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


WP teahouse logo.png

Most recent archives
635  636  637  638  639  640  641  642  643  644
645  646  647  648  649  650  651  652  653  654

Blocking page view[edit]

Further discussion of this issue is not productive. John from Idegon (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Has Wikipedia any method by which some of its articles can be blocked from navigation for a specific user or a user can block certain pages from his vision? Sinner (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about your first question(though I doubt it, as any user can read any article) but if a user does not want to see certain pages, they shouldn't visit them. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Does it mean wikipedia has no method to block certain articles from certain user's vision and a user can not manually block certain articles from his vision? Sinner (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Why would Wikipedia want to do that? It is the encyclopaedia that anyone can read and that anyone can edit (constructively if the edit is to remain). There is no censorship here (see WP:NOTCENSORED), or with any encyclopaedia that I've looked at in any library. If you don't want to look at certain articles, then don't download them. Dbfirs 11:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored itself, not for every user. Any file on wikipedia is not censored, but if you do not want to see some pictures, you can hide them. I am asking a similar question. Blocking articles is just like blocking pictures (and this option exists). Therefore, I am in doubt that wikipedia can have an option to hide articles just like hiding pictures. Sinner (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
You could achieve the effect using Content-control software. I'm not sure whether it is possible using CSS. Perhaps an expert on the Computing Desk would be able to answer? Dbfirs 12:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Theodore! should consider it. Sinner (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
As has been stated, it is unnecessary to "block articles". If you don't want to see an article, don't visit it. No one forces users to visit content they don't want to see. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@331dot, this answer is not satisfactory. No one forces anyone to see pictures that someone does not want to see, then why wikipedia has developed an option to hide images (and I remember you introduced hiding images to me). Articles can be offensive for users like pictures can be. How it can be that we are allowed to hide offensive pictures but not offensive articles? Sinner (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Images can be associated with articles loosely, in that they have a connection to the article, but not always a strong one. If you don't want to see an article on Kate Beckinsale, then just don't go to the article, or click on the link. It's a really simple process, that you, a living, breathing human being, have control over. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
And, users might want to read about a subject but not see its associated images because those images might offend them. If someone does not want to read about a subject because it offends them, then they shouldn't go to its page. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@NsTaGaTr: That's an ambiguous position which had nothing to do with this discussion. The person, Sinner, asked a legitimate question. Addressed to User: 331dot. Think about this objectively. For example, if you tell me "don't turn this corner if you do not want to see what's on the other side." You assume that the person had already been aware of what's on that side. To be fair, we do not have precognition of what will be on that other side of the corner. To tell someone just not to explore, because there are things there that the person might not want to see, is tantamount to to telling that person to stick their head in the sand and never look up at anything. They might actually see something they might not like! Very unfair. Let's give Sinner a break and try to find a constructive answer to a legitimate question. Please. B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Not at all 2422889236x. My only intent is to say "if you don't want to see an article on "Subject X", don't click or open the article on "Subject X". That I know of, WP doesn't force editors/viewers to consume any specific article. (*Random article would be the only wildcard, of course*). If you can't willingly filter your own actions and come to your own conclusions, then that speaks to a completely different matter. As far as Sinner addressing a question to 331dot; he asked the question and was given an answer, which he decided wasn't fitting his request. I can't think of any other way to say "no, there's no easy way to do what you're asking for". Avoiding an article is a much easier process than avoiding images that might be associated with an article. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@NsTaGaTr: I beg to differ. Your solution is ambiguous in the absence of some kind of precognatory powers on the part of the user. We must assume that users who want to use Wikipedia and are prudent to avoid content which they may find objectionable are unable to determine what is objectionable without prior examination. Another example. You have two plates of spaghetti. One is covered with spaghetti sauce, the other is covered with red paint. Both plates look the same, but obviously will taste different. If we serve someone a plate of spaghetti covered in red paint - then are we going to blame the person who we're serving the spaghetti to, for not finding red paint palatable? Are you going to tell the person, "well you should not have tasted it in the first place?" That is cruel and wrong. Likewise to expect someone to know what's on a Wikipedia page before that page has been viewed, as to whether or not the person will find objectionable content? Isn't this what you're expecting? It looks to me like this is what you're doing. Instead, why not explore constructive options. Let's determine the limitations that Sinner seeks. I'm only assuming here, but just guessing, I have the impression that Sinner is seeking a family-safe/child-safe/safe-for-workplace version of Wikipedia. Is this so complex, that the only alternative you can come up with is - you shouldn't be visiting here in the first place? I can't believe that Sinner is the first person to raise this issue. This has got to have been discussed many times by other users and editors. What is so terrible about simply determining the criteria that Sinner is interested in, instead of critically saying that the question's not valid and that Sinner should just pre-emptively avoid pages in Wikipedia when there is no way for Sinner to know what to avoid in the first place? Excuse my verbosity. B'H.
MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I feel like your representation here is different than the question originally asked. The original question was "Has Wikipedia any method by which some of its articles can be blocked from navigation for a specific user or a user can block certain pages from his vision?". To me, this says "There are certain pages that I don't want to see, how can I stop from seeing them?". PrimeHunter, below, offered a very simple solution to this - list out specific pages that you don't want to see. There is no way to intuitively know what specific people do/do not want to view, so it is completely on them to filter their results, whether that be by not visiting those specific articles, or by using the example below. Your argument of spaghetti with sauce vs red paint is completely nullified, as that would be the equivalent of clicking on an article named Marinara sauce, but instead, WP sends you to an article on red paint. That isn't the premise of the initial question brought forward, in my opinion. Anyone browsing WP can find something in any article that they disagree with or find objectionable, but that is different from finding the entire topic objectionable, which is what I see as the driver behind the original question. Either way, two solutions have now been proposed, and it's up to the individual to decide which road to take. Happy editing - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
NsTaGaTr, not visiting the page is not a permanent solution. We can save us from seeing an offensive picture by not visiting it but we have an option to block it, similarly we can save us from seeing an offensive article by not visiting it but we should be given an option to block offensive articles. I know Cullen328 will say,Nazim Hussain Pak! Do not visit the page but it will not be a solution. Sinner (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying, and I know what you're going for, but sadly it's the only /current/ solution that I can think of. It might not be the best solution to the problem, but there aren't many forks in this road currently. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 14:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Nazim Hussain Pak I'm sorry you find this answer unsatisfactory but that's all I have to offer. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Nazim Hussain Pak The sort of blocking you are considering has a pre-requisite: either A) the person who does not want to see certain pages knows, in advance, that they do not want to see those pages, or B) the pages are somehow tagged for the type of their content and the blocking decision is based on those tags. For instance, you could probably jigger something up using javascript that would suppress display of pages that appear in a list you've specified or that contain any of a number of category tags. It would be sort of like an adblocker. I was about to say that I personally disagree with this approach to using the internet, but then realized that would be hypocritical: I do use adblockers. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Place this in your CSS to hide Brand, Vorarlberg (random example) when you are logged in:
.page-Brand_Vorarlberg {display: none;}
I don't know the precise rules for how pagenames with special characters are encoded there, apart from replacing spaces with underscores. I used my browser to view the html source of Brand, Vorarlberg and found: <body class="... page-Brand_Vorarlberg ... (note the comma is omitted). You may have to do the same for some page names. The entire page goes blank including the menus. I haven't heard this request before and will not work on a simpler or better solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Number of articles someone wants to block depends upon the user. For example, if I find that I should not read only 1% of wikipedia but this 1% will be more than 5400 articles.
  1. NsTaGaTr, Avoiding articles by just not visiting the page is a useless idea and avoiding titles will not help everywhere. For example I do not want to read the page Kate Beckinsale, and I read a phrase in article Len Wiseman ,'He divorced his wife in 2016.' who knows who was wife of Len Wiseman? To discover who was his wife, I shall click on his wife and it will lead me to Kate Beckinsale which I do not want to read.
    1. Even I choose I shall not visit 1% wikipedia but who can remember names of 5400 articles? It is impossible!
  2. PrimeHunter, your solution works but not to needed extent. CSS pages do not have section and subsection options so it is impossible for me to insert names of 5400 articles in my CSS page.

I have a precise and relevant solution for this problem in my mind. Even it is difficult and will need large community discussions but if it is once implemented, it will prove to be best to solve page blocking problem. Sinner (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe 1% of Wikipedia articles would be 54,000 articles. If you want to prevent yourself from seeing certain pages that is your business, as you can do whatever you like with your own computer, but there is no "page blocking problem" here. I think the community would be reluctant to implement any sort of censorship of article content(even if somehow enabled by the user and not Wikipedia itself) but you are free to submit any proposals you wish. I wish you the best 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@331dot, you are right, I'm talking about just 0.1% articles. I know community will be really reluctant to implement censorship but my proposal will no affect WP:NOTCENSORED, as it will depend on individual user without effecting community and it can become a new option in preferences as well. But if this option is given, page blocking at individual level will no longer remain a problem. My proposal is

A new option should be introduced in user navigation menu with title block this article or simply block. Every user will have his own Blocklist consisting of articles someone has chosen to block. If someone finds current article is offensive, s/he will click block and it will be blocked from his/r view. If s/he wants to unblock, s/he can easily edit his/r blocklist.

This method will wipe out page block problem at individual level from wikipedia. Although it is very difficult, but it can solve one of greatest problems of users in wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You are free to propose this at the Village Pump in the appropriate area, but I think this unlikely to be accepted. They will likely tell you what you have been told here- that if you don't want to see something, don't go to that page. Your proposal requires visiting a page in order to "block" it. Once you find your way to an offensive page, either accidentally or deliberately, you will know not to go there by that method again so 'blocking' it is unnecessary. I respectfully don't see it as this big problem that you make it out to be. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, Nazim Hussain Pak but it can solve one of greatest problems of users in wikipedia is just not credible. The greatest problems of Wikipedia include things like
  • reliability is questioned because "anyone can edit"
  • "anyone can edit" but their edits will disappear if they don't follow a large and complex body of rules that seem hard to understand
  • reaching consensus and NPOV writing can be hard
  • more and more reporting in the real world occurs on new media outlets about which the community has not necessarily agreed on using
It is not WP's business to do extra work to hide parts of the encyclopedia that someone has looked at and decided that they don't want to look at again. You are welcome to invest in content blocking mechanisms of your own devising, but I would be opposed to WP investing in such mechanisms. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
331dot, of Maine, respectfully, I have already made a humble statement that we can not remember names of all articles, that we find offensive, or someone else like my son (I'm single) or someone else to whom I want to prevent from browsing some articles even in my absence, how not browsing an article will work there? Although community not considers, it is really a considerable problem. Sinner (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You can and should monitor your child's internet use, and there are tools available for you to use on your personal computer to restrict what sites can be visited. In that way you could prevent your child from visiting a site unless you know about it and/or are present to monitor it. If you have the current version of most computer operating systems they allow you to restrict what programs are used and by whom. Educating your child on how to use the internet and in what way to is also important. However, it is up to you to do that, not Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I would add that given human nature, telling someone what they can't do often causes that person to go and do it anyway; for example, banning a book leads people to read the book to know why it was banned. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is indeed a considerable problem on the internet in general (less so in Wikipedia which is educational). There is no one solution because different people find different material offensive. I suppose we could have some sort of coding or category so that optional software could block those articles in a particular category, but content changes over time, and we would have endless arguments over what is or is not considered offensive. In theory, no information in an encyclopaedia is intended to be offensive, just educational, but different cultures view content differently. Dbfirs 12:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Nazim Hussain Pak for this to work for your son also you would need to set up the article blocking on his account as he should never be using your account to access Wikipedia. ~ GB fan 12:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
jmcgnh, you are just a user like me and your opinion has no preference over my opinion, I respect your opinion but do not agree with it because the problems you are flagging are collective problems of wikipedia, a user will be able to counter those problems if he feels he is completely safe and I want to become safe, and 331dot no one can read a banned book if I burn even the last page of that book, and blocking sites means I should block wikipedia completely, so withdrawing from editing it, that is not an appropriate idea, and interestingly the data connection I'm using operates only wikipedia, it does not operate any other site so I have no threat from other websites. I have a threat from wikipedia so I want to save me from this pending threat. Sinner (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Then I would respectfully suggest that you leave as you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

