Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

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

Most recent archives
1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

My page draft got rejected

I created a page for one of my Company's products, which is an open source eCommerce solution. I see that there are pages for other open source eCommerce solutions. Kindly help me. What steps do I need to take to get the page published? User:Smitha.piccosoft —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Smitha.piccosoft:, you seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. We are not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not Google Ads. I’m sorry, but Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, for notable stuff only.

Your company isn’t notable enough to be a Wikipedia article. We’re not an advertising platform. Here are steps to take if you want Wikipedia to have an article about you!

••

Steps to take

Become notable, like try to get the mass media to mention you, or post something on your website and wait for others to cite it and use them as secondary sources for your article.
Look for references to your company
Ask somebody that’s not part of your company to write the article, or you can do it yourself. If you choose to do it yourself, please make sure your article is free of puffery. An example of puffery follows.
- Instead of writing an article about your company when it’s notable that says: [COMPANY] is the leading company offering advanced e-Commerce services in many countries. Our company uses cutting-edge technology to ensure reliable, and desirable service for you, instead write something like: [COMPANY] is an e-Commerce company based in [TOWN], [COUNTRY]. It was founded in [YEAR].
- Refer to this page for info about puffery.
Also, be careful about the conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is when following one interest would mean contradicting another interest. Example: You are able to write the article about your company. You want to use promotional language to further your conpany, but you’re contradicting Wikipedian interests, like neutrality, and more.
Now that you cleared the basics, write your article in the big box, or if you want, use a text editor and improve your article there, and then copypasta it to Wikipedia, in Draft namespace, then add {{AFC submission}} to the article, and then hope for the best.
If it gets approved, hooray.
If it gets declined, oof. Go back to the last step, and maybe add more references. Also refer to the reviewer’s comment and learn from that. Be persistent.

Sincerely,

A diehard editor (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:PAID and WP:COI. The latter expands upon the advice given above, but both contain steps you must take before starting to edit anything to do with your company. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic: ShareChat. Isn't it notable enough to be on Wikipedia?

I've been trying to publish Wiki page for ShareChat but it's getting rejected. Need some tips: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ShareChat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankurshva (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankurshva: - there are quite a lot of tips provided in the notices at the top of the draft. Do you feel you have addressed all of these, or is there some aspect of them that you don't understand? Hug^syrup 07:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have tripled the length of the draft since the last decline. However, much of what has been added - including entire sections - have no references. Either provide citations or deleted unreferenced content before submitting again. David notMD (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You disclosed a paid relationship on your Talk page: "I work for ShareChat (company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd), and, as part of my job responsibilities, I am editing this Wikipedia article about ShareChat on behalf of company Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd." This information belongs on your User page. Also, you must comply with WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an app available only in India, and supports several Indian languages, but not English. It might be appropriate for one of those Indian language wikis. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlanM1, that makes no sense. Either it's notable or it's not. What has the demographic it services got anything to do with anything? It's borderline inappropriate to suggest such a thing, in my opinion. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 17:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern was the bolded part – it is intentionally not useful to the English-speaking world, for whom it is not developed or targeted, with which I have no problem whatsoever. Is it of interest (notable) to enwiki readers? Doesn't notability have at least some attention to audience? Has it been covered significantly by English-language sources? I understand this is not a requirement, but it is an impediment to verifiability. I apologize if you or anyone else is offended by what I wrote; that is certainly not my intent. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand a little, I can understand that mention of things not of interest to English-speakers can be useful from the standpoint of complete knowledge. They should certainly find a place in lists, etc. But if English-language sources don't find them notable enough, that seems a good indicator that a separate article may not be appropriate.

Having said all that, unless there is another ShareChat, I believe it is notable based on a quick Google search (the above was based on comments by other reviewers in the existing draft when I wrote the above). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be English. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally i think it's notable enough. And notablity has been increased since Twitter has invested 100mn on ShareChat recently 1 2 3 4 5 -- CptViraj (📧) 03:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles

Hello, I recently created Pembroke Aircraft Leasing 4 Ltd and Kieran Corr and they both got deleted for no reason. What happened. ThePacificMan (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked, and were answered, at #Hello above. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. ThePacificMan (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did, and if you continue to disrupt this forum, you will be blocked.331dot (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry I don't understand what Nick Moyes is saying.ThePacificMan (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ThePacificMan. I'm sorry if my explanation to your question above wasn't clear. What particular bit would you like me (or others) to try to explain differently? I'm afraid we do expect editors, when pointed to other guidance pages to go off, read and attempt to understand them themselves and then to come back for assistance if they're still confused. Some of those explanations can be quite confusing to begin with, so you will need to commit to trying to understand them. The messages on your talk page really should explain what was the cause of their deletion. I need you to read them carefully and follow the blue hyperlinks to relevant policies and guidance pages. Having done that, if you help me understand what you don't follow, I'll try and help you in return.

In essence, this encyclopaedia will only accept articles on topics that meet our Notability guidelines. Drafts or pages that are considered promotional or non-notable do get put forward for speedy deletion, and those pages are liable to be deleted, well, pretty rapidly. I know it's darned frustrating, but it's nothing personal, and it's happened to many of us (including me). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read some stuff on my previous question and my talk page. I still don't understand what reliable and non-reliable sources. To everyone on Wikipedia I'm sorry for my messages on this page yesterday. ThePacificMan (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ThePacificMan thank you very much for that apology. Let's put it all behind us and move on. If nobody replies to you, I'll try and explain what's meant by it, but I'll have to wait till I can sit down at a keyboard and compose a good reply. That'll be at least sometime around 22:00 UTC tonight, or possibly tomorrow. Sorry about that. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok there's days when we're busy just like me today :) ThePacificMan (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePacificMan: Right, I've got 20 minutes before I have to go out for the day. Understanding the difference between reliable and unreliable sources is key too contributing to Wikipedia, so I'm glad you asked. Because we're an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not a collection of biased opinions or promotional guff on every single thing under the sun, we have to source everything that we collate here. And those sources have to be reliable. By that we mean the sources we cite have to be independent of the subject and be written by people who can be trusted. These would include newspaper editors, established book authors, news media with good editorial control (i.e. not the biased fake news type websites). We need to provide sources that other users can go off and find, believing them to be reliable. (See [[WP:RS|this guideline on reliable sources). Companies or people usually like to promote themselves in a way that makes them seem better than they are, and to hide all the bad stuff. So we don't regard those companies or people (who we term 'primary sources') as reliable. So if we write about a company, we need to pay little attention to their own website and PR material. Instead we judge whether a company or thing is notable by whether or not other people (authors, journalists, scientists etc) have taken notice and written about them in a format that we would accept as 'reliable'. The opposite of a 'reliable source' is an 'unreliable source'. Here, we'd include company websites and social media accounts, user-edit forums and user-edited websites (such as IMDB for films), Linked-In CVs, and so on. These are primary sources and can't be fully trusted to fairly portray the topic. You can imagine that my own website profile would be unlikely to tell you about my imprisonment for fraud and embezzlement, drug taking and that murder charge. My website would be deemed an 'unreliable source' as a place to go to get true information about me. In contrast, a good quality newspaper that reported on my trial and imprisonment would be regarded as a reliable source to add to an encyclopaedia article about me, provided it was written in a neutral and accurate way. Thankfully I'm not notable enough to have an article here, so none of my personal secrets have yet come out. (only joking!). On the subject of 'truth' - one complication is that what we do cite here doesn't necessarily have to be 'true' - it just needs to be verifiable from a reliable source. Because Wikipedia must be written in a neutral tone, it's quite acceptable to present two sides of a story (indeed, we encourage that) providing that both sides to a topic are not using unreliable sources as evidence.

I realise you've some frustrating experiences trying to write about real subjects which have been rejected because the sources aren't seen (by Wikipedia eyes) as reliable. That's not to say they don't exist, but simply that, for organisations, three reliable sources are our requirement for meeting notability for companies. If we didn't have that, every single company under the sun would be trying to create a page about themselves here, and we'd simply become a business directory. (No time to proof-read - happy for anyone to tweak what I've written if I've included errors) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that information. So flightaware, flightglobal and bbc news are secondary sources and reliable because they are made by other people other then the company itself. ThePacificMan (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThePacificMan: I'm not very familiar with the first two sources you listed. Doesn't Flightaware track airplane movements? The one thing I didn't say is that 'reliability' is dependent upon context. Yes, all are secondary sources (except about themselves, of course), though reliability isn't the only things that's required. Sources are needed that cover a topic 'In Depth' if 'notability' is to be demonstrated. Otherwise, all sources are doing is simply 'verifying' that something exists. This is especially important when it comes to companies and organisations. Many things exist - I exist (you can find me in the phone directory), just as you can find my local widget manufacturer or travel agent company, but that doesn't mean we're all 'notable' in Wikipedia's eyes. I'm not sure if this'll help with the things you're interested in writing. In relation to Draft:Caroline Islands Air, I do appreciate that small nation's topics can be hard to produce good sources for, whereas bigger countries have much less of a problem. Sadly, this is currently something we have to live with on Wikipedia. Sources don't have to be online, however. Have you looked at the content and sources on the German wiki article (see here). There are other (albeit not very strong) sources such as this, this and this. Maybe this'll help; I'm not sure. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do help. Thanks ThePacificMan (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a Wikipedia article

Hello everybody, i am seeking help writing a Wikipedia article for a person that i believe should have recognition here for the work that he has done and continues to do in Africa. How do i go about writing this biography in a manner that does not seem to be promoting him. I have a draft that has already been deleted previously.

--OLIVIAHNOAH (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that you believe he should have recognition here, you need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been written about at length, and the article should summarise these sources in your own words. Using such references is the only way that you can establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Dbfirs 07:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (Dbfirs) I am looking into more WP:Reliable sources for his reference. --OLIVIAHNOAH (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding 3RR for LuLaRoe page

Hi Tea friends,

I hope you're well. I have just done two reverts on LuLaRoe as an IP user has been changing the company's listing from Multi-level Marketing to Pyramid scheme without additional citations. Many of the other companies on the List of multi-level marketing companies are described as MLM or Direct-selling, it is rare for "Pyramid" to be in the lede even though there is a Ponzi/Pyramid category heading. I remember the difference between these terms being extensively discussed somewhere, but my concern at the moment is also that I don't want to engage in an edit war. As they are unregistered, would we still progress to a discussion on the talkpage? What is the best way to proceed?

