Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from P:TH)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

WP teahouse logo.png

Most recent archives
625  626  627  628  629  630  631  632  633  634
635  636  637  638  639  640  641  642  643  644


Neutral point of view is difficult at some points[edit]

Neutral point of view is difficult at some points though it is one of basic principles of Wikipedia. As everyone can edit every article. So you can edit an article to which you are opponent. For example

  • Christian view of Bible and Quran
    • Bible: Christians believe Bible is a revealed book and a True word and Order of God.
    • Quran: Some Christian testaments declared Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is a false prophet so Quran is a man-written book (May God save me from this!)
  • Islamic view of Bible and Quran
    • Bible: Muslims believe Bible is a revealed book but it was changed from its original form so present Bible is not a True word and Order of God.
    • Quran: Muslims believe Quran is the final, true and unchangeable word and Order of God.

When here are so much trenchs in views, neutrality of view is perhaps very difficult. Sinner (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sinner . Not to be rude, but... I'm not totally sure if there's a question in there. NPOV can very often be difficult, so much so that we have the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard for times when situations arise that need wider community discussion. In general, with regard to religion, we simply record what people believe as what they believe without really "taking a side". Determining the nature of absolute immutable epistemic Truth is more of a place for philosophers and theologians, and not really for an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The word rude while referring me shows answerer does not agree with above content (even I ensure it is a truth). That is we can't agree on everything, so can't become so neutral as required by wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nazim Hussain Pak. He was not saying you were rude, he was hoping he would not be considered rude for saying what he said. Everyday English can be harder to understand than formal written English. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That is not central point of question, neutrality is difficult at points where you do not agree with basic idea of a subject when you are opposite to it. Sinner (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty simple, really. If you find you are looking at a subject about which you cannot be neutral, it is recommended that you simply do not edit it. There is no requirement, no expectation, that you edit on every topic, but there is an expectation and requirement that, when you do edit something, you approach it with a neutral point of view. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, even subjects like bible and quran can have other points of view than christian and islamic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
And (which I hope is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, really), the bullet points above are not universally representative or "true" regarding the points of view of Christian and Muslim people, either. For instance, most Christians in my part of the world do not believe that the Bible as a whole is a "revealed" book - it is commonly accepted that it was written by human hands, and interpreting the texts and contexts of the times when the Bible was written, in order to make it relevant for people today, is a major issue for theologians and Bible translators. But that's not the only point of view or belief, and it would be equally wrong to say that it is universally representative for Christians. --bonadea contributions talk 22:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I heartily agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång, "If you find you are looking at a subject about which you cannot be neutral, it is recommended that you simply do not edit it." C. S. Lewis said much the same thing about reviewing books to which one has a personal antipathy.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sinner -- Look at the bright side. Where there are differences between Christianity and Islam, they can be laid out in bullet points, as you have. Where there are differences between creationism and science, the two sides argue without even a common vocabulary. I am quite sure you will be able to edit Wikipedia successfully using the tact and wisdom you demonstrated in your post. Knowing your interlocutor and his views does not require that you agree with them. As salamu aleiykum. (Peace be upon you) Rhadow (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sinner! We're all the children of the Almighty Creator. This we have in common. As for Atheists and Idolators, they ideologically refuse to accept this commonality - yet even then they would have to agree that we're all human beings. Ultimately, beyond any differences, the fact is, we are all people, we all have ideas, we all have feelings. That's not blasphemy - it's just reality. Whatever goes beyond that is simply, up to us as a generation of folks, who are preparing this planet for who goes beyond this time in history. Hopefully that will be our descendants. Following in our footsteps.
To remain neutral, to many of us in Wikipedia, will mean ignoring what seems to be blasphemy. That's definitely a problem. It is absolutely forbidden (to ignore blasphemy). The biggest problem is within, though. We all are imperfect beings, doomed from the time we're born to make errors. That's how we can learn. From our errors.
So would we rather make the errors by choice, so we can bring enlightenment - or rather by blunder, not even recognizing we've made an error? To build ideological bridges is a positive thing. To further communication is a positive thing. To bring light to the future of humanity is a positive thing. Which means we have to wrestle with neutrality. Life is not a party. It's a wrestling match. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
User:2422889236x We are creatures, we are not children of God, I believe. Sinner (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

About page[edit]

HOW CAN I CREATE MY OWN PAGE ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanush121 (talkcontribs) 07:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC) 
Hello Dhanush121 and welcome to the Teahouse.
You already have a user page at User:Dhanush121 and a talk page at User talk:Dhanush121. If you are thinking about writing a Wikipedia article about yourself, though, you should first read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It explains why you probably should not attempt it. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
YOU CAN'T, Dhanush121 — no page at Wikipedia is your OWN.
There may exist pages associated with you (like your User page and your Talk page) or pages about you (if you are notable enough), but none of them is your own. Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of content for more detailed explanation. --CiaPan (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dhanush121: Oh, I forgot to add there may also exist pages created or modified by you – but those are not 'your own', either, just per WP:OWN. --CiaPan (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

How to insert an infobox to an article[edit]

Hi friends, I'm a new here. I'm writing my first article, and who can kindly tell me where could I insert an infobox on the right side? Many thanks Cheese Cup (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, even I am new here, I find this helpful... it may help you too. Wiki markup have a nice day :) Red Pen (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, rather than creating an infobox from scratch, it can be easier to copy the code from the infobox of a similar article to your sandbox, edit it until it shows what you need, then insert your modified code into the article. Dbfirs 11:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Haha, yes even I do that sometimes ;)Red Pen (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks to both of you. I've tried several times to insert an image to infobox person, but always failed. Should I firstly insert a photo file there?  :(

124.193.167.38 (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Any image you insert into a Wikipedia article must first exist on Wikimedia Commons. See this helpful article and Wikipedia:Uploading images.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It may be easier if you're not familiar with coding to use the visual editor. Once there, you can directly add an infobox using the insert option Wiki sandu (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Is working with wikipedia considered as working age population if a particular user's age is even less than 15 years?[edit]

This is the doubt that I ask regarding Economics point of view.I know Volunteers work for wikipedia without expecting anything.If this question that I asked is completely wrong,I apologise for it.Abishe (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Abishe, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Wikipedia welcomes all editors, whatever their age, if they understand what we are trying to achieve here, and follow the policies. I advise you to read the essay guidance for younger editors.
When you talk about Economics, do you mean that you want to contribute to that article, or are you asking about the possibility of getting paid for editing? If the latter, then as you say, Wikipedia editors are not paid, but contribute because they want to help create this great project.
The other thing that occurs to me is to wonder if it might be more valuable for you to contribute in another language. Do you know that there are Wkipedias in 288 different languages? Perhaps there is one that you can write more clearly in than English? --ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I know that wikipedians are volunteers that they won't work for money but to do great projects without hesitating and I will contribute to wikipedia as a volunteer only rather than expecting anything.Abishe (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, Abishe, what you are asking is whether Wikipedia editors under the age of 15 are considered part of the working-age population by economists. I presume the answer is no, as they are neither working for money nor old enough to meet the definition. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

why do some brands have wiki page and get back links?[edit]

I was researching on co-living and found that Wework has a wiki page, however common.com and hubhaus do not have one? also hubhaus is able to hyperlink it's name but common is not able to. (you see this under welive competition on wework wiki page). Dev098 (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

2405:204:321C:718E:3159:F8F1:CE93:83CA (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the WP:LINKSPAM in this edit. Thanks for alerting us to the problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"Brands" do not "have a wiki page", Wikipedia has articles about notable companies. Why any particular article does not exist is because someone (that means you) has not written it yet - provided it is notable of course. See the Your first article guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don’t know why my article was tagged with “criteria for speedy deletion” firstly and then “COI”. Please help[edit]

I’m a new here, and I wrote an article about a Chinese business man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chi And I think in the sense of notability, he could be put here on Wikipedia. I've given enough references to my article, but it is still said promotional and conflict with interest. How can I do more to improve this article? I know editors here are volunteers, and I will really appreciate it if you could tell me which sentence or which part is promotional or not neutral maybe. Many thanks for all your help. Cheese Cup (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cheese Cup! Having an article tagged for deletion is very frustrating for new users. Looking into the article Michael Chi, it appears that many different users have created this article, and every time it's been deleted. This has caused editors to interpret the creation of the article as promoting another individual (Michael Chi). I'm not saying this was your intent: this is how it has been interpreted. If you have other sources about Mr. Chi that are independent of him, this will help improve the article significantly. I'll see if I can turn anything up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