...I thank all the friends who took part in this discussion, though wikipedia has no option to avoid offensive articles, it should develop such an option, please leave a message on my talkpage if someone thinks I should really leave wikipedia. I don't want to hurt wikipedia and I'm ready to leave if someone thinks I'm really hurting wikipedia....... Sinner (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: I don't believe anyone "wants" you to leave Wikipedia, but we are observing that Wikipedia doesn't seem compatible with what you believe it should be or want out of it. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@331dot, please give me an advice about this matter. Sinner (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nazim Hussain Pak: All articles are written on Wikipedia by the neutral point of view. It means they can be offensive for someone who dont have an neutral view. Hope you understand that neither you can't change all articles according to your point of view nor you block them. - Smokin'Bears 16:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC) (talk)
@Nazim Hussain Pak: if you are after a gadget that will add to the list you have started at User:Nazim Hussain Pak/common.css then I would suggest you ask at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. A button on your own toolbar that when pressed would add the relevant code to your css page and then move you onto another page e.g. your watchlist may be possible but I don't see any way of a gadget like this working without you visiting the page first. Nthep (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Nthep I can't become aware if a page is really offensive to me if I don't open it first, but if I have once opened, I will prefer not to open that page, even accidentally. Therefore, I think it is easy if such a page is manually hidden from my view. I know, I have to open a page first time to know whether its content is really offensive to me or not. I am in search of such an easy method, your suggestion really seems to be helping but please let me know its details and how I can proceed to use this? Sinner (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't help you further. You know what end result you want, PrimeHunter showed you some css code to achieve that, I suggested a place where someone may develop a scipt for you that will make those code alterations for you. As most people who have responded think what you are wanting is a poor choice then I doubt anyone is going to develop a script unless you put the work into defining what you want to happen and how. Nthep (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
There are third-party sites that will censor Wikipedia for you if you simply want to avoid looking at articles which some might not consider suitable for children: Wiki For Kids or Wikipedia for Schools both provide this sort of functionality, for example. Wikipedia itself isn't going to do this for you. The whole point of Wikipedia is to make information available; it is up to readers how or indeed whether they consume that information. Yunshui  11:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Just a minor point, Nazim Hussain Pak, but above you stated that when a link is piped such as "his wife", you can't know that the link goes to Kate Beckinsale without clicking on it. However, if you hover your mouse pointer over the link, it will tell you where the link points. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Loving the fact that 'my' Kate is still kicking around, haha. Have we reached WP:DTS yet? - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 12:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry, currently I'm using mobile to contribute which has no mouse to hover a page, so I can not know where a link leads. Sinner (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan: I'm single with no son, who will use my account? I'm going in this discussion because I want to solve this problem, forever, I want to get a personally and family safe version of wikipedia. Sinner (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
On a phone you should be able to press and hold a link (not tap it) to accomplish the same thing, that's how my phone works anyway. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
His statement was made in regards to your comment of "331dot, of Maine, respectfully, I have already made a humble statement that we can not remember names of all articles, that we find offensive, or someone else like my son (I'm single) or someone else to whom I want to prevent from browsing some articles even in my absence, how not browsing an article will work there? Although community not considers, it is really a considerable problem. Sinner (talk) 7:06 am, 5 August 2017, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)". He, and I, presumed that you were stating that you had a son who was also browsing wikipedia. Per WP account guidelines, an account should be used by one person. That's all that was coming out of that statement. If you were simply using it as a point of further discussion, I missed it and apologize. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sinner, I don't see it happening. As you can see the overwhelming view is that Wikipedia should remain an open source with information of all subjects available to all. The best you may get is a volunteer developed script that allows you to hide pages you do not wish to see. I doubt that anything like that would ever become part of the core software and even if it were I strongly believe that the community would not agree to its deployment on Wikipedia. Nthep (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Nazim Hussain Pak, I guess I misunderstood what you said here. You talked about how you wanted a way to prevent your son from browsing some articles even in your absence. You did say you were single but that does not preclude someone from having a son. None of this changes the fact that each account would need to set up a block list of articles they didn't want themselves or their children to see under each account and each person needs their own account. If someone does not log in when they start reading or if they get logged out during the session and don't realize it, it wouldn't work. Any concept would only work for logged in users. The only way for you to ensure you don't look at a page is to devise a client side block on certain pages. ~ GB fan 17:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@GB fan, really, but I know everyone should use his personal account, and I have said (I'm single)here [1] too. Currently, only I'm using but want to encounter future possibilities. Sinner (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
331dot: My mobile provides two options when I press and hold a link a) open that link, b) select text. It does not tell where a link will lead. Sinner (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Nthep: I understand what community thinks about this matter. You mentioned volunteer developed script above. I shall feel very happy if a volunteer develops such a script for my use. Is here any volunteer who is ready to develop such a script for me. Sinner (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Nazim Hussain Pak If it displays the link, it will include the page title, though certainly your phone may be different than mine. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@331dot: Its link does not provide title of page to which it will lead. Sinner (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Friends, discussion is not closed. At least Nthep suggested volunteer developed script which can solve this problem, which any expert volunteer can develop for me. This discussion will not be closed until we reach agreeable solution. Sinner (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Then you should make a request at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests, although I would imagine any such script will basically be a front-end interface for the CSS fix that PrimeHunter has already explained to you - you will still need to individually list all of the pages that you want to be hidden. As I mentioned above, using a third-party site is probably the only way you are going to get what you would consider a "clean" version of Wikipedia. We are not going to adapt the entire site to fit your individual demands. Yunshui  10:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Presumably you're imagining that Wikipedia could implement tagging or block-lists, but it would never work.
Wikipedia editors would not in a million years agree on which pages should be on which block lists. Even questions like "is this sexual" are steeped in political, social, and cultural divides.
For example, some people would argue that any mention of homosexuality in intrinsically sexual and should therefore be on any block-list tagged with "sex", but others would argue that attitude was intrinsically bigoted, because heterosexual relationships are only considered sexual when the sex act is specifically described. Both those groups of people would insist that the other group was being intentionally difficult just to make a political point.
I believe that content-warnings, and content-block-lists cannot be created democratically by a diverse population. They need to be done from particular narrow points of view. That's not the sort of thing Wikipedia is equipped to do.
ApLundell (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Nazim Hussain Pak who signs as Sinner has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry friends, I'm active. I have made a request there but still there is no response. As stated above, it is very difficult to write names of even 0.1% articles in CSS page. Sinner (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Fine, Nazim Hussain Pak, you have made your request. The various opinions in this thread are quire clear. Can we drop the matter on the Teahouse, please? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, Please drop it from Teahouse. Sinner (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Articles should not be blocked. This is an encyclopedia. Articles are merely the breakdown of information along lines that are generally agreed to be logical. No one has to use an encyclopedia. One either welcomes information or one rejects information. It is a fundamentally incorrect notion to think that some information should be hidden in a compendium of all information. Blocking some articles from view is tantamount to creating one's own truth. Tampering with good information is antithetical to this project. Bus stop (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bus stop, I asked to drop this discussion because DESiegal requested to drop it. I said above This discussion will not be closed until we reach agreeable solution. This discussion has neither satisfied me nor alleviated my concern and that agreeable solution has not been reached. I agreed with DESiegel because this discussion occupies about 20% of Teahouse. Tampering with good information is antithetical to this project, yes, but which information one considers good depends upon him. It is possible that you find an article good but it may be offensive for me. Blocking an article for just one user will not affect the other, so no effect on encyclopedia. I have a lot to go more into this discussion but let this thread be archived as an unresolved problem, but if someone wants to proceed, I'm present. Sinner (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I was not clear. I referred to "good information". That is open to interpretation. By "good information", what I was trying to say was "information that complies with our policies and guidelines". Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bus stop, yes, information satisfying wikipedian policies is good, but at least, one does not feel some information is appropriate for him, for any religious, cultural or personal reason, if we continue to discuss this discussion, it has and will become burden for Teahouse. I have realized further discussion will not yield any solution. If someone has any question, I'm present. Sinner (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The breakdown of information into articles is artificial, in my opinion. But all of an encyclopedia's information cannot be in one very long article. To block certain articles is to trim knowledge away. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a compendium of all knowledge. We gravitate towards certain articles and stay away from certain articles. I don't understand the impetus to have articles blocked from our view. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bus stop, please see it as a humble statement. All the users of wikipedia are human, member of same group. There are two types of users, constructive and vandal, community blocks users which want to harm it and lets constructive users to operate to improve wikipedia. I see wikipedia articles like wikipedia users. All pages in wikipedia are articles. For me they are of two types constructive and offensive. As vandal users can harm wikipedia so they are blocked. Like this the articles that I do not want to see and are offensive just for me, I want to block them just for myself as community blocks vandal users. I know you are completely neutral from your point of view so all articles are equal for you but for me Mosque and Brothel are not equal, I would like to block Brothel for my account. I am trying to find an appropriate way to block such unwanted articles for my account. If some article is blocked for my account, every user except me will be able to see and edit that article. Sinner (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Several 'solutions' have been proposed in this matter: 1.) Don't visit specific pages that you /know/ will offend you, 2.) Edit your CSS file with page titles that you know you don't want to visit, 3.) Submit a request for someone to create a script, allowing you to block pages from your view once you visit them and determine that they are offensive, 4.) Use an off-the-shelf program to setup filters for your browsing experience. Wikipedia can not read your mind or know what you as an individual want to see or not see. Secondly, you keep stating that the matter is closed but unresolved, and that further discussion will not yield any solution, and yet here we are, continuing the discussion. Happy editing. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 17:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@NsTaGaTr, these points are already in my mind. The discussion is continue because it is still being discussed. Sinner (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

How to get hide selected pages[edit]

How to get hide selected pages05:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:F284:292:AB65:4:E0BA:CE7B (talk)  
What you intend by your question is not clear. I am going to assume you are asking about hiding pages you might find offensive/don't want to see for your own reasons, though if your question is about something else, please advise. As to my assumption, there's not much else to do but simply don't visit those pages. Or if you want to make sure you see no images that are offensive to you, you can register for an account, install the user script User:Anomie/hide-images and then always browse while logged in. See further information at Help:Options to hide an image, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, Wikipedia:Offensive material and WP:NOTCENSORED. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! 2405:204:F284:292:AB65:4:E0

BA:CE7B, read Blocking page view, that discussion is about this matter. Sinner (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

a thank you[edit]

no questions yet but thanks for inviting me. The Klemme Community School and Klemme, Iowa pages need some updates so i will certainly give a yell if help is needed. (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I guess that you are Janemcclure but forgot to log in when posting this. The Klemme Community School article has one major problem, which is that none of its content is properly sourced. At the end of the article, it states "This information was taken from the books Klemme, Iowa 1889-1989, Heritage of Hancock County, Iowa Volume One and information collected by the author", but what the article needs is footnotes that provide references to the sources that have been used, throughout the text. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on this, and Wikipedia:Verifiability for the applicable policy. Rather than adding more unsourced material to the article as you have been doing, I suggest that a first step to improving the article would be to add proper references to the article and to remove anything that cannot be sourced. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, with all due respect, you're going to need to make it easier to make the citations with voice activated software. I am a person with disabilities and on days when I can use a keyboard manually that is MY big problem.
I don't think there should be a need for special accommodations but it could be easier. Any hints on using Dragon?> Janemcclure (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any experience of that, unfortunately, Janemcclure. It might be worth asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. One option would be to try to use the article's talk page to give details about which source supports which material, and have someone else add the citations. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Upon searching for potential sources, I have encountered another issue, Janemcclure. The text of the article is virtually identical to that of this webpage, which I believe you helped write. The problem is that it is marked as copyright. Do you happen to know if the material was published before or after it was posted in Wikipedia (i.e. is the Wikipedia article a copy of the website, or is the website a copy of the Wikipedia article)? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I wrote that, it was posted on Wikipedia first and then later posted on the website. I volunteer on that website. I don't have a problem with it.
Let me say that when I can get physical help with the citations I will do. But I will remind you and wikipedia that the earlier version of this history and other Iowa schools was randomly lifted and published and someone profited off of my volunteer work, so this is feeling a bit prescriptive.
I know copyright, I've been an editor and writer since age 12 and I am 59 now.Janemcclure (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not really a matter of whether you are OK with it, Janemcclure, but the fact that the website has republished material from Wikipedia, which is made available on a Creative Commons license, but has not attributed it correctly and has marked it as copyright. Anyway, at least the Wikipedia article isn't a copy of the website, as that would likely result in its deletion. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with the comment about the lifting. You write that you remind us, but this is the first mention of it I have seen you make - could you explain what happened? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
We were shocked to see the Klemme history combined with a few others a few years ago and sold on Amazon. We contacted wikipedia and heard no response. That was very disappointing

I will make the changes you are asking for buy having looked at many, many wikipedia stubs and incomplete histories in the past, and to have NO disability accommodations to use Dragon, it does feel prescriptive if not slightly punitive. And I use my real name, I wish you would use yoursJanemcclure (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It annoys me too when so-called publishers sell content from Wikipedia on Amazon, Janemcclure - mostly because I think they are conning buyers who do not realise they can read the content here for free. Unfortunately, as long as they attribute the material properly, it is legal for them to do so (note the disclaimer below the edit window, which states "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license"). See Wikipedia:Republishers for more on these "books". As for my name, you'll find that most editors contribute using pseudonyms. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Understood but in my professional life I've never been allowed to use anything other than my real name. I'll try to do the corrections tonight with helpJanemcclure (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are volunteers rather than employees though, Janemcclure, and as explained at WP:REALNAME, using a real name can increase the potential for harassment. I would not volunteer if I had to use my real name. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, Janemcclure. Thanks for your efforts to add references to the article. I should point out that you can't cite interviews, as you did here, unless those interviews have been published in reliable sources. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability on this. There shouldn't be anything in the article that a reader can't check by visiting a library, or looking up a source online, or in a newspaper archive, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
fine. I DO interviews. That's how I get information. i guess wikipedia isn't for journalists. I'm not a hobbyist. i work full-time as a journalist and i am published historian., i edit a newspaper. I'm getting beyond annoyed about this. I just wanted to have this information information available so maybe I should just quit wasting my time. your comments are feeling childish and punitive to me and i'd like to deal with someone elseJanemcclure (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Janemcclure, I am someone else. I am also someone who edits under his legal name -- well a shortening of it, and the full name is on my user page. There are, however, good reasons why many people choose to edit under assumed names. Cordless Larry correctly described our policy on interviews, and on sources generally. Let me try to explain why that is our policy. In some ways it follows directly from allowing anonymous editing, and allowing editing by anyone at all.
When you, as a working journalist or historian, do an interview and publish an article or even a book, citing or mentioning that it is based on an interview, the reader accepts it (if s/he does) based largely on your reputation, and on that of the newspaper, journal, or book publisher who publishes your work. But on Wikipedia, few if any editors have reputations outside Wikipedia, and most articles are not the work of a single person in any case. Indeed in a large article, it can take considerable work to find out just which editor inserted or changed a particular phrase, although it generally can be done. So the reader cannot depend on any person's or organization's reputation to support that the interview was done and that the article correctly and fairly summarizes it. Nor could another editor safely change what you wrote, in an effort to improve it, because that editor, not having access to an interview transcript, cannot be sure of just what was said, and if any change stays accurate to what the interviewee said.
Therefore, our policy is that article content must be based on verifiable, checkable, reliable sources. Unless you publish your interview elsewhere first, no one reading Wikipedia can possibly check it. That makes it not a published reliable source, and so not eligible to be cited on a Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia is significantly different from a newspaper, or a work of history, or even a traditional encyclopedia. Because it is crowd-written, to have any assurance of accuracy, it must depend on checkable sources. This an absolutely fundamental policy here. It has been in place since the start of Wikipedia, and its application has only gotten stricter over the years. (In fact I think that some editors sometimes overdo it, read the essay You don't need to cite that the sky is blue for some illustrations.) I don't see that policy being changed any time soon. Therefore you will need to learn to work within it if you are to contribute here. I hope that you will do so -- Wikipedia needs the efforts of skilled and trained writers. I am very sorry that you find this policy frustrating: I have found it so also at times. But it is essential to the model Wikipedia is built under. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
tl,dr: The policy was stated correctly above, it is because we can't depend on individual reputations for assurance of accuracy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
But if the information came from an interview and you won't let me cite it then how can I cite it? This is feeling really circularJanemcclure (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You are allowed to cite it, Janemcclure, providing that the interview has been published (say as a newspaper article, or as part of an article in a scholarly journal or book). If it has not been published, then there is no way for our readers to verify the information from it and it does not belong on Wikipedia. This is explained at WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Bit it's part of the history! the story of the school burning is part of the history. why can't we preserve that? is it OK if it is cited at the end a it is/ do we take the citation out?