Thank you for your advice and time! SunnyBoi (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SunnyBoi IP's are just like any other editor and they are going to be expected to engage in WP:DR when there are disagreements over article content. At the same time, you wouldn't be considered exempt from WP:3RR just because the other person is an IP, unless one of these applies. So, you should try and engage the IP in article talk page discussion and see if some sort of consensus can be established. Even if the IP elects not to participate in the discussion, other editors interested in the subject matter might. If through article talk page discussion, a consensus is established to in support of "multi-level marketing", then the IP will be obligated to adhere to it even if they don't agree; if it's established in favor of "pyramid scheme", then the same will apply to you. Ignoring such a consensus is going to be considered WP:DE (absent any serious policy/guideline violations which would happen by implementing the consensus) even for an IP account.

Now, in this particular case, it might depend on who reverted whom first; if the IP was WP:BOLD and made their edit to change things to "pyramid scheme", then you would be perfectly OK in trying to apply WP:BRD if you disagree; it would then be up to the IP to establish a consensus for the change. If it was the other way around, the burden would fall upon you to establish the consensus. It looks like the IP has been reverted by another editor; so, this version should probably be considered the WP:STATUSQUO. The IP should now try and establish a consensus for their preferred version, which is probably going to require some pretty good sources cited in support since the claim seems quite contentious. If the IP continues to revert as before, then that would be WP:EW; you can warn them about this on their user talk page, but if the reverting still continues you can either seek help at (1) WP:RPP or (2) WP:AN3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a bit closer at this, it seems similar edits were previously made by different IPs; so, perhaps trying to discuss things with the IP is not going to go very well. The previous edits were reverted by an administrator named C.Fred so maybe he'll watch the article in case the IP comes back again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using either of the terms Pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme is effectively an accusation of criminal behaviour, whereas the term MLM does not have that implication. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page "Gramophone" is badly needed

EN pedia
- Gramophone - more or less a redirect (UPDATE: formally a disambiguation page)
- Record player - redirect
- Phonograph - messy
data
- d:Q7112808 - via "Record player" to "Phonograph"
- d:Q116434 is subclass of d:Q7112808 - directly to "Phonograph"

Two data items (one is subclass of the other) point to same page at EN pedia. And EN pedia is the only one lacking a usable page "Gramophone". This is not great. Taylor 49 (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! You can Be Bold and improve the articles yourself. Other than that, I don’t really understand what you are saying. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gramophone is a disambiguation page, not a redirect. If you are suggesting that there is a primary topic, the place to discuss that would be the talk page of the disambiguation page. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 49 has a good point. The relevant link on the Gramophone disambiguation page is to Phonograph, which covers what used to be called gramophones and are now called record players. I have to click "page down" eight times before I find a picture of anything resembling a modern record player. Using the title "phonograph" when it hasn't been current for sixty years is absurd. And the image at the top of the article should be of a modern device, not one made in 1878. Sensibly, automobile redirects to car, which has an image of modern cars at the top. If it were titled "road locomotive" and had this image at the top, it would be laughable. Maproom (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Apparently this has been discussed several times with contradicting results: [1] the "approximate consensus" is very weak [2]. I am saying that a consensus about terminology (what "phonograph" and gramophone" are supposed to be) is needed and should be followed for all affected pages on all wikies (EN wikipedia, wikidata, commons). The existing situation is desperate (EN wiki the only one lacking a page about "gramophone", messy terminology with "gramophone" ?? "phonograph" ?? "turntable" ?? "record player". How are "phonogaph" and "gramophone" supposed to relate to each other?

perfect synonyms ?
"gramophone" is a hyponym of "phonograph" ?
"phonograph" and "gramophone" are hyponyms of "device recording or playing sound stored as physical deviations of a groove located on a cylinder or disc"

I am proposing following solution:

"phonograph" and "gramophone" are hyponyms of "device recording or playing sound stored as physical deviations of a groove located on a cylinder or disc"
move Gramophone to Gramophone (disambiguation) (needs sysop's super-power, I can't "be bold" and do it myself)
move Phonograph record to Gramophone record (needs sysop's super-power, I can't "be bold" and do it myself)
create a page "Gramophone" as a primary topic about "modern" gramophones ie devices playing black "vinyl" discs
reduce page "Phonograph" to the original invention using cylinders to record and play sound
do something about LP record (more or less a dupe of Gramophone record/Phonograph record)

Arguments:

all other languages distinguish between "phonograph" and "gramophone"
there are 2 separate items on wikidata (and I would oppose an idea to merge them)
the term "gramophone" is most precise (as opposed to "phonograph" that is the original invention, "turntable" that can be a Railway turntable, "record player" is confusing and can play pretty anything (sound __record__ed on magnetic tape, etc)
the disc with the sound stored should have same name as the device playig it ie "gramophone"
"vinyl" is a bad name since early gramophone records vere not made of Polyvinyl chloride and even worse, vinyl is NOT the same as PVC, thus saying "vinyl" instead of "Polyvinyl chloride" is slang
Deciding_on_an_article_title: Precision Conciseness Consistency - "gramophone" is the best word

see also Talk:Phonograph_record#Requested_move_17_August_2019 -- Taylor 49 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a UK/US thing. Almost everyone here in the UK calls the things with turntables that you play records on "record players", and has done so for at least 50 years. The word "gramophone" is still understood, particularly in the context "wind-up gramophone". I suspect few of my fellow Brits even know what a phonograph is. So it's weird that en:WP's article on these devices is titled "phonograph". It even has a section Phonograph#Phonographs in the 21st century, which makes me wonder if it's a joke. Maproom (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing An Article On Pawan Singh National Rifle Assciation

Hi, I am writing an article on pawan Singh. Kindly,can anyone guide me that the coverage links which i have with me do they match the notability criteria. As i have gone through the coverage links, and they are appropriate. Mentioning below the coverage links:

Kindly someone have a look, and let me know. Regarding this.--Arjunsingh5478 (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteers here. I, at least, have better uses for my time than to go through all 16 links above and check which of them help to establish that Singh is notable. I suggest that you choose the four best of the links, and just post those for someone to check. Prefer sources with in-depth discussion of him, not just generated from a press release, and covering more than his appointment to one particular rȏle. Maproom (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Eno the Emu notable?

I was thinking of writing an article about Eno the Emu but found it hard to tell if he was notable. There seem to be a good number of sources, including some non-local ones: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/07/eno-the-emu-north-carolina-wanted https://www.travelandleisure.com/animals/eno-emu-loose-in-north-carolina https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/us/emu-north-carolina-trnd/index.html And some more detailed local ones: https://chapelboro.com/town-square/eno-the-emu-eludes-authorities-draws-national-headlines https://www.cbs17.com/news/eno-the-emu-spotted-in-hillsborough-still-on-the-run/ There doesn't seem to be very clear notability guidelines for Eno the Emu and other people or animals who are known, but not for doing much except existing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Existence_%E2%89%A0_Notability#Don't_create_an_article_on_a_news_story_covered_in_109_newspapers also seems like it might affect it. Mcavoybickford (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Eno would be notable. If we were to treat them as if they were a human, WP:BLP1E would apply - Eno's only notable for a single event, i.e. escaping. So, probably not (sorry Eno!). Others may have other views. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion, perhaps if Eno himself is not notable, his escape and the subsequent efforts to catch him might be. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.24.56 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that WP:BLP1E does indicate that it would be a close call on notability, but the fact that it is now in a marketing campaign means that it might not meet criteria 2, and so be notable enough. I'm also not sure if the fact that it has been locally reported on for more than a month affects it. It would probably have sections about identity, escape, sightings, capture attempts, marketing campaign. If not, should it be a section of the Chapel Hill article? Mcavoybickford (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this a bit more, in terms of other notable famous animals. Knut (polar bear) was notable, and he didn't even escape, but he was in the public eye for quite a while. The Tamworth Two are probably closer the mark - I remember that being in the news for quite a while though, and their deaths were also reported nationally because they'd become so famous. If this story maintains the public eye for a while and Eno continues to receive attention, perhaps they will become notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the new pages feed that you've gone for it. I'm in two minds about this - I'll wait to see what others think. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q

I haven't been here in a few years and I want to know what policy changes have been made since then. I also want to know if Arbcom is nicer than it was in 2016? Thanks. 1YoudKnowIfUNEW (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This user has been indefinitely blocked as a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Dose anyone want to help make Draft:List of animated shows by episode count Fanoflionking 18:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

add reference to another Wikipedia article

This is harder than I can manage for now.

What I would like to do:

Under the Wikipedia entry "Pollution" there is a subheading "Cost of Pollution" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

I would like to add at the end of "Cost of Pollution" this reference: "See also under Wikipedia "Energy subsidies." "Energy subsidies" is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Thanks for any help.Ed2291 (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ed2291 and welcome to the Teahouse. We never use Wikipedia links as references, nor as something to link to at the end of an individual section. So, if you can't WP:WIKILINK the page within the text, the only way is to insert it at the end of the page within the 'See also' section. This section is for related topics that haven't yet been linked within the article, but which we think users might find of relevance. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what Ed2291 wants to do is not to add a reference (though they call it that) but to put a link in a "See Also" section. That's easy, you could just do

== See also ==
Energy subsidies

but I don't know if it's acceptable to have a "See also" subsection for a section rather than for a whole article. Maproom (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Yep, that was what I assumed Ed2291 wanted to do. Thanks for adding the demo. I do not feel it would ever be appropriate to create multiple 'See also' sections. Distantly related topics should all be collated together into one 'See also' section, just above the 'References' section. More guidance at WP:MOSLAYOUT and WP:SEEALSO. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed2291: Let us know if you would like one if us to add it for you; editors learn more if they try doing things themselves. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" insert it at the end of the page within the 'See also' section." Yes, that is exactly what I wanted to do if you think it is appropriate. I have nothing to add to the "cost of Pollution" or the "Energy subsidies." I just think that the cost of fossil fuel energy subsidies should be considered in the costs of pollution.

"Let us know if you would like one if us to add it for you..." That would be great! I am 66 and barely computer literate. Thanks for all you do for Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed2291 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

are category sections not allowed in sandboxes, and if not, why not?