This is my first article and it means a lot to me, because I learn to write here from this article. By the way, I had difficult in inserting an image to the infobox, and my friend Richardleo helped me, who is also a new here. Cheese Cup (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add that if you are interested in editing in order to improve your writing, a good place to start is by editing existing articles. This way you get a better feel for the process. I started this way and recommend it to others. In addition, you may want to look at WikiProjects that are of interest to you. Many WikiProjects have lists of articles that need to be created. These lists are often made up of individuals and topics that are already likely to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. If you'd like some recommendations for WikiProjects, ask here and let us know what your areas of interest are. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Cheese Cup, I placed a COI tag on the article because you are clearly connected to Chi, and must have known him since at least 9 September 2009, when you took this photograph of him in his office (which you presumably then donated to him, since it has been in use on the internet for several years). I don't have the kind of vision that allows me to see the previous version of the page, deleted on 21 July 2017, but my recollection is that was much the same, and was very possibly written by you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Megalibrarygirl, sorry for the delayed reply because I went for a journey to Shanghai in early morning. Thanks for your kindly help and the suggestions for editing existing articles and WikiProjects. I’m interested in the topics on public and welfare, or something about China where I live. Please help to recommend if possible, and I will try my best to help to improve these articles. I’ve created that article on “Michael Chi”with two different usernames: “Pwrd Bj”and “Cheese Cup”. But I can explain for this.

Dear Justlettersandnumbers, I do know Michael Chi but he doesn’t know me. I am a girl who was born in 1987 in China, if you have Chinese friends like me, you may know Michael Chi’s Hongen Education really helped lots of children in 1990s to learn computers and English. Michael Chi and his Hongen Education to me, just like a memory of my childhood, and even today, there are more than 4 million children in China are using Hongen’s books. I also played games of Perfect World such as “Perfect World”and “Zhu Xian”. So I admit that the article on Michael Chi may not be neutral, and I accepted the suggestions to verify it and recreated it, but in terms of COI, I think there is nothing with COI. Wikipedia,as the free encyclopedia, should permit everyone to write an article he is interested in, right? When I was preparing for my master degree in 2013, I visited Perfect World with my professor, and I knew several employee of Perfect World then. When I created this article, I contacted one of the employees for some information. And when I was told photos without copyright couldn’t insert into the article, I asked him for the photo of Michael Chi. You may know in China, there is a Baidu Baike, a free encyclopedia in Chinese. Information provided from official channels may be accepted easily. I thought it was the same on Wikipedia, so I created the username “Pwrd Bj”, which seems like official. But later, I was told “Unambiguous advertising or promotion”, which is not my intent, so I created another account to write in relative neutral position. In my last version, I used lots of references, and I really thought it’s neutral enough. Really disappointed to find my article was deleted when I waked up this morning. I have time differences with most wikipedians here :( Cheese Cup (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In that case, how did you transfer your photograph to him, Cheese Cup? – he was using it on the internet long before you uploaded it to Commons (for instance on this page from 2015). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, it’s not me who took the photo of Chi. I said I asked Chi’s photo from his employee, because I couldn’t upload the photo I downloaded from the Internet without the copyright. You are an experienced Wikipedia, and must know that it will be refused if you upload a photo already used on the internet. You told me the photo was taken on 9 September 2009, but I was just an undergraduate that year. I totally understand your queries, but it’s not the fact.

As a new here, I was trying to write an article on a person I know. I keep humble here to learn, which you may feel from the message I left in your talk page every time. I verified the article according your suggestions and always found it was deleted then. It’s really uncomfortable. Will appreciate it very much if you could help me instead of just tagging “criteria for speedy deletion”. Many thanks. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Cheese Cup (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cheese Cup.
The photo you uploaded was not your own work, so you violated both copyright law and Wikipedia Terms of Service by uploading it and claiming it was yours. Your actions also put Wikipedia in jeopardy for violating copyright. That's why the photo was immediately tagged for deletion, we have no ability to tolerate copyright violations.
We recognize that the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia are a lot to master, which is why we generally suggest that new editors not try to create a new article until they have edited here for some time and learned more about these policies and guidelines. We also recognize that it can be very discouraging to have your work deleted, so there are number of forums, such as the Teahouse, where editors can ask questions and learn from more experienced editors how to edit Wikipedia.
So, it looks like you're going to need to start over. If you want to create a new article, it is vitally important for you to follow the guidelines laid out in WP:Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners. Unless you can do this, it is just very unlikely that you can create an article that can survive review.
Uploading a photo, claiming it as your own work, is an all too common beginner error. As long as you don't do it again, I don't think your editing privileges will be revoked (but it's not up to me). Please read those articles I gave you and see what's involved in creating a new article. And, if you're willing, try going to WP:Community portal to see if some of the small work items offered there appeal to you as learning exercises, as a way to get started with editing that should be less frustrating than putting in a ton of work on an article that ultimately has to be deleted. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

:Thank you for your help. It was my error to put an photo which is not my own and claimed it was mine. But I had asked the employee of Chi for the copyright, so I don't think my actions will put Wikipedia in jeopardy for violating copyright.:( Anyway, thanks a lot.Cheese Cup (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Editors Creating Articles but with Poor English[edit]

Do we have a template for welcoming editors who create articles, but whose English is poor, so that we might suggest that they consider creating articles for the Wikipedia in their first language? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Are there any other suggestions about editors who are either creating articles or editing articles, who obviously mean well, but whose English is so poor that they are problematic? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well Robert McClenon, for the article there is {{Cleanup}} and {{Copy edit}}. For the usere there are mostly specific tags, such as {{uw-unsourced1}}, {{uw-create1}}, {{uw-mos1}}, {{uw-controversial}}, and many others listed on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, but none that i know of specifically about language competence. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There are several such templates; {{welcomeen-fr}} for French, for example. 331dot (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I am familiar with the templates for the articles. (Sometimes the articles are so incomprehensible that I have had to use PROD as TNT.) What if I don't know what the editor's first language is? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Robert McClenon – I've used the templates in Category:Non-English user warning templates for content written in another language, and there is Template:Uselanguage that does not specify the contributor's language). There are also more templates at Category:Non-English welcome messages, but they all assume you know the editor's first language – perhaps they can be adapted to create a "generic" (not language-specific) template? –FlyingAce✈hello 19:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I've created a template draft at Draft:Welcomeen (it is my first template so I found it easier to do it through the wizard). Comments are welcome! –FlyingAce✈hello 20:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the language "unfortunately your contributions are not written in an English that is good enough to be useful" is too harsh. An English-speaking editor should correct the errors in English. But collaboration with the original editor may be necessary. Therefore what we should be conveying to the original editor is that many errors in English usage have been found, and that it is hoped that the editor with poor English usage skills will work with an editor with better English-speaking skills to bring the article up to standard. And I think most editors learning English will welcome the opportunity to work with a proficient English-speaking editor. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Bus stop – you have a very good point. I pretty much copied the text from Template:Welcomeen-es, but now that I think about it, it comes across as a bit WP:BITEy. I have to run now, but I'll try to work on it later; in the meantime, if you (or anyone else) would like to give it a go, be my guest :) –FlyingAce✈hello 22:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. When I have found it necessary to say something to an editor, I have preferred to say that they obviously are having difficulty in writing in English. I don't know if that is what we want, but it seems a little kinder than to say that their English is not good enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a native Anglophone editor should correct the errors in English if it is clear what was intended. Unfortunately, occasionally I have found that the English is incomprehensible. As I noted above, in those cases, I have to PROD the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
How does this sound?
Hello, (name), and welcome to Wikipedia! Efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome. It appears you are having difficulty writing in English, though. Did you know there are Wikipedias in nearly 300 languages? You may prefer to contribute at a Wikipedia in your language instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! If you need help, please feel free to notify me on my talk page.
FlyingAce✈hello 16:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
How about: "Hi GoodEditorButPoorSpeakerOfEnglish—I am suspecting that English is not your first language. I am noticing a clunkiness in your writing. Would you consider working with another editor, one with good English writing skills? Please respond on my Talk page or the Talk page of another editor. Thank you for your consideration." Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Flagging a citation issue[edit]

Hi all,

Came across a page where a claim was made and backed up by a NY Times article that 1) does not give any of its own sources for the claim and 2) is itself infamous among journalists for being badly sourced and badly executed.

Could anyone here possible tell me, what is the correct template to use, or way forward?