I am sorry but I work full time and cannot get back to this. This entry has been on here for years and updating it has been a hassle. It feels bullying and while that's not your intent .... Janemcclure (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if you feel bullied, Janemcclure, but I am trying my best to help and to explain Wikipedia's policies to you. So is DES. I am surprised that the article content has survived unsourced for this long, and can only apologise on behalf of the editing community that no one has explained the problems with it to you before. If you are looking to preserve the history of the school but don't have published sources to verify that history, then I'm afraid you might have picked the wrong site in Wikipedia, but there are other places online that it can be posted, such as the Klemme Homestead Museum site I linked to above. In fact, if you do that then we could have a discussion about whether that site is likely to be considered a reliable source, which could then be used as a reference for the Wikipedia article. DES might have a view on that. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
excuse me, the klemme homestead site IS a reliable source. one person has taken the lead but others have worked on it and contributed to it for years and years. I've written and/or edited 12 twin Cities area history books and thousands of sourced articles of Iowa and Minnesota history and news articles. please don't suggest that the homestead museum site is not reliable.Janemcclure (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't casting aspersions, Janemcclure; I don't know enough about the site to be able to judge. It is helpful to hear a bit about how the site is run though. Sources with a reputation for editorial control, fact-checking and peer review are generally considered the most reliable (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), so if that applies here then perhaps we have a solution. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Do remember, Janemcclure, that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It does not publish history (or any other subject) it summarizes what other people have already published. It should never be the first place that anything is published. It may well be that the interview is part of history. Then you, as a historian, should see that it is published, perhaps on the klemme homestead site, perhaps in an article, perhaps in your 13th book of twin Cities area history. Once it is published in a reliable source, it can be cited here.
Note also that Wikipedia takes copyright seriously. The article must not contain significant content copied directly, or closely paraphrased, from the klemme homestead site, or any other external site or source, unless the copyright holder has released it under a free license (See Donating Copyrighted Materials for the procedure to do that.) Unless the klemme homestead site is going to release its content for anyone to reuse (including commercially) the text needs to be significantly rewritten. If you are not able or willing to do that, let us know, and someone will rewrite or else remove the infringing content. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
maybe it makes the most sense to put the complete article on the website and then have wikipedia refer back to that?Janemcclure (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Help with Dropdown Boxes[edit]

Hey there, How do I create my own dropdown box as listed below? I really like the design on "Highest Grossing Films" and how there is a drop down box, within a drop down box. I am just experimenting on my sandbox. Thank you. (I have copied part of the coding from the page mentioned) Heimatchen (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series{{ref label|Franchise sources|§|§}} (The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show".)
Rank Series Total worldwide gross No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film
Hello, Heimatchen, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that by a "dropdown" you mean a "collapsible table" (A true dropdown is a different interface technique). In this case this is implemented in Template:Highest-grossing films franchise. But see Help:Table#Collapsible tables and Help:Collapsing pages for a detailed explanation of how to muse this feature.
Personally i am not convinced that the page you copied from is a good model to imitate. I don't know what you have in mind, but I would think that a more accessible design would be possible. But there are cases where a collapsible table is a useful choice. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello DESiegel Thank you for the quick reply. I've had a look at the pages you sent and they help loads, and look eaiser to create than the Highest Grossing Film franchise template.
If anyone else has any other suggestions I am very happy to hear them. I am experimenting with differnent options for a page I am planning to improve loads, but working on my Sandbox for now. Heimatchen (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Heimatchen. I took a look at your sandbox (and took the liberty of copy-editing one section for you) and I am impressed with the ambitious project you have set for yourself. I think the draft is coming along well — in particular I am impressed with your use of reliable sources, often something new editors trip over, though I am concerned about the one source that seems to be a collection of quotations from copyrighted sources — and I think I understand why you would want to use collapsible tables for some of the information in such a long series of films. Feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further questions you may have. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 02:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello GrammarFascist. The page I am working on already exists and I used it as a template as I do not want to erase any previous editors work (even though only been 50 edits on the page in past decade!). The quote you mentioned was not my work and from already existing page.
What I want/plan/experimenting on doing is creating the collapsible table like the Highest Grossing Films, but it would once "opened" show the episodes in each film if that makes sense. I just want the Wikipedia page to not be as vanilla as it currently is, and I want to expand on it across all five films with all information I can find. I have been re-watching and making tons of noted as well that would help improve the article.
I do have a question about referencing, and it is I own the boxsets of all the movies and inside contains a bulky book with loads of details about the film(s). There is some great information in there and I wondered how could I reference this? I've checked and it does not have an author listed or anything, so how would I reference it in the future?
Also, how can I edit using actual page than by the coding? First edit I made on my page let me do it as if editing direct onto page. Might have been called visual editor? I am not sure, hope this makes sense. I can do coding way, but I like option for an easier way just so I don't have to click "preview" all the time. Heimatchen (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see, Heimatchen; I guess I should go do some copy-editing at the actual article, then. You should be able to use Visual Editor by clicking "Edit" instead of "Edit Source", but if both options currently don't show up for you, you can change that by editing your user preferences. I'm not as well-versed in using Visual Editor as using the source editor, however, and it may be that source editing would be better-suited to the kind of editing you want to do. Some of the 'behind-the-scenes' stuff at Wikipedia, such as naming references for reuse, is only accessible by editing the source. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
GrammarFascist, hey I've changed some settings in my preferences and it is working now. It will help this way and be much quicker at times, thanks. I'll have a look at what you'll edit on already existing page (when you do), but once I have finished (possibly weeks from now). Please, keep an eye on my sandbox and message me if any suggestions you have or something to improve. How do you suggest I reference the booklet that comes with my DVDs, that as I said has a lot of helpful information for article? Heimatchen (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Heimatchen, that's great news. I will add your sandbox to my watchlist, and you should add the existing article to yours, if you haven't already (to do so, click the star in the upper right-hand corner of the page, between "View History" and "More").
As regards the DVD booklet, I confess that I am unsure how to cite such a source, or whether it would be considered a reliable source suitable for being cited anyway; in any case it would be a primary source at best, so should be used with caution if at all. I think you may want to post at the Reliable sources noticeboard about that source. Good luck! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
GrammarFascist I'll post there and hope for best. Hopefully it should be fine as a source as part of the official DVD. Main information be helpful in it is to do with development and production. I just do hope my work will eventually be good enough to add, and be accepted for all future, especially because the film is barely watched anymore and not focused on much, and it does take a long dedicated time to watch all of them. Heimatchen (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
GrammarFascist I've gone blind! I looked over a booklet, and hidden on the thin spin was an authors name who wrote it all as an 'introduction' to the movie. Hopefully the other booklets for other films feature a name too, but I am currently away so cannot check straight away. But at least one does, and I think can be referenced like a normal book (or similar) this way. Heimatchen (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Heimatchen I was thinking that the booklets would fall under the same category as liner notes with an audio product (LP/cassette/CD) which don't require an author name. If the booklets have author names, that's potentially helpful, but ordinarily a book citation requires a publisher and publication year, and is expected to have an ISBN or similar number. Like I said, I'm not sure how to cite the booklets since they seem to fall into a publication grey area. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── GrammarFascist, Heimatchen liner notes can be cited as "Liner notes to..." followed by the title and other publication information for the record or CD. I would think this could be cited a "Publication notes to..." and the proper title of the work they were packaged with, followed by its publication data. if the notes have a separate author and title, this should be listed as well, but all should be OK with such a citation. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Or you could use {{Cite AV media}} considering the notes to be part of the media. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Replacing a photograph in an entry[edit]

There is an article on Wikipedia about my Grandfather.

I have been sent a better photograph by a cousin. It is from a portrait my grandfather had taken in 1944 and is being sent to anyone in the family who wants it.

What is the protocol for replacing it. I don't own the copyright, and I don't even know if it would be subject to copyright. Is is sufficient for me to seek permission from the current owner of the original to post the photo? Olwenw (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Olwenw, and welcome to the Teahouse. The photo is almost certainly still under copyright, and the copyright for a photo in most cases belongs to the person who took the photo, not the person depicted (this is especially the case with professional portraits). Unfortunately this means that the photo in question most likely is not suitable for use on Wikipedia. If there is a studio stamp on the back of the physical photo your cousin has, it might be possible to contact the copyright holder, but even if that happened, the copyright holder would have to grant anyone, anywhere, the right to use the photo for any reason — simply granting permission for it to be used on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Thank you for trying to help Wikipedia by providing a better image; I'm sorry that that probably won't be possible. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that the studio would still exist over 70 years later. How long does copyright persist for? I might have to research NZ copyright law.

Olwenw (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Olwenw: Hello! I checked at Wikimedia Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#New_Zealand (warning, that is a very long page) which says for New Zealand: Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works are protected for life plus 50 years under the Copyright Act of 1994. Sound recordings and films, broadcasts and cable programmes are protected for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which they were made or broadcast to the public, whichever is later. Works of artistic craftsmanship industrially applied are protected for 25 years after being industrially applied. So it would be public domain if the photographer died before 1967, if I'm reading that right. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I read the copyright act. Under section 21.3 copyright on a commissioned work is owned by the person commissioning it (i.e, my grandfather) and lasts 50 years after his death. So out of copyright in 2020 given that he died in 1970. The cousin who owns the original is the heir (only child of oldest son) and is happy for the picture to be released. Is that going to be okay?

I have a high quality scan and a smaller version. I was intending to use the smaller one. Olwenw (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your cousin would need to go through the steps at Donating Copyrighted Materials. Once those are completed and accepted, the image could be uploaded. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The page is blanked![edit]

Situational Note: this diff shows the edit that blanked the page--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Bad time is going! I am facing a problem with preview function. See User talk:Nazim Hussain Pak#Blanking the page. Once I was editing a thread from teahouse. When I was done, I saw preview and saved it, all the Teahouse was blanked except my thread. My comment was reverted and it has happened multiple times. Can someone explain why it happens? Should we go back after seeing preview to save our comment? Sinner (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nazim Hussain Pak, Normally, after viewing a preview, one simply clicks "save" if the edit is corect, or edits further if it is not. Using the back button is not a good idea, unless one wants to cancel the edit totally. I have no idea what you have been doing, it appears as if you had edited further unintendedly. Perhaps your edit was highlighted and so pressing some key completely replaced the section. That is only a guess. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
DESiegel, the guess is not right. I started editing that thread, and clicked on preview, it was shown, then I clicked save and whole Teahouse was blanked, except that thread. Sinner (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
By any chance, were you copying and pasting text that you had composed off-wiki? I do this occasionally, and I seem to recall that I once inadvertently clicked the edit tab at the top instead of the edit section tab. Then, when I highlighted what I thought was the section's text and pasted in my replacement, I replaced the entire page contents instead of just the one thread. There are other innocent ways that things like this can happen. If it was something like that, don't worry about it; such edits can always be undone. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Rivertorch, it was not about copy-paste as this was a simple discussion where I maintained neutrality is difficult at sometimes. I was editing single section, not whole teahouse, and my thread was intact after saving, but whole teahouse except only my thread was completely blanked. Sinner (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That's weird. If it keeps happening, you may want to drop a note at the Village Pump technical page. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Updating Living Artist Page - at his request[edit]

I am new to editing wiki and have been asked by a living artist to update his page.

How best to expedite this process, and is there a direct approval I can get from Admin to do this? The artist is available to confirm his intent to update.

Please advise.


HansGrenade (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you don't need admin approval to begin editing, just go to the page and press the edit button, may I suggest doing this to acquaint you with the basics. EvilxFish (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Though you don't need admin approval, what you do need is references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to support your changes. We are not interested in what the subject says about himself, but only in what independent reliable sources have published about him. If you are updating at his request, please read about conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, HansGrenade. I'm afraid that your artist friend is making the very common mistake of supposing that he has any kind of responsibility, ownership, or control, over Wikipedia's article about him. He does not, either in person or through his friends. He, and you, are welcome to suggest improvements to the article, by posting them on the article's Talk page, but it is a consensus of uninvolved editors who decide what goes into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks David B.

HansGrenade (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Adventure compatibility[edit]

There's some sort of compatibility problem with The Wikipedia Adventure. I'm on a mobile device and I can't get any of the missions to work. Is The Wikipedia Adventure not compatible with mobile devices? I need an answer when somebody is available. Cheers. When life gives you lemons... 17:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Axcii and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry it has taken so long for you to get a response.
If you look at the bottom of the Wikipedia Adventure talk page, you'll see the line
* Unfortunately, this game is not supported on tablets and smaller mobile devices.
which is indeed unfortunate, as more and more users are using Wikipedia from these sorts of devices. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, well that's a shame. Guess I'll have to resort to reading a few articles instead. Cheers. When life gives you lemons.... 11:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The removal of statements consisting only of originalo research[edit]

My article on literary space has the adnotation: 'Statements consisting only of original research should be removed' ( - which statements from my article may be considered as those mentioned above? Morie Artch (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Morie Artch, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't know, ask the person who added the tag, Northamerica1000, on their or the article's talk page (though in this case, I've notified them of the discussion we are having here). That person should be able to pinpoint the problematic bits, and maybe even tag them individually with {{Original research inline}}. You are right in thinking that sometimes the extent of the problem is not evident if the whole article is tagged for it. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for your reply:)

Morie Artch (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

real names[edit]

I do wish editors would use their real names. that is allJanemcclure (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

As Cordless Larry explained above, Janemcclure, there are good reasons why Wikipedia does not require, and indeed discourages, the use of real names as usernames. I am also a person with disabilities, and as I have been the target of a stalker in the past, I don't wish to make the job of doxxing me any easier on miscreants than necessary. I hope that you have never attracted the attention of such a person, but let me assure you that it is unpleasant to be so targeted.
Another issue to consider is that many people have the same name. I have a cousin named Michael Jackson — no relation to Michael Jackson, of course, but how would Wikipedia handle multiple people who share the same real name? I recently read an article about a woman from New York City who discovered (because they were being held liable for each other's traffic and parking tickets) that there was another woman in NYC who shared not only her name but her exact birthdate... so just adding birth years to the username wouldn't help, and any more detail would open users up to the possibility of identity theft. Also remember that Wikipedia is edited by people from all over the world, not just the United States, so the same-name problem is even larger than Americans typically face with one another.
Finally, authors go by pen names all the time. I don't see how Wikipedia usernames are substantially different. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
well, I work in a wolrd where we are upfront about who we are. that is allJanemcclure (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
WP and many places on the internet are not necessarily like that, and there can be good reasons, see for example Rémi Mathis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Twice in the past 24 hours I have been threatened with legal action by another editor. While they would be laughed out of court if they tried, I would nonetheless prefer not to reveal my real name to editors such as that. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I am in need of serious help...A User is harrassing me...[edit]

Hi and Good Evening LukeSurl or, to whom it may concern,

I am writing this message to ask/say that, I am currently being encountered with a situation. The situation that I'm having at the moment is involved with a User. If you would like to know the name of this User, he goes by the Username, Ken. What I believe the User is doing to me is, that he is harassing/being rude to me just because of Article being edited. If there is in any that you can possibly assist me with this..I would thankfully and happily appreciate it very much.