Header pretty much sums it up. cheers Tarkiwi25 (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find advice at WP:Categorization#User pages. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarkiwi25: In a word, no. I'm assuming you're drafting an article in your sandbox and want to be ready wuth the right categories for when it goes into mainspace? The last thing we want is for multiple, half-finished drafts appearing in Category listings (I've made that mistakes in the past). But you can inactivate the categorisation by adding a colon immediately after the opening pair of square brackets [[:Category:New Zealand]]. This keeps the link working, but doesnt include your page. Once live, just delete the colons. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can also use the draft categories template, which makes the categories show up on the page like they normally would, but prevents the draft from appearing in the category listings. You can do that by copying and pasting this and putting it at the end of your article:

{{Draft categories|1= [[Category:Insert category here]] [[Category:Insert another category here]]}}

Hope this helps. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieving a draft paga

How can I retrieve my page draft? I just submitted it a few minutes ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Th.Migeotte If you are referring to Draft:Thierry Migeotte (Sound Engineer/Producer), it is still there. It does not go anywhere when you submit it. It appears that you have not yet submitted it, though. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, please review the autobiography policy; it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself(though not forbidden). 331dot (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a wiki page without an error?

How to create a wiki page without an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthayakaren (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Error" is a relative term. The best articles result from following the rules and recommendations of Wikipedia. In addition to the useful links posted on your Talk page, also please read WP:Citing sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for editing

I was hoping someone could edit a draft of my article. I am looking for advice about meeting requirements for notability. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Albus89/sandbox/Griffin_Anthony

-- Albus89 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Albus89: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The notability guidelines for musicians are written at WP:BAND. Anthony would need to meet at least one of the listed criteria to merit an article. As the draft is now, I'm not really seeing which one of the criteria he might meet based on the sources that are there at the moment. I'm afraid no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, unless there are other appropriate sources out there. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, thanks so much for your time! Albus89 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How may I add a new page ?

With thanks Dr.S.M.Rasel Faruk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasel Faruk (talk • contribs) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Contents. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has my page been submitted for review?

Hello,

I submitted my page for review yesterday. I see now a grayed rectangle on top of which is written "draft article not currently submitted for review". Does that mean that I did not submitted the article correctly? Also, I am trying to edit the draft. Where is the "edit this page" tab? It says that it is on top of the page...

Regards,

Thierry Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Th.Migeotte: I assume this is about Draft:Thierry Migeotte (Sound Engineer/Producer). It seems that you have not submitted it for review. You can edit it by clicking on the tab labelled "Edit" at the top of the draft.

I have several comments on its content:

You appear to be trying to create an autobiography. This is strongly discouraged.
There is no need for the disambiguation "(Sound Engineer/Producer)" in the title. en:Wikipedia has no other article about a Thierry Migeotte.
There are numerous direct external links. These are against Wikipedia policy, and should all be removed.
The references are all clustered together at the ends of the paragraphs. Each reference should be immediately after the statement which it supports.

Maproom (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will definitely make the appropriate changes. The external links were to support facts. How else should I do to confirm facts?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 12:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way to confirm facts is with reference citations, not with misplaced external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And when adding citations, make sure you give full citation details, not WP:bare URLs as you have provided in your existing references in the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does every species need a page?

Sometimes when I read about a particular genus, it'll have a list species in the genus - and often almost all of those species will be a red link. So I assume that means they need an article, right?

But the thing is, there are so many species, and often so many of them are so similar that writing separate articles about them would almost be like copying and pasting. Or sometimes, the article can't grow beyond start-class because the species has been very recently discovered, or is quite obscure or hasn't been researched much.

Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermelon-lemon (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Watermelon-lemon, the short answer is an emphatic yes. We want articles about every know species. Indeed most would be a bare stub merely noting it's existence and a brief statement on the who when and where of it's discovery/definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodger67 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly confused

I am told that my page looks like an autobiography. Well, written by someone else it would certainly have the exact same content that the content I just put in. Also, I am very confused to see many other pages from people in my field looking exactly like mine. They sure asked someone to write it for them. Now what difference does this make? This is truly confusing, discouraging and disappointing.

Thierry Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 12:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Th.Migeotte I'm sorry you have not had a good experience. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet our special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, and has no interest in what people want to say about themselves. In order for you to be successful in writing an article about yourself, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources that have no connection to you say. The vast majority of people cannot do this, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you have reviewed the notability criteria written at WP:BIO and truly feel that you merit an article, you can request that others write it at Requested Articles.

I would also note that others in your field meriting articles does not automatically mean you would too; see WP:OSE. Each article is judged on its own merits. It may help you to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Th.Migeotte, when I said that Draft:Thierry Migeotte (Sound Engineer/Producer) "appears to be an autobiography", I didn't mean to criticise the way it was written. It was done much better, much more neutrally, than most attempts at autobiographical articles. I was just judging from the similarity between the subject's name and your username. Maproom (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Th.Migeotte (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Thank you for the vote of confidence. Two albums I worked on were Grammy Awards nominated material, one of which won (Mala Rodriguez "Bruja"). I was unfortunate enough to have been not credited on both albums. This said, I contacted Universal Music Group today regarding "Bruja" to claim credits for engineering and mastering the album. I hope that they will do what is necessary to fix the problem. I will do the same regarding the other album shortly. Would credits on "Bruja" change anything regarding my chances have an article on Wikipedia? Would it be even better if another person well established in my industry were to write the article for me? I am being 100% honest and unbiased regarding my career. Even if someone else writes the article about me, that person would need all the help he or she can get in order to avoid making mistakes before publication. Yes, why me more than someone else? as I was asked. Fair enough. Nevertheless, my career has been unusually fruitful on many levels, rarely experienced by other professionals. However, I may be mistaken and in this case I surely apologize. Also, I am truly sorry for adding information on the "Bruja" page. I went a bit backwards on this one.[reply]

Respectfully, --Th.Migeotte (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC) 2A02:2788:868:F1D:F8EF:69CB:4428:6569 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a similar page on Wikipedia

Ryan Hewitt (record producer) If this is not exactly the same type of page as the one I am trying to create... I am truly confused

Thierry Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Th.Migeotte Please see other stuff exists. The article Ryan Hewitt (record producer) is also poorly sourced, however he is a Grammy award winner so notability has been established. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insight. Could you please remove me entirely from Wikipedia. My disappointment goes beyond the impossibility to write an informative page. SO many questions that will never be answered... SO many music albums on this site (for I suppose non promotional purpose). Anyway, No more for me even if I had the possibility to.

Regards,

Th. Migeotte — Preceding unsigned comment added by Th.Migeotte (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been deleted; if you no longer wish to edit, simply stop using your account(accounts cannot be deleted, primarily for legal reasons). 331dot (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subhas Chandra Bose

Wikipedia shows the death day of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on 18 August, 1945. But his death is still mysterious. There is no conclusive evidence that 18th Aug is Netaji’s death anniversary. How can Wikipedia provide such controversial information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhayan Mukherjee Tito (talk • contribs) 12:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on that topic is at Talk:Subhas Chandra Bose#Wrong information about death. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

where to put scanned documents to cite as references

For an article I created Suzy Williams I had several documents in hard-copy (paper) form only, not available on The Web to my knowledge, that I wish to cite as references. Most of them are clippings from reputable newspapers that would normally be considered to be good secondary sources under other circumstances. I electronically scanned all these documents and had them archived in a photo album for the FaceBook page of the article's subject, so that I could cite them in the article. An editor labeled all these citations (and no others) as "[non-primary source needed]". Apparently, the scanned documents were not put into an appropriate place. Where IS an appropriate place? --Dr.bobbs (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To publish newspaper clippings here on Wikipedia would almost certainly be a copyright violation. If you have sufficient details to satisfy verification (such as newspaper name and date) you can cite them using {{cite news}}; they don't need to be available on the web. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cite the publication, not the individual piece of paper you happen to have in your collection. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr.bobbs. As pointed out above and as also stated in WP:PUBLISHED, source cited in articles don't have to be available online; you can find out more about how to cite such sources in WP:SAYWHERE and WP:CITEHOW. As long as the source is considered to be reliable (per WP:RS) and used in context (WP:RSCONTEXT) it should be OK to use; not being available online may make verification a bit harder, but it should be OK as long as there's a reasonable way for someone to access the source if necessary (i.e. it's not something in someone's private personal archives). You should, however, be willing to clarify the source to others if it's challenged for some reason because it cannot be found online.

As for being a primary source, it could still possibly be used, but primary sources needs to be used carefully and only in certain contexts, particularly if the source is about a living person. Being a primary source and being unavailable online are really too different issues which need to be addressed separately. There are plenty of primary sources available online, but not all of them are appropriate for citing as sources for a Wikipedia article; similarly, there are plenty of secondary sources which are not online which probably could be cited as sources to an article. In this context, "primary" doesn't mean "not online", but rather refers to the relationship of the source and the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annual readership template - not sure if broken?

Hi Tea friends,

I am having trouble viewing the images generated from the Annual readership template used on article talk pages. When added to a talk page, it displays a graph of daily page views for an article over a period of time. I've tried it in a few browsers but it doesn't seem to be viewable, so wanted to ask if it's a "just me" problem or if the template might have gone skewiff? Not viewable on the talkpage for Wear it Purple Day, or on the template page itself. I can see the example on the template page's talk page, though!

Hopefully this is my silly mistake but would like to find out if the problem is between my chair and keyboard, or if others find the template broken too.

Thank you for your help! SunnyBoi (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason it looks as if you may need to purge (&action=purge). --David Biddulph (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How weird! Thank you so much, it is working now! SunnyBoi (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I filter an Article's Revision History by section?

Some pages are overviews of a topic that contain sections from very different perspectives. For example: Wisdom#Psychological_perspectives vs Wisdom#Ancient_Near_East. I'm interested in seeing only the revision history of one section. I've read Help:Page_history but I don't see any tool that would enable this use case. Given that sections are displayed next to the revision's line in the history, I would think this would be possible. Is there a way to apply this filter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosleyj (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crosleyj. Unless other editors find a way to do that, I do not think it is possible to do that. Interstellarity (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I don't believe that the section is automatically identified in the history, although in some circumstances the section name might be included in the edit summary. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur, I don't believe the software allows for such a function. The best you can do would be to(as noted) examine the edit history to see if a particular section header appears in the edit summary, though if users edited the page as a whole, that would not help. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crosleyj: Whilst agreeing with all the above -there is no way to display section histories - I might be able to offer you a couple of partial solutions to assist you.