Thanks! Grammarfiend72 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Grammarfiend72. I'm not totally sure if by infamous among journalists for being badly sourced and badly executed is a reference to the Times or to maybe the individual journalist who wrote the piece, but the Times easily satisfies our standards for reliable sources. Unlike certain cases concerning things like scholarly writing, in which all claims are expected to be either original to the study, or sources to other scholarly work, journalistic works by reputable newspapers are generally suitable as a "source-in-themselves", and in circumstances where a story relies on things like anonymous sources or leaked but classified and non-publicly-available documents, the paper itself is all there is to rely on. TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Timothyjosephwood, I actually meant the article, itself. The paper had to print an argument that undermined the main point of the article, as it wasn't properly researched and damaged the reputation of the main subject. I understand, thank you! In this case, the claim is that "China is the second biggest publisher in the world after the US", but no figures are used to back this claim up...and...as it turns out, the Wiki page has got numerous incidences of plagiarism, with text copy and pasted directly from the Chinese government web pages...which is likely a bigger problem. Thank you for explaining. Grammarfiend72 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, Grammarfiend72. First off, if there is copyright violating material on the article, like that which would be copy/pasted from online, the material should be removed immediately. If this constitutes the majority or entirety of the article, such that nothing can be saved without a fundamental rewrite, you can request deletion under WP:G11. Otherwise, the particular revisions of an article may be requested deleted by using Template:Copyvio-revdel.
Second, when there may be some doubt as to the factual accuracy of a sourced claim, but more reliable, or more recent, etc sources aren't readily available, then the mid point between keeping and deleting the contested bit is usually to attribute the material to it's source. So instead of saying China is the second biggest publisher in the world after the US, you can instead say According to The New York Times, in 2015 China was the second biggest publisher in the world after the US. Hope this helps. TimothyJosephWood 16:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be all right to say something like "according to an article in the NY Times(ref) ... . Other sources(ref) dispute the accuracy of this article, though they do not address this question", Grammarfiend72. As long as you just present a factual account of what the articles say, and do not editorialise or attempt to reach a conclusion, this should be fine. --ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Sound advice and clearly explained, thank you very much, both!Grammarfiend72 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Where should I place my discussion?[edit]

Hi! I have discovered a group of articles, relating to either the Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu TV show or the Lego Ninjago theme in general, some of which may fail notability. I am not quite sure what to do with them as a group (such as group deletion, group merging, keeping some but not all, etc.). For this reason, I would like to post a discussion to try to gain consensus from others om what to do with these articles. However, I am not quite sure where to do this. If someone can tell me a good place to post such a discussion, I would greatly appreciate that! Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Noah Kastin, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you've been trying to help out here, which we appreciate.
You might want to start on the talk page of one of the two main articles you mentioned. You can then place notices pointing to your discussion on the talk page of the other pages that would be covered by your proposed action. To get more eyes and voices involved, you could place a notice at WikiProject Television. And I suggest that you start with a definite proposal for others to agreee or disagree with; either a list of pages that should be deleted, or a specific set of proposed merges. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh: Thank you for your suggestions! I will place a proposal along the lines of what you suggested at Talk:Lego Ninjago and place links at the other relevant articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Thanks again for the suggestions! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 07:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Help me to write a Draft to Article Technical Guruji[edit]

<Draft content redacted>

017 (UTC)

hello bro,

View my Draft Article please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Technical_Guruji.. this is a famous.. go google search Technical Guruji...Technical Guruji Gitesh Sharma 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bro.. view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Technical_Guruji Technical Guruji please help me.... 03:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Technical Guruji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Giteshs78. Please do not copy the contents of an entire draft here, simply provide a wiki-link. This draft has been submitted once, and declined as not demonstrating the notability of the subject. It was then resubmitted with no changes being made. This is rude as it wastes the time of the volunteer reviewers. I am about to decline it again. Please find and cite multiple independent professionally published reliable sources before you consider resubmitting. Read Your First Article and our notability guideline for businesses please. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Giteshs78: Fame is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. Notability is. Writing about oneself is not a practice encouraged here. There is no indication whatsoever of the subject's notability, either on the article or with a websearch. An article of the same title written by you was recently speedy deleted. As such, I've nominated this draft for speedy deletion too. When and if your endeavor becomes notable, someone else will write about it. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

what is the minimum requirement to create a page?[edit]

I would like to create a wiki page on Co-living as it is an emerging trend. What kind of content would be required for it? Dev098 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:N. Also please realize that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of anything. John from Idegon (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@John - got it. As a wikipedia user I would always use Wiki pages about various brands to learn more about them. Now that I am looking to be an editor, I was curious about why some brands have wiki pages while some doesn't. Also apologies for repeating the question. For some reason I never got any notification that my previous question was answered, so I thought I'll ask again. Once I realised that the previous question was answered, I've edited this question to ask about something else. Dev098 (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

You've never asked another question here. John from Idegon (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As to brands, Dev098, in some cases it is simply that no one has chosen to create an article on a particular brand. In many cases, one brand may be notable while a competing brand may not. Or an article on a non-notable brand may sneak through when it should not have, but articles on similar non-notable brands are noticed and deleted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 09:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Desisgel - thanks for taking the time and explaining it. Really appreciate it. Hopefully other members also learn the same way of answering.Dev098 (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@john - Please scroll above I've added my signature to my previous question.Dev098 (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Having once had an article marked for deletion, I would say the main requirement is that the article be of general interest or notability, backed up by several good cites. Happily, another editor rescued my article by adding appropriate cites to show the article was of importance.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

what do points on contribution amount to?[edit]

Just curious how are points allocated on contribution? how does one benefit from accumulating such points?Dev098 (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dev098. I suspect you are asking about the + or - numbers shown by each edit in a history or contribution list. They are not points: they're simply the net number of characters added to or removed from the page. --ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually bytes, not characters. You can see that when using non-latin text or letters with diacritics. Plain latin text uses only one byte per character but others can be two or even three bytes each. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Dev098 I don't know what points you refer to. So far as I know ther are no points for contributions. There is one's Edit count, but that is just the number of edits one has made, there ar no points involved. And there really aren't any significant benefits from an edit count anyway. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 10:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine - thanks for explaining. Really appreciate it :) Dev098 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Roger - Thanks for replying. That makes sense. For some reason I thought that Wikipedia has gamified editing with points (similar to Quora). Dev098 (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Desiegel - sorry I confused the the net number of characters added to or removed form the page to points. woops Dev098 (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dev098: It's a common assumption. Did you try hovering over the number before asking? Before your post the hover text for "(+65)" might say "14,046 bytes after change", but it still seemed hard to guess that (+65) is the size change. The hover text is controlled by MediaWiki:Rc-change-size-new. I have changed it to say "14,046 bytes after change of this size". Would that have helped you? The number in the hover text is the page size after the edit. The software doesn't currently make it possible to repeat the size change itself in the hover text. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Help me on how to put in line my articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhandu (talkcontribs) 12:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kmhandu. It's not totally clear what your question is. Maybe if you can be more specific we can be more helpful. TimothyJosephWood 14:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sharing IP Address[edit]

New editor here- my flatmate has also shown interest in editing, and mentioned he made himself an account. We tend to have different interests, so aren't likely to be anywhere near the same articles, but I wouldn't want to be thought of as sockpuppeting. I have seen notes on user pages stating they share IPs with other users, but is there any sort of further notification or procedure necessary? Curdle (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Curdle. The easy answer here is that so long as both your and your flatmate's accounts are engaged in making constructive good faith contributions, and don't do things like pile on in support of one another in discussions, then no one will be the wiser, and no one would have an issue with it if they were. Besides, having multiple accounts even as the same person isn't in-an-of-itself prohibited, but only using those accounts to try to circumvent policy and guidelines. Where people often run into difficulties is where they share a dynamic IP "pool" with a quite large group of people, like schools or large office buildings, where some people in that pool are constructive editors, and others are vandals.
Registering an account renders your IP address invisible to all but a very select group of trusted editors called CheckUsers, and even for them to access that information, they need to demonstrate that there is good reason to believe the accounts are being used in a way that is a violation of our policies on sockpuppeting. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou! I know what not to do, just thought I should make sure there wasn't anything I should be doing but hadn't :)Curdle (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
TimothyJosephWood is right as usual, Curdle, but I will add a little onto what he said. One editor one account is generally the rule, but there are "legal" exceptions. Some editors have a second account specifically for public computers, so if they accidentally forget to log out their main account won't be compromised. See Wikipedia:Multiple accounts. I don't think you and your housemate both having accounts will be problenatic at all. I know several married couples who both have accounts and they (presumably) live in the same home 😆. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I object to an editor's actions?[edit]

An editor deleted my account and that of my assistant in a snap decision, and now apparently I have no recourse. Can you please let me know where I can challenge this decision? We are both new users. Thank you, Nina Teicholz (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthinnutrition. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yup. We have a family of undisclosed paid socks with possible impersonation of a real person :-( The impersonation may have been approved by said person. Working on cleanup. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Page not showing up on search engines[edit]

Hi,

I created an article a few weeks ago, The Buttertones, but it's still not showing up on Google. Is it just a matter of time or is there anything I need to do to get it on search engines?