Sincerely, Sarah 00:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, One of our strong principles here on Wikipedia is that you should assume good faith of other editors, unless you have solid evidence to the contrary. You seem to be referring to Beyond My Ken, who is a highly experienced editor for over seven years. Can you provide evidence of harassment or rudeness? Where did this occur? If an experienced editor gives you advice, please consider what they say carefully, and assume they are trying to be helpful. You are welcome to edit any article as is anyone else. However, your edits must comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
There is, of course, no "harassment". People interested can view User, where I have been trying to get the editor to understand our policies and guidelines, such as WP:OWN, WP:Edit warring, MOS:HEAD, MOS:PUNCTFOOT and others, but she seems to be more interested in digging in her heels then she is in learning. (She's also extraordinarily quick for a newbie in deleting what's on her talk page, so some of my comments have to be searched out in the history.)
For examples, please see her editing on Mohegan Lake, New York, where she's reverted my and another editor's correction of a heading from "Historic Places" to "Historic places" a number of times, despite my clear explanation, in edit summaries and on her talk page, that headings are written in sentence case, with only the first word capitalized (except in the case of a poper noun). Or her several reversions to reinsert a blank space between a period and a reference, despite my pointing her to the controlling guideline. Or, just now, her removal of the Commons category box which linked to the category I just created for "Mohegan Lake" on Commons. She's bolded things that should be unbolded (such as the article title after the first use), and unbolded things that should be bolded (such as alternate names for the subject of the article), all after having what is correct explained to her.
Nothing that she's done, in particular, is too terrible, but the failure to be open to understanding what is right and what isn't is egregious, and, if it goes on for too long, will ultimately raise questions of competency. There's also the matter of her referring to my "manipulative prick behavior" in a comment on my talk page, where she also warns "Don't test me", [2] which is awfully WP:BATTLEGROUNDy for a new editor who knows relatively little about the policies, guidelines and procedures of Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict), I have reviewed your interactions with Beyond My Ken, as well as your edits to Mohegan Lake, New York, and those of BMK (as that editor is often known). I can see that there was some friction between you, and BMK did get a bit testy. BMK is, in fact, a very experienced and well-respected editor here. I have interacted with BMK from time to time over a period of years. I do not see any harassment here. There was some asperity, possibly amounting to rudeness, on BMK's part (for exampkle in this edit, but there was significantly stronger rudeness on your part towards BMK in this edit.
I did see BNK attempting to inform you about various formatting standards and other practices here on Wikipedia. BMK seems to me to have been correct in all the instances I checked, which does not surprise me. Wikipedia is a very complex endeavor, with many policies, guidelines, practices and customs. No one gets all of these correct at the start, but many of them are there for good reasons, and none can be changed by simply ignoring them. If you want to succeed here (and I hope you will, we need more interested editors) you will need to pay attention to those attempting, in good faith and with good will, to inform you about various customs and practices.
Cullen328 is absolutely correct, above, about the need to assume good faith when interacting with other editors. I will add that the need to remain civil with other editors, and refrain from personal attacks. I have been active here quite a while, and I make a point of trying to be helpful to others, as do many who regularly post here at the Teahouse. I hope you will be able to accept help and advice, even when it does not agree with your first desires here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
My apology for any perceived rudeness: I do have the propensity for calling a spade a spade -- however, DES, the edit you linked above was not addressed to it was addressed to the IP editor who used a similar tone to me in the comment I was responding to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies to you, Beyond My Ken, for mis-identifing the exchange. In general I have found you quite courteous, which is more than I can say of a few admins I can think of. I hope that will attend to well-meant advice, and become a valued contributor here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem, and I share your wishes. (BTW, you know I'm not an admin, right?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes i do. My intent was to suggest that you are more polite than some admins, who are supposed to be held to a higher standard in such matters. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, got it... and thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to be a polite administrator, but I have only been an administrator for a few weeks. I hope that I do not grow jaded. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
... 11:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Alright...So just because I'm the only female in this situation, your just going to give HIM the good hand and say that it is MY fault?? 11:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has mentioned your gender in this discussion, since it's not relevant. Please read the comments, read up on the guidelines and policies, and assume good faith on the part of other editors. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 12:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC) I didn't mention your gender because a) it wasn't relevant, and b) i didn't know it. Yes, your user name suggests that you are female, but it is hardly unknown for a male to edit under an apparently female name. Nor did I know BMK's gender which is why I wrote "s/he" when referring to that editor.
It is true that I am male (my picture on my user page pretty much makes that clear). I can't change that. But I have worked with quite a few female editors, and on articles about female subjects. I have participated in "Feminism in Art" editatons. Just last week I was at a textiles Editathon, where almost all the other editors were female. I rescued from deletion, and improved enough for a main page mention the articles Isabel Ashdown and Great American Lesbian Art Show, and have worked on many other articles about various women. In my actual job, several of my co-workers are and my previous boss was female.
I do assure you that I would have give exactly the same advice and comments if your user name had been "John Jones", and BMK's had been "Susan Smith". In fact I have provided similar advice in the past to new users whose usernames suggested that they were male. Gender had and has nothing to do with it. Nor did fault, really. It was and is a matter of lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy and procedure, which is eminently correctable by learning. Please accept that no one here was trying to insult or exclude you, merely explain to you how Wikipedia works for all editors, male, female, or undisclosed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
For better or worse, I'm a guy. Incidentally -- and this is primarily for to know -- if you use the template "{{gender|USERNAME}}", the system will return the user's preferred gender pronoun, if it has been set in their preferences. Thus "{{gender|Beyond My Ken}}" will return: he. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


I have a draft article Draft:Professor Valentine Joseph and would appreciate it if someone could quickly look over it and give me their opinion on it (it has been waiting for review for over 3 weeks) before it is reviewed. Thanks,

Heptanitrocubane (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Anish Mariathasan: the lead of the draft gives no indication of why he might be notable. Maproom (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Maproom. I have added a lead, is this adequate? Heptanitrocubane (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Anish Mariathasan: you have added a lead which explains that he is notable as a teacher; that's certainly an improvement. The article also mentions and cites some published research papers by him. But I'm not convinced that the article establishes him as notable. References 1 and 2 do not mention him. References 3, 4 and 10 are obituaries, which say positive things about him (as obituaries generally do); a reviewing editor may take them as enough to estavlish notability, but I wouldn't rely on it. References 5-9 are all to papers by him, and so do nothing to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maproom. I have got other links which I think establish him as notable under External links of the article, do they help show the subject as notable? Heptanitrocubane (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think they would help, if you cited them as references. Maproom (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Need help making the final touches on a draft page before I submit it[edit]

It's a basic new page, but I need help with a table and picture thumbnail, please. It's out of my ability.

TheControlled (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

TheControlled: I've made the picture smaller. When using a reference template in English Wikipedia, you need to use English parameter names, e.g. "title" not "titre". Maproom (talk) 09:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Use of Mahatma for Mr. Gandhi in wikipedia[edit]

Mahatma is a popular title for Gandhi in India. This title means great soul, a praising word away for neutrality and writing it seems someone is favouring the subject but this word is used in wikipedia multiple times. Praising is not allowed in wikipedia, should this word exist in proper wikipedian content? Sinner (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: Mahatma Gandhi is his common name in English. We don't use it to praise him but because we want English speaking readers to know who we are talking about. I know him as Mahatma Gandhi and had no idea what the name meant. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks PrimeHunter, the confusion has come to end. Sinner (talk)
Exactly. WP:COMMONNAME can have that effect, not often, but it happens. U Thant is another example. The purpose is simply to make it more likely that the english-speaking reader understands who the article is talking about, and Mohandas Gandhi is less well known. If you look at the Mahatma Gandhi article, you'll see that almost all of the Mahatmas appears in quotes and things named after him, and removing those Mahatmas would obviously be wrong. Similarly, if there´s a quote in a WP-article that says "Muhammad, peace be upon him", we would not remove the "peace be upon him". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, would that what you say about peace be upon him was allowed here but please read WP:PBUH#Muhammad. Sinner (talk) 10:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång was referring to wording within a quote. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, look at the first sentence at WP:PBUH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Femto thanks for all of you, Sinner (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

And one thing more, should Mahatma be written when Mahatma Gandhi has been mentioned before and reader understands here Gandhi means Mahatma Gandhi? For example "Mahatma Gandhi is founding father of India. On 30 March 1948, Gandhi was shot died by ..." in second sentence, it is clear Gandhi means Mahatma Gandhi. Sinner (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In general yes, at least that is my thinking. One exception can be if other Gandhis are mentioned in the same section, then you might need the whole name for clarity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Meaning I agree with your example, Mahatma first, then just Gandhi. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


How to Put New Category like ""Personal Life"" on Biography Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premisthebest (talkcontribs) 11:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Premisthebest, welcome to the Teahouse. "Personal Life" doesn't sound like what we call a category so I guess you want a section header. I see you do mobile editing. It looks like == Personal life == in source mode and can be inserted at the top if you edit the following section, or at the bottom if you edit the previous section. See more at Help:Section. In the desktop version it is possible to edit the whole page at once by clicking an edit tab at top. Then you can insert section headers anywhere. At the bottom of mobile pages you may have a "Desktop" link. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter, original category name is Category:Personal life. Sinner (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a Category:Personal life but it's not something I would expect on a biography page. It's a common section header. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank You. Yes I was talking about section Header. Thank You Very Much Premisthebest (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking articles[edit]

Please consider creating a wikipedia principle nutshell page Wikipedia:Blocking articles. This page will describe what community thinks about blocking articles, why articles should not be blocked and what those users should do who want to block articles. Users who want to block some articles will be suggested to read this page. This can save us from long discussions like this. Sinner (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We already have WP:NOTCENSORED. There is really no need for any other page on this topic, and i would oppose the creation of one. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe that creating another page on the topic would only lead to the spiral that we witnessed above, which is not conducive to the project as a whole. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing prevents you from creating a Wikipedia:Essay on that subject, (WP:SEENOEVIL?), but like everything else around here, it can be changed or even deleted by other editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It is just a weak proposal. Your decision is welcomed. Sinner (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by blocking articles, anyway? If you mean deleting articles that either do not meet notability or are promotional, then we do need to delete them, or to decline them if they are in AFD. What do you mean? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
See #Blocking page view, Robert McClenon. The discussion here is a dead horse. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I have examined the horse. I propose the use of hyenas, jackals, and vultures. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The community is generally about openness, inclusion and not censoring anything considered encyclopedic and is in large part actively hostile to any proposals that lean that way; we do not usually make rules or have community pages to address outliers ("exceptions/the atypical make bad rules"). An essay is possible, though I wouldn't be very surprised if it eventually ended up at MfD. A "wikipedia principle nutshell page" sounds like something that wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by the community, if the drift of past discussion on this is what is in mind. I do think you should drop the stick.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I have already said that discussion is going to yield no result but I have not withdrawn from discussing more. I can't throw the stick because that discussion is still being discussed, but, in fact. I shall make no statement there if all others withdraw from discussing more. Sinner (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Why not use of a lion? Robert McClenon. Here blocking means manually hiding an article for one user without affecting others. Sinner (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
In the section up above you give as an example the article Brothel as an article you would rather not encounter, but how would you stumble upon it, even if it were not blocked from your account? I'm not sure how to understand your concerns. Is it simply the fact that such articles can potentially be accessed or is it the real possibility that one may encounter them? Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
A lion can eat a dead horse, but a lion is just as likely to decide to eat you. Blocking specific users from viewing specific articles is something that has never been done. That horse won't carry you anywhere. We don't need a page saying that we don't block articles, because it is never anything that I had heard of. That horse didn't die from overwork. That horse was already dead when it was brought here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please review my draft[edit]

I need feedback to refine this draft so it could pass the review.

If it pass the criteria of review then do I have to move it in the Main (article) namespace? Thank you in advance!

Yuritan0308 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Yuritan0308, and welcome to the Teahouse. In its present form your draft does not seem to cite sufficient sources to establish Jane Chun's notability. Establishing notability is the first hurdle for any new article. Because almost her entire career was in the now-disbanded The Ark group, it is likely that all coverage of her will be passing mentions, not articles or even parts of articles devoted predominantly to her. It looks possible that The Ark might pass the notability test; perhaps you should work on an article on them first (but note that the draft title should be Draft:The Ark (Korean band) since there is already an article about The Ark (Swedish band) and The Ark is a disambiguation page). You are welcome to let the Jane Chun draft languish unsubmitted for some time, so that you can edit it to include sources establishing her notability should they become available, but note that the time limit for drafts is generally considered to be six months from when the draft was last edited to when it can be deleted as abandoned. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree. I looked at the sources, and they seem to be about the band, and not mention very much about her. Take a look at WP:GNG, that´s your "problem" so to speak, and it may be that there aren´t the sources to satisfy it at this time. And if that´s so, don´t waste time on it. Take a look at this deletion discussion, it might be helpful: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sowon (singer). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


I have created a Celebrity knowledge Graph Page Jogendra Tiwari that is Real Celebrity Page. But User:Bonadea trying to delete that Page. I want to contribute to Wikipedia and make Wikipedia know more and more people but User:Bonadea don't want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakSally (talkcontribs) 17:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello FreakSally, and welcome to the Teahouse. In short, based on the sources in the article, Bonadea is right. Imdb is not a good enough source to base a WP-article on, you need more and better than that. Take the time to read Wikipedia:Your first article. Then decide if this is a topic that is likely to "stick" on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Now I added more References and Links for proofs to That page is it okey.FreakSally (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
N:ow I added more References , Links for Proof to that page is it OK?FreakSally (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The first reference added seems to be an IMDB-like site, and thus not a reliable source for use in establishing notability of Jogendra Tiwari. The Times of India is a reliable source, but what you linked to isn't an article; it's barely a blurb, and thus he received only a passing mention. What you want is at least three reliable published sources which each talk about Jogendra Tiwari in some detail. If such sources don't exist, then he is simply not eligible for a Wikipedia article yet. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you call it a "Celebrity knowledge Graph Page". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has biography articles. If you are trying to get a Google Knowledge Graph then you may want to see Template:HD/GKG. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Please understand, FreakSally, that Wikipedia doesn't care what you think or know, or what I think or know, or what random people who edit wikis, blogs, or iMDB think or know. It is only interested in what reliable sources (that is, sources with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking) have published about a subject. And if reliable sources have not so far published much about a subject, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about that subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand!! I will found some more links like "The Times of India" and then recreate that page FreakSally (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User Page[edit]

Are there any suggestions for how to create one's own User: page? I know how to access it, but have seen so many different sorts I am not clear if there are best practices or trends for what should be there or what templates are available for them. Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello FULBERT! This is a fuzzy area, but perhaps start at WP:UPYES and take it from there. If you see a userpage with something you like but can´t figure out how to do, you can always ask the user in question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I suppose I have seen so many options I like I cannot figure out how to do that! Perhaps it is just the various boxes that I struggle with. Will try and come back here if I am stuck. FULBERT (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello FULBERT, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is nothing specific that you ought to put on your user page. Many people list articles that hey have worked on, or plan to work on. Many people list interests and skills. Many people give some brief biographical info, possibly including a picture, although many don't want their picture associated with their Wikipedia account. Many list the languages that they have some degree of skill in. Many include quotes or mottos. Many include pictures that they like. Some include philosophical statements, or opinions about Wikipedia issues. User pages vary quite a bit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, DESiegel. I find the real name or not real name an interesting throwback, but as some of the areas I edit are a bit frought with challenge, I understand. Are there templates that are used to structure the info boxes some people have on the right of their User: pages? FULBERT (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
FULBERT, those are generally known as "userboxes" and there are many templates for generating them. See Wikipedia:Userboxes for discussion of what sorts are appropriate, how to build your own, and links to many existing boxes that you may use if you choose. userboxes are never required, and i do not have any on my own user page. I do have quite a lot of other stuff. Feel free to look at my page and see if you wan tto copy any of the stuff there. There are many different styles of user page, as there are many views about the real name issue. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again, DESiegel. So much to learn!! FULBERT (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cassantec AG[edit]

I reviewed Draft:Cassantec AG and declined it as having notability issues and tone issues. Its author, User:Daninguyen0, says that they have made the necessary additions and changes. Since I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and in particular do not usually follow a draft through the approval process if its author is a one-article editor, will other experienced editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon. I've done the review. I've started testing an approach of asking for references (for some kinds of articles) and then giving feedback. I'm hopeful that it will either help the user find the right kind of references or quickly demonstrate that the topic isn't notable. See Draft:Brian K. Stafford. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I just removed some copyvos. I looked at the two sources added since the last review. Sometimes it's not so straightforward to see whether you're looking at a regurgitated press release. These are in that boat. They read to me like blurbs from the company–not independent, reliable secondary sources, but I'm not 100% sure. Though we do not require footnoted sources (though we should) the lack of them does make assessment more difficult. Reads pretty spammy as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I asked whether they had a connection to the company, and have not gotten an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It can be very hard to an editor who has a conflict of interest to remove the promotional tone, even though they think that they are being neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Anachronisms in Entertainment Media Page[edit]

Recently reading a Wikipedia page, which verbosely describes a contemporary motion picture from around six years ago, I discovered on the talk page this:

... has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. ....

