple of articles that provide more info. I added an external link to a Maine Historical Society page with a museum photo. I provided an inline link to a video by Canada National Films Office (ONF channel on youtube) illustrating usage of the tool, with explanation of what parts of the film show various uses of the tool. After spending a good portion of my day on this, a bot reverted all my contributions. I believe the bot reverted valuable contributions in error. What should I do now? Thanks for your help! Dave b quick (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dave b quick: There is a bot that automatically reverts the addition of Youtube links by new users. (I disagree with this in principle, but my position has not prevailed.) I'll look into this and help you out. I'm not sure that the video is being used a completely appropriate (in terms of Wikipedia policy) manner, though. Will think about it a bit more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the article and made the video a reference to a more specific statement: "The 1971 documentary César et son canot d'écorce (César's Bark Canoe) illustrates the use of a crooked knife in the construction of a birch-bark canoe." The statement you previously added may be true, but it wasn't supported by any source. An alternate approach would be to add the video to the external links section. I agree that it is a valuable, useful video. But Wikipedia does not use in-line external links -- so it either needs to go in the bottom section or as a reference. Thanks for your contributions. I may tweak the article further... Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much! You are the best! You did it much better than I could. And thanks for the Wikipedia education.

obscenity

My Undoing

Why does it appear to me that all of my edits are being undone? John D. Maher (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: Your edits to the obscenity article were reverted by a bot. Probably because you are a new user and used the word "fuck" repeatedly. Most people who fit that profile are vandalizing, even though you obviously weren't. Another editor has already reverted the bot and restored your edits. Hope this answers your question! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

John D. Maher, many of your edits have introduced false information, irrelevancies and original research. Your edits must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: What is the false/irrelevant/OR info he has introduced? I quickly skimmed and did not see it; most of what he inserted looked likely correct to me. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1. He changed the name of a Supreme Sparfe v. United States case from the proper spelling to an incorrect spelling. He added his own birth to the demographics of his home town, with an anecdote referenced to his own mother. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the bit about his mother. Obviously that was bad. I'll have to look at the misspelling. The other information he added looked accurate to me, though... Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is Jury nullification in the United States and the Supreme Court case is Sparf v. United States. He added an e to the end of Sparf, breaking the wikilink. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I think this was likely a mistake (?). The rest of the edit is correct and written like someone who knows something about how to read a case... Though his requested edit at Talk:Fuck (adding citations to parallel reporters) is a little puzzling. I have no familiarity with the White Book; the Blue Book is the authoritative guide to legal citation in the US. And under Blue Book rules you don't add parallel reporters. There does appear to be some sort of UK White Book but it's not clear to me that it has to do with legal citation. (It could conceivably recommend the use of parallel reporters?) I'm not sure what to make of John D. Maher, but I think WP:AGF still applies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: Please have a look at MOS:LAW. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I am not assuming bad faith, rather simply pointing out reasons for some reverts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Archiving Cai Lun

Hi, I've inserted Lowercase Sigma Bot III to the talk page of Cai Lun but I'm not sure how to set it to archive the existing (very) old messages. Or perhaps an automatic archive is unnecessary for this page and I should stick to a manual one? (Not sure how to do that either) Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: I don't know the answer offhand. Does User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo answer your question? Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Help identifying promotional content in updates to nonprofit page (new editor)

Hello,

I don't know if this is the appropriate use of the space, but I'm a new editor updating my organization's page. I got the "promotional content etc" flag and am having a hard time identifying whether the flag is from a link(s), or wording, etc. Is there anyone that can help edit a new editor?

Thanks! Amy Rawe, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Alliance_for_Clean_Energy Amyrawe (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Amyrawe: First, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, and make the appropriate declarations on your user page. The wording of the article is very bad ("nsure clean, safe, and healthy communities", "is dedicated to changing the way energy is produced and consumed in the Southeast in order to lower carbon emissions and positively impact human health " -- this is obviously an ad). But to be honest, it's not clear to me that your organization even qualifies for an article - see WP:NCORP. Task #1 for you should be to collect reliable, independent, in-depth sources about your organization and post those sources on the talk page of the article. These would likely be newspaper/magazine articles specifically about your organization. Once you have done that, I recommend posting here for further guidance. Maybe others have different thoughts and can chime in. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Porygon Article

I have tried to create an article Draft:Porygon a while back and have heard nothing from it since. Has it been reviewed? UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: Click on the link for the draft. You'll see that it was deleted as an abandoned draft on August 25 (and previously in January). See WP:REFUND/G13 if you wish to work on it again. Meters (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: I can see that you've been in discussions about this before [[1]], and have been advised that your efforts will not be successful unless you can find better sourcing. Has anything changed? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well other than some cool facts, if we can manage to merge the denno senshi porygon page with the article I think we might have something. What do you think? UB Blacephalon (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: The issue from before isnt that there arent "cool facts", but rather that there arent enough reliable sources to back up your facts. There's nothing stopping you from requesting a refund or to start over from scratch again, but be advised that without sources, its unlikely that your draft will get approved. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well James the bond did help me submit it, but I never heard back. I might need help doing that though as I'm not that good at wikicode. Can someone help me? UB Blacephalon (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How to revert to older version of a page?

I tried to update our page and have been flagged so I'd like to revert to the previously approved version before I started editing. I can see the previous versions in the history, but don't understand how to republish or revert to an older version. Thanks! Amy Rawe (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Amyrawe, firstly, your organization cannot "approve" or "disapprove" articles or edits, and does not own the articles about it. Secondly, as an employee of the company, you are engaging in paid editing. You have disclosed that fact, so you are permitted to do so, but will need to follow the conflict of interest guidelines. Specifically, you must not edit the article directly, but would suggest edits on the talk page instead. Once you have done so, you may place the following: {{request edit}} on the talk page to request that it be reviewed by an editor without a COI. Edit warring with other editors will certainly not be accepted, so please ensure not to revert. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amyrawe. As a paid editor, you should not be making any edits to Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, except to revert obvious vandalism. Instead, you should make edit requests at Talk:Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. You need to comply fully with the mandatory paid editing disclosure, and you need to comply scrupulously with our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest. When you refer to "our page", that is incorrect. It is not a page; it is an encyclopedia article. It does not belong to you or your organization and does not exist for your benefit. It ought to summarize what reliable sources independent of your group say about your group. Please also read about the neutral point of view, because that is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

HELLSEED: Chapter 1 draft

Why my article HELLSEED: Chapter 1 draft has been REFUSED AND DELETED?