Vacillation (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, Vacillation. New articles are not "indexed" until either 90 days have passed by, or a new page patroller has looked at it and given a green light. The reason for this is to avoid inappropriate content (promotional pages and copyright violations, mostly) to be published on Wikipedia.
At a quick glance, the page you created might fall because the subject lacks "notability", though it may pass (I cannot tell right away). See WP:NMUSIC for the threshold to met (so that you can add references if you have better ones, or withdraw your article if you decide it does not meet the conditions). The new page patrol is severely backlogged and as your page is not an obvious decision either way, so it might take a bit of time.
Also, while it is totally normal to write about subjects you know best, if you have a conflict of interest with the Buttertones (such as: being one of the members, of the recording studio, of the marketing team, or a colleague or family member of any of those) you are encouraged to diclose it. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful reply! Will definitely check and adapt the references according to the notability guidelines.

No conflict of interest, just a new fan who's surprised that they don't have a page.

Vacillation (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

inserting Image in An article,[edit]

Hello Team, im new to this forum, and im creating an article, and i need to insert image in it. please can anybody guide me to do so.

thanks in advance.ಅವಮಾನಿತ (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey ಅವಮಾನಿತ. The first thing is you have to find is an image that is legally usable on Wikipedia, which usually means it's in the public domain, someone else has licensed it for public use, or you own the image because you took it yourself, and you're willing to release it to the public. This can unfortunately be a really complicated subject, since it deals with copyright law, so you may want to check out our Finding Images Tutorial. TimothyJosephWood 17:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

writing consultant[edit]

Anyone can help me with adjusting my short article on a notable person to WP standards? I got rejected for lack of citations. But most of the biography information provided, despite being widely known by the community of practise related to the person, are not in a book. What type of citation would I use for these events?

Thanks Sam Gissam (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gissam. If the subject was a world champion martial artist, then it seems like there should be some substantial coverage of him in reliable sources. Unfortunately, if there is not yet this type of coverage, then the subject might not yet be suitable for a Wikipedia article yet. Some places to start looking though might be one of these:
And of course there's always a good old fashioned library and maybe some books that are specific to martial arts. Since the subject seems to be closely related with people and places where non-English language are prominant, it may be possible that there are other sources in Japanese, Chinese, Spanish or Portuguese, although it may be difficult to find them, but if you can, you may be able to request translation at Wikipedia:Translators available.
You may also want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, which may answer a lot of questions you might not have thought to ask yet. Hopefully this helps. TimothyJosephWood 17:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

How do people warn others from persistent editing?Whatisurproblem (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Whatisurproblem... "persistent editing" isn't a bad thing... so we don't. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Whatisurproblem. Many conflicts can be resolved by talking calmly and politely abouy the problem. In a dispute over the content of an article, rather than warning them it's usually best to try to engage them in a conversation, at least to begin with. Use the talk page of the article in question to open a new discussion, and ping them to let them know you're talking about something they're involved with. In your discussion, it's best to focus on the edits, not the editor. If they won't discuss it and their edits are not merely "persistent" but disruptive and harmful to the article (such as edit warring or vandalism, there are measures that can be taken; please come back to the Teahouse and report it. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend taking a content dispute to the Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard, but in severely problematic cases, like when an editor is making repeated copyright violations, you can go there. As I said though, that's only for serious problems and not for content disputes. It's best to discuss those on the article talk page, like Rivertorch noted above. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm one of the editors he's complaining about. Since Rivertorch asked him to report it if someone's being disruptive: He is. He's been making low-quality edits under an IP address[1] and is frustrated that other editors have pushed back against them. When people try to engage with him, he just blanks his Talk page[2][3] or uses profanity.[4][5] Magic9Ball (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Magic9Ball. I've left a warning on the IP's page about personal attacks. Blanking one's own talk page is permitted, and is generally considered an acknowledgment that the warning has been read and understood. By the same token, there's really no requirement that anyone engage in discussion if they don't want to. However, consistently refusing to engage with editors who are acting in good faith, while making disruptive edits, is unacceptable, and so is making edits while logged out to avoid bringing attention to one's account. If that's what you're seeing, and it continues, it may be worth reporting at WP:ANI (that's shorthand for the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents). Be aware, however, that making a report at WP:ANI will lead to your own behavior being scrutinized, and edits such as this one don't put you in the best light. Your frustration is understandable, but it's better to just disengage when you're tempted to say something like that. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
He isn't operating by WP norms; he blanks his talk page as way to tell people to "fuck off"... like the belligerent name he chose for the account he just created. Magic9Ball (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

How to let winkipedia know a lie is written about someone[edit]

Hello I was compelled to join winkipedia because someone brought to my attention a lie that has been added to my husbands info. I am outraged. Please tell me how to contact them— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagnolino1994 (talkcontribs)

@Cagnolino1994: Hello and welcome. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not sure what article you are referencing, but if there is incorrect information in the article, you should first post your comment on the article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article, then edit the page that comes up) and it will be seen by any other editors that follow that page who could act on your request. Wikipedia is a volunteer project editable by anyone, so things like this can happen unfortunately, but are easily corrected. If you wish, I would be willing to look at the issue if you state which page it is. You don't have to if you don't wish to, just a thought. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Cagnolino1994. Wikipedia articles should always be based on what reliable published sources say, which isn't always that same as what the subject would like them to say. But concerns such as yours are taken seriously. Please look at WP:BIOSELF for how you can proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
ColinFine The link to SELFPROB is red... I'd fix it but I'm not sure what page were you trying to link to (lol) –FlyingAce✈hello 14:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Probably WP:SELFPUB. I've corrected it. Alex ShihTalk 14:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I meant WP:BIOSELF, and have now fixed it. Thanks, FlyingAce and Alex Shih. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I assume the article is James Farentino, which you've edited to add some commentary which is itself not acceptable here. As was commented above, we're only interested in what published sources say and not your personal view of things. However this case is complicated by the fact that neither of the sources quoted in the article is currently active (one just defaults to a homepage while the other returns a page with no useful content). I've found an active source which reports the event, so I'll link to that and change the wording slightly to reflect what the available source says. Neiltonks (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest a page to edit[edit]

WHen I joined wikipedia, it suggested a page to edit. There were many grammer, spello and typo errors which I was happy to correct. Prior to the edit I knew nothing of the subject matter. Post-edit, I was interested and and glad to have read something of it.

IS there a way that I can have wikipedia suggest another page like that WITHOUT me having to select a subject area?

If so, could you provide a link?


Thank so very much!


Animalrescue (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Animalrescue! You may want to install User:SuggestBot on your talk page with instructions here. It will, however, try to match you with articles you seem interested in. You can also try clicking the "Random article" link on the left-hand Wikipedia menu. Not all articles will need improvement, however. I hope this helps a little. Maybe some of the other Teahouse editors will have other suggestions! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Animalrescue! Let me suggest that you look at Find articles that need copyediting. In that section, you will find links to three pages that might provide you with possibilities for improving articles. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
There's also a "Random article" link in the navigation bar on the left side of every Wikipedia page. You can keep clicking it until you come to an article you'd like to edit. Please be very careful when correcting those "grammer, spello and typo errors", though. When in doubt, consult a good dictionary or usage guide. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Need information about how to find a page to edit in Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Medicine field[edit]

Hi. Friends. I am new to Wikipedia. I need information about how to find a page to edit in Pharmacy, Pharmacology and Medicine field. So, if it possible then please suggest what I need to do for searching which page needs editing and what to be done. Thanking you.!!

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikiboywork. Please take a look at Category:Medical treatment stubs. You will find many articles to work on there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

temperature[edit]

how can i make my edits stay?Jani5829 (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jani5829. If you are talking about Aholanvaara, the problem is that the article about a village is unreferenced. Please read Referencing for beginners. It is OK to use references in the Finnish language. You cannot add personal commentary such as the village's distance from your home. I removed the speedy deletion tag since there is a strong presumption that villages are notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jani5829: When you added new temperature record claims to a couple of articles, you did not include any sources for the claims. The new Finnish heat record was from yesterday, and maybe it has simply not been recorded properly yet, but until that happens, the claim cannot be added to Wikipedia articles. I hope that makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nadir_Aziz_Hanfee[edit]

I am new and inexperience in this form and forum, in regards to summary this article was created so that people should be given more information about poet,author and broadcaster. i need help to make this page proper and then to be viewed in google.