First off, you could display every single edit of the article on one whole page (page stats show it has had 2,070 edits since it was created in 2002.) Then you could text search for edits that include the section name. To show them all, go to edit history, then and select 'older 500'. Now look in the url bar and you'll see it displays as: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wisdom&offset=&limit=500&action=history So, just change the 500 to 5000 and press return. After a while you'll see every edit, ever, made to that article on one page. Now you can use text-search (usually Ctrl-F) for the section name (assuming that either that single section was edited, or that it was explicitly named in the edit summary if the whole page was edited.) I note there are 100 occurrences of "Psychological perspectives" and just 4 of "Ancient Near East". Be aware that section headings can change over time, so you might wish to drop in on annual edits and check out the article structure.
The next suggestion is to look for particular text strings you either like or dislike within the current article and search on when they were first added. There is a tool called WikBlame you can use for this. See http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php I chose to use it to find out when this text was inserted: "Divine Wisdom allowed the provident designation of functions and the ordering of the cosmos". Although I rarely use it, I quickly found that phrase was inserted with this diff on 16 Aug 2019.

Whether these kinds of searches are actually of help to you, I really don't know. Perhaps you'd let us know? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Some good ideas here. I think I can use wikiblame or searching through the Revision History on a single page to find the interesting changes in sections. Crosleyj (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis K freighter on List of shipwrecks in 1968

The coordinates given on that page take one to Wikipedia Maps to the deep sea far south of Vung Tau, Vietnam. I photographed the Ioannis K freighter in May of 1969. It was grounded at the shoreline on the coast, not in the deep sea. I would like to change the coordinates, but, the Google.com/maps coordinates (decimal coords) end up back in the deep sea again when you click on the Wikipedia page. It seems that the Wikipedia Maps Beta is out of kilter, but not certain of that. I would like to add the coordinates and a photo or two of the grounded ship.

The Wikipedia entry has coordinates of: 10.14N, 107.05 E

1. Here are the google.com/map coordinates that match my photo (as close as possible since it was before GPS in cameras): 10°19'20.9"N 107°05'06.3"E 10.322472, 107.085083

2. I am not clear how to add the photos, if they might be desired. Including here for evaluation, if possible.

3. One key indicator in my photo is the tiny island of Hòn Bà (confirmed) that is just behind the freighter, and it shows the freighter right at the coastline.

4. My estimate of the location (coordinates above) is approximate but much closer than the original page shows.

5. If someone could check the coordinates against both the google maps and wikipedia maps, that would be helpful.

6. And I think it would enhance the entry to have the two photos of the freighter.

File:17Vietnam Area710-Edit.jpg

Ioannis K. freighter as it was grounded - photo May 1969.

File:17Vietnam Area706.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetasig (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thetasig. What a wonderfully complex question! I do appreciate your concerns, having spent much of my working life handling mapable data at various levels of accuracy (albeit in OSGB grid refs, not lat long), and trying to iron out obvious recording flaws that, if unchallenged, could ricochet down the years. So I know how frustrating it is to see such errors reproduced.

I can see that your rather superb photo was taken very near this point, here. Yet the so-called reliable source used to give the coordinates was a very coarse and clearly wrong figure. So, what to do? Hmm, so, first I'd suggest you edit your uploaded photo to include not only the correct coordinates (as you assert them to be) but also to note your concerns over the stated source of the cited coordinates on Wikipedia. I might then place a note on the talk page of the List article, expressing your concerns over the wrong coordinates and stating what you intend to do. After waiting a few days to a week, if no comments were forthcoming, I'd update the coordinates for Ioannis K and insert a footnote to explain the disparity between the WP:RS and your edits. It seems unlikely to me that there will be another published source available that actually corrects the error, and Wikipedia is in a fantastic position to perpetuate errors if it's not careful. So, providing you clearly explain, step-by-step, how the new coordinates have replace the erroneous one, you cannot do much more. I realise you might, potentially, have faked the image, made up the new lat/long coordinates and set out to damage the Wikipedia page - but somehow that seems a ridiculous view to take. Providing any user can work back to understand the process of revising the coordinates, you can do no more. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thetasig. While I believe you uploaded the photos to Commons in good faith, it appears that you just uploaded scans of the photos. The copyirght ownership of a 2019 scan of a 1969 photo probably would be best verified by sending a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS since it will make it clear that you are the photographer who took the photos. You should also be aware as the photograper that by making a free version available to Commons, you are essentially agreeing to c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:License revocation; in other words, you're basically giving advance permission to anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime for any purpose (inlcuding commercial and derivative use) in perpetuity. The best you can do is require that you'd be given attribution as the photographer anytime someone else uses the photo, but that's about it. So,if you're not willing to do this, you should considered nominating the files for speedy deletion from Commons per item 7 of c:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#General reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous editing conflict

I've been an editor for a few years without a problem ever editing. For the last couple of months, every time I try to publish an edit I receive a conflict for simultaneous editing, and the page is returned to its original status. However, looking at the editing history one can see that the last two comments are mine, the last one is like the original page and the one before is like what I wanted to change. Following is the last example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outlander_(TV_series)&action=history. My username is gciriani, but I'm now able to make entries only if I'm logged out. I suspect some setting has changed in my profile that shows me editing from two different devices, and from here the conflict. What shall I look or change to solve this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19A:8200:E356:F042:1D19:A6E:CAAE (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is your browser opening two windows by chance???

Second thought - have you tried logging out of Wikipedia... then log back in?

Third thought, reset your preferences to the default, log out, log back in.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edits to which you link were made, so you can ignore the edit conflict. It is probably caused by clicking "Publish changes" twice. Dbfirs 06:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This identical question was also posted at the Help Desk. It wastes volunteer effort and causes some irritation whenever someone posts the identical question in two help fora at once. In future, please wait at least 24 hrs before seeking input elsewhere if your question isn't answered. Many thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write about a Poet-translator

Hi Dear I Work for a Poet translator and he lives in IRAN . He Is very famous in Poet Translating in English to Persian and vice versa.Please Help Me to write about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-astaraki (talk • contribs) 07:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M-astaraki, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you need to declare your WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid status. Secondly, you need to collect independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been discussed at length, and your article should summarise in your own words what these references say. You should not use your own knowledge of the subject. If you cannot find suitable references, then maybe your poet translator is not yet notable in the Wikipedia sense. You might like to use WP:Articles for creation to guide you. Dbfirs 07:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be about Saeed Saeedpour. Your draft was deleted. As Dbfirs mentioned, if there are not independently written, published articles about Mr. Saeedpour, then he cannot meet Wikipedia's definition of notability, and thus not an appropriate subject of an article. Second and required, if you are paid by him, you must declare that information on your User page. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure how to submit my draft article when ready?

Now in polishing phase of a draft article (biography of a living German author), some basic questions are relevant: firstly, what is the best way to submit the finished article for publication? I've learned a lot through tutorials, style guides and how-to pages, but always unsure if what I'm doing is correct.

I lack practical know-how on basic points (e.g. unsure how to insert 'categories'), and unsure how to reinstate a footnote that vanished in process of checking. Finally, the style guide suggests that referring to the existence of other-language pages (the biography of the author in question exists in German, French and other languages) in the 'talk' page of the (hopefully) published article, may help the English page to endure. Advice much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wortmead (talk • contribs) 08:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wortmead Welcome to Teahouse. Prior writing an article, pls read WP:Your First Article for info, requirements and instructions, then go HERE and follow the step. If your draft is declined after you have submitted, pls read the grey panel atop of the page and as well as comment, if any, from the reviewer. Make necessary correction as per advice and resubmit. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for the good advice. Wortmead 12:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wortmead (talk • contribs)

Have added a new wiki page for my company

Hi there

I have added a wiki page for my company "Muvi". The details are in the link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jayadeep_Subhashis/sandbox

I am confused about what to do next? Is it under review? Is somebody already reviewing it? When can I get it published permanently etc.? Can somebody help here, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayadeep Subhashis (talk • contribs) 08:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayadeep Subhashis: - First, and most important, if you are here to work on an article about your own company then you must read WP:PAID and follow the guidance it provides about declaring yourself as a paid editor. I am going to also leave a warning on your talk page to this effect - apologies if that seems rude, but it means that any future editors visiting your page will know that you have been warned about paid editing. As for the draft, if you did not already submit it via the wizard, you can do so by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top. It is then likely to be reviewed in a few days or weeks, but there is no set timeline. However do not do this until you have placed the necessary Paid Editing declaration on your userpage.

On a final note, however, your draft is almost certain to be rejected in its current form. It has no sources whatsoever, and appears highly promotional. My advice to you would not be to submit it until it is neutrally written, with every single statement backed up by high quality, independent, reliable sources. If you cannot achieve that, then unfortunately the company is probably not ready to have an article on Wikipedia. Hug^syrup 08:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayadeep Subhashis: I would correct your language slightly; Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages". Wikipedia has articles about subjects like companies. Companies must be shown with significant coverage(not brief mentions, press releases, or routine announcements) in independent reliable sources that show how the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Merely existing is not sufficient reason to merit an article. Further, Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what independent sources have said about it. Wikipedia is also unconcerned with enhancing search results for your company. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use your own website or social media, not Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

Hi! I was threated by ukrainian far-right radicals in my user talk page [3]. They claimed, that I will be pursued and they want to severly punished me "as dog". I mainly active in Russian Wikipedia and don't know where to turn with this problem. --Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mieczysław Podolski I have blocked the IP that made that post; you may wish to follow the instructions at WP:EMERGENCY to report this to the Foundation. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I would encourage Mieczysław Podolski to delete that post and for you to also revdel it and temporily semi-protect their user page, too. The translation is not nice, and should not remain on view in their user page or edit history. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdeleted. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now protected and removed, too. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to hide SineBot's revision (which still has that translation). theinstantmatrix (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lectonar (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This man have access to Wikimedia Foundation. Somehow he read my letter, that I send to emergency@wikimedia.org and continue to threat me.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you send it using the webform on Wikipedia, or your personal email? 331dot (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal email, but without my real name.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also, did they cite any specifics about your email? There is a possibility that he read what was discussed here and was referring to that. CLCStudent (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is reffering to statements, that was only in e-mail.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if your computer, device, or email has been hacked; they may have accessed your personal email. It's extremely unlikely that this individual has access into the Foundation. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case they have more information about me, but they don't.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Problem solved. This was maniac, that terrorised russian wikipedists. He do this for many years and have a lot of expirience. This man do many preparation and eventually strike their victims. He bluffed and did that so well. Excuse for troubling.--Mieczysław Podolski (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonbar template

Hi. I have created a page called Ecocrop, which is a plant identifier database. I am in the process of addressing the reviewer's comment that it is an orphan. I found that many species of plants contain Ecocrop in the Taxon identifier box (template: Q2351541) found at the bottom of their respective pages. I would like to add a link to the Ecocrop entry in the template but I do not know how to go about this (e.g. edit the template, discuss if its possible, or ask someone who can). Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if the place that needs a modification is Module:Taxonbar/conf. That is protected, so you'd need to request on the talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks David Biddulph! Darwin Naz (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like help submitting a company to wiki that gets accepted

Hello there,

I would like help submitting a company to wiki that gets accepted.