While viewing the actual film, which depicted a story which takes place at a time before satellite technology, television, and the discovery of DNA, I was put amiss by certain anachronisms in the plot. So, my question is, since the Wikipedia description of the film is quite verbose, it seems slanted to have not mentioned any mistakes such as the ones I pointed out. In fact, I question if it's but inordinately positive. Since the talk page blatantly requested (to anyone and everyone) that the page be improved, what would be my next step? Adding an entire section of bloopers and anachronisms might be objectionable to those who've been meticulously constructing an elaborate page such as this one (over 6000 words). In a very positive light. Can a "good article" have a section that might deplore the subject material? What would be my next step? Do I "reassess" in any way due to this? B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@2422889236x: What article is it? You can click "Talk" at the top of the page and on the page there should be a section titled "GA review" and you can comment there. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 00:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
In general, 2422889236x, one may describe the plot of a fictional work in a Wikipedia article with no more source than the work itself. But to analyze the work, including in all but the most obvious cases to say what elements are anachronisms, requires a cited secondary source. This principle is not as invariably enforced as in my view it should be, however. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh and a "good article", 2422889236x, is one that describes its subject well. It need not praise the subject. We could have a "Good article" about Hitler or Stalin, say, or about Plague, without implying that any of those are good things. A good article about a rotten but famous film might point out in great detail its flaws. A good article about even a generally respected film might point out its flaws, or what reliable sources have said are its flaws. Mahler on the Couch, which i worked on a bit, has not reached GA, but was listed on the main page via the DYK feature. Note its "Critical reception" and "Historical accuracy" sections. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Very well. Thanks to you both for responding with alacrity. B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
2422889236x, About "errors" in movies and such, there´s good guidance at WP:FILMHIST. Leave the rest to imdb and the fan-wikis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, very good. Going by what you have so clearly outlined, it seems pretty obvious to me that this particular article is entirely too verbose. If so, then what constitutes the justification for it to serve as an example of a "good article?" Wouldn't a prerequisite of fulfilling the qualities of a "good article" also require that the article be succinct rather than being copiously verbose (over 6000 words)? B'H. MichaelAngelo7777 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I´m a big fan of succinct, but context matters (haven´t seen the article), and the size of an article will depend on the volume of (hopefully reasonably good) sources that can be used, and if the article becomes to big, a WP-solution is to split of text into sub-articles. The grey area here can be pretty big, but see WP:TOOBIG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, 2422889236x, could you please tell us what article this is about? The only film article you seem to have commented on recently is Snowpiercer, but that isn't marked as a "good article". We can't really comment sensibly on an abstract query, not knowing which article it is in reference to. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Table border fades away[edit]

I have seen some tables where I would expect a border to appear, but it doesn't. For example, at Bhutan national football team#Competitive record, the FIFA World Cup table has a border at the bottom edge that stops about halfway along the bottom.

Below that, in the AFC Asian Cup table, the left-hand "Did not enter" box for 2007 to 2015 is missing its right border, and the bottom edge of the table is missing a slight portion of the border at the bottom of the gray "column" separating the main cup record from the qualification record.

Then again below that, in the AFC Challenge Cup table, the border at the bottom edge again stops about halfway along the bottom.

Can anyone explain why these gaps in the borders are appearing? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that more columns were included in defining the column header cells than were included in the actual row content in the columns. Similarly in one of the tables one row had more columns than the other rows. Hopefully it looks better now after these edits? --David Biddulph (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I understand what was causing the problem now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Registerd users are only allowed?[edit]

Hi! i created an registered account a days ago but when i try to edit a particular page the only thing i saw was view source and i cannot edit this particular page due to only registered users are allowed, but im already created a registered account can you explain why? thanks! Parashurama007 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Parashurama007, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page in question is probably semi-protected, meaning only autoconfirmed users can edit it. To become autoconfirmed, a user must have been registered for at least four days and made at least ten edits. It looks like you have made enough edits, but you're one day shy of having your status upgraded.
If you feel the edit you wish to make can't wait that long, you can try posting on the talk page for the article asking someone else to make it for you... but there's no guarantee anyone would get around to it before you'd be able to make the edit yourself. Thanks for your interest in editing Wikipedia! —GrammarFascist contribstalk 02:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok thanks! now i understand the situation well. Palasulam-angtalk 02:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, Palasulam-ang, but in the future please be sure to sign with four tildes, not three. Also, you should only mark things like correcting a spelling error or adding an intralink as minor edits, not conversations here at the Teahouse or on other talk pages. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 03:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Why cant I create my advertising company page?[edit]

Hi, why are you always deleting my page, we have good notation and good sources for our company and when i created the wikipedia page it is immediately deleting by you, dont send me the rules and regulation. Please explain me what went wrong in my page, if you explain me clearly I can overcome that fault and I will be happy. Please help me by explaining clearlyKokkulashiva (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kokkulashiva, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question here is the only edit in your contributions list, and you have only one deletion warning on your user talk page, so I don't know how many times you have tried to submit an article. The notice I can see indicates that you failed to establish the notability of your company, and that the tone of your submission was not encyclopedic. (Click on the bolded words to read Wikipedia's policies about those terms.)
If you have at least three reliable sources independent of your company which discuss your company at some length (not just a passing mention), then you can try working on building an appropriate article in your user sandbox (click here to begin working in your sandbox). If you work on it there, it shouldn't be deleted before you have a chance to correct problems with it, and Teahouse volunteers like me can view the content you write so we can offer more detailed advice. However, if you do not have enough independent reliable sources to establish the notability of your company, there is no point in trying to create an article about your company. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 07:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Kokkulashiva. GrammarFascist is absolutely right, but the short answer is because advertising of any kind is not permitted on Wikipedia.--ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

how to create an article and protect the article?[edit]

Hello Wikipedia team,

I am helping my organization to create an article to introduce Para Taekwondo. There are some sections, such as history and rules will be very similar to the information that we have on the official website and the rules and regulations of World Taekwondo. I would like to know if it allows using the same sentences with adding the citations behind.

In addition, I would like to ask regarding the protection policy. How to apply for the full protection when the article is done.

Thank you in advance.

World Para TaekwondoWorld Para Taekwondo (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @World Para Taekwondo:, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are probably some common misconceptions about how Wikipedia operates as encyclopedic project: Generally editing with a so-called "conflict of interest" (as employee or paid editor) is strongly discouraged (see WP:COI for more info). Also, articles are a collaborative effort of all interested volunteers - locking or "protecting" an article in your (or anyone's) preferred version will not be possible. All editors will be free to add more sourced content or to improve existing content. Instead of going into further elaborate detail, I recommend you read through Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, which should clarify most of these possible misconceptions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask here anytime. GermanJoe (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, World Para Taekwondo. In addition to what GermanJoe mentioned above, you may not copy sentences from your website or any other source unless the source has been released under a free license which allows anyone to reuse or modify the content without fee, even for commercial purposes. Wikipedia articles should generaly be written in original words not copied from anywhere. Limited quotations may be used, provided that they are marked as such, are attributed to their source, and that the source is cited inline.
Also, Wikipedia accounbts should be only for individuals, not groups. your username, "World Para Taekwondo" implies that this account represents a group. It should be changed. I will leave more details about this on your user talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

page it seems not satisfying Wikipedia's guidelines[edit]

Hi, I have created a page for an IPS officer named Manoj Abraham, but later I have received a message from Wiki stating "Hello, Trishna2017, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Manoj Abraham, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained" , I need someone could help me making this edits perfect

Trishna2017 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Trishna2017: in the case of Manoj Abraham, I don't think the problem is with the article itself, it's with the choice of subject. It seems that Mr. Abraham simply isn't notable, in the way that word is used here. Even a "perfect" article about him would be rejected. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Maproom (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Trishna2017. The short answer is that Wikipedia articles, especially articles on living people, must be 100% based on reliable published sources, and mostly based on sources unconnected with the subject. In an article on a living person, every single factual claim should be cited to a published source. If you can find such sources, you can start writing the article - forget everything you know about the subject, and write from what the sources say. If it happens that there is not enough independent published material about the subject, then it will be impossible to create an acceptable article, however it is written: the Wikipedia jargon for this case is that the subject is not then notable. Please read Your first article and biographies of living persons. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Trishna2017, Hello and welcome to Teahouse. I looked your article, it is a biography article but does not cite reliable sources that prove your content right, we say a topic is not notable if it has no reliable sources. Articles topics must be notable, please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Biography of a living person to get idea about notable objects and instructions to create an article about a person. You should cite at least three sources from different reliable sources to prove notability of your article. Please ask any other question! Sinner (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I have done some cleanup on the article. There were a lot of external references in the body which should have been references, and so I have turned those into references. I also Googled and found additional sources. It seems this person may be notable. The article needs further work, though. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I am a new comer here, and I am trying to follow Wiki guidelines, but its all news to me, I have seen photographs of people in their Wiki profile. Any chance if Wiki editors could do the same!? If we search in web we will get photos of the person

Trishna2017 (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No Trishna2017, please don't do that, as almost every image you will find on the internet will be copyright, and so cannot be used in our articles. - Arjayay (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok Arjayay, I will not do, but in which way how we could select a photo, should we request photo directly from the person ? Trishna2017 (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Trishna2017, you could do that, but they would have to upload it themselves, or complete the copyright release, which is slightly complicated. However, I wouldn't worry about the picture, until you are sure the article will not be deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Uploading images that are not mine, but I have permission to use[edit]

Hello. I am writing a wikipedia page about the rugby club I play for. I would like to upload the logo, some older imagesm and photos from the club. I have the image files but don't know the original owner of the images. I have full permission from the club to use the images on the wikipedia page. How do I upload the image to use on the page I am creating?EvoRugby (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You need to know who owns the copyright of the images as this will affect if, how, and where you upload them. Also important is the country you are in as this affects copyright issues as well. Also, it looks like your username is breaking the username policy. - X201 (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, EvoRugby. Normally, permission to use an image is not sufficient: it has to be licensed by the copyright holder in such a way that anybody may reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not. However, logos are usually usable under the WP:non-free content criteria, and once the conditions are met, can be uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free (and permission is irrelevant in that case). See WP:LOGO.
On a separate point, you need to read about conflict of interest. As a player for the club you are not forbidden from writing about it, but you need to be very circumspect. It is certainly preferable for you to create the article as a draft and submit it for review (but note that in that case you may not use a non-free image until it has been accepted as an article and moved to article space). Please read your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User: Pages across Wikimedia[edit]

I asked yesterday about how to organize my own User: page, though did not ask about the various User: pages across the larger wiki environments. Is there a way I can link my User: page on Wikipedia and the one I have on Wikimedia or Commons? Thanks! FULBERT (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi FULBERT. You can create a global user page. See Wikipedia:Global user page. You cannot redirect your user page to another wiki but you can create the user page with a link to the other wiki. [[:w:en:User:FULBERT]] will make a wikilink to your English Wikipedia userpage from other wikis. [[:commons:User:FULBERT]] and [[:meta:User:FULBERT]] will link to your pages there. You can also just save the url as an external link. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks PrimeHunter! I just added -- The page for FULBERT is here. -- to those pages. Seems to work now. FULBERT (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@FULBERT: meta:User:FULBERT is your global user page and automatically displayed at wikis where your account exists but you don't have a local user page. Your account is automatically created if you visit a Wikimedia wiki while you are logged in. Special:CentralAuth/FULBERT shows all your accounts, for example es:Usuario:FULBERT which displays the global user page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
PrimeHunter The first account I created was on Wikipedia, and that is where my page and Talk page have some content. I created a link on the Meta page to it, though wonder why I can't have my Wikipedia User: page pushed out to that one? Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
meta: is "the global community site for the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement in general." User pages at specific wikis like User:FULBERT are usually oriented towards that wiki, e.g. mentioning WikiProjects which only exist there. It's currently only possible to make a global user page at meta. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
PrimeHunter Thanks; starting to understand! Appreciate your help in learning about this. FULBERT (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Help on website[edit]

I am an unpaid volunteer at the Afghanistan and Central Asian Association (ACAA).

My organisation has a wikipedia page- would it be okay to link the website to the page ( I'm worried that this could represent a conflict of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiklasMcKerrell (talkcontribs) 14:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, and thanks for being mindful of WP:COI. The one in the infobox didn´t work, so I changed it to the one you suggested here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
And a ping: NiklasMcKerrell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Trying to upload a photo for a new wikipedia page[edit]

Keep getting an error that the image is not mine. Not sure what I am doing wrong. Mkovatch (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mkovatch, welcome to the Teahouse! I'd like to know a bit more information before I answer. What image are you trying to upload, and to what page? Also, what exactly does the error message say when you try to upload it? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to create a new wiki page for an artist friend of mine. I am working in my sandbox trying to get his page to display correctly, but cannot get any images to display. I used the "embedded file" tool. The image displayed fine and I checked the box to verify that it was my image. It sent me to another popup to enter more information and when I click "submit", I got the following error:

We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Mkovatch (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Mkovatch. It seems like you were running afoul of an uploading filter on Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps it would work better if you went to Wikimedia Commons directly, here? Give that upload wizard a try instead of the method you were using. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mkovatch. A few details about the image. The Wikimedia Commons is only for free images (images either in the public domain or bearing a suitably-free copyright license). It is possible to upload and use non-free images under a claim of fair use, but they must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria, and such images are uploaded to Wikipedia, never to the Commons.