You said you refused my article becuase it contains copyrighted work, what is the copyrighted work I used into the article? I have now to re-write all the article again spending other time.

Can you please let me have back the deleted article so I can modify it to be approved? Bugbuster77 (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Bugbuster77, I have looked at the deleted article, and confirmed that it is essentially an exact copy of the material located here: [2]. That page is marked "Copyright(C) 2020 PROFENIX STUDIO SRLS, all rights reserved.", so it is not under a license compatible with Wikipedia. We cannot accept material copied from copyrighted and nonfree sources; you may see more about that at our policy on copyright. As a copyright violation the article cannot be restored, but if you plan to begin it again, I would encourage you to first take a look at our general notability guideline to see if the subject meets it. Also please note that promotional material, including any form of "teaser" or talking up, as well as links to purchase the game, will not be permitted. (Even if that material were not a copyright infringement, it would be unacceptably promotional.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade, I completely rewrote the article taking care not to infringe any copyright. Please give it a look and let me know. Thanks.

Certainly better, and I do not see any infringing material this time. You might consider finding some sources for the first two sections, or if you cannot consider removing them. Article content should never be an editor's interpretation of something, such as a game's genre (and shouldn't include weasel words such as "basically"), they should be from what reliable sources say about it. If the sources say nothing about it, the article shouldn't say anything about it either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page

Can anyone help create my organization page. Gargar17 (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: User:Gargar17/sandbox.

This appears to be a copyright violation from https://idad-lr.org/about-us/ David notMD (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gargar17: Multiple problems here:

• First of all, since its your organisation, you must comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. The first one it also a Terms of Use requirement.
• Secondly, that page was aparently copied & pasted from the organisations website. Please never do that. Even when we could get the legal stuff resolved, 99% of the texts not writen directly written for Wikipedia do not comply with the Neutral point of view policy.
• The current page does not cite any sources. As such, it currently also fails to establish Notability (in Wikipedia's sence of the word). Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

hi

potato Fdddrrt44 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have a question about editing Wikipedia, let us know... Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Undone

I am an attorney. I am a member of Phi Kappa Phi and Omicron Delta Kappa. I have written a brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court and I argued the case before the Court. I think I have something to contribute to Wikipedia, but so far it seem like a childish place. John D. Maher (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi John D. Maher. I hope that you can become a valued member of the Wikipedia community. I'm not sure of your exact concern here. Your edit to Obscenity is currently live in the article. Your proposed edit to Fuck is not live, but that is because we follow Bluebook citation rules (see MOS:LAW), which disfavor parallel citations for Supreme Court cases. Your edit to Brooklyn, Conecuh County, Alabama is not appropriate under our policies; we don't generally mention people in locality articles unless they qualify for Wikipedia articles themselves (and you do not, though I don't either! and I'm an attorney too) and have such an article already. The only remaining edits at issue are the ones you made to Jury nullification in the United States. You introduced a spelling error in the Supreme Court case name, which I think made others doubt your contribution. I'd recommend discussing that edit at Talk:Jury nullification in the United States. Some of your additions are likely correct, but need to be cited to reliable sources (a treatise would be a good citation for the general statements about the "common practice" and what happens "[i]n some states"). Please ask again here if you have more specific questions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: If you didn't already, please see the comments to your earlier post above at #obscenity. When addressing the same issue, it's best to edit the same section again, adding new comments at the bottom (with WP:INDENT please), in the same way that we're replying to you here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

FNG.

The last two letters of the title represent "new guy." For fear of offending a bot that has undone me, I will not explicate the first initial. Being a FNG, I have made mistakes and I will endeavor to improve my edits. This is to say thanks to both those who have been nice and to those like Collen328 who gave me some good old tough love. John D. Maher (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@John D. Maher: again, please do not start new sections unless you change the topic – this is directly connected to your previous questions here. I would have simply removed the heading except that you had used it as part of your post. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Many of us have been around so long that we have forgotten how steep the learning curve was back when we began. Another observation: Teahouse hosts can be patient with new editors, but may slap back any new editor who denigrates Wikipedia ("childish place"). Lastly, content stands of reliable source referencing, not the credentials of the person who made the edits. You may find Wikipedia:Expert editors a useful read. David notMD (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

this Pakastan from Italy

so cocky, why he hate on one woman and he,cheater and all you think the Italian Pakistan in right place. Come on ; needs a immediate reply 107.242.125.13 (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It's not clear what you are asking about. This is a place to ask about using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Khadija El Kamouny

Hello,

An admin reviewed my draft and considered it written in a non neutral tone/format. Can you please help?

Thanks in advance MehdiKass (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You should rewrite the draft in neutral tone. By the way user:TheAafi is not an admin. Ruslik_Zero 10:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I moved stuff around, and deleted some content that while true and referenced (early childhood), not typical for an encyclopedia article. You should consider removing the quote you have by her, as what subjects of articles themselves say or write rarely adds to notability. David notMD (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Again,

Thank you for your help! I will try to refine the article in the tone side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehdiKass (talk • contribs) 12:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a page and put files on it?