Thank you, Brian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianhowes1024 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhowes1024: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on your draft, I think that you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to merely tell about a company. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Companies must meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable company. As such, not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. If no independent sources have given significant coverage(not press releases, the company website, brief mentions, or routine announcements) to this company, it would not merit an article here at this time.

If you are associated with this company, you will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy. Please understand that Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what independent sources state. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading VIRIN Images from DOD - Copyrighted?

I am trying to upload a profile photo for a Civil War Medal of Honor recipient (George Davis) as his profile box is missing an image. The DoD has one located here: https://www.defense.gov/explore/story/Article/1723334/medal-of-honor-monday-army-1st-lt-george-e-davis/

Downloading the image is easy enough. However, does the DoD own a copyright on these images? How are these credited? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjzwick (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjzwick: I'd like to see another opinion, but I believe most works by the US government are in the public domain(especially of something historical). 331dot (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is self-evidently well over a century old, any copright that might have existed has surely expired by now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mjzwick. Images created by US government employees on the job are copyright free. Copyright has expired on any photo published before 1924. Go ahead and add the photo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Box on the Far Right

Hi,

I finally figured out how you make the box on the far right, but it doesn't look like the normal Wikipedia margin-box. In mine, the words are centered, and I can't seem to apply formatting.

What am I missing?

Thanks

J.J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujereh215 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jujereh215: - welcome to the Teahouse. It looks as if you are using Template:sidebar. I suspect you want Template:Infobox. You can find lots of infox templates here. Hug^syrup 16:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll give that a try! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jujereh215 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting Clerks poster art

I'm trying to upload the latest poster for my film Shooting Clerks, to the Shooting Clerks wiki page but have been hit with a copyright warning and the poster has been removed. How can I fix this? I own the poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherDownie (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristopherDownie: -Hi, welcome to our Teahouse. While you own the poster, you don't own the graphical rights to the film - in effect you bought the right to display your poster, but not photos of it. I'm assuming that "my film" you mean a film you own a copy of, rather than you being a director of it (etc)? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a film I wrote and directed. I own the rights to everything related to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherDownie (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChristopherDownie. There are two main ways to add an image of a poster. Since you say that your are the copyright holder, you can freely licence the image on Wikimedia Commons. That means that anyone can use the image for any purpose, anywhere, as long as they credit you. So, I can emblazon your poster on coffee mugs for profit, if I want. Commons will expect you to prove that you hold those legal rights. Be very careful about this option. The second way is described at the policy on use of Non-free images #4 and possibly #1. This involves uploading low-resolution versions of the image, normally for inclusion in one article only, for educational purposes. This is the normal way that we use film posters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What I'm I suppose to do in the teahouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Tamara Stephen (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome @John Tamara Stephen:. You are supposed to ask questions, which you have, and now I've answered it. Hug^syrup 16:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Tamara Stephen Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Do you have any questions? 331dot (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit a Template Protected Page

Hi,

I am inquiring on behalf of Ms. Holly Ham, who wishes to edit her own Wikipedia entry titled: Holly Ham. However, her page is template protected with a pink lock symbol, and the page was created for her.

This is the original page that contains the link to Ms. Ham's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump

This is Ms. Ham's page: Wikipedia.org/wiki/holly_ham https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_user_landing_page&page=Holly+ham

How can we edit her template protected page that was created for her? Thank you so much for your help!

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonDC123 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WashingtonDC123: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you should read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy as there are some required disclosures that you must make. As you have a conflict of interest, you (and Holly Ham) should not directly edit about Holly Ham even if the page was not protected. However, you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing what changes you feel are needed. That said, Political appointments by Donald Trump is not protected, and the link to the page about Holly Ham does not work for me. There are no other edits from your account(other than to this page) so I can't find the page.

Also note that accounts may not be shared and must be exclusively operated by a single individual. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonDC123 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, WashingtonDC123 that it is not her page, and it should not have been created for her. It is Wikipedia's article about her, and almost everything in it should be summarised from reliable published sources wholly unconnected with her. Anything she, or her associates, say about her (whether in their own publications, or in interviews or press releases) does not belong in the article unless it has been reported or discussed by an independent source. --ColinFine (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: This is about Draft:Holly Ham, which has not yet been submitted. It was created by WashingtonDC123, who has declared COI on User page. David notMD (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

citing geoblocked pages

If I want to know if there's anything I need to take care of when using a geoblocked page as a source. The page doesn't provide any useful content, when accessed from somewhere other than Iceland. Is this something that can be solved by an archive-version of it (I've never done that and I have no idea how that works), do I have to make a disclamer somewhere or am I not allowed to use it at all? (by the way, yes it's the English Wiki that I wanted to use it for) Sparkle666 (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle666: Should be OK, assuming that it meets criteria to be a Reliable Source. Sources do not need to be easily accessable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle666: What is the web page in question? Why would a page be geoblocked at the source? Or are you saying it is blacklisted here at Wikipedia? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle666:@AlanM1: Some websites actually block visitors from certain countries from seeing them. Usually for legal reasons, such as when they can't / won't follow the GDPR. TheAwesome Hwyh 04:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, the page is this here and unless I really don't get the concept this page is not blacklisted by wikipedia, since it's an official TV-channel's website and other pages on this website are used as sources on some wikipedia articles. I was also able to access the page via a VPN once in the past. The vast majority of the pages the website does not geoblock, I don't know why it did with this page. Thank you for your answers.Sparkle666 (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkle666: The page does not appear to be blocked for me in California, though it is not accessible to Google Translate and archive.org, which both get Icelandic for "Sorry for the error. Unfortunately, this URL is not accessible: ...". So, I'm guessing the problem is limited to bots? If so, it's probably OK to cite it as is, though you could add an  after the cite for the inevitable time when it disappears and someone tries to unsuccessfully change the cite to an archive. An archivable source would probably be better, though.

I get:

Sjónvarp Beint Flokkar Dagskrá | KrakkaRÚV
Hatari - fólkið á bak við búningana

Heimildarþáttur um listahópinn Hatara sem tekur þátt í Eurovision í Tel Aviv í maí. Í þættinum tjá liðsmenn Hatara sig í fyrsta skipti um hvernig þeim leið eftir sigurinn í Söngvakepninni og hvaða væntingar þeir hafa til þátttöku sinnar í Eurovision. Umsjón og dagskrárgerð: Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdóttir. Stjórn upptöku: Baldvin Vernharðsson. Framleiðsla: Tattarrattat í samstarfi við RÚV.

which Google Translate says is Icelandic for:

TV Straight categories agenda | KrakkaRÚV
Haters - the people behind the costumes

An episode of the Hatara art group participating in Eurovision in Tel Aviv in May. In the episode, Hatara's team members for the first time comment on how they felt after the victory in the Singing Cup and what expectations they have for their participation in Eurovision. Supervision and programming: Anna Hildur Hildibrandsdóttir. Director of recording: Baldvin Vernharðsson. Production: Tattarrattat in collaboration with RÚV.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New person

Hi, I have two questions. Can I work on my article in drafts, saving it somewhere out of view, or do I have to submit it all at once? I suppose I could save it on Word.doc until it's ready to submit. Is that the best way to do this?

Also, if I successfully get an article up on Wikipedia, is that something to put on a resume, or no?

Thanks! Slowmusketeer 11:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.132.242 (talk) [reply]

Slowmusketeer Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Make sure you are logged in when you post so your posts are properly attributed to your account. If you don't want your work visible until you submit it, you should save it off Wikipedia. While drafts are not indexed by search engines like Google, edits to them appear in the Recent Changes feed, which is monitored by thousands of people.

I guess you could put that you created an article on your resume, if you think it relevant to prospective employers, but creating an article is no guarantee that it will remain, and doing so does not require special skills. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowmusketeer: See also Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Being on Wikipedia is likely not a relevant point for a resume.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Slowmusketeer 14:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Page of Timorty Winter

Hello, this is M Winter. I am a wife of Tim Winter. Apparently the page is no longer applicable to Tim Winter. Many information in it were not correct, thus leaving him in dismay. Though the page was published long time ago, but he only realised is now the content were so awfully fake and fabricated.

He has been trying to locate the person who did the page but to no avail. We too were trying to delete some of the information but it was restored. What the hell embarrassment !!

We terribly found that the wikepedia page is not user friendly at all. Unlike facebook account where deletion is made easy and friendly.

We really urge the wikepedia experts and specialists to delete this page immediately.

Timorty Winter can be contacted at : (redacted)

Thank you & best rgds

M Winter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:D08:1203:DA1B:7C33:46A7:920E:EDE7 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted your contact information for your protection, it is not wise to post it in this public forum. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not typically deleted just because the subject or their representative wants them to be. If you have specific concerns about the article, please point them out. Your removal was reverted because it was done without explanation. Wikipedia does have a strict policy about how living people are written about(which you can find by clicking WP:BLP), so if there is inaccurate information, we want to know about it. I would note that what you removed appears to be well sourced, but I am not familiar with the subject so I can only go by what is seen. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would further add that Wikipedia is very different from Facebook. Facebook is social media where people control their own 'pages'; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources; the subject of an article has no more rights to it than any other editor(see WP:OWN). 331dot (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is about Timothy Winter (note spelling)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The place to take this up is Talk:Timothy Winter. Be aware that in 2017 there was a lengthy and heated discussion on keeping or deleting referenced content about Winter that he no longer adheres to. His current position can be added, but not deleting old content if it was properly referenced. History does not go away because someone changes their mind. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating A New Page

How can I create a page from the scratch is it possible? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubreezy (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aubreezy: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article(not just "page") is probably the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. New users who dive right in to creating articles without a full understanding of the process often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I don't want to see that happen to you. This is why I would suggest that you first spend much time(weeks or even months) editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in new articles. Starting small with minor edits, then moving up to more substantive additions, and lastly moving into article creation usually leads to more success at it. You may also wish to use the new user tutorial.