Nadir Aziz Hanfee (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

IMVHO you should not have created that page, as you seem closely related to the subject, thus being in WP:COI situation. You should ask someone else, someone not involved, to create the article.
Next, the article should not appear as your WP:User page, but rather in the draft space, as Draft:Abdul Aziz Hanfee for example.
Finally, the article must show the notability of the person – see WP:Notability, then WP:Notability (people) and finally WP:Biographies of living persons.
CiaPan (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I have moved the draft to Draft:Nadir Aziz Hanfee. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Roger (Dodger67) Ok, but ...Nadir Aziz Hanfee is the author, the person described is Abdul Aziz Hanfee (or Hanafi?). --CiaPan (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
CiaPan Fixed my error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The draft is now at Draft:Ameeq Hanfee/Hanafi (Poet) - the final name can be decided later per whatever spelling fits WP:COMMONNAME. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Some help please[edit]

Was doing some recent changes patrolling and came across IPs trying to added hateful stuff to this page Suicide of Tyler Clementi. Managed to get the page protected but this was left on the talk page [[6]] and was thinking should the IP be blocked for this? Know how to report IPs for vandalism but wasn’t sure if same process for this? Since then, I've had another IP leave this message on my own talk page [[7]]. Is there someone to get someone to look into these IP address and maybe block/ban them? NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 09:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@NZ Footballs Conscience: Hello and welcome. It looks like the inappropriate edits were addressed; all vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV regardless of where it occurs. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
If it's a more extensive issue than can be handled with a basic vandalism report, it can be reported to the administrator's incident board. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@331dot: Thank you, do see the other offensive stuff has been removed and wiped. Just not the last one on my own talk page but I have reverted that anyway. So hopefully it just stops now. NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 09:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This has been going on for the past eight months, NZ Footballs Conscience. Both article and talk page are currently semi-protected, which is the best way to deal with it. If the problem recurs on your talk page, AIV is indeed the first place to go, although making a request to temporarily semi-protect your talk page may be a better option when dealing with dynamic IPs. After the fact, you can ask an administrator to suppress any edits to your talk page that are "purely disruptive". RivertorchFIREWATER 14:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Request to edit the title of the page.[edit]

Hello, I have a request to edit the title of one of your page. The page is Adam's Bridge. I request to change the title of this page from "Adam's Bridge" to "Rama Setu" as the bridge made by Lord Rama and the real name of the bridge(setu) is "Rama Setu" not "Adam's Bridge". Waiting for yours positive response. Dattanidhyey (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The question has been asked and answered (repeatedly) elsewhere. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

My article on Mercia Deane-Johns is showing as a draft.[edit]

Hello, I have just posted an article on actress Mercia Deane-Johns which is now showing as just a draft. There were issues with disambiguation as it contains over 100 links to other Wikipedia articles but this is now resolved. Can the article which took weeks to write now stand?Novak123 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Novak123. Looks like it was moved to a draft by User:Jennica, and at this point I think it was probably the right move. First off, the draft currently does not meet our minimum requirement for inline citations on articles which are biographies of living persons. You probably want to check out our tutorial on referencing for beginners for a guide on how to do this.
Secondly, basically all of the images that were in the draft (I have removed them) appear to be copyright violations. Taking a picture or screen shot of a motion picture doesn't make it "yours" since it is a faithful recreation of someone else's original creative work, and therefore the original copyright extends to these recreations (see also Commons:Screenshots). To include images you will need to find ones that are appropriately licensed, so you may want to check out our tutorial on finding images for more information. TimothyJosephWood 12:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Novak123: The article contains puffery ("A slender, energetic woman") and other stuff that doesn't fit the manual of style. I can try to clean it up but at this juncture isn't ready for be in the main space. Moving it into draft space isn't anything bad. It just means it can be worked on by others.
Here are some links you can see to improve: MOS:BIO (Manual of style for biographies); WP:REFB (Referencing for beginners); WP:PUFF (Puffery essay); and an article that was deemed a "good article" so you can get an idea how a biography article is supposed to look: Rachel McAdams. --Jennica / talk 12:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the `puffery` and added 8 citations and 8 external references. It is my first article in nearly 5 years. Is it taking shape and could it now go in to the main encyclopaedia?Novak123 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Novak123Novak123 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. You have a lot more work to do. "She says ..." needs an indication of which reliable source reported the quote, and you need many other in-line citations for statements made in the article. IMDb and YouTube are not reliable sources. Dbfirs 17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel a bit disheartened having put so many hours in to writing the article and then seeing it published and then unpublished. I remember writing a short piece on peace campaigner Barbara Grace Tucker in 2012 - it was refused four times on grounds of lack of `notability`. There were very few references to the campaign which had a media blackout on it. That particular article is still on Wikipedia. Maybe the answer is to just write a stub. Novak123Novak123 (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm burning the midnight oil again! - for the umpteenth time in a row. I added on some citations and deleted the "She says..." stuff. Am I getting there with this article? Novak123Novak123 (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Mercia Deane-Johns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Novak123. This looks significantly improved, but still in need of work. Here are some points, in no particular order. Some are only my opinion:
  • After the initial sentence which gives her full name, always refer to the subject by her last name, never by her first name (except inside a marked quote).
  • Minor roles should generally be omitted. Only list her more significant roles, and use words like "including" "among other parts" to indicate that the list is selected, not complete.
  • If there is a link to an article about a TV series, film, or other work, you don't need to included such details as the company that produced it -- people can find that in the article about the show. Simialrly a plot summery is not needed beyond a general indication of genre ("police drama", "romantic comedy", or the like), again the details should be in the linked article.
  • Omit adjectives and phrases that express a judgement, such as:
    • "constant presence on Australian screens" (who says it is constant?)
    • "vast array of characters" (who says it is vast?}
    • "minor gem of Australian cinema" (who says it is a gem?)
    • "much-loved police drama Blue Heelers" (how many people loved it, and who says so?)
    • "late and much missed John Hargreaves," (who misses him?)
    • "memorable productions like Picnic at Hanging Rock" (who says it is memorable?)
Such phrases can only be included if they are quoted directly or indirectly, and supported by an inline citation.
  • The IMDB is not a reliable source. Please find a better one. Even the subject's own web site would be better, but any review that lists her as an actress would do for the purpose you have cited IMDB.
  • Please correct the format of the external links. I did the first three as examples.
  • Also, please read WP:ELNO and remove those external links which do not significantly help the reader, or are primarily promotional. Wikipedia is not a web directory.
  • Please provide more detailed bibliographic data for your cited sources. The title of the article or page being cited is always required. When available, also give the date of publication, the work in which the source appeared (name of newspaper, magazine, or website), the author's name, the date of publication, and for online sources, the accessdate (the date you read the source and certify that it was as described. This helps in tracking links that go dead).
  • Use a somewhat more formal tone, please: terms or phrases such as "bikie chicks", "Her most recent film role sees her playing", "a crime comedy flick"
  • The paragraph which starts "The administrations of Australian Prime Ministers John Gorton (1968 – 1971) and Gough Whitlam..." seems to have a lot of name dropping, and many mentions of films that Deane-Johns was not in. It should be trimmed or better removed entirely
  • Why is it significant to this article where Guinevere Jones was filmed?
  • Titles of plays, TV series, and films should be in italics. Titles of songs and TV Episodes should be in "quotes".
  • Where there is an article about a play or film, link to it as I did with The Playboy of the Western World.
I hope thes points will be helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


It's 5 in the morning and I have made several more amendments as suggested including extra citations and making the tone more `neutral` or objective. Overall I have reduced the text from 2,200 words to about 1,500 words though reducing it much more might made it look like a `stub`. Am I close to getting the article in the main Wikipedia? Novak123Novak123 (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The article I created Mercia Deane-Johns was moved to drafts because of problems with puffery, disambiguation, lack of citations and lack of neutrality. I have corrected all of this and directed the article in to the main encyclopaedia. The disambiguations – dabs – have all been corrected. The article is titled Wikipedia:Mercia Deane-Johns – can this be simply named `Mercia Deane-Johns`? Novak123Novak123 (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Article Promis_(musician) - multiple issues[edit]

Hello, thank you very much for the invitation to the Teahouse.