How do I create a page and put files on it? Holly2017 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Holly2017: I assume you mean "How do I create an article?" Please be advised that creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can undertake on Wikipedia. WP:YFA should tell you the basic stuff. If you wish, you can also use the article wizard. Files must be upoloaded to the english Wikipedia or our sister project Wikimedia Commons. They must not infringre' someones copyright. An upload wizard is avalable here for the english Wikipedia or here for Wikimedia Commons. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Advice to improve draft: neutral point of view

I joined Wikipedia recently and my first page for author Ganggang Hu Guidice was declined. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ganggang_Hu_Guidice I've been making changes based on the general advice but would really appreciate any suggestion from you to improve it. Thank you very much! Koala829 (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Koala829, reads more like a CV than an encyclopaedic article. There are also a lack of sources in certain sections. The arguably most important section, "Biography" contains 5 references, 3 of which are in the last paragraph. The sources are also of questionable reliability, I suggest reading WP:R. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Berrely:, Thanks a lot! I added some internal links and more references. Initially I was thinking about making a simple version, and I took these authors' page as examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaowen_Zeng
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hao_Jingfang

But should I simplify the publication section and add more information in the biography section in my own draft? Koala829 (talk)16:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Koala829: I think you need to take a couple steps back here. Why is she notable in the first place? See WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. Most of her awards don't seem that important, and most of her listed works are just essay-type pieces in newspapers. Are any of the references listed in the draft articles about Ganggang Hu Guidice? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Yes most awards are prestigious in Taiwan and Hong Kong. One award, the Sino literature award in United States is the only literature award in North America for the writers whose native language is Chinese. And all references are about Ganggang Hu Guidice, except a few winner announcement news including other winners' names. This author has a Wikipedia page in traditional Chinese. So I'm thinking about creating an English page too. But if language is a limitation (like most of her publication is not English, and most interviews, news reports are not English either), I will stop working on it. Or is there an easier way to make an existing non-English page to an English version? Do you have any suggestion? Thank you! Koala829 (talk)21:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: I received a notice that my draft is approved! Thank you all for your help! Koala829 (talk)12:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Understanding notability requirements in the past

I have come across many mainspace articles which do not seem to meet WP:GNG or any subject specific notability guidelines. Also a number of experienced editors have commented at various places that the notability criteria over the years has gotten stricter. for eg DGG's comment here [3].

The issue though is that conducting a through WP:BEFORE takes considerable time especially when the subject has a good number of passing mentions in various sources. Hence I would appreciate if someone could guide me briefly on when specific notability criteria got tighter in policy and in application, so one can use that as a rough guide on deciding on which older articles to focus on for conducting WP:BEFORE. Roller26 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Roller26:, I'm not sure how well that will work for you. One is that rules didn't just spring into their modern, severe, forms. If you take a look through NCORP, for example, it has numerous major alterations. Another is that it's not just the rules have changed, it's the enforcement has got tighter. Before modern NPP, for example, it was vastly easier for content to sneak through. There's also lots of old articles and fairly few editors, so if you pick any reasonably old year (say, 2007) and work forwards, that will work as well as having a hyper-nuanced approach. I would generally suggest using the no-source category as probably a more useful method. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Roller26. I've been editing regularly for over 11 years and an administrator for over three years. Yes, notability standards have been gradually tightened over the years but they were pretty strict in 2009. If you want to nominate articles for deletion, then it is incumbent on you to develop your search skills to do a fairly quick BEFORE search and add keywords as needed to separate the wheat from the chaff. Here's an example: I was looking for information about a 1910 silent movie the other day. The title consisted of three common words and a standard Google search produced a flood of irrelevant links. But when I added quotation marks to the title and added the word film, and searched Google Books, I was able to find two reviews from back in 1910. I got additional relevant hits by adding the director's name. If you nominate poorly researched articles for AfD, you will end up with harsh criticism from inclusionist editors. It is always better to save an article by improving it, as opposed to deleting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that today's stricter standards apply to every article, whether it was first written in 2003 or yesterday. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, Cullen Thanks, that helps. Roller26 (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

CAUSE OF DEATH FALSE/ NOT CONFIRMED OF LATE ACTOR, SSR

Hi, this is regarding the article on the late Star 'Sushant Singh Rajput'. His death has been ruled as a mysterious death which is now being investigated by 3 entire different investigation teams. All proofs that are being released to the media support the fact that the death to have initially been believed as a suicide is now infact confirming to be death caused by 'strangulation'. This means he has been murdered brutally, however the media of India are not allowing this news to be officially confirmed. CBI and NCB investigation bureaus are in support of this now since there is no absolute proof that the actor committed suicide, so it is absolutely unfair that the death has been stated as something else on Wikipedia. This has to be changed because this is not fair!!! The world now knows he has been murdered!!! PLEASE CHANGE THIS!!! Roshan Sajjad (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Roshan Sajjad Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If they report the death of this man as a suicide, that's what we say. If they report it as a murder, that's what we say. We don't go by what government mouthpieces do or do not say, unless reported in independent reliable sources. In any event, if the news is reporting new information, please discuss it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

For reference: Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Since the talk page came off semiprotection we've had a flood of users making edit requests, formal and otherwise, demanding edits along these lines. None of them have been sourced. There is a conspiracy theory that says SSR was murdered, and one of the potential "targets" for this conspiracy theory is in the midst of a sickening trial by media that has been condemned by local authorities. (Also, though this is more minor, the CBI has explicitly stated that they are not sharing any information while the investigation is ongoing, and anything credited to it is bogus.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the relevant Wikipedia articles about this person who recently died will summarize what the best reliable sources report about his cause of death. Wikipedia editors will ignore pressure campaigns, threats and the rantings of conspiracy theorists on social media. If major reliable newspapers in India, or the relevant government agencies, conclude something different, then Wikipedia will summarize the new information. Any editor who engages in disruption regarding this death will be blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Fake Wikipedia about muzaffarpur

you written fake Wikipedia about Muzaffarpur the not Khan that name is syed muzaffar shah and I have a proof beacause my great grand father is son of Syed muzaffar shah that why I have a proof the delete all fake Wikipedia about muzaffarpur other wise I am file the case all of you understand Osama siraj (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor now blocked for making legal threats. But also barging in and adding rambling content and narrative to the lead paragraph of an article is wholly disruptive, and is certainly not the way to make a coherent point. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Re writing an entire entry

I need to completely rewrite the page on Clan Hunter. Is it best to start from scratch using the sandbox and then delete the old page and replace with the new or will I have to progressively edit the existing page please? The entire entry will be changed with new copy and pictures. CharlesDennisHunter (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello CharlesDennisHunter. Please explain why you "need" to completely change Clan Hunter? Are you aware that 76 editors have been working on that page for 14 years? Are you aware that the editor who has done the most work on that article is still an active editor? Don't you think that it would be disrespectful for a brand new editor to wipe out all their work? I see that you tried to add a bunch of unreferenced content to the article on September 9 and were reverted. Please don't try anything like that again. Verifiability is a core content policy, and you must summarize what the full range of reliable, published sources say about the topic, without adding your own personal knowledge or family lore. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before doing anything drastic. Edits that do not comply will be reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