However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, you should first read Your First Article, and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor. This way, you find any problems and get feedback before the draft is formally placed in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Living People Category

Hello! I have been editing on Wikipedia for about a month now and as i'm looking at categories in biographies i've been wondering if the living people category should go next to ''insert year here'' births or should just stay in alphabetical order? I personally feel that it should go to the very top with the year of birth category so its easier to see it but I wanted to get feedback. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyBoi3892 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HappyBoi3892, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know of any general rules about what order categories should go in that would apply here. There's not much at MOS:CATORDER, for example. I can see the logic of putting birth-related categories together, but it makes such a small difference to the article either way that I don't think it would be worth doing that as a project of its own. If you're editing page categories for other reasons and you feel like changing the order at the same time, I don't see an issue with that. Sorry if this is a bit vague. Happy hunting, and if you have any more questions do post them here. (You can sign your post with ~~~~). All the best, › Mortee _talk 00:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to deep link in a Wikipedia article

Is there a way to link to a specific spot in a Wikipedia article? I would like to add a link to the section titled Books in the Rosie O'Donnell article (to around this spot in the RD Wikipedia article: "...and an HBO special was made based on the books." The link is FROM the Ken Kimmelman article under the heading Television--linked to Twinkle Twinkle. (Twinkle Twinkle is the animation based on the Rosie O'Donnell book--made by HBO). Thank you for your help. I've never done a deep link in a Wikipedia article. Lore E. Mariano (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LoreMariano Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to put a number sign(#) in the link followed by the section header of the part of the article you want to end up at. Example:[[Article title#Section header]] 331dot (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LoreMariano: See Template:Anchor for how to do it when the link should not lead to a section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I fix Twitter reference errors

Often when I input a tweet as a reference, it shows an error saying "line feed character in |title= at position 181" or something like that. I would like to know why it doees that and how to fix it. MrCheese76 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrCheese76, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like the issue you're having is at Team Vitality. The "line feed" error refers to the fact that you've entered titles that include multiple lines. The reference template is expecting the title to be on a single line. You can avoid that error by removing the newlines, and you could also consider using the more specific {{Cite tweet}} template. However, please do note the warning at the top of that template: Tweets are usually unacceptable as sources. There's more information about the circumstances in which they can be acceptable at WP:BLOGS and WP:TWITTER. In general, it's better to use secondary sources. I haven't looked into this particular case, but if you have more questions you can always ask again here (please put new questions at the bottom of the page). I hope this helps you. › Mortee _talk 00:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Multiple IPs adding a tweet to BLP

Hi, I'm new here, but I was wondering where do I go for help with issues I encounter when editing. For example, on the Andy Cohen (TV personality) page, multiple IPs keep adding a tweet to the article, starting last year. I think they may be using some kind of dynamic IP address.

Thanks, 24.217.247.41 (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 24.217.247.41. I think you should continuing to try and engage these other editors in discussion on the article's talk page. If that discusison stagnates, you can suggest seeking further assistance at either WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. At some point though, continuing to go back and forth with the IPs is only going to exacerbate the situation no matter how right you may be in terms of WP:BLPREMOVE; so, seek out administrator assistance at either WP:RPP or WP:AN3 to put an end to any disruption. The IP(s) can choose not to participate in the discussion, but they will be expected to honor any consensus which is established by it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Marchjuly. I will wait to see if the IPs respond to my comments on the talk page. I've previously posted on WP:BLP for a different issue and not gotten any feedback, so if the IPs don't respond, I will try posting to the Request for Page Protection WP:RPP or 3 edit rule board WP:AN3, (which the IPs if all from the same person have violated). 24.217.247.41 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest edit to protected content?

How do I suggest edit to protected content? I have noticed an incorrect birth date in the summary data about an individual which is in conflict with a later entry in the text which is known to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarofDavidCox (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the page is semi protected, which most protected articles are, you can either wait until you have 10 edits over 4 days, or post a request on the talk page, by adding this {{Edit semi-protected}} to the top of your message.

Some pages have more strict protection, such as Extended confirmed, 500 edits over 30 days, where you can use {{Edit extended-protected}}, or full protection, which allows editing by only admins: use {{Edit fully-protected}}. It should be remembered though that any protection above semi is rather rare, and is only used where strictly necessary.

~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, the problem seems to be that the dates given in the article's various parts (none of which cites a source) do not agree with one another. Wikipedia is not based on what anyone "knows", rather, it is based on WP:Reliable sources. If you have a reliable source for the date of birth, you may propose a change to the article on its Talk page, giving a link to the source of your information.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the birth month to April for consistency, but we really need a reference, otherwise the date might get deleted. Dbfirs 06:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is a living person all the unreferenced dates must be removed, per WP:BLP. This is not optional, BLP rules are mandatory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article editing

My article recently submitted has been rejected .Can some experienced editor edit it so that it gets approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sruthi srv (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, welcome to Wikipedia Sruthi srv! Please read WP:YFA for guidance on what should be included in an article. I don’t see where your draft is, but I can see that you are writing an article on your talk page, which is the wrong place. Instead, please use the WP:AFC process for creating articles. Also, your article has no sources for verifiability. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Stefan Thurner

I submitted the article "Stefan Thurner" in November (!) already and added content in March (last time). It is sooo long now. Could you please tell me: What is wrong about the text? Compared to many other Wiki entries it seems totally ok to me?? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avecaesaria (talk • contribs) 08:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if it was declined in November. Have you re-submitted it recently, since making your changes? If so, it will be reviewed again, but reviews can take time as it relies purely on volunteers. If you have not re-submitted it then you should do so if you believe it meets all the standards and has addressed the reason for being declined before. It certainly appears to be well-sourced and there are some credible claims to notability, but I'm afraid I can't understand the German sources so I can't say for sure either way whether the article is now likely to be accepted or not. Hug^syrup 08:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A question

I have a question at talk:Gulval that I hope someone will answer. —Best known for IP (85.255.233.81 (talk)) 08:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done please see answer on the talk page. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page move request

I am a fully disclosed paid editor represeenting Richard Wayne Lewis I have requested that the page be moved from Richard Wayne Lewis to Ric Lewis as this is what he is referred to by the RS. I have built a small consensus on the talk page, what I would like to know is, can I move the page myself now a consensus has been reached?Essayist1 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Essayist1: No objections, so I say you can go ahead and do it, but I would wait for confirmation as I’m not 100% sure. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you allowed someone else to do it, but if that doesn't happen in a day or two, you should be okay to move it yourself, but you will want to clearly point to the consensus when doing so. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):@Essayist1: normally, per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#When_to_close_discussions it's rare to close a discussion until it's been open for a week, which this one hasn't yet. Per WP:PAY, as a paid editor you a 'very strongly discouraged' from editing articles directly (which would include a move) but not outright banned from doing so. So, given that, I guess it's down to you, and we can't tell you whether you can or can't. The best outcome is probably if someone else makes the move for you, but I realise it can be frustrating getting attention on a low-traffic article, and you may end up wanting to just do it yourself. Now that you've come here, I suspect someone from the Teahouse might be happy enough to do it and if no one else jumps in first, I'll happily do so once the discussion has been open for a full week and no objections have been raised. Hug^syrup 11:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really nice if the talk-page of said article had a bit more participation for the consensus-building process....and I would keep the discussion there open at least until the 22nd of this month. Afterwards, you should be ok to move it yourself. Lectonar (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, thanks for all of your advice. I will leave the page be uuntil the 22nd. If someone could move the page for me after the 22nd that would be greatly appreciated as I don't want to violate WP:paid Essayist1 (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Love Goodbye

Hi, I've spent the past 48 hours reverting edits from IP addresses and usernames on Hello, Love, Goodbye article. Issues range from puffery, Facebook and twitter as sources, as you can see from this [[4]]. I hope you can help lock the page. Verbosmithie (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verbosmithie Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure that I would worry about page protection("lock") unless the content is readded. If it is, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, thank you. Contents have been readded for the past few days maybe, I'm not sure, from the same group of people as the nature of edits and the words used seem very similar. The diff I mentioned are just one of the many edits I tried to revert. See history. I usually am patient on these things and tried to reach out to the user via the talk page, but ip addresses reverted the changes. Verbosmithie (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Biographical Page of a Living Person

Hey guys, am very new to this but wanted to essentially create a page for a musician I am a huge fan of. I would like to go through the usual process but frankly, don't even know which pages I could edit to get up to the 10 required edits.

The musician is still at an Indie level though he was once on Billboard Number 4 placing and a lot of the sources are likely to come from his website... While I will be diligent to trawl the internet for quotable sources from articles and the like, do you foresee an issue with me creating this page for him? I know that notability is an issue as well... Hope to hear from you guys as I would like to get started soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGoei (talk • contribs) 13:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGoei: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The musician's own website would not be acceptable as a source; sources must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Sources must be independent of the subject and offer coverage beyond routine mentions, basic announcements, or interviews. If the musician is not written about in independent sources, he would not merit an article at this time. As you surmise, the musician must also meet at least one of the notability criteria, which for musicians are written at WP:BAND.

You can create and submit a draft using Articles for Creation even if you are not autoconfirmed. Creating a new article successfully is harder than most people think it is. I would recommend using the new user tutorial and reading Your First Article carefully. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, Thanks for the assistance! The musician has had several interviews in the past, as well as having been signed by Sony as well amongst other sources. If I could source from reliable publications and genuine history, would that permit the creation of his page? Additionally, how did you first go about making your first 10 edits? It's not that I want to skip it or be given special treatment, I'm just not sure where to start or whether there are edits left to be made! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGoei (talk • contribs) 13:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGoei: Interviews are a primary source since they come from the subject themselves. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. Wikipedia is interested in what independent sources state about subjects on their own, not what the subject says about themselves.