As per the message you received, generally people only own the copyright to photographs they took themselves, such that they have authority to release the copyright, but that is not the case with photographs of already copyrighted image, which always applies to photographs of non-free artwork. If you take a photograph of such an already copyrighted work, it sometimes does (and sometimes does not) create a derivative work – a secondary copyright in the photographer – in which case that person still has no authority whatever to release the copyright of the artwork.

Given that your attempted name for the image was "File:David Henry, Bronze of Spartacus", and you described it in your user sandbox draft as a "Bronze of Spartacus", and further that the article is about a contemporary living artist who likely owns the copyright to that bronze, it is unlikely the image you are attempting to use is in the public domain or suitably free. Unless it is, even if you took the photograph yourself, at best the photograph is a derivative work that you cannot release.

If that is the case, fair use is the only potential route, and the upload would never take place at the Commons. Whether it might meet the non-free content criteria is a separate analysis. Please be aware, though, that even if it might qualify for fair use, it cannot be uploaded and used in your sandbox. Fair use images can only be used in the article mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How can I add a non-free Scout logo to the List of William T. Hornaday Award Gold Medal recipients page[edit]

The pre-existing William T. Hornaday Awards page includes an approved image of all of the awards, combined into a bit of a collage, in a single file. I would love to include a derivative of that file... simply by cropping out the image that matches the content of the "List of... recipients" page and then posting the thumb on the page. The viewer is intended to see the image of the medal while reading through the list of recipients.

If the original content o the image is controlled, I understand that it cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia... which (unless I am more confused) means that I have no place to list the {{Non-free Scout logo|BPSA}} tag.

How do I upload the image straight to the Wikipedia article and properly include the tag that is necessary? Can I do that if the image is clearly a small sample from a previously approved image?B93 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, B93. Non-free images must be uploaded to Wikipedia, not to Commons. But their use must meet all the criteria in the WP:non-free content criteria, and I'm dubious that this use will meet all of these. I may be wrong, though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for your response, ColinFine. ...But I am still confused. Does this mean, then, that the list cannot have a visual image to show as reference for the reader as they read the list? I guess I am suggesting that you really haven't answered the question, sufficiently. An earlier page - the main page for the history of the subject (which was written by someone else), already has an image attached to it. Again, I am questioning if a cropped version of the same, previously posted image (from another contributor) is appropriate. It would be a derivative work from a previously permitted image. If that is not acceptable, then is the original image authorized in the other article?

I am seeking the "how to" instruction for doing it right. I don't want to violate copyright law or open Wikipedia for lawsuit of unlawfully allowing a controlled image to be posted. The image in question is a low-res image of a medal that is awarded by the BSA. One could argue, as it is with any other numismatic, that once the medal is issued into the public sphere, a simple educational record of what it looks like is or can be strictly intended for educational use. ...which is certainly my intent for including it in the Wikipedia article. The image I would post is a low-res image that otherwise confirms to Wikipedia's requested guidelines.

Please advise further. --B93 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, B93. The criteria in WP:NFCC are, I believe, stronger than the law requires. The criterion I was referring to obliquely was "8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The logo of an organisation is often used in this way in articles about the organisation; I am less sure that this is met in an article about a whole load of awards. But that is a judgment call. The "how to" is given in WP:Uploading images. --ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


Many thanks. I appreciate your candor on this. I will see if I can figure this out somehow. Thanks for doing what you do.B93 (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Related question and follow-up... If the legally licensed, trademarked, and otherwise controlled logo is the sticking point, what is you opinion on excluding that (just the logo) in the image? (Luckily, we are not talking about a logo that considered divisive, but I want to be respectful.) The BSA logo is a tiny part of the design for this numismatic. My thought is that a generic fleur-de-lis could be tastefully superimposed over the BSA logo, and resolve that problem. Am I trying to force a square peg into a round hole?B93 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

picture insertion[edit]

How to insert picture in any wikipedia page?AritraPaul (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, AritraPaul, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find instructions and links to tips and policies regarding image use here at Wikipedia:Images. Feel free to return here with more specific questions if you get stuck. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi AritraPaul. 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, related to its copyright status. 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 a 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) 21:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi ... I cannot figure out how to submit a Wikipedia Article. Can you help me to find an Editor to do that for me. Thank you in advance. Amy SeemanSeemancemano (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Seemancemano. I see you found the Teahouse without my help! Your article at Draft:Ed Seeman is not ready to be submitted yet; it needs a good deal more work before you should start thinking about submitting it. Feel free to ask any questions you have about preparing your draft for submission here, and we'll do our best to answer them for you. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 19:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Seemancemano. I have just deleted your draft as a blatant copyright violation. I will leave you a detailed message about this at your talk page. Regarding your original question, reading Wikipedia:Your first article is a good place to start, but any draft you create in the future must not copy and paste preexisting content. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Whoops! Good catch, Fuhghettaboutit. I believe you'll need to axe User:Seemancemano/sandbox, as well, because it's either very similar or identical. Where was it copied from, anyway? I expected his website, but it's blank. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@GrammarFascist: Whoops, thanks for the heads up; missed the second page! Yes, I've now also deleted that copy. See the deletion log entry here for the details. I wouldn't be surprised if the website also had such content. If it's blank, you might try the Wayback Machine to see if there was a prior version you can see, though it's academic given that I found swaths of the content elsewhere. (The Wayback Machine is incredibly useful in the copyright arena–especially for checking old copyvios and to target when content existed to look for backwards copying—really, I wouldn't know what we'd do without it.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I suggest a heading for a portal page?[edit]

I've made a few small edits over the years, mostly concerned with English usage, but I've never networked with other editors, so I have little idea of the collaborative structure.

I've noticed that on the Religion portal, there is no "Demographics" topic, which I think should be a fairly top-level heading. Cincybones (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cincybones. Almost every page you see has a dedicated talk page. For example, this project page has a talk page to discuss the Teahouse itself, which when at this page, is accessed by clicking on the link at the top of the page: "talk". Assuming your post is about Portal:Religion, then its talk page is Portal talk:Religion. However, part of learning about the behind the scenes here is also recognizing when a talk page is something of a hinterland. That talk page has very few watchers and the last post there is from 2015, and the two preceding ones are from 2014 and then 2013—so you'd probably just hear crickets upon posting there. I think a good, tailored, alternative talk page for you to post about this might be the busy talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Current status[edit]

Hello, adjacent to some of my edits in the contributions section of my account have the status 'Current.' I am assuming that it means that the edits are currently under inspection. If the ladder assumption is correct, what is the maximum waiting time for the edits to be confirmed?Joshua Beaudin (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. "Current" only means that your edit was the most recent one to the listed page. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Review edits on changing the tone[edit]

Dear editors, especially @NewYorkActuary:, @ColinFine: and @GrammarFascist: (since you all made really helpful suggestions before) I have edited my draft on singer Brodha V keeping all your feedback in mind. I worked on the tone of the article, made it more neutral and added more references. I hope it has significantly improved and meets the Wikipedia standards now. I'd be really grateful if you could take a second look and let me know what you think. Warmly,

Nramesh (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Welcome back to the Teahouse, Nramesh. I skimmed your revised draft, and did not see any overtly promotional language remaining; you have done well at learning how to write with encyclopedic tone. I noticed two issues remaining with the draft: First, it needs some minor copy-editing, which I would be happy to do for you tomorrow. Second, many of your reference citations are not formatted correctly; you may wish to use Visual Editor to correct those, as it provides labeled fields for you to add required information. You may also wish to consult Help:Referencing for beginners. Fortunately you should still have plenty of time to fix the citations, due to the AfC backlog. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template to indicate a statement needs cite[edit]

How do I add a template to indicate a statement needs a cite, or other ref problems? I recently read an article (Food Storage#Food storage safety) with an unsupported statement. Unable to research the issue at the time, I wanted to put in a marker, which I have seen many other places, in superscript saying "cite needed" for the attention of other editors; I expect there are other related templates, such as "unreliable source" and "page expired". I couldn't find these in a quick search through "Help:". Is there a place where all these cite-related tags are collected? D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You can find many of the relevant tags listed at Template:Inline cleanup tags. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Need a opinion[edit]

I just published a page translated from the French Wikipedia. The English version is Mohamed Abdennour (Ptit Moh). It used a way of linking to pages about records that I haven't encountered and that I kept. A message from a bot appeared, "This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines." I guess I can convert all to refs, but want to be sure that the way that I did it isn't ok.Jacqke (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The message wasn't from a bot, but from this edit by User:PRehse. It certainly looks as if your article does include external links outside the External links section. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok , I misread the history. I liked the way it looked but will get them turned into refs. Thank you'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqke (talkcontribs) 02:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jacqke: hello! I noticed that in your first edit on the page you correctly attributed the material you translated to the original article – and very diligently included the revision number! I have added this information into the template {{Translated|fr|Ptit Moh|version=139603212|insertversion=795513537}} on the talk page, which is a little easier for other editors to spot. (The numbers are the respective versions of the original and translated page.) Please keep-up the good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: I appreciate it. This was my first translation done that way and I hadn't encountered that tag before. Thank you!Jacqke (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jacqke: I've done copy edit on a couple dozen translated articles, and attributing to the original was often overlooked (and may technically be plagiarism). You noted it in the edit summary which is the important part. Adding the translated template is then just a cleanup issue. Nobody is expected to know about all of these templates, but it's handy if you plan on doing more translating. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion references our own website as proof of copyright infringement...?[edit]

I simply saved a page and got a "speedy deletion" notice citing our own website as copyright infridgement. To be honest, I was trying to start the page in the Sandbox...not sure why it didn't go there. Calfree (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Even in your sandbox, copyright violation is not permitted. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Calfree. I am sorry, but I have deleted the article you wrote. I understand that the source is your own website, but your website is copyrighted, and we do not allow copyrighted content anywhere on Wikipedia, including sandbox pages. Brief quotations are allowed, in quotation marks or formatting in a way that makes it clear that it is a quote, and if it is properly referenced. But quotes should be a small percentage of the content you add here. Write original prose which summarizes what reliable sources unaffiliated with your group say about it. Use the Articles for Creation process, since you have a conflict of interest. Read and study Your first article. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
edit conflict Welcome, Calfree. There are two ways to address the copyright violation issue. The first way would be to post a notice on your website where the material you copied appears stating that it is either under a CC-BY-SA license or in the public domain (either would grant anyone, anywhere, the right to use that text; the CC-BY-SA option would just require anyone using the text to link back to your website) — but you would still have to cite every copied sentence or paragraph to its source. The second, preferred way is for you to rephrase the vast majority of the text in your own words, with maybe a few phrases such as part of a mission statement kept as direct quotations — but again, everything would have to be cited to its sources.
Before you get started on that, however, there is an equally serious issue, and that is notability (click here to learn about the special sense this term is used in on Wikipedia). Every article on Wikipedia is expected to cite a minimum of three sources which are each independent of the article's subject (so your own website doesn't count), published in reliable sources (click here to learn how reliability is determined for Wikipedia purposes), and which cover the article subject in some detail — more than a passing mention. If there are not multiple independent, published, reliable sources to cite in the article about your organization, then there cannot (yet) be an article about it on Wikipedia.
Finally, there is the issue of conflict of interest (click here to find Wikipedia's guidelines regarding editors associated with the subject of an article). If anyone at your organization is a paid employee and wishes to edit an article about the organization, they must also comply with Wikipedia's paid editing policy (click here for details). You should be aware that Wikipedia username policy (click) forbids shared accounts (i.e. only one human may edit Wikipedia using a given username), and also forbids usernames implying shared use, such as... Calfree; however, a username such as "Leslie at Calfree" is acceptable.
I'm aware this may seem a bit overwhelming, but I wanted to make you aware of the issues at hand as soon as possible. You are more than welcome to ask further questions about anything you don't understand, and to ask for help creating an acceptable article (assuming you can clear the notability hurdle). —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
GrammarFascist: Thank you for the thorough response. It is all becoming much clearer now! The CFC is 100% non profit, volunteer, no one gets paid. We have been covered in numerous articles on LAWeekly, BusinessInsider, Sacbee, AP and others. They are real articles by real journalists, I have spoken to many of them personally. I will add the references (when I re-create the page). There is another group doing something similar and they have a Wikipedia I think we should have notability. Please comment if you don't think so.

2602:30A:2C3F:760:A041:5BD4:4096:A4B9 (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Cullen, I think I understand now. Will re-create and address the issues. I did read the First Story article several times...a lot to digest :)

2602:30A:2C3F:760:A041:5BD4:4096:A4B9 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeking second pair of eyes[edit]


I'm hoping to have someone take a look at an article I've been writing. Draft:South_Australian_State_Emergency_Service

I'm not quite ready to publish it just yet, but I'd appreciate someone having a proof-read, checking grammar, spelling, clarity, etc.

Also, how is my citing? I've raided my library's archives & referenced some news paper clippings from as far back as the 80's. Do you think I need to add any more?

Thank you muchly KaiRAWR (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello KaiRAWR and welcome to the Teahouse.
First off, the notability guide as it applies to organizations is what will be used to decide if this article should be created at all. I think you may have achieved this.
One thing I'd be concerned about is how much overlap there is between the draft and the organization's website. Direct copying would be bad.
Was the logo uploaded and released under a very broad license by its creator? That's sometimes a newbie mistake, to claim something as ones own work to satisfy the upload mechanism (I realize the uploader used a different username).
Working against you is the previous deletion history of the article. It still looks pretty promotional to me, triggered by the appearance of the phone number in the lead. Aside from the promotional tone, there's also a tendency to use extra connectives for sentence transitions that leave the prose sounding unencyclopedic, however you want to define that. Here's one example:
As every community is different, the services provided may differ from unit to unit. For example, a rural unit is more likely to attend a car accident than a metropolitan based one. Conversely, a city-based unit is more likely to respond to a request for assistance relating to storm damage.
Many of your references used accessdates without there being a URL to access. The system complains about this and it would look better if you fixed these. Other than that, your grasp of inline references looks okay, though there are some swathes of material that, at least at first glance, looks unsourced. Still, I can imagine someone might see this draft as containing too much detail, that editorial judgment about what is noteworthy and what is trivial might need to be improved.
Overall, I'd say you were close to ready to submit the draft for more formal review if you can reduce the promotionalism. Are you connected with the organization? Please see the conflict of interest policy. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Rank of wikipedia[edit]

How do I get ribbons?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Electro twisted wizard: Service awards, including ribbons, are something that editors can place on their own profile if they want to. Nobody else awards them, and they are not really a mark of "rank", they just show how long an editor has been a registered user, and how many edits they have made. I hope that's what you were asking about, but if it wasn't, please comment again :-) --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

So,how many edits can I know I have made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electro twisted wizard (talkcontribs) 11:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Electro twisted wizard: According to this tool, you've made 130 live edits. Another tool, xTools, can also be used for various statistics -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 11:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Electro twisted wizard at the top right of every page (if you're on a computer rather than reading on a phone, there is a link "Contributions" which opens a log of everything you've done here. At the bottom of that page there is a menu which includes "Edit count", it will give you a count of edits done on various types of pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Does deleted edits count?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How to add first articles in Wikipedia?[edit]

Hello, we are from Company Qarva.