In addition to adding unreferenced content, everything you deleted was referenced. I strongly advise you start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, describing your intentions and providing references. Allow time for others to express opinions. I advise you then start slowly: copy an existing section into your Sandbox, amend it, and then paste back into the article. If you are deleting references in that section, first check if those references are used in other sections. You may have to do ref repair. David notMD (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

why does wikipedia does not publish my page?

i created an ENGLISH wikipedia page few days ago, but it has not publish yet. what can i do in order to publish it? thank you Tamar Shalev1 (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Tamar Shalev1 shows no edits to the English Wikipedia. If you are thinking of edits which you made at the Hebrew Wikipedia, you need to ask there, as each language's Wikipedia is independent. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tamar Shalev1: please don't edit your own post after somebody has responded as you did here, since that can make the discussion confusing. As David Biddulph mentioned, there are no edits from your account at English Wikipedia, except for the (currently) two edits here at the Teahouse. Did you use a different account to create the page, or did you create it while logged out? What was the title of the page in question? --bonadea contributions talk 19:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• (Moved from below by Bishonen | tålk.) The title for the page was "Multi-aperture". I have only one account, and this is the one that I use. thank you Tamar Shalev1 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tamar Shalev1 Your contribution history shows no contributions, deleted or active, to any page by that name. If you know the title of the page, you could check it to see if you perhaps contributed to it while logged out of your account- or if you wrote it on the Hebrew Wikipedia(in English). 331dot (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tamar Shalev1, Are you sure you used this account to create the article? @Bonadea Even the article in question seems to be non-existent. Celestina007 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am positive that i wrote the page with this username, because i have only one username.. please show me the english wikepdia,thanks Tamar Shalev1 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tamar Shalev1, hello, as a matter of fact, you surely did not use this account to create the aforementioned page. Did you create any page prior registering this account? This is the English Wikipedia. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Tamar Shalev1, here is the complete history of your edits here on the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tamar_Shalev1 —valereee (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a page in hebrew and in english for the same value. this is the first time i write in the english wikepedia. i used this account, the only one i have, that i opened last week.

https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:Tamar_Shalev1/multi_aperture here it is

Tamar Shalev1, you created this article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. If you would like to create this page at the English Wikipedia, you need to submit it at WP:AFC. Please add reliable sources to support your article, or it will be quickly declined. (Note: Your account is not yet old enough for you to create articles directly in the encyclopedia.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

There is already a draft with the same title here Draft:Multi aperture created by User:Renanel Ben Or. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, I’m not so sure but something about this unsolicited disclosure and the discovery of this draft by Theroadislong created by a different account makes me believe OP may be erroneously or intentionally using multiple accounts to edit & are just plain confused at the moment and are clearly oblivious as to how things work in this collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 and Calliopejen1: Now we have WP:Help desk#time till publish a draft as well. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Four Award for a "list" article?

Scenario: Let's say a list of episodes is less than 7 days old, has 1,500+ characters in the lede, is nominated/accepted for DYK, and is nominated/accepted as a Featured List (not Featured Article as stated in the criteria). From my understanding, a list cannot be nominated for Good Article status (because it's a list). Therefore, the list could only meet 2 of 4 criteria needed.

Is this accurate? Could a "list" article even receive a Four Award? CYAce01 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@CYAce01: WT:FOUR might be a more focused audience for the question. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I'll post this there, too. Thnx! CYAce01 (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

my page has not been published

(Moved up to the section "why does wikipedia does not publish my page?" above, since it's about the same thing. Please don't start multiple sections for one question.) Bishonen | tålk 19:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC).)

Help With FirstLight Fiber page.

Hi All,

I am working to make changes to Draft:FirstLight_Fiber and have it approved for publishing. I have made updates on the cited sources, as requested. However, it is difficult to cite the Services section without all of the sources being directly from the FirstLight page, which would be unacceptable, correct? Also, are all the added citations and neutral language changes likely to have this approved? Sajsaj8989 (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sajsaj8989. If independent, reliable sources with no connection to the company do not discuss their services, then you must remove that section. At least two of your references are PR Newswire press releases. All content supported by company press releases must be removed. What is your connection, if any, with this company? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a page from scratch and place an image in the article?

 Snakebatty (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Snakebatty, Hello and welcome, although perceived by many as one of the most daunting tasks it isn’t necessarily the case. Reading Your first article is a wonderful place to commence from. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Snakebatty. Your question is "How can I build a house somewhere and hang a picture on the wall". When you have built the house so that it meets building regulations and will not fall down, then is the time to think about decorating it (which is what putting a picture in an article is). --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Khadija El Kamouny

• Link: Draft:Khadija El Kamouny

Hello, The first review of my draft considered that I need to adjust the tone only. Another admin reviewed my second submission and left a comment stating that the sources don't show significant coverage while there are more than 10 references from reliable, centered and secondary sources (TV channels and high quality medias in Morocco). I asked her about the reason but didn't give any help and talked in a non-kind manner. I edited and resubmitted. The same admin declined it while there is no reason. It's really frustrating how we treat new editors. It's just because we are admins here that we can accept and reject pages as we want (not all admins). Sorry but it's a bad experience beginning. I hope not to experience something like this in the future. Notice: I have no connection with subjects I write about. I just decided to contribute in the development of Wikipedia pages about Moroccan personalities and organizations.  MehdiKass (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Between the second review and the third review by the same reviewer you did very little useful work to improve the article. Specifically, you added seven references to support one fact and nothing to improve the rest of the article. I agree with the reviewer's opinion that her accomplishments do not add up to notability. Lastly, you added an image and claimed it as your own work, which is being reviewed at W Commons. David notMD (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Tell me please why there is no notability. more than 3 biography articles are there! For the file upload at Wikimedia Commons, it was an error and I will rectify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehdiKass (talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@MehdiKass, coupled with what my colleague David notMD told you I’d like to add that, I’m not an admin and secondly I urge you to go through WP:COI & declare it if it applies. A thorough review of WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:SIGN would also be a good idea. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, another disappointment. I already said that I read those guidelines but still can't see where my draft fails. All criteria are here and respected. Also, I will not declare something that doesn't apply. Why are you asking this?