There are literally millions of articles on Wikipedia, I'm sure there are some out there in areas that interest you that need work of varying degrees. If you need assistance in choosing articles to work on, you can visit the Community Portal which has a section of articles that need work. As I said, though, you don't need to have 10 edits to use Articles for Creation. It may also be helpful to you to get feedback on a draft you are creating, especially your first one; if you directly create an article without a review, it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, I definitely don't want to randomly create a page like that: I need to pay my due diligence! Most of these articles I have managed to dig up are sadly interviews so I will find a way (properly) to get the musician properly established (and know I am purely a fan, I have not been paid a cent to do this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGoei (talk • contribs) 14:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference list can not be edited

I have been having this issue on some pages the list of references show up as a blank list. For example: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_to_the_World_(Three_Dog_Night_song) I noticed reference number 3 is dead and I could find any other source, so I thought I will mark it as a dead link, but I can't. The reference page opens blank, and so this is big issue, as I have seen people placing the references inside of the article instead of at the bottom due to this issue.Ty78ejui (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ty78ejui: welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, if an article uses the reflist template (which most do), you can't edit the references directly in the References section. Rather, you need to edit them where they appear within the article. In this case, reference 3 appears at the end of the first line of 'Background and recording' so you would need to edit it there. You can mark it by placing {{dead link}} between the end of the cite tag and the </ref>. Hope this helps. Hug^syrup 14:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ty78ejui: (edit conflict) The above answer is sufficient, but to elaborate a bit: reference citations should usually be placed from inside the body of the article, so that readers know which piece of material they are supporting. On the technical side, this is done by having the reference details filled out at the location where you want to cite it, even though they will appear to the reader in the list of references, which is automagically generated at another place (usually the bottom of the article) by the template {{reflist}}. See the example at Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Test_it_out. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It did not work, as usually I did it wrong, I tried to insert the tag, but I did not save it because I got this :

"Three Dog Night Headlines the Fair Tonight". Bainbridge Island Review. Entertainment section. August 20, 2008. ISSN 1053-2889. Retrieved April 5, 2011.[dead link] (here the reference is removed, but I don't want it removed only marked dead)
Cite warning: <ref> tag with name notes2 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.
Cite warning: <ref> tag with name notes1 cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.

Ty78ejui (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC) I have been able to make a change within the article if I use ref, and am creating the reference myself, but if I want to cite the web, it will sometimes appear inside the article, not as a number but the whole reference is listed right in the middle of the article making it look messy. Ty78ejui (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ty78ejui: - ok, I have added in the broken link tag, and if you edit the source you can probably see where this goes, so you'll know for future. The reason for the error you are seeing is that references can be defined once, and then referenced again using just their short name. The problem is that if the reference was defined in the lead, and then is referenced with it's short name in another section, and you preview just that section then the preview will show an error. In this scenario, this is not a 'real' error and will not show up in the final article. The best way to avoid that confusion, though, is to edit and preview the whole article at once by clicking 'edit source' at the top of the page next to 'read' and 'view history' rather than edit a single section - that is always safest when working with references as it will mean you can see how they really look. I hope this helps and I've explained it ok? On a side note, good on you for previewing your edits and not submitting them if they don't look right! Hug^syrup 15:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I did that one ok? Most times I don't preview, but this time since I was making an example I previewed rather then changed. Ty78ejui (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a new reference to the "Jeremiah was a prophet" on a website using reference and its the right place, but there is no way to add the other information. If I use cite the web the location will be inside the article. Its better not to have it inside the article, but having it even if is deleted will allow someone to use an archive to search for it. I did archive it.Ty78ejui (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this change works fine, although it is generally better to use a full cite template so that you can add in all of the other information about the reference. You see how in the list the one you added is just a plain URL, while the rest show more complete info? You can do that by instead of just doing <ref>url</ref> use <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=}}</ref>. You don't have to fill all the fields in (and others are in fact available) but the more the better. I don't know if this also answers your other question? It sounds to be as if you might have been using the cite template but not also enclosing it in ref tags, which would leave the citation within the article as you say. Hug^syrup 15:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm creating and misspelled the name ...

I created a page and mispelled the name for my page. How can I edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScreenShot Magazine (talk • contribs) 16:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ScreenShot Magazine: What is the page? Did you create it under another account or while logged out? The answer to your question is that you can't edit a page name but you can move it to the correct name, although you must be autoconfirmed first. If you tell us the page and the correct spelling then it is possible someone here will be willing to move it for you.

On a different note, I am afraid that your username breaches Wikipedia rules because it implies shared use. You will need to either change it or create a new account, or you risk being blocked. Your username also strongly suggests that you might be editing on behalf of an organisation, which is also frowned upon and a breach of the T&Cs unless you declare it - I suggest you read WP:PAID before doing any more editing. Hug^syrup 16:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by vehicles per capita

The list has no sources for many numbers. I updated the sources with numbers from Eurostat with the most recent numbers from them see: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Passenger_cars_in_the_EU

But some anonymous user is constantly deleting my edit. I don't know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinz3734 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Heinz3734: - they have given a reason for reverting you ("Eurostat data are old and give no absolute number, already discussed earlier") so you need to now follow the WP:BRD cycle and discuss this change on the article talk page rather than continue to attempt to make the change, otherwise you are edit-warring. IP users may or may not discuss the change with you but, even if they don't, other editors will give their view and if you can get consensus there for your change, you can safely reinsert it. Until then, it is best not to keep trying. Hug^syrup 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugsyrup: - Eurostat has current data for the amount of cars and no the data is pretty good/updated/not old. I will create an article in the talk page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heinz3734 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help publishing first article

Hi all! I am a student researcher who is new to posting on Wikipedia (long time user). I posted an article about a notable private company I've come across multiple times in my research. When I tried to look them up I was surprised to find they aren't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, despite regularly seeing them on TV and in the news. I decided to write my first article about them because it seemed fairly straight forward and easy. I wrote basic biographical info and listed a few notable accomplishments (see below). My article, however, was deleted almost immediately due to "conflict of interest" rules. I do not, in no uncertain terms, work for the company in question, or provide any services to the security industry, as has been suggested. I want to get started publishing on Wikipedia, however I'm apparently in need of some guidance. I have read a variety of similar pages, the Wikipedia guidelines, and the terms of use but I'm not sure where to go from here. I will paste my article below, and would greatly appreciate any guidance or feedback.

First, sign your signature here and on article Talk pages by typing four of ~ at the end. This allows other editors to see your contributions. When you add content to your User page, a good idea would be to declare there that you have no conflict of interest with Chesley Brown International. As to your content (hidden, but available, below), you can try again to create a draft at Articles for creation. See WP:Referencing for beginners, as referencing is not by inserting URLs into the text. You also need to work on neutral point of view. David notMD (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

LINK: [[5]]

Chesley Brown International is a privately owned Risk Consulting, and Security Management firm based in Atlanta, GA. It was established in 1990 as Chesley Brown Associates.

History

Chesley Brown International was founded in 1990 by Brent C. Brown as a consultant to retail, Class A office complexes, warehouses, and hotels (https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/1997/06/09/focus15.html). The company focused on helping businesses manage security risk by uncovering gaps in their security systems.

Chesley Brown obtained its first large consulting client in Atlanta, Georgia in 1991 (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html). Developer Blaine Kelly’s Landmarks Group hired Chesley Brown to audit the Promenade II building. During this time the company began to develop the Chesley Brown Report (CBR) which became the industry-standard for security auditing (https://www.georgiatrend.com/2003/10/01/the-best-and-brightest/).

Starting in 1993 Chesley Brown expanded their relationship with Charles Rice, founder of Barton Protective Service, which allowed Chesley Brown to grow operations nationally (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html).

Throughout 1995 and 1996 Chesley Brown consulted and supported more than 70% of Atlanta’s downtown skyline (https://www.georgiatrend.com/2003/10/01/the-best-and-brightest/) prior to the summer olympics. In the wake of the Olympic park bombing Chesley Brown provided expert analysis to national media outlets such as CNN, Fox News, MSNBC (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html) and were quoted in the Wall Street Journal article titled “Buildings Can Be Safer but Never Totally Safe” in the April 25th, 1995 issue.

In 1997, Chesley Brown became the first security company to offer both consulting and uniformed security services (https://chesleybrown.com/our-history/). They were the first to provide security management as a critical component of property management, which later became known as “Total Security Management,” considered an innovation at the time (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html).

In January of 1999, Chesley Brown International assumed security management of the nation’s first and largest mixed-use development: Country Club Plaza (https://www.thepitchkc.com/when-westport-gets-wild-security-guards-ban-the-unruly-but-critics-say-the-blackballing-goes-too-far/) which encompasses 18 city blocks in Kansas City, Missouri. Developed in the early 1920’s this project had previously operated their own private public safety agency.

By 2003, Chesley Brown had grown from an organization of just one, to a multimillion dollar company with over 500 employees in 27 states and three countries (https://www.georgiatrend.com/2003/10/01/the-best-and-brightest/).

In 2004, Chesley Brown expanded their corporate offices (https://chesleybrown.com/our-history/).

In 2006, Chesley Brown once again set an industry standard by being the first private security firm to launch their own event-driven worldwide remote monitoring system known as InCommand Worldwide (https://www.mdjonline.com/cobb_business_journal/ceo_profiles/safe-and-secure---chesley-brown-ceo-goes-from/article_f4d636aa-d737-5757-9c50-cac0cf1767b2.html) which was modelled after the United Kingdom’s own state-of-the-art system.

Geographic Locations

Chesley Brown is headquartered in Atlanta and Kansas City and has offices in Houston, Lexington, Nashville, Orlando, Pittsburgh, and Tampa

Citing/Copywrite Question

Hello! I was wondering, if I'm adding multiple sentences from another source, should I rephrase it and put a foot note after each sentence? Or is it better to cite it with quotes and have one citation at the end?

Thanks! Laurendevera (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Laurendevera, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can upload it to Commons as Public Domain: see WP:Uploading images#Free license and public domain images. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question for STS-87

I want to add an image that is copyright-free but I cannot do that... I can only label it as 'my work'... But it is related to the topic at hand...

Here's the article telling the story of the image.

https://elfquest.com/elfquest-takes-a-ride-on-the-space-shuttle/

--Vikinghammer1979 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The necessity of images for a page.

Salutations, new user here, I was wondering if it was necessary for a page to have an image? I ask because I am writing a draft page and the image I want to attribute to this topic is a copyrighted logo, which I have read is a big no-no for Wikipedia commons. Will my draft be rejected for having no images when I submit it?

Thanks, LycurgusOfTahiti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LycurgusOfTahiti (talk • contribs) 18:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need images. It is good to have them, but is by no means a necessity. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 18:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IMAGE for more information. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once your article is published, a low-resolution copy of the logo can be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) using a WP:Fair use argument. Dbfirs 20:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added editing of site.