I wrote an article about Promis_(musician). It seems there some issues which I want to resolve. Actually, I cannot, because I am too confused by the information given by "the editors" and bots. So, I have several questions regarding the article mentioned above:

  1. 1 I have used reliable sources. Those sources come mostly from blogs that have reviewed the albums of Promis. Although this issue was solved, I like to get information, what I can do else regarding citations.
  1. 2 It was said (or written), that a major contributor has written the article, but the information given has to be proved. I though the citations I gave were enough for a proof. On the other hand I accept the issue of conflict interest when I write articles with an account that is named after the artist's music label. I understand that Wikipedia does not accept this and that the article has to be written out of a neutral point of view (which I did).
  1. 3 The first issue given by users has been that I need to built up more categories in the article. I did it, but they have gotten deleted when editors have reversed the text because of another issue. Should I built up the new categories first?
  1. 4 I wanted to write other articles regarding Promis' music label and the album "Electric Cabaret". The text for the album is ready to get published, but I am too afraid now to load it up now, as the other issues are not resolved.

Thank you for any help I can get from you here.Dirk Lankow (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dirk Lankow. A couple of notes overall: First, while reviews in industry publications are prefectly find, and often some of the best sources for musical artists, online reviews by pseudonymous contributors on places like Amazon, or reviews on individual blogs with no reputation for editorial oversight and fact checking, do not meet our minimum standards for reliable sources, and should not be used to support article content generally, and definitely not used to support content on biographies of living persons, which are held to a much higher standard on Wikipedia than many other types of articles.
You need to replace these unreliable sources with better quality ones, and I would probably recommend looking at online news searches rather than online web searches. Although this may be difficult, since the artist seems to share their mononym with at least one medical company as well as being apparently a very common word in French. This may be a good candidate to move to a draft in the meantime, to give you more time to work on it. TimothyJosephWood 12:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To answer your point 1 first, blogs are not usually reliable sources, see WP:BLOGS. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Facing Copyright problems[edit]

Hi,

I am Akila, a friend of K.J.Dileep for hwom I am creating a wiki page. I have copy pasted information from his website onto the page hence wiki says it may delete this page. I have the full permission of K.J.Dileep to use the information. How do I get wiki to accept the page? Akilavenkat09 (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference: K.j.dileep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. First you need to review the conflict of interest policy before further edits. Second, your friend needs to be the one to donate the material as instructed here. Third, it is best to write in your own words. Lastly, you should make sure that your friend is notable as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Akilavenkat09, and welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, you don't. You could, in theory, follow the procedures at Donating Copyrighted Materials. But the content now on the page is not suitable for an article in any case, so you need to re-create after this is deleted. Please read Your First Article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is a test. I cannot see the Left Side of the box on My Browser. B'H.[edit]

Hello. I cannot see what I am typing, the user box will not display fully on my browser. The dialogue box for entering questions appears to the far left of my screen, with the entire left side of the box outside of the screen. When I try to maximize the screen, the box is still hidden. When I try to zoom out, the box is still hidden. I am a new user. This is a test 2422889236x (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Are email addresses listed on wikipedia kept private?[edit]

Hello, I am a recent member of wikipedia, and I am wondering about email address privacy on wikipedia. If I add an email address to my account, is the address itself kept private, or is it listed publicly? Thanks! KENW-Mike (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@KENW-Mike: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia Face-smile.svg If you enter an email address in your preferences it is kept private and is not listed anywhere publicly -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Great news, thanks for that Time! KENW-Mike (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
However, KENW-Mike, the "email a user" function allows other editors to send emails to you. This does not in itself disclose your address, but (1) it allows people to send mail to you and (2) if you answer to such mail you will disclose your address to the recipient. So while your address is not publicly accessible, it may not qualify as "kept private" depending on how you understand that. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Tigraan, I appreciate the clarification. My concern is not so much for other wikipedia users, I just don't want my email address to be available to the crawlers. 198.59.190.202 (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Editor Made a Mistake Reverting My Edit - Will Not Undo & Will Not Discuss? B'H.[edit]

So I want to see what I need to resolve this? Whether a WP:Third Opinion is advisable or should I attempt to obtain an WP:Rfc? 2422889236x (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Which edit are you referring to? 331dot (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your gracious inquiry. I made the edit under an IP. Here is the link: Sweet Sweetback. I attempted to discuss, several times. The person who reverted me, only responded once, but in an unconstructive, cursory manner. Reverting editor is User:JesseRafe. You can review the discussions on his and my talk pages. B'H. 24.228.89.236 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
(Direct link to the diff.)
Hello, 2422889236x. The revert edit summary of "huh?" is not extremely precise in explaining the revert, for sure. However, in such cases, you should not escalate the matter to third opinion / RfC yet, but discuss it on the article talk page first, in that case Talk:Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song. If after discussion there is no way to come to a consensus, then you can consider other dispute resolution options.
On the merits, I must agree with your edit being reverted.
  1. Adding "it is often stipulated" before a claim is something you should in general never do on Wikipedia - if the assertion is backed by reliable sources, say it in Wikipedia voice, if no reliable source backs it, the claim should be deleted altogether, and if some reliable sources claim so but other disagree, the good way to treat it is "X claims (stuff) (ref to what X said) but Y claims (other stuff) (ref to what Y said), not using weasel words like "some people say...", "rumors are that...".
  2. You used IMBD to source a film release date, but IMDB is not a reliable source since it is user-generated.
  3. Finally, the last part of the edit is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: comparing what is found in two sources in order to generate a new claim that is not itself cited (in that case, that it would have been impossible that the film was copied by Shaft, since the latter was released soon afterwards).
TigraanClick here to contact me 16:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Can I just move (or copy over) the three discussions from the respective talk pages to Talk:Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song? Also, in the foregoing, I have mentioned over five sources, stemming from three Wikipedia pages (which can easily be repeated anywhere), which support my contention that the current state of the Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song contains an anachronism. I'm only trying to correct this one anachronism. The word "stipulate" was only in reference to the anachronism - not to the sourced correction. The three pages with the sources are all Wikipedia pages: Shaft (1971 film), Ernest Tidyman, and Shaft (novel). All these either are, or contain sources which expose the anachronism. This is not, as you're saying, a "new claim." It is even referred to elsewhere in Wikipedia - one place is here: Shaft_(1971_film)#Production. I am not "claiming" anything. I am simply carrying over what is already on Wikipedia elsewhere, and sourced. B'H. 24.228.89.236 (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
OK. I made a notation - and a new category - on the 'Sweet Sweetback ... ' talk page. Thanks 331dot and Tigraan for your wonderful, gracious advice. Thank you so very, very much for your help. B'H. 24.228.89.236 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adventure Hangs Up on Mission 7[edit]

I am on the Mission 7 section of the Wikipedia Adventure and it will not advance past the point of having successfully added Level 2 section headings. Instead, the prompt keeps advising to save the changes -- and once this has repeatedly been done -- no further advancements in the interactive mission are possible. I have tried several times to redo Mission 7. It keeps sticking at the same aforementioned point. I do not want to have to redo the entire Adventure again. Would appreciate a remedy on how to complete the Adventure's Mission 7. Web browser is Safari. Dcb2012 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Creating an article for a business[edit]

I recently tried to post an article for a business and it was deleted on the grounds that it is promotional. I'd like some help getting it edited and ready for publication. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:TRI_Pointe_Group,_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1 2600:8802:5500:610:59A8:CCA5:3C46:52F7 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! It's hard to answer your question specifically without being able to see the article itself. But here are two things I know: To write an article on wikipedia, you need to find reliable, independent sources, which explain your subject. For instance, the company's own website wouldn't work because it isn't an independent source. If you can't find enough information in the sources, chances are the company isn't notable enough for an article. Additionally, I noticed you had said "We are trying to create an article for our client, a business." I don't know the specifics of your agreement with that business, but on Wikipedia we prefer that you aren't affiliated with the subject you're writing about.
Let me know if you have any questions. Margalob (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! One problem with the article I can already see based on your explanation is that I did cite one bit of info using the company's news section on their website. I'll switch this to the website that published the article. 2600:8802:5500:610:50F8:6431:849F:7957 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I would add that if this business is your client, Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to comply with the paid editing policy. That means that in order to use Wikipedia you must declare any paid relationship you have that is related to your editing. I'd suggest doing so on your user talk page. You will also need to review the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello IP Editor. It is not forbidden to source any information about a company to its web site or other publications. Basic non-controversial information, such as a company's official name, history of name changes if any, HQ location, date of founding, current CEO, revenue or sales figures, and the like can be and probably should be sourced to a company publication, such as a history section of a company web site or an annual report. But that is not enough to demonstrate Notability. You need independent, published reliable sources that discuss the company in some detail. Published analyst reports are good, as are news stories about the company that are not just reworked press releases. Directory entries and passing mentions are not useful. Neither are most blogs or other one-person sites, or anything from anyone with a significant financial association with the company, or employed by the company. Strictly local sources are of at best limited value. See our guideline for the notability of companies and WP:CORPDEPTH. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh do note that while some information may be sourced to the company web site, none of it may be directly copied from that site, or from any outside source, except for short quotes marked as such, attributed to a named person or entity, and supported by an inline citation. See Referencing for Beginners to learn how to provide the inline citation.
Also, you might want to consider creating and using a free account here. it has several benefits. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for details. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To change username[edit]

Suratnadas → Frangipani[edit]

Status:     In progress

18:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Frangipani

Hello. I believe there are two possible choices you might be interested in:

1) You can delete your current account and create an entirely new account with your desired new name. All your original posts and entries in your old name will remain.