Insert a PDF file or article

Hello - Two questions: How do you add a photo to a page? How do you add a PDF file (e.g., old newspaper, or article to a citation). Thank you. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Maryphillips1952, and welcome to the teahouse. Sorry for the belated reply. You can only add photos that are not copyright. i.e. one you've taken yourself, or one already releases with an appropriate licence, such as any image on Wikimedia Commons. You cannot simply take an image found on the internet and upload that. There are more links about the various aspects of uploading and inserting images into pages at this shortcut link: WP:IMAGES.

Regarding adding an online PDF, you do not upload the PDF itself, but simply find its url and add that to the URL field in the reference template you're using. If you have a particular article in mind, and a particular PDF, feel free to give us the links and we can help or check what you've done is OK. I find it simpler to add references using the 'Cite' button in Source editor than using the 'Cite' button in Visual Editor. The latter is normally well-suited to beginners wanting to do simple tasks, but I find it is overly complicated when it comes to references. Hope this helps a bit, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Maryphillips1952, and welcome to the Teahouse.

First question: First, what is the copyright status of the photo? Unless you took it yourself, or you can demonstrate that it is in the public domain (most photos on the internet aren't) or its copyright owner has licensed it appropriately, the answer is probably that you can't use it. If the copyright status is suitable, you upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons, and can then insert it into an article. Please see Help:Upload.

Second question: in most cases, you don't. A source does not have to be online in order to be cited: it just has to have been reliably published. A link is a convenience for readers and reviewers, but is not required. Uploading a scan of an article will often be a copyright infringement. If the item is free of copyright (eg is in the public domain by reason of its age), then the process is exactly the same as for photos. --ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Cute

Crash 202.134.10.129 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Pi (Talk to me!) 01:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

how to recover a deleted draft

I was supposed to ping my editor but not sure how to do that.

I'm trying to recover a draft article

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Risk.manager/Pleasure_boat_international_travel_formalites&action=edit&redlink=1

Trying not to reproduce the research. Any ideas appreciated.

Thanks Risk.manager (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Risk.manager: The draft was moved a few times and I am not sure where it finally ended up but all the moved-to links are also to deleted pages. You can ask at WP:REFUND to get your draft back if you are ready to start working on it again. (many drafts get deleted if not worked on for 6+months) RudolfRed (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with a table

I have a table here. I need to increase the space (is it called padding?) between the table and the text next to it. I would also like to change the colour of the table header from gray to cornsilk. What do I do? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I take it this is the table with the caption "Comparison between breast augmentation and foot binding" in Cleavage (breasts)#Cultural distribution, is that correct, Aditya Kabir? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Yes, very much.

BTW, I was using the quotebox as a sidebar. Is that a problem? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: {{Cquote}} is not floating (I followed the documentation, but it is not working). {{Rquote}} is not showing the quote marks, and showing really large types (I followed the documentation and it still is not working). I hope they are not all broken. If they are not then they should behave like the examples, which they are not doing at the moment. {{Quote frame}} doesn't float anyways. I went back to {{quote box}} for now. Still looking for an alternative that serves a similar purpose (if not the same). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Update 2: I have found the answers to my problems with the table. Solved. Yayy. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes the use of {{quote box}} is a problem. It shou;ld never be used in aricles, it leads to undue weight being attacvhed nto a particualkrt quotation. So does Rquote, or anyhtign that displays a quote with large quote marks, or in a diferent colotred background or in a box. use {{quote}} or plain <blockquote>...</blockquote>. MOS:BLOCKQUOTE says: Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. See [[Template talk:Cquote# Proposed changes re {cquote}]] and particularly Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 219#RfC: Use of Large Quotes in article space, and the Cquote template for the early 2020 RfC on this issue, that changed Cquote to call Quote in mainspace. Links there can be followed to earlier discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Aditya Kabir DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. So, I dumped the other quote template that was used to replace the quotebox, because it was badly overemphasizing a side story by putting it in the middle of the text. It was also positoned after the wrong paragraph and removed the name of the book. I have integrated the quote into the text, no quote template.

What was a side story is now part of the main story (though that's quite okay here). I have no clue how that understates the content, but since there are discussions and consensus to show for the decision, I can only be compliant, until I (or someone) is ready to start a new discussion on the matter.

But, since I have removed all quote templates, I believe, we can raise a cup of hot tea to a congenial agreement and more collaboration in the coming days. Y Cheers.

P.S. Is my table solution alright? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Rare Diamond Find article rejected

I am a new editor and just learning. I had just my first article rejected about an important discovery of rare purple florescent diamonds by a small private company in Australia (India Bore Diamond Holdings). The article was rejected despite adding recent credible news articles see below.  

Appreciate any advice as to why.

Should the article perhaps only talk about the company and not its important discovery? Its just a small company so maybe thats why it was rejected? Or should the discovery just be mentioned alone ?

https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/india-bore-discovers-rare-purple-diamonds-at-ellendale/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-08-20/ellendale-diamond-discovery-hope-as-argyle-closure-looms/12576094 Ellendale2020 (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

To establish that a subject (a company, a discovery, or whatever) warrants a Wikipedia article, you will need to find several reliable independent sources that discuss it: see notability. The two sources you list above are both based on statements (and maybe press releases) from a spokesman for the company that has discovered the diamonds, and so don't qualify as independent. Once reliable independent sources start writing about these diamonds, you may be able to establish "purple fluorescence in yellow diamonds" as a notable topic. Maproom (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:India Bore Diamond Holdings was Declined, not Rejected (the latter more harsh). I suggest that neither the company nor the purple-fluorescing diamonds warrant a new article, but rather consider an addition of content to Diamond (gemstone), in the Fluorescence section. An image could be added if an owner of such diamonds takes and submits the image directly, but downloading the website images is forbidden as a copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Separate issue: The diamonds are from the Ellendale field and your User name is Ellendale2020. You submitted the image in the draft as your own work. Are you an employee or otherwise compensated by the India Bore company? If so, you must declare paid on your User page (see WP:PAID). Also state if you personally photographed the diamonds, or not. David notMD (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Camden Monarchs Afc is declined ..