Add in Wikipedia Site, under Novels: The Appointment: The Tale of Adaline Carson, Lynx House Press, 2019. ISBN 978-0-89924-163-9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Keeble44 (talk • contribs) 18:40, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

Hi John Keeble44, welcome to the Teahouse. If you're proposing a new article about The Appointment, and you're the same John Keeble who wrote that book, your best course is to add a request to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Literature/Books. It wouldn't be a great idea to try to write the article yourself, both because writing a new article is a difficult thing to do, so you'd want to get some other editing experience first, and because you would have a conflict of interest as the author, which would need to be worked around as well. Check the notes at the top of the requests page, particularly Be sure the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The particular guidelines about which books should have articles about them are at WP:NBOOK. If you'd like to start editing Wikipedia yourself, I'd suggest editing some existing articles, and asking questions here at the Teahouse if you need help. I've always found it a friendly and helpful place. I'll leave some links on your talk page, too. All the best, › Mortee _talk 23:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updating SeaChange International's "About" Section

Hello,

I am the Marketing Manager for SeaChange International, Inc.

I need to update the "About" section of our company - but there does not seem to be an option to do so. I can edit other sections like "History" but not the blurb at the top.

How do I go about doing this?

Best, Catie Algiere Marketing Communications Manager SeaChange International, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsoc6 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marsoc6, are you on about the Wikipedia:Short description? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or the introduction? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit" in the very top menu bar allows editing of the Lead (stuff before History), and in fact, the entire article. HOWEVER, as a paid employee, you are not supposed to directly edit the article at all. Instead, you are required to comply with WP:PAID, which means declaring paid status on your User page, and requesting changes on the Talk page of the article. An editor not affiliated with SeaChange will decide whether to incorporate your proposed changes. Yes, this is annoying. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding creating a biography article of a political figure on Wikipedia

Hello, I am an official parliamentary secretary of Republic of Moldova, I was recently assigned to create the (unbiased) biography in three languages on wikipedia of Moldova's current vice-speaker, Mihail Popsoi.

I have just obtained a message from Drm310 stating "I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited was User:Mihail Popșoi/sandbox, which appears to be an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally. The page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page. If your contributions to an existing article about yourself are undone and you wish to add to it, please propose the changes on its talk page.".

With this in mind, however, I am intending to write the biography of Mihail Popsoi, hence it is NOT an autobiography since it is not written by the person in matter.The current high political position of Mihail Popsoi is of paramount importance for digital resources (including Wikipedia) available for the society , hence, I am expecting the articles not to be taken down.

Thank you!

Kind Regards

Victor Agrici — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihail Popșoi (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mihail Popșoi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason Drm310 thought it was an autobiography is that your username matches the person you are writing about. Since you state that you are not Mihail Popșoi, you will need to change your username immediately. Please visit either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to make a request. After your name is changed, you will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing as there are some required disclosures you need to make. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Members of a national parliament are considered notable per the notability guidelines for politicians, so that is not an issue. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Victor Agrici, once you have changed your username to your real name or to a pseudonym of your choice, you need to read WP:Referencing for beginners, and find WP:Reliable sources for the information that you know, then use these as in-line citations. Dbfirs 20:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kuringgai Aboriginal word

Same question/comment appears to have been posted twice

Please read this report was funded by Government / councils

There was a story published in the Daily telegraph “Misunderstanding: The historical fiction of the word Guringai that has filled a void in our knowledge of the original inhabitants by John Morcombe, Manly Daily February 20, 2015 2:41pm.”

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/northern-beaches/misunderstanding-the-historical-fiction-of-the-word-guringai-that-has-filled-a-void-in-our-knowledge-of-the-original-inhabitants/news-story/b1aec152c74220c535883621081a2fd2

In a new document, Filling A Void, by the Aboriginal heritage office http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/news/2015/filling-a-void/

The Aboriginal heritage office also states “there is no record of the word Guringai /Guringay or any of its derivatives, including Ku-ring-gai, in any of the early accounts of the colony after white settlement and no hint that the Aborigines of the northern beaches or any other part of Sydney had ever heard the word”.

Regards Gringai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringai Man (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this story the research was funded by Government and Councils and the Aboriginal heritage office

There was a story published in the Daily telegraph “Misunderstanding: The historical fiction of the word Guringai that has filled a void in our knowledge of the original inhabitants by John Morcombe, Manly Daily February 20, 2015 2:41pm.”

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/northern-beaches/misunderstanding-the-historical-fiction-of-the-word-guringai-that-has-filled-a-void-in-our-knowledge-of-the-original-inhabitants/news-story/b1aec152c74220c535883621081a2fd2

In a new document, Filling A Void, by the Aboriginal heritage office http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/news/2015/filling-a-void/

The Aboriginal heritage office also states “there is no record of the word Guringai /Guringay or any of its derivatives, including Ku-ring-gai, in any of the early accounts of the colony after white settlement and no hint that the Aborigines of the northern beaches or any other part of Sydney had ever heard the word”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringai Man (talk • contribs) 21:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gringai Man, I have read the story. Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? That's really what the Teahouse is for. If you think, for example, that our article Kuringgai should be changed based on what's in the story, you could be bold and make the changes yourself, or you could start a discussion on the talk page for that article, or if there's a change you want to make but you're not sure how, you could ask again here, explaining the issue you've run into. I hope this helps. › Mortee _talk 23:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Page Not showing up in search results

Hi!

I wrote a Wikipedia entry several months ago which is not showing up in the Google search results for the individual. I read that new pages typically have a robot.txt on them to prevent them from being indexed in search results until they are either 1) approved or 2) 90 days have passed. I believe both of these thresholds have been met however I still do not see it! Can someone please look at the page and let me know what I did incorrectly? or what I can do to get the page to show up on Google when you look at his name? the page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Galante

Thank you! Drsammyjohnson (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson[reply]

Drsammyjohnson, it looks like the article was approved by a new page patroller in July, so the robots.txt should have been removed. Additionally, while it doesn't show up as a search result for me on Google, it does show up for me on DuckDuckGo. This may be a problem on Google's end. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drsammyjohnson It takes time for search engines to index articles once they are marked as reviewed. They can do so at different rates; Wikipedia has no control over it. Google will likely index it soon. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Drsammyjohnson. I just completed a Google seach on my Android smartphone for Forrest Galante. The Google Knowledge Graph at the top includes a link to the Wikipedia article that you wrote, and that Wikipedia article is #7 in the natural search results, after two of his own web pages, and his Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and IMDb pages. Since he has such a robust social media presence, that seems like the correct search result to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might have fixed itself very recently. When I looked a couple of hours ago, after Rosguill's reply but before Cullen328's, I didn't see mention of the the particular article, even if I added "wikipedia" to the search. Perhaps we have some friendly Google fairies nearby, or perhaps this was just fortuitous timing. › Mortee _talk 02:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks for Journals, Newspapers etc... in article citations

Hello:

I know the MOS suggests that when adding a wiki link to a topic in an article it be linked once at the first instance. Does the same rule apply to linking newspapers, journals etc... in citations. I have been told the same rule applies, but I have also been told that for the convenience of the reader every citation should be linked. I have come across both "styles" as I copy edit articles for the GOCE. I can find nothing in the MOS to clarify this. Can you help?

Thanks!

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twofingered Typist, that's an interesting question. I've usually not seen works themselves linked to in citations. When citing an online news article, for example, you'd always link to the article itself, but it's pretty unusual to also link to the Wikipedia article about the publication, though I have seen it done. The examples given at {{Cite news}} don't include links, and there's no parameter |work-link= as there is an |author-link=.

Personally, I think links can be useful if the publication is interesting but a bit obscure, especially if its own history is related to what the main article is about, but for publications you'd expect most readers to know of, it can be, if anything, slightly unhelpful because they might click that link thinking it'll take them to the particular story. I wonder if anyone else has stronger views about this, or knows of relevant guidelines. For now, I'd say don't worry about it and leave links as they are while copyediting; it'll move you on to the next article faster and whatever you fix there will probably be more important. All the best, › Mortee _talk 23:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Straw Poll is now Iowa State Fair Straw Poll

Should it be 'moved' or ? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking if the Iowa Straw Poll should be moved to a new page. Then I would suggest not, you can always request a name change for the page using this template {{Requested move}} BigRed606 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That template looks like a request to change the name of a section rather a page. Why are you thinking the page shouldn't be given a new name? While it started off as a Republican-only affair, the "results were non-binding" (per the Significance §). When the Iowa State Fair took over in 2015 and made it Dem as well as Repub, it was still 'non-binding'. Aside from renaming the page, it looks like all that would be needed is minor edits to the intro para. I'm thinking it might be better to me to do that than create a "Iowa State Fair Straw Poll" page separate from the "Iowa Straw Poll" page. That's a distinction without much of a difference. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humanengr, I'm also not certain why BigRed606 suggested {{Rename section}}. There is {{Requested move}} if you're not able to move the page yourself or if you think someone might reasonably disagree with the move. You can see that a requested move was used here in 2015 when the page moved from Ames Straw Poll. The instructions for that template explain how to use it (on the talk page, using "subst"). I've not looked deeply but moving it seems reasonable to me. The only question is whether it's still mostly referred to in sources as the "Iowa Straw Poll", regardless of its official title (WP:COMMONNAME; WP:TITLE) › Mortee _talk 01:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx — it does seem that, for now, it's still largely referred to as "Iowa Straw Poll". I guess that means I should do a redirect(?) so people searching for "Iowa State Fair Straw Poll" get rerouted to the former. How is that done? Humanengr (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make a redirect, go to the page you want to make a redirect from, in this case Iowa State Fair Straw Poll, and make a new page there that consists of the wikicode #REDIRECT [[Iowa Straw Poll]] (More instructions at Wikipedia:Redirect if you want them) › Mortee _talk 02:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx much — done. Humanengr (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Humanengr You were very vague on what your questions was. And I was just trying to help. And I still don’t think you need to create a separate page for the same event BigRed606 (talk), 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@BigRed606 — Are you referring to @Mortee's edit? Thx for your help; At this point all I need is an answer to my question here. TIA, Humanengr (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BigRed606 I think it was a misunderstanding. You linked to a template about renaming a section when the question was instead about moving an article. You've since edited your comment to link to a different template. Would you mind not doing that, after there have been replies? It changes the meaning of what people replying to you said, without them necessarily being aware of it, and without it being clear to anyone else reading what they were replying to. In any case, it's great that you tried to help. Misunderstandings happen; no need to feel bad. › Mortee _talk 03:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]