2) You can go to the top menu of every screen in Wikipedia. Select 'Preferences' (There will be your username; talk; sandbox; preferences; ... etc. .). Under "preferences," there will be your "username." Scroll down to the second half of the screen, to where it says Signature. Below this it will list your current username (or current signature). Below this will be an entry box in which you can edit your signature. Cut and paste this into that box: [[User:Suratnadas| Frangipani ]][[User_talk:Suratnadas| (talk)]]. Now below this will be a checkbox - "Treat the above as wiki markup." You must select the box for this to work. This will make all your subsequent signatures (~~~~) seen as 'Frangipani (talk)'. All your original posts will remain under the original signature. All your following posts will be under the new signature. Hope this helps. Have a wonderful day. B'H. 24.228.89.236 (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Suratnadas, if you want your edit history to remain with you on your new user account, just go to WP:CHU and follow the steps there to change your username. Or you can just change your signature as per above, however your username will still be accessible to all. At this point, the only user rights flag you have is AUTOCONFIRMED, so if you start a new account, you will have to go through the waiting period and make the minimum number of edits (I believe it is 4 days and 10 edits) to regain Autoconfirmed status. You will also lose your current watchlist by starting over, something that will not happen if you change your name or your signature. Also, the username you want to switch to has never been registered (surprisingly!), so you will not need to "Usurp". John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not possible to delete a user account as 2422889236x suggests it is, Suratnadas, so I recommend that you follow John from Idegon's advice here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
John from Idegon Thanks for help, now I have switched to new username. But there's another problem. I created the page Palash Baran Pal, where I have uploaded the photo of the author. If one clicks the photo there my old user name "Suratnadas" is still visible. Is it possible to change that too with my new user id?

Help with Reviewing/Re-Submitting an Article[edit]

Hi there, I have had an article rejected previously having submitted it. I have made some edits and I would like your help on how to improve/resubmit the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Andersen_(sailing) Many thanksCameronAngus089 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi CameronAngus089 the article has already been accepted into mainspace, the review process is over and done with. Improvements are done through "normal" editing withot reviews. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It looks like CameronAngus089 bypassed the review process by moving the draft into mainspace himself, Dodger67. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
In any case, additional sources are badly needed, CameronAngus089. See Talk:Kim Andersen (sailing)#Sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talkcontribs) 11:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all, I will seek to make sure the neccessary amendments are made.CameronAngus089 (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Mission 2 was not displaying nicely on my screen[edit]

The conversation was split into two and the text seems to be in the wrong place and is barely readable on the dark background. Why is this? Tania Mason (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Judging by the user's contributions, this refers to mission 2 of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Accidentally published two pages[edit]

Hi there,

I accidentally published two pages for the same company. It says one of the pages is being redirected to the new one, however, both pages still show up in a google search. What's the easiest way to delete one of the pages? WDorceus (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi WDorceus No further action is needed, Google will catch up to the change in due course, it may take a day or two. It's entirely out of our control, we have no influence over Google's webcrawlers. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

How do i just write a new article?[edit]

I have read a lot on the subject but have not really figured it out, how do I just write a new article and then submit/publish it for review? B Lloyd Reese (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, B Lloyd Reese, and Welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. You might want to work on fixing small errors in existing articles first, to get a feel for how articles are writtne here When you do try to create articles I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted.
Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view.
If you still want to go ahead, pick a topic you have some interest in. Then follow these steps
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on verifibility, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dead WSJ links[edit]

Can you please investigate all the edits that Bender the Bot made from March 12th/13th to the 15th here and fix all the online.wsj.com links by changing the "https://online.wsj.com" links from "https" to "http" (The S was shoehorned into "HTTP" by him) and the the rest of the links them back from "https://www.wsj.com" to "http://online.wsj.com"? They're currently dead links that redirect to nothing but "login" or "unavailable" pages instead of articles. 1.165.123.152 (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) Can you please... 1.165.123.152 (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello IP editor. What links in what articles, please? The English-language Wikipedia has over 5 million articles and many of them cite the WSJ. See Preventing and repairing dead links and Wikipedia:Link rot for advice on how to deal with this. You can help, you don't need to wait for others. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm tired of having to see one dead link and change it back, so I'm just asking you to investigate this guy's edits from March here and change the links back. 1.170.246.9 (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Bender the Bot is an automated script, or bot. Those edits were authorized by This bot approval. The general intent is to change every outgoing http link to https if the destination supports https: as WSJ normally does. I am not sure why those particular links are not working properly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, they redirect to nothing but "login/sign up" or "page unavailable" pages instead of the articles themselves. Look at some examples in this discussion. 1.170.246.9 (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I confirmed a couple of examples and fixed one, just to see if the fix worked. I suspect a temporary glitch at wsj.com. i have raised the issue at WP:VPT#Problem with https links to wsj which is the best place for technical issues. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I have found an example. https://online.wsj.com/articles/SB119764674563829575 gives PAGE UNAVAILABLE but http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119764674563829575 redirects to https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119764674563829575, so does work. Mduvekot (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you, Mduvekot. Please post any examples in the VPT thread WP:VPT#Problem with https links to wsj so that the more technically inclined editors will see them and this will perhaps be resolved sooner. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What about a bot investigation? There's also links that are changed to "https://www.wsj.com/articles/?????????.html" and turned into unavailable pages too. 1.170.246.9 (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing to investigate about the bot. We know what the bot was doing -- I linked to its task approval above. At the time it was doing it, those links worked. The remaining question is why the links don't work now, and what, if anything, we need to do about it. I suspect a temporary, or perhaps permanent, change at the wsj site is involved. I posted at the Technical pump, the place for such issues. The link to that posting is above. Feel free to comment there. This is not a malicious change, it is some sort of glitch, almost surely on the wsj end. We may need to adapt to it, but there is no point in making mass changes until we learn what is truly needed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
How about getting a bot like InternetArchiveBot to undo all of Bender the Bot's edits from March 12/13th to 15th? That needs to work out. 175.193.247.64 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why my bot is being mentioned here. It's not a bot to revert other edits.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Boer War Poem By John Gilmartin[edit]

How do I insert a pictureMarcaini (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marcaini and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you think about pictures, you need to establish that the subject has been written about in WP:Reliable sources, and you need to cite those sources to establish WP:Notability. If you are unable to do this, then it would be better to find somewhere else to publish the poem. By the way, the spelling is "Boer" not "Boar", and it is better not to add entries to the disambiguation page until the article is published. In general, pictures should be uploaded to WP:Commons with the appropriate copyright licence. Dbfirs 06:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Protecting a page i usually edit[edit]

Hi, i would like to know how can i protect a page i have been updating. I have noticed that anonymous users have been editing the page with wrong info. Some adds wrong codes and ends up ruining the output. Page title goes by the name of Kerala Blasters. I am not the creator of the page, but have been adding accurate info to the page. It will be great if someone let me know how can i protect that page from vandalism. :)Koko Koizumi (redgoodkid) (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Koko Koizumi (redgoodkid): I have protected the article for one week; requests for protection can be filed at requests for page protection. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What does protected against vandalism mean?[edit]

Some pages when i try to edit it says "This page is protected against vandalism". Can anyone help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolSkittle (talkcontribs)

@CoolSkittle: Hello and welcome. That means that due to other users vandalizing the page or otherwise editing it disruptively, that it has been protected from editing to stop the disruption/vandalism. If you wish to make an edit to a page and cannot, you should post a request explaining the change you want to make on the article talk page; click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article, then edit the page that follows. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
You can also click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What I can do with Yandex-translated article?[edit]

Kees Andrea it's translated with Yandex I used GoogleTrans at both articles Builder8360 (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What should be added as references if not news articles, interviews, etc. what exactly are the acceptable references?[edit]