I am not able to get some specific comment to understand the reason of decline this page (Draft:Camden Monarchs).

I have used reference which are already used in reference of other wiki pages. Requesting to either fix or help me to fix if any issue exist.

I have gone through suggested link to learn more notability. And I feel that references given are supporting the notability. Also few American Basketball Association (2000–present) teams(like San Diego Guardians, Jersey Express, Dallas Impact etc) have their published wiki page having more or less similar information given on their wiki page.

Also this team Draft:Camden Monarchs is listed on wiki page of ABA as well. So please guide what more to explore and include or which part I should exclude to accept this.

Dear User:Timtrent, please guide me in fixing and accepting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsp.manu (talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC); [edited] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsp.manu (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vsp.manu: (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) 'Pinging' another editor like Timtrent only works if you mention their name and correctly sign your post in one and the same edit. Not only that, but it ensures we can tell who it is who is actually asking a question here! Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Nick Moyes.

@Vsp.manu: I tend to avoid sporting drafts, leaving them for a more specialist reviewer to review, but thank you for thinking of me Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I need help with images and references

Hello,

I am making a page on someone who doesn't have much of online presence as she is an old personality. There are a few images from the newspaper to support my claims, but I don't know how to reference them, what should I do? Can I upload the images? Also, she has letters/memo from government officials like Presidents, Senates, and Mayors, how do I reference these? Helpthemisguided (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Helpthemisguided. Newspaper articles do not have to be online, but you will need to know the publication name and date. Page number is optional, but nice to have. If you can find an arvchived version online, you could give a url to it, too, but that's not essential. See WP:REFBEGIN for how to add a reference using the 'Cite' button in whichever editing tool you're using. Unfortunately, we cannot accept any references to non-published letters, certificates, memos etc, even from former Presidents. What we add as references needs to be verifiable by someone on the other side of the world, using standard library resources. For that reason, documents in an individual's possession are excluded from this, sorry. This highlights one of Wikipedia's problems of notability - that it is far easier to prove some minor tinpot here-today-gone-tomorrow celebrity has been 'noticed' by the world in the last 20 years than it is for someone who has had a far more significant impact on the world 50 or 100+ years ago, at a time when publication was not easy, or when the achievements of women or minority groups were not so commonly recognised and less frequently reported upon than the achievements of men. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Helpthemisguided, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. There is no requirement that sources be online, just that they have been reliably published. You cite a source by giving enough bibliographic detail for a reader to find it, eg through a library: Author, title, date, title of work, page number etc. If there is a copy online, you can give the link as a convenience, but it is not an essential part of the citation. Wikipedia allows several different citation styles (though the same style should be used throughout a particular article) and there are a number of templates and tools to help create citations. See Referencing for beginners.

The requirement of reliable publication means that those letters cannot be cited in an article, and information in them may not be used unless it is also found in reliably published sources. See Original research.

On a more general note, creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks there is for inexperienced Wikipedia editors, and editors who attempt it before spending time mproving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works often have a very frustrating experience. Please read Your first article if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk)

Hello ColinFine Nick Moyes, so I can add the images next to the paragraphs? I have copied templates from popular pages like Bill Gates, Ellen Degenres, etc. so my page is set already, but I don't know how will I reference it. About the letters, some of them are statements available to the public, will those work? And they are also available on the subject's official blog/site along with the newspapers, can one site be used for referencing majorly?

Thanks!

Hello again, Helpthemisguided. I don't understand your question about images. If you are still talking about scans of newspaper cuttings, then the answer is No. I can't think of any circumstances in which this would be a good thing to do. If you mean photos, then (provided the photos meet Wikimedia Commons' criteria for copyright), you can upload them, and include them in the article. But photos are rarely capable of acting as a source to verify a statement.

When you say "some of them are statements available to the public", how do you mean? If you mean that they have been published in a reliable (reputably edited and published) source (and, unless the information is uncontroversial factual information such as dates and places, the source is wholly unconnected with the subject of the article), then you can cite that source. Otherwise you cannot include the information. --ColinFine (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia

can someone please tell me what is wiki love or something like that because it is popping up on my device what is it for (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha rains (talk • contribs) 09:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Alisha rains. Please see WP:WikiLove. (General tip: to find out about some concept in editing and participating in Wikipedia, searching for the word with "WP:" on the front often gives useful results). --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again ColinFine I will check (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha rains (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello, Alisha rains, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is an essay you can read called WP:WikiLove which might tell you more. But, in essence, it's meant to be a simple and fun way of saying hello and appreciating another editor's work by clicking on the 'heart' icon at the top of any userpage in desktop view. (I'm not actually sure how it looks in mobile view.) I think it's mostly used with new editors, though I don't use it myself, having turned off the ability to use it by deselecting the tickbox option in Special Preferences>Editing. When I do really want to say 'well done' for something exceptional, I leave the editor a WP:BARNSTAR on their userpage, with a short message to explain why. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alisha rains: You seem to have created a custom signature, but it does not display your username and does not link to your user or talk page, as you can see above, where it says: (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC) (the talk link is to the Wikipedia disambiguation page talk instead of your user talk page. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal, delete the contents of the Signature box, uncheck the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkbox, and click Save at the bottom of the page. If you need to use a custom signature, I suggest you test the wiki markup in your sandbox to make sure it looks as you want it to, shows your username, and has the required link to your user or user talk page. Then, install it in the preferences page and check it again in the sandbox with four tildes to make sure it works. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, it seems that you manually adjusted the timestamps to incorrect values as well. Please don't do that – it's very confusing to people and bots. I've struck out the incorrect values and added standard templates with correct names and times. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alisha rains: Actually, upon closer inspection, it looks like your signature worked fine to begin with; The removal of the correct linking (and corruption of the timestamp) was done manually. I've struck the instruction about fixing it above. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry I am in South Africa so my time will be different from other time and I also don't know how to reply if someone sends a message on Wikipedia so I always edit because it never says reply and what happens when someone (unsigned) your message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisha rains (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alisha rains: It does not matter which time zone you are in – that's the point of using the automatic signature, which will show the same time no matter where the user is. Simply type ~~~~ (that's four tilde symbols) after your posts on talk pages, and your name will be added together with a time, converted to the Coordinated Universal Time (also known as UTC). If you don't do that, someone else will have to add a manual template ("unsigned") and calculate what the correct time in UTC is based on our local time when you post. For people like you and me whose local time is just two hours away from UTC that's not too difficult, but please remember to type the four tildes on talk pages, to help your fellow editors out. --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Concern