We have been trying to add our article for 3 years.

Could you, please, support us and inform regarding this subject.

Also I would like to know if someone can help us and correct our Article.

Can you, please, reply us as soon as possible

Thank you in advance (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I think you have some misconceptions of what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for every company to have an article like social media might be. Article subjects also do not "own" or exclusively control the articles about them(i.e. "our page"). This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to meet notability guidelines, in this case those for companies.
Since you refer to "our company" I can say that you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest, which means that you are too close to the subject to write about it objectively and with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes like telling the world about your company. If you have a conflict of interest, it is best to avoid directly editing about it and allow others to write about the company. If you work for the company, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare such status. That means that you can be blocked from editing if you are editing here as part of your job and do not declare it.
If you do have independent sources, and truly feel that your company merits an encyclopedic article, you can submit a draft article through Articles for Creation, but if your company is truly notable it is best to let other editors write about it. If you have any other questions, please post them. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Anonymous, first of all, you should deeply study this page, it tells about creating your first article. Secondly only registered users can create article, you have an account if you created that article,you are repeating "We", it means you are a group of people, we may have confusions with that, each of you should create personal account, forth, you are from "Qarva" (a company), if the article is about your company then you may fall a victim of paid editing, a very bad thing. Five, you have not given a link to the page you mentioned, please provide a link to that article, (by writing name of article in double square brackets), then we will be able to help you. Proceed! Sinner (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Is it possible to change the edit summary after you saved it? Could you, please, answer me soon? Thank you in advance. --Aleksandr Kerenskij (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Aleksandr Kerenskij, and welcome to the Teahouse! Annoyingly it´s not. If you wish, you can leave an explanation on the articles talkpage or in your next editsummary. If it´s something really bad, you can ask an admin to hide it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. No you can't. For further advice on fixing an edit summary, see Help:Edit summary#Fixing. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all very much. --Aleksandr Kerenskij (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new page- advice of what to include?[edit]

Hi all. I am creating a new page called The Zoo (2017 TV series) but I don't know what sorts of information are needed. I have copied an infobox and provided some basic info but what else do I need to do? And when I search for my article in the searchbox, I can't find it and have to instead type the address in my URL bar.Have I done something wrong? Many thanks. MaxyPaxy2004 (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@MaxyPaxy2004: Hello and welcome. It seems to me that you have a decent start to the page. You can look at some other pages on TV shows to get an idea of what they include, but one good thing to include would be any independent reviews of this show or any independent sources that document how it was created. I believe it takes some time for a new page to appear in the search box when you type the title. If you need to, you can access it through your contributions list(if on a desktop computer, click "contributions" in the top right corner). 331dot (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi MaxyPaxy2004, I've found a news report about a wildlife charity's criticism of the show - It might provide some useful content for the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Information boxes[edit]

I've made a edit to the Zee World article in the Coming Soon section, but it's appearing in the References section. Can somebody help me with this? I don't want my edit to be reverted. Cheers. :)

When life gives you lemons... (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue was that the table tag for the 'Coming Soon' section was left open. I have closed the tag, which appears to have resolved the issue. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for solving the issue, it looks much better now. Cheers :D Axcii (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: "The template Infobox organization is being considered for merging"

PLEASE keep information boxes active, as they are an excellent go-to and keep articles structured, IMO. Thank you! Ybram24 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


How many types of padlocks are there?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:PADLOCK for a list and description of the types of page protection in place across Wikipedia. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 12:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Um sorry I mean the types of padlocks.

See Wikipedia:Protection policy, Category:Padlock icons, Wikipedia:Protection policy/Padlocks. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Egyptian hieroglyphics[edit]

Where can I find a full list of all eygeptian hieroglyphics?Electro twisted wizard (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Electro twisted wizard - This is typically the place for editors to ask questions pertaining to the editing and upkeep of Wikipedia, but in response to your question, maybe give a glance at List of Egyptian hieroglyphs by alphabetization? Hope that at least helps. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 12:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe by gardener's sign list?

How to stop offensive reverts to my edits[edit]

I have been trying to correct an offensive mistake in "Religion in Jamaica". No reason has been given for the reverts and I would like it to stop.

Rastas find the term "Rastafarianism" offensive. There are zero people who follow this made up term. There are plenty of slang terms for other religions which are not used because they are offensive. Why is it that there is no respect for the wishes of Rastas? Is it racism? Colonialism? Or just the usual schism that Rastas have no contribution to make to world knowledge?

Black minds matter. (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. Without knowing anything specific about this issue, I can say that you should not keep restoring your edit. Continually doing this is considered an edit war and is not permitted, regardless of if you are correct or not. You should also be aware of the three revert rule. If you are in a dispute about article content, you should first discuss the matter on the article talk page. If that does not resolve the issue, there are further dispute resolution procedures that are available to you. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I would also state that you should assume good faith unless you have evidence to the contrary- of which merely reverting an edit is not. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I should say you should use user personal account if you already have, or create one if you do not have one to contribute, no one can revert edit of a registered user without proper cause, if someone does, you can freely ask him why he reverted your contribution. Sinner (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nazim Hussain Pak: The IP user has made their edits under their IP; editors are not required to register a username if they don't wish to. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I think registering account gives more rights than IP, including editing partially protected pages. Sinner (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I feel you are a bit nervous, In wikipedia, there is no preference of one group over other,of one religion over other religion. Rastas are equal to Christians and Hindus in wikipedia in status, this is an encyclopedia, a completely neutral encyclopedia. There is no racism, colonialism or discrimination of any group. Wikipedia will not change "Rastafarianism" to "Rasta" because Rastas feel it is offensive. Muslims also face a similar problem, Pictures of Muhammad (Peace be upon him). They completely forbid showing his pictures and these are offensive for them but no one removed the pictures from Muhammad, because wikipedia neither sports nor discriminates any group or religion. You should discuss this matter peacefully with as he reverts your contributions. Sinner (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The essential difference here is that showing a picture of Muhammad (Peace be upon him), while offensive to some, is not incorrect (assuming there is verifiable evidence). "Rastafarianism" is just incorrect. The person doing the reverts is giving no evidence or explanation whatsoever for their actions, and that is what makes it truly offensive. I feel the onus is on the reverter who, so far, has not participated in a conversation started in good faith. The person who corrected a mistake and provided a verifiable reason why, has done a service for Wikipedia and should not have to chase after anyone unable or unwilling to reciprocate. An explanation should take precedence over a non-explanation by default. (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
"Why is it that there is no respect for the wishes of Rastas?" I suspect it's just ignorance. Don't attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Maproom (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It may be that the appropriate policy for this is WP:COMMONNAME. If most sources use Rastafarianism, it's quite likely that WP will use it as well. Changing what WP does is not simply to convince editors that Rastas don't like it. That recognition has to gain a strong hold in the greater world before it is likely to be reflected here. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Is it possible to use autowikibrowser offline? for instance could i make a bunch of pages from a template, then use them as the base to paste in when making pages on wikipedia? the autowikibrowser bit would fill in basic information, infobox, and some basic references from a csv i have made from public gsi data. I believe it is possible to use other non-wikipedia related tools for this if this is not possible. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation before you go any further with this idea. A mass page creation of the type you describe will get you blocked instantly, unless you go through the correct channels beforehand to discuss exactly what you want to create and exactly what method you plan to use. ‑ Iridescent 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes that is why it would be offline all the articles would be created by me manually at some later date(s). A Guy into Books (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How to list a company[edit]

Is there a way to get a company's history and basic information on Wikipedia? Jaclyndeltamobile (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jaclyndeltamobile: Hello and welcome. First, I would say that Wikipedia is not for merely listing information about companies; as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is more selective about its content. Wikipedia articles about companies must indicate with independent reliable sources how the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. We are not interested in what a company says about itself, but what third parties state about it. If the company does have independent sources indicating how it is notable, then there can be an article about it.
From your username, I assume you represent a company called Delta Mobile. If you intend to edit about your company, you need to review the conflict of interest policy first. If you work for the company or are otherwise paid by them, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare your paid relationship(that means you can be blocked from editing from Wikipedia if you do not do that). If you truly feel that your company merits an encyclopedic article about it and that it meets the notability guidelines, it is strongly advised that you, as a representative, do not directly write about the company. You can visit Articles for Creation to write and submit a draft for an independent review, but if you just want to tell the world about the company, you will have to find an alternative outlet to do that. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Need help posting the Joseph H. Beasley Page[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia space. I need help with editing and launching my page. Any suggestions.JendayiLareine8 18:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JendayiLareine8 (talkcontribs)

@JendayiLareine8: Hello and welcome. I have put the appropriate template on your draft so you can submit it; however before you do that I would suggest reviewing Your First Article to get an idea of what is being looked for. I suspect that if reviewed you would be asked to tone down some of the complimentary language in the article such as "celebrated throughout North America"(unless you have evidence of this, I've never heard of this person) "extraordinary service", as well as unencyclopedic language like "It was during this phase of his life that Beasley began to set high expectations and committed himself to a life of service" which is impossible to verify. Additionally, links to other Wikipedia articles should be added(which you can do by placing the target page's title in double brackets like this: [[Page name here]]). This person may merit an article, but I think more work needs to be done. Good luck 331dot (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Im a new user trying to add a photo to a page not created by me but about me.[edit]

hi, im a new user and im trying to edit my Wikipedia page. i am an artist and the page was set up by my old manager. im trying to edit the page but i dont seem to have the option to add a photo. ive been a user a week now and have made more than 10 edits. please could somebody help me, id really appreciate it, thankyou THEKTNA (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@THEKTNA: Hello and welcome. I would first note that the page is not "your page"; it is a Wikipedia article that is about you. No one owns any article here, even the subject. I would also note that editing your own article directly is highly discouraged, though not forbidden(and adding an appropriate photo is probably OK). Please review that page if you haven't already. I'm not knowledgeable enough about adding images to know why it isn't working for you. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, THEKTNA. Adding images is done in two stages, and is quite complicated because of copyright. The copyright holder (who is probably not you, unless it was produced under a contract that says you do own it) must explicitly release it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA (which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose), or it will not be permitte in Wikipedia. Please see WP:Uploading images for the ins and outs of copyright and the process of uploading; once an image has been uploaded it can be used on a page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How do I handle hostile senior members?[edit]

I joined Wikipedia the other day because I was reading through a current events article and though that one of the sections needed clarification. So I made an account and posed the question in the talk section. Other users politely explained why the clarification wasn't a good idea and even suggested trimming it down. But one user started being belligerent towards me. I will admit that after he told me I had "hilariously ignorant assumptions" I poked the bear a little, but I thought it would make him see his hostility. It only made him more hostile and snide. I know I could have handled it better but I'm still getting used to the WikiTone, but I feel the treatment I was given was unwarranted.

I know that this shouldn't be the tone of wikipedia, and that I shouldn't be afraid to say something to an admin without fear of a more senior member being vindictive, but the "newby" area seems to be the only place where I can voice this. What is the proper avenue for either seeing what I can do better to contribute or voicing my complaints? GhostJackal (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just noting that, judging from Ghostjackal's talk page, the matter seems to have been resolved. But you should feel free to return to the Teahouse with any further issues you encounter, Ghostjackal, as well as if I misread your conversation with the other editor. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Creation[edit]

How do you create an article? I would also like to ask for some help on an article.Jak474 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jak474: Hello and welcome. I would first caution you that successfully creating an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. I would suggest first reviewing Your First Article for some tips and then using the Article Wizard. If you want to ask for help on an existing article, you can post to its talk page; click "Talk" at the top of the article to access it. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm in trouble inserting Authors on citations[edit]

I'm in trouble inserting Authors on citations Francesco Galli (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Francesco Galli and welcome to the Teahouse.
Can you describe in somewhat more detail what difficulty you are having inserting authors on citations? Is someone else undoing your work? Or are you getting error messages when you preview the page? Which editing interface are you using? One thing to be aware of is that the lastest versions of the citation templates prefer to have authors listed one by one with first and last names separate:
first1=Richard|last1=Strunk|first2=E B|last2=White
. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

page deletion[edit]

Hello! The page I updated has been deleted due to unambiguous advertising or promotion. Why is the page completely deleted instead of deleting my updates only? I could have easily deleted any info which administrators may consider promotional if I knew what is wrong. I have no idea what looks promotional and would like to know it, as well as the page undeleted. I have already contacted the administrator, but have no reply so far. What else can I do to solve the issue? Thank you. Katerina 198109 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Katerina 198109: Hello and welcome. I'm not sure which page you are referring to; since you say you only updated it(as opposed to creating it) I assume it is not the page listed on your user talk page. If you could give the name of the page it would be helpful. Whether you created the page or not, if it was tagged with a speedy deletion tag and an administrator feels that the claimed criteria is met, it can be deleted without delay. It doesn't matter who created it or edited it or how many people edited it(although a page that has been around longer is less likely to be speedy deleted). Since I cannot see it I can't tell you what the issue was(though an administrator can, either the one who deleted it or another who can look at the deleted page) except to say generally that the deleting administrator must have felt it was promotional. If you feel that the speedy deletion was in error you can request a Deletion Review, though I would first contact the deleting administrator to see what their explanation is. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Than you. The page is Yuri Gurski. I did not create the page, but just made a few updates with reliable sources. Katerina 198109 (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you got notified of the speedy deletion of Yuri Gurski if you didn't create it, as that notice typically goes to the creator. Did you move the page from one title to another? (that would make you the "creator" of the new page even if you didn't start it) Again, without seeing it I can't say specifically, but generally speaking based on my experience the sources you added must not have indicated how the person was notable per notability guidelines or were only basic mentions without the in depth coverage needed. If they were press releases or some other sort of announcement, that would not establish notability and could be seen as promotional.
Looking at the deletion log of the page(which you can see by clicking the link to the article on your user talk page), it appears that the page was speedy deleted twice, once for being promotional, and the last time at the request of the page creator. Perhaps the page creator decided the subject did not merit an article or had some other reason for wanting to delete it. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I still submit a draft for review if it requires administrator approval due to its previous repeat recreations?[edit]

The CEO of our company has asked me to fix his personal wikipedia page as it has been removed on account of violating Wikipedia's WP:PROMO and COI policies. I've rewritten the page in accordance with those policies but am unable to directly create it as it has been tried so many times that it now requires Admin access to be created at all. What do I do...I have the draft already prepared. The page is ANDREA IERVOLINO.