In our submission, the article is said to have unreliable references. the references we submitted were a newspaper article, Lok Sabha TV presentation, a documentary,interview, a few more news coverage articles and facebook page. please suggest what is wrong with these references, and what should be omitted.

a few links of references that were attached are shared.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/several-trees-across-delhi-and-counting/story-6AHmKWM63kaRUdnLaVkzgJ.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT-Cktz-GN8&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lNz2HHL-5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68EnP_h26TU Treesforlife132 (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Treesforlife132. Depending on what article and content you're talking about, there may be additional requirements for sources beyond simply having a reputation for fact-checking and integrity. Also, Youtube videos are often highly suspect in general. Finally, given your username, you seem very likely to have aconflict of interest with regards to Trees for Life (the apparent subject of the edits you're discussing). I strongly suggest you read that link, as well as WP:UNAME, as usernames representing a group or organization are a violation of our policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Treesforlife132. The issue with Draft:Give Me Trees Trust is not only that some of the sources cited are unreliable. The review states that the coverage in most of those sources consists of brief mentions, which doesn't meet the significant coverage requirement to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Selecting 'notable' references[edit]

What are some approaches to finding and documenting 'notable references'. Any help is appreciated, and thanks for your time. ESCNNET (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ESCNNET and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question confuses a few things. It's not the references that are notable. The topic of the article that you are writing is (or is not) notable. But a topic is notable because of references. Specifically, the references need to have two things: First, they need to discuss the topic of the article in significant detail (ie. a short news item is less than ideal, whereas a book with hundreds of pages that discusses mainly the topic you are writing on is better). Second, the references need to be reliable (ie. personal blogs by non-experts are very bad sources, while peer reviewed academic journals are extremely reliable). In sum, find many sources that actually discuss the topic in detail instead of just brief mentions. Find these sources among reputable publishers (professional newspapers or magazines, academic publications). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


thanks for your contribution - very clear & helpful. ESCNNET (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

how to add a photo to an article?[edit]

Hi, I would like to add a photo to an article I'm working on. How do I do that?Dstampley (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dstampley. If you mean how to add an existing, free photo to a page (e.g., one already uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons), then the mechanics of placing it for display can be read at the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, but the most basic markup is [[File:Name of image.extension|thumb|Caption to display below image]].

If you mean how to upload a photo for use here, that is exquisitely context-dependent. What photo?; of a living or deceased person?; taken by whom and under what circumstances?; when?; was it published or unpublished and if published in what, when?; in what country?; with any explicit details of copyright status?; and on and on. However, I have in the past posted here a sort of primer, covering some of the ground rules, that I'll post below in the hope it might be informative, but if you provide contextual details a much more tailored answer can likely be provided. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"See Also" Guidelines[edit]

Can anyone point me in the direction of a guide about creating/contributing to a "See Also" section in an article? I'm sure there's some info about that around here somewhere, but I can't seem to find anything. Thanks!
CeraWithaC (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CeraWithaC. You can usually find guidelines and policies by typing "WP:" followed by the name of what you're looking for into the search box, and you will be redirected to the right place. Try WP:SEEALSO in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a suggestion tool?[edit]

Hi again. I want to find a page that has loads of things to edit. Is there a tool to find pages in need of repair?

Yes. See Wikipedia:Backlogs. You will find articles with plenty of issues, like no links, typos, no categories and just about anything you might like to fix. You can also click on the random article button in the upper left corner of your screen. Chances are many of them will have issues that need fixing. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Update: here is the backlog feed I use with links to all categories of articles in need of attention. I'm glad you are interested in helping out in that area; as you will see, it needs a lot of attention. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Upendra Niraula उपेन्द्र निरौला[edit]

why my name is not visible or appear on wiki search ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upendra Niraula (talkcontribs)

Upendra Niraula, your user page is visible at User:Upendra Niraula. If you look at it you will notice that I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise yourself. If you are notable, someone will create an article on you at Upendra Niraula. However, in what you have on your userpage, I see nothing to indicate you are notable. John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have speedied the page based on your nomination, as well as on the basis of it appearing to be a copyright violation. Upendra Niraula, even if this was suitable for posting here, you can't post copyrighted content here without verifiably releasing the material into the public domain or under a free copyright license compatible with the free copyright licenses borne by most of Wikipedia's content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if what this user is doing is helpful?[edit]

I am doing some recent changes patrol and this user keeps popping up as he is added information to a lot of tv series about picture formats. Wasn't sure if this is helpful information or not [[8]] NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 22:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Text in italics[edit]

I saw on one page text unnecessarily in italics. Should this be fixed? Also I would like to know how to add text in italics on mobile.

How do I revert an edit?[edit]

I'm wondering how to revert a vandalistic edit on a page. How and where can I do it. I'm on mobile.Bugg Bulborb (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Are wikilinks appropriate in extended quotations?[edit]

Are wikilinks appropriate in extended quotations, particularly from scholarly sources? For e.g., see my change of even date to article Kava General observations. After I had made my change, I realized that a dozen or more technical terms could have had wikilinks. So, should we put in wikilinks to help the non-technical, or assume that if you're reading a technical discussion you are familiar with the terms?D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No. In general you should never put a wiki-link inside a quote, long or short, D Anthony Patriarche. See WP:QUOTE, and MOS:LWQ which says: "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." If you think a reader might need a term explained via a linbk, then include it in prose near the quote, before the quote if possible, and link it there. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

sandbox review[edit]

Mctplt (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)I am new and have an article in my sandbox. Is anyone available to give it a review?Mctplt (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference: User:Mctplt/sandbox

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy:[edit]

The Teahouse has a link to 'Articles to Improve' and 'Suggestions'. So I joined {{WikiProject Comedy}}, where one of the ways to participate is to place a project banner on the talk pages of all articles within the scope of the project. I wanted to get involved in this project, and added my name to the participants' list. I've updated about 50 pages so far.

Question. Can I find someone to oversee what I have been doing? Although it's mundane and simple, I don't know if I'm doing this properly. Thanks in advance. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello 2422889236x! I've went over these edits, your positive approach looks really good. I think it'd be better if you can be more specific about which areas of comedy articles you would like to involve yourself in. The tagging looks fine so far, although appears to be slightly random. Be careful to not over tag too many articles. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 04:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

How can I make a new page?[edit]

I have noticed this there was a link to "Googolhedron". However, there isn't a page called "Googolhedron". Basically, a googolhedron is a regular solid with a googol sides. When I tried to make a page about it, it got deleted immediately. Please either make the page called "Googolhedron" or answer me why the page should not be made. Thank you. Xu Zijun (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Xu Zijun, welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a draft and submit it to articles for creation, so that an experienced editor can determine if a standalone page should be created, or maybe information should be proposed to merge with polyhedron. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

How to search for "meta" pages ?[edit]

Hi, I have some trouble finding information on how to search for "meta" pages (those starting with help:, wikipedia:, and maybe others [are there other kind of X:Y pages ?]), and while I'm sure there is a help page describing how to search for help pages, I have found myself in some kind of predicament. So, is there a way to easily find these pages and search through them rather than through content pages ? Thank you very much. 37.166.255.56 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Click on the magnifying glass in thee Search box at the top of any Wikipedia page. This will take you to the Search page. Under the main search box there you'll see three links: Multimedia, Everything and Advanced. Click on Advanced to see a set of tick boxes for all the Wikipedia namespaces. HTH Rojomoke (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, IP editor. Wikipedia is made up of many namespaces. These are denoted by a prefix (except mainspace, the actual encyclopedia. It has no prefix.) Help can be found by placing Help in front of your topic. For example, if you want help with templates, search "Help: Templates". That will lead you to Help: Template. Policies (and many other things) are in the "Wikipedia" namespace. So to find the guideline on reliable sources, search "Wikipedia: Reliable sources" which will lead you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you wish to discuss that guideline, Wikipedia talk: Reliable sources would be where you want to go. I hope I understood your question and this was helpful. John from Idegon (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Publishing my first article[edit]

Please some one help me. each time I submit my article I found it rejected. someone help what exactly should I do to get my article published. every time I modify it and publish it again but no success Cesilia Mambile (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Cesilia Mambile, this post here is the only edit your account has made. Can you provide us a link to the article in question? If it has been deleted, perhaps you could ask the administrator who deleted to put it back as a draft so you can work on it and you can get help with it. It's impossible to tell you where you are going wrong without some idea of what you've done. John from Idegon (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello Cesilia Mambile, please submit your article through the articles for creation process. Your deleted contribution appears to be a personal essay and covers an article that already exists. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)