I would like to seek assistance from the house. Two of my articles on two notable Ghanaian musicians were recently moved to draft space for COI and notability. The truth here is, the article Draft:Sherry Boss is a nominee of Ghana's biggest music festival, the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards and also notable for his rap music. On the other hand, Draft:Flyboy Geesus (musician) is the other half of Ghana's popular music duo Phootprintz. The other half has an article as Mista Shaw. I need to know why the articles do not meet the requirements. Ajpoundz (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ajpoundz, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia uses its own notion of notability, which is not the same as the usual meaning. You need to show that the musicians meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. --ColinFine (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, thanks and per WP:MUSICBIO, the article is notable for been a nominated for Vodafone Ghana Music Awards and also known for Boss Nation, see https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Lilwin-threatened-to-end-my-career-after-stealing-my-brand-Sherry-Boss-584438 Ajpoundz (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Should this undo have been done?

I have added a redirect to an article called KRC but the edit was reversed with the summary "Undid revision 978157401 by Rzed786 incorrect hatnote, KFC does NOT redirect here". I would think that somebody could easily get mixed up between KRC and K&R C, so should this reverse been done? Thank you in advance. Rzed786 (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the undo should have been done, but there was a typo in the edit summary. What should have been said was that KRC does not redirect to Kent Recursive Calculator, so the hatnote which you added was incorrect. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi Rzed786. KRC doesn’t redirect to Kent Recursive Calculator; in fact, it’s not a WP:REDIRECT to any article, but rather a WP:DAB page. Technically, your edit didn’t create a redirect; you only added a WP:HATNOTE stating the KRC redirected to Kent Recursive Calculator. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Question on hurricanes

Moved from another user's (unrelated) section. Giraffer ^munch 16:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am a new user in Wikipedia. I have some info about Hurricane Dorian: Hurricane dorian caused $1.5 billion to $3 billion of damage to the Caribbean. I would like to have someone add this piece of info into the carribean section of Hurricane Dorian 2019 article. -- Hurricane Kevin 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Kevin: the best way to get that done is to go to the talk page of the article on Hurricane Dorian (or possibly Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Caribbean and post your request there, along with a link to a Reliable Source that allows people to verify the statement for themselves and then to add it if they deem it both relevant, up-to-date, and not already included in the article(s). Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Question on reverted changes

Moved from another user's (unrelated) section. Giraffer ^munch 16:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I tried contributing to a WIKI page of a player since he had his name wrongly typed. The change was reverted by Rqndom and I wanted to know if we can change it back.

Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_John_(footballer) Oto instead of Otto. 185.67.177.26 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. From a quick look at the sources, it's clear his name has been spelled both Otto and Oto quite a bit, as well as John Oto. Rather than come here, I think you should engage with the reverting editor on the article Talk Page and come to a consensus amongst those interested in the subject. See WP:COMMONNAME to appreciate that we title articles based upon how reliable sources have named that person. I note that his current team list him as 'Oto John', so I'm assuming they can spell their own team member! Looks like you have a good case to make.   Nick Moyes (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to How can I add my name to a list of American Art Dealers?

Why is it almost impossible to find a simple way to ask a question? Wikipedia appears to be an intellectual endeavor but is a defacto closed shop with editors who may no very little about the nature of wikipedia itself. I was told I could not add information because there is NO advertising. The answer this: Isn't almost EVERYTHING on it an Ad, especially about living people. If one is not allowed to write about themselves then isn't possible or easy to get a friend or partner to write what they want and put it up for them. There would be no way for your Ed. board to know for sure. If I have someone write about my life in the field, but I have no copies of my articles that I can show because they are not on the www since most were written in the late 80s. I do have a PDF of a recent article 2012 can I use that? If I was a founding member of a well known organization when it was formed, but I am no longer a member what can I do? Another question albeit a horrible one: What if someone on wikipedia was a serial killer and only one person knew about it??? What could they do to comment about. I know it would mean a lot of work, but what about a simple Email address divided into subjects and or cities, people by alphabet to make it eaiser? Geoffrey D. Forrest (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey D. Forrest, What Wikipedia needs to see is significant coverage in non-affiliated reliable sources. For instance, if a (non-local) newspaper or magazine did a story about you, that would be significant coverage in a reliable source. We need to see about three such articles. Sources don't need to be online. I'm sorry, I don't understand the serial killer and email questions. —valereee (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Tell me about the stories about you -- how long are they, how much of them are actually about you (rather than simply mentioning or quoting you briefly), and what were the publications? —valereee (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because something isn't online doesn't mean it can't be cited. You just need to provide the sources and it is up to someone to verify them - but this is where you shouldn't write about yourself. Koncorde (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• Geoffrey D. Forrest, if you have evidence someone is a serial killer, you should contact the authorities,  whether the person has a Wikipedia article or not. It's their job to sort out the loony tune crackpots from people with valid information, not ours. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  John from Idegon, I think maybe what he's asking is how do we know we can trust one another to be editing in good faith because we're all ostensibly "anonymous"? GDF, we all have edit histories anyone can check -- mine is at Special:Contributions/Valereee, yours is at Special:Contributions/Geoffrey D. Forrest -- and over time we see whether a person is consistently making good edits. When someone new comes in, other editors tend to check their edits for a while until we can see they're making constructive edits. When we come across someone who is making unconstructive edits, and they don't seem to be trying to improve, we block them from editing. —valereee (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

To address some of the issues raised - it is surprisingly easy to tell when someone is related to the topic they are writing about. It's only natural for them to ever so slightly violate our neutral point of view policy, among various other things. On a different note, not everything here is an ad. I don't think that Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is an ad for him, let alone the fact that it has gotten 240 thousand pageviews this month alone. If you're interested, this may be an interesting read. Giraffer ^munch 17:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer, ideally NOTHING here is an ad. If you see something that looks like an ad, you should fix it, or if you aren't sure how, tag it as wp:promotional. —valereee (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point, valereee. I've had my fun with G11 tagging... :) Giraffer ^munch 20:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was this article deleted, and should it be recreated?