Mackenzie.wong (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what you asked but I think there is too many external links in the article. It also reads in a way that could be considered either promotional or distasteful. I mean... "...and was anointed the President of Ischia Global Film and Music Fest..." Anointed the President? I think there's been some confusion between systems. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mackenzie.wong: Hello and welcome. If you are editing Wikipedia at the request of your CEO, you will need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies before you edit further. Doing the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are editing Wikipedia as part of your job. I would also note that Wikipedia articles are not owned by their subjects(i.e. "his personal Wikipedia page"), but are about their subjects. This is also not social media like LinkedIn for company executives or businesspeople to have pages or post their resumes; Wikipedia is more selective about its content.
Looking at the deletion log, I see that the page was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion(located here) which means that you cannot recreate the page unless you address the reasons the page was deleted. I see that you have written a draft in draft space; if you submit it for review it will be looked at to see if the issues have been resolved, but you must comply with the policies I describe above first. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, if the page reviewer decides that the draft is acceptable, they will contact an administrator(if the page reviewer is not one themselves) to help move the page into the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm still working on fixing the lingo to make it as neutral as possible. Too many external links or too many external citations? I've disclosed who I am, my employer, and the client as the policy requires in the Talk section. Is there another step? Sorry, I'm a new editor...

Mackenzie.wong (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it; you may also want to add it to your user page. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Mackenzie.wong: External links. External citations are a good thing; they show notability in unaffiliated sources. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Great thanks. My original question really pertained more to the fact that the creation of the page was protected by Admin access - would contacting the admin responsible speed up the reviewing process at all? I'm on a bit of a deadline

Mackenzie.wong (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. I don't know who the admin in question is but unless you stumble upon a few thousand pots of gold and/or have magical persuasion powers, no admin is going to care about any deadline that you're on for your company. I'm sorry, but it's really not in the core interests of Wikipedia to meet your deadline. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Mackenzie.wong, something you may have overlooked is that all articles also need to comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Practically speaking what this means is that you need at least three reliable sources, each independent of Mr. Iervolino, which each cover him in some depth — more than a sentence or two. You have one excellent such source already cited (this Toronto Star article), but I didn't see any other independent sources in Draft:Andrea Iervolino with nearly as much detail. So... you might want to show your boss this essay about deadlines and Wikipedia. All that said, you're still welcome to bring any future questions you may have here to the Teahouse. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Mackenzie.wong, I am an administrator and there is no way that I would approve your draft article in its current form. Several paragraphs are unreferenced, which raises red flags. Please provide a reference for every substantive assertion in the draft, or remove those assertions. You have external links in the body of the draft, which is not acceptable. Remove them. The claim that he is a "philanthropist" raises a red flag for me. Is every person who donates to charity and helps organize charitable events a "philathropist"? If so, I am a philathropist but do not think of myself that way. I checked a few of your references about him being a philanthropist, and they do even mention him. Remove all references that do not mention him. They are worthless. You need to provide a very high quality reliable independent source describing this person's philanthropy. Otherwise, remove all mention of him as a philanthropist. His main claim to notability seems to be as a film producer. Please be aware that not all producers are notable, since they are often wealthy behind-the-scenes figures who provide funding for films but receive little significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It is your obligation to provide those sources. Quality is much more important than quantity when it comes to establishing notability. What are your three best sources? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Company's Page[edit]

Hello! 'd like to create a page for my company but it keeps rejecting my articles. I've seen other real states companies with wikipedia pages. Why cant I have my own? Please kindly inform. THank you! Paolaeb (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Paolaeb: Hello and welcome. I would first tell you that if the company is your company, then you have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest; please review that link, but in short that means that you are likely too close to the subject to edit about it objectively. Please note that Wikipedia is not social media for every company to get a page. Wikipedia is more selective about its content; not every company merits a page here, even in the same field. All articles about companies must indicate with independent reliable sources how the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Please review them. If you have reviewed the notability criteria and truly feel that your company merits a page, you should create one using Articles for Creation; this is likely the only way you will be permitted to edit about your own company. I would stress that Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about your company, but for telling with a neutral point of view how it is notable.
As I state above, please review the conflict of interest policy before you edit further, you will also need to review and comply with the paid editing policy if it is your company. Doing the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid to edit Wikipedia or doing so as part of your job. That means that you would be prevented from editing if you failed to comply with the paid editing policy. I don't mean to sound harsh but these are important policies. If you have further questions, please post them here. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Company's name[edit]

Thank you very much for your response! I forgot to mention it is not my company. I work for it, and we would like to have information regarding our history, projects, and team. I also wanted to change my username, so it shows the company's name instead of mine, but it was also rejected. Paolaeb (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Paolaeb. Such usernames are not allowed. To be clear, you can have a username that represents you as an individual but shows your affiliation with a company, such as Paolaeb at Prodigy Network but a username like "Prodigy Network" would violate both WP:CORPNAME and WP:ISU. Meanwhile, I have left you messages at your talk page regarding misuse of Wikipedia for advertising and the posting of copyright violations. More importantly, the last message I left at your talk page is a final warning. Do not edit further until you comply with mandatory editing disclosure, which I describe how to comply with there. It's really not difficult, but it is not optional.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I just noticed that the thread above is also from you and that you've received some of the same information there. It's often best to keep conversations in the same place.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
As 331dot mentioned, Paolaeb, if you work for the company you must comply with our paid editing policy, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. It is not permitted to have a company name as a username, as that would imply that multiple people were sharing the account (which is also not permitted), but you could probably change your username to "[your name] at [company name]". —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Please understand, Paolaeb, that you and your company have essentially no role in maintaining a Wikipedia article about your company. You are welcome to suggest improvements to the article (preferably with citations to independent published sources) but the decision as to what to do with those suggestions is entirely out of your hands. --ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

creating a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon page[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, I want to host a month long edit-a-thon for Native American Heritage month. I work at a state college library, so I have access to reference materials, computers, and snacks. I just want to make it "official" by creating an event page. Where can I begin? wikisbaldiviaWikisbaldivia (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikisbaldivia. You can begin by contacting the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Native Americans and reading Wikipedia:Edit-a-thon. I'm not sure where a page like you are talking about would go. Maybe you can work on it in your sandbox and then move it to mainspace later. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Can other wikipedia pages be used a references?[edit]

I wanted to know if I could replace a citation needed for a date if it is accepted in a another Wikipedia article. It's not a major edit so I wasn't sure if it was acceptable or not. Matz44 (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Matz44: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. This is intentional. Find the source for the date in the second article and cite the source used in that article in the first one. If there is no source, then tag the date in the second article with a citation needed tag as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion Questions (Rhetorical)[edit]

I would like to ask some questions about the process for deleting articles. These are probably rhetorical questions, because I am almost certain that I know the answers. However, some editors may benefit from having the answers restated tediously. First, is having spent considerable time working on a page a reason not to delete it? Second, is the desire of one's employer to make the page available to the public who may be interested a reason not to delete it? Third, is it useful to explain to the editor who tagged the page for deletion, on their user talk page, why the page should not be deleted? Fourth, is a request please not to delete something useful in general?

Now, first, I think that the time spent on the article is just a sunk cost, and that notability and neutrality, not time spent, are considered. Second, I perversely think that the desire of one's employer does make a difference, but only in that it makes it more likely that the page will be deleted, but that is only my opinion. Third, I don't think that the reviewer's talk page is the right place to make the argument. (The article talk page, for CSD, or the deletion page, for AFD, are good places to make the case.)

Maybe one or two editors may be paying attention. Maybe this isn't just preaching to a choir. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A nice list of FAQs. We should put that somewhere so we can point to it as needed. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with all the opinions you express in your second paragraph. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Robert McClenon. I agree that a FAQ page is a good idea, and these questions are a good start; maybe it could be an essay?
  • 1. Unfortunately, amount of time spent on an article is irrelevant if the topic isn't notable. Neutrality, however, should be fixable if there are sources to demonstrate notability.
  • 2. I have also noticed that many editors are more inclined to delete articles (and decline drafts) if they are aware that someone who is, or is connected to, the article's subject wants the article to stay on Wikipedia; I think this is unfortunate, as we should focus on the content and base our judgments on that.
  • 3. I agree that the reviewer's talk page is not the ideal place to make arguments regarding deletion (or AfC review), but after an article has been deleted, there's no longer an article talk page for such arguments to be made on. I am not aware of a better location, aside from deletion review.
  • 4. Politeness is always preferable to the alternative, and certainly a politely-worded request ("Please don't delete article X") is preferable to a demand ("Don't delete article X"); attempts at collegiality are to be encouraged. That said, however, no amount of politeness can overcome strong reasons for deletion (or decline) such as lack of demonstrable notability or copyright infringment.
Thanks for engaging us in this semi-rhetorical discussion with you. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

Hello! I am a relatively new user. Not long ago, I wrote Blagaj Castle (Croatia). Shortly after writing it, some semi-automated edits were made to it that made me rethink my knowledge of red link usage. I have re-added the red links that I intend to create articles for in the future, leaving the rest. I was wondering if a more experienced editor could review the article, including the previous version, and give me any suggestions on red link usage for the future? Note: I am aware of most other shortcomings. Inatan (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Inatan, and thank you for your contributions. As Wikipedia's red-link policy states, "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." You say you are aware of other issues with the article you mentioned, but I'm not sure you understand that that article is in serious danger of being deleted due to its current reliance on a single source. Although policy does not say so explicitly, in practice articles are expected to cite a minimum of three reliable sources which are each independent of the subject.
Back to your question: Your use of red links in Blagaj Castle (Croatia) is consistent with policy so long as there exist multiple independent reliable sources from which to construct the missing articles. That's not to say a bot (or a human) might not delink them again between now and when you create the new articles. If that happens, you could post on the article's talk page regarding the links so as not to run afoul of Wikipedia policy on repeated reverts. As always, feel free to return to the Teahouse should you have any further questions. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 12:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Inatan. I would not generalize from the other user's removal of the red links. I don't know what the very new user RajkGuj was thinking when he or she did so, because the edit summary left was fairly opaque, but red links are important to invite creation for topics that you think are clearly notable ones that do not yet have articles. It is also not at all uncommon for people new to Wikipedia to view red links as some kind of error that needs to be fixed (well, they do need to be "fixed", but by being turned blue by creation, rather than by removal). I have not done any research to learn whether the bulk of red links you had included do in fact warrant articles, but place locations, such as Smrčković, are likely to warrant them. Many well known castles would also. One thing to keep in mind is that in order to create highly effective red links, the correct title of the inchoate article should be used, which will get more accurate the more you become familiar with Wikipedia:Article titles (I am not at all implying you did not do so here, just mentioning it). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, both for the clarification! Sometimes policy articles get confusing, and it helps to hear from editors who understand how they work in practice.
For the above-mentioned issue, I placed a banner over the "references" section warning the reader that the article relies primarily on this source not long after creating it. I added some information from two other sources an hour ago just in case (now that the article is receiving more editor traffic from being placed here), but I am afraid that without a trip to the library there will be no additional major sources to corroborate my work (O, the state of Balkan digitisation!). The article is written on a minor [yet notable] geographical location, and Radoslav Lopašić (a 19th century medievalist with a reputation for being non-partisan) relied almost entirely on primary sources. So I think it should be good for now.
Once again, thank you! Inatan (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


At what point is an article notable? It would seem that two sources are sometimes enough. yet other editors will argue for deletion with 8 or 9 good references. what is the consensus on this, and why is there no way of finding what the past consensus on something is, or am I missing some archive where they get filed? A Guy into Books (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aguyintobooks. (I like and am well described by your username.) There is no simple formula to assess notability, and the mere number of sources cited or in existence is a very gross measure that tells you little. The issues redound to, non-exclusively, the reliability of the sources, whether they are primary and independent or secondary (or tertiary), their depth of coverage, the manner of coverage, whether the coverage is direct or indirect, other sui generis matters that will depend on context, and sometime the type of topic (e.g., what is considered reliable may depend [example: sources for an article on an actor, versus sources for an article on a medical topic], and whether, even though there are secondary and independent sources cited, it is just a brief bursts of news coverage, etc.). In sum, the assessment of a topic's notability is always highly contextual and not a counting exercise. Some oft-seen matters:
  • 40 primary, non-independent sources cited = no evidence of notability provided whatever, because—notability is about the world taking note of the topic by writing about it independent of the topic.
  • 40 secondary, independent sources cited, but that merely mention the topic in passing = saying that this provides " "no" evidence of notability whatever" is not quite right, but it's not far off, and if this is coupled with no other sources appearing to exist that treat the topic in some substantive detail, it may actually be thought of as evidence of lack of notability.

    In short, when we see such "mere mention sourcing", it is taken as a badge of a non-notable topic, that needs to be overcome. (It also implies a profound misunderstanding of sourcing by the person placing them, as if sourcing is some name checking exercise for their probably original-research-filled, anecdotal write-up, rather than content composed based on what sources actually sustain, which is how it should have been written in the first place.) We need sources to exist that actually cover a topic in some depth, from which an article can be written with verifiable content.

  • A common problem with both of the circumstances above is that, if there are good sources actually present among such large numbers of useless-for-demonstrating-notability sources, they will be hidden among these others from those seeking to assess the topic's demonstration of notability. (See citation overkill in that regard.)
I think if you listed some of the specific pages you came across that prompted your post—where you saw the seeming contradiction in interpretation of notability in application—that concreteness would likely anchor a more nuanced discussion of this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Hello, I need to upload a non-free logo for our radio station to wikipedia. Where do I do this? KENW-Mike (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey KENW-Mike. You can request the image be uploaded at WP:FFU. It's pretty backlogged at the moment, but I plan on working through the list of pending requests over the next week or so. TimothyJosephWood 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy, is there a place for registered users with the required number of edits to upload the file using the "Non-free use rationale" template? KENW-Mike (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're on a computer in desktop view...Scroll to the top of any page, look in the 'Tools' section on the left, and you'll see 'Upload file' - X201 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks X201, got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENW-Mike (talkcontribs) 15:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, good on you KENW-Mike. You seem to have figured it out pretty well on your own (no small feat actually). I would just add that since the logo consists only of text and simple geometric shapes, it can be uploaded to Commons under Template:PD-logo. This can be easily done by using Commons Helper (just make sure to click the Authorization link). That way it can potentially be used by Wikipedias in every available language, and not just in English. TimothyJosephWood 15:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Timothy, I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KENW-Mike (talkcontribs) 15:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)