This page does not seem to exist anymore.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140924223546/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Against_Crooked_Lawyers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Against_Crooked_Lawyers

I have been unable to find any record of the deletion of the page being discussed except here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Law_Society_of_Scotland

Where it appears to be the subject of dispute by an apparently interested party.

The archived article does appear to contain significant coverage from independent reliable sources in accordance to general notability guidelines, it also does not appear to contain anything libelous.

Granted it's a small and obscure organisation but is this really right? PaperJake (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

PaperJake, the deletion discussion says "Political parties are not automatically notable by their creation. This party does not prove notability, only participation. Only has proof of receiving roughly 1% of the votes and barely any notable coverage before or after general election. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties and this article does not prove that the content is any more than created to promote rather than describe." In order to prove notability, you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources. Generally that would mean at least three articles going into significant detail, rather than simple mentions. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a Paid Editor. What are the guidelines for uploading images to paid pages?

Hello Teahouse!

I am a paid editor for Julie L. Green. The Talk page is suggesting an image be added to the article. As a paid editor, can I upload an image that follows the wiki copyright laws?

Also, what about adding images of the artist's work? See Roger Shimomura for an example.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely, KaitlynCK (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello KaitlynCK, and welcome to the Teahouse! Firstly, thanks and well done for disclosing your paid contributions - not a lot of people do that easily. Regarding your question, yes, you can upload an image that follows all the relevant policies and laws. For uploading images of the artists work - see this policy page and this one. Hope this helps! Regards, Giraffer ^munch 17:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Giraffer ^munch Thank you so much! I've saved these links. Please feel free to remove my post as it is now resolved. Unless anyone would like to help me with new proposed edits to Julie L. Green  :) Sincerely, KaitlynCK (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Giraffer: Welcome to Wikipedia. We don't delete answered questions, in case someone else can be helped by the answer, too. In a few days it will roll off into the archives. RudolfRed (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed, I saw this before and wasn't intending to delete it. :P Giraffer ^munch 19:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I think RudolfRed intended his comment for  KaitlynCK. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about draft

Question moved from another section to its own. Giraffer ^munch 19:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:BrazyXay (entertainer) Hi, how are you doing? I just created my first article and I'm not sure why it hasn't been reviewed yet. May you check it out to see if it has even been submitted for review? I don't even know how to check the status. Also, can you tell me how to speed up the approval process for the articles I make? Thanks! GeorgeWright1 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

uploading a picture: how to do it

Sir,

I want to upload a better picture than the one posted at this link Jacques Coghen

I tried several times without result. Can you please guide me through the uploading?

Thanks Jamaco20 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Jamaco20 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To upload images you must be autoconfirmed- meaning that your account must be at least four days old and have 10 edits or more; you currently meet neither of those criteria. However, you may visit Files for Upload for steps that you can do right now, or you may just wait until you are autoconfirmed, and follow the instructions at WP:UPIMAGE. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jamaco20. Before uploading a picture, you need to understand our core content policy Verifiability. You have been adding large amounts of content to Jacques Coghen without providing references to reliable published sources. I will remove what you added, and you must provide references in order to add it back. As for the picture, there are two pictures of him on Wikimedia Commons. Since he died in the 19th century, pictures published back then are in the public domain. You can upload a third picture to Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

politics

 Titans titanium (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Titans titanium, do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Pi (Talk to me!) 20:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Look for information on a performer

Hello! I am looking for someone to assist in finding and writing about Amanda Carolina Rodriguez the wrestler. She is mentioned plenty of times on Wikipedia with no page dedicated to her and her work.

Thank you! Manageittoday (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Racism and Classical Music

Hello Racism and Classical Music is a topic of interest to me. I don't think am not seeing a page or article devoted to this topic. My question: How does one ask to create a page? Does one have to have an article written with references to create a page or simply creating a page is sufficient? Thank you.Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Maryphillips1952 (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need to ask anyone's permission to create a new article; if you have a topic that receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, there can be an article about it on Wikipedia. It is challenging to successfully write a new article- I would suggest first reviewing Your First Article and using the new user tutorial to learn more about the process. You may then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor.

I would note that Wikipedia is not for posting original research, such as a research paper that draws conclusions- we just summarize what sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It may be useful to take a look at Racism in the wine industry and notice how many sentences have a source. I'd highly recommend that on controversial articles, like those about systemic racism, you source every sentence. —valereee (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Help Needed to Globally Deselect the Left-Panel Page Languages Summary gizmo feature and return to the Old Ways of the One List to Rule Them All and on the Page Bind Them!

Globally Deselect the Left-Panel Page Languages Summary gizmo feature and return to the Old Ways of the One List to Rule Them All and on the Page Bind Them!

Hello all!

In the left panel for each page is a list of the Languages each article may be found in. This list now only shows a few "popular" languages, then tidies the rest away in a summary that says "All languages (initial selection of common choices by you and others)".

Is there any way to turn this summarising off in my Global Preferences settings?

I read wikipedia articles in all sorts of languages depending upon the regions I am researching, even for languages such as Catalan which is often far more informative about their locales than the broader Spanish wikipedia. I will also look at things like the Magyar wikipedia for articles about their former territories in Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, Moldavia and the like. It is probably useful for people who love to stroke their iddy-biddy phones, but for us people with nice big screens and a love of wikis in all the languages of this fine Earth it is a pain in the arse rather than a great new feature.

Thanks.

Nobbo69 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC) Nobbo69 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Nobbo69, welcome to the Prancing Pony Teahouse. Are you using a custom skin? I'm using vector and i just click on the button below the popular languages and a search box pops up to find the language i'm after. Zindor (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nobbo69. If you go to your Preferences, and pick "Appearance", then right down the bottom you'll find "Use a compact language list, with languages relevant to you." --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

significant occurrences on a 9/11 through time

Please add ground breaking for the building of the Pentagon 9/11/1941. 50.103.103.204 (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You could suggest adding this by posting at Talk:September 11 (or could edit the article September 11 yourself). I do note that most of the event entries on that page seem significantly more important than the one you're suggesting, so I'm not sure whether your proposal will be successful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)