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

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.


WP teahouse logo.png

Where do i start[edit]

Hello, Im new to wikipedia where do i start Kondavarsha (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Kondavarsha:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any improvements for articles in your area of interest are appreciated - I have posted some general links with basic information on your user talkpage. If you plan to create a new article, WP:Your first article is a good start. But I'd suggest to start with smaller additions and corrections in existing articles first to gain some experience with Wikipedia's formatting and content guidelines. Some of these "rules" can be quite confusing for new editors (and sometimes for regular editors as well :) ). When adding content, please make sure to provide a reliable source for the information. WP:REFB has some guidance about how to format such references. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove a redirect word from a page?[edit]

Hello. I wish to create a serious article but once I type the word I get redirected to a page that clearly has no links to said word.

Thanks in advance.

TheContribution3837 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish to be included in famous people of Belper[edit]

Dear Wikipedia my sporting activities regarding 0.303 rifle shooting may be considered enough to be included in the title above, how do I proceed?. Thank you. (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Create article[edit]

I want to create a new article. How can i do that ? Thanks ! ShefaliTomar (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello ShefaliTomar and welcome to the Teahouse.
Creating a whole new article is quite difficult. The recommendation from Teahouse responders is that you spend some time, even months, working on improving other articles and learning the ropes before you try to create a new article from scratch. You should, at a minimum, read WP:Your first article and Help:referencing for beginners. These should help you avoid the pitfalls that many new editors fall into. Having your first contribution declined can be pretty frustrating and having some experience under your belt can help you avoid the rejection. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the good advice above, if my guess is correct, you might also need to read WP:conflict of interest, WP:autobiography or WP:biographies of living persons. Apologies if my guess is wrong. Dbfirs 08:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

indian actor stub[edit]

I am looking for any Indian actor-related article rated as stub-class.The garmine (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey The garmine. See Category:Indian actor stubs. There are about 800 to choose from. TimothyJosephWood 00:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thanks. The garmine (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What to do with a permanent dead link?[edit]

I am new to wikipedia. I just today listened to a great video about "wiring up the brain", and so looked at the "axon guidance" article to see if I could add a link to the video, which I did. At that time, I saw that the "Further reading" section of "Axon guidance" has a link that has a superscripted "permanent dead link" after it. What should be done about that? JeanOhm (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey JeanOhm. Unless you can find a way to fix it, just remove it. There's no requirement to have a further reading section. TimothyJosephWood 00:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. I found collections from the Royal Society, but none seems to be the one that was in the original "further reading", so I will delete it. Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

JeanOhm, probably best. Ideally, the editor looked themselves before putting the dead link tag there, and if both you and I also looked to no avail, I'd say we're pretty well done with it. TimothyJosephWood 12:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please, check my new article[edit]

Dear Editors!

I mostly edit the Hungarian Wikipedia, but now I started one here. Please somebody review my article, and tells me what else I could do, what should I do to make it acceptable. Here is: This is a translation of this:

Thank you for your help. Bokorember (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bokorember. For future reference, you must provide copyright attribution when translating content, just as you must when copying between pages. Please see Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. I have fixed this for you here. I haven't otherwise looked at the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Create and Article[edit]

Hi, I wanted to know if you can only create an article only on your talk page, or can I do it somewhere else too? Need help on this question ASAP!! (Thanks) Typicalfrances (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

My Wikipedia experience is long but narrow: What I usually do is search for the desired article; if it is not found,you are prompted: 'You may create the page "Foobarque".' If you get this prompt, Foobarque is a link, you have the privilege to create the article just by clicking it. First make sure if you can the article doesn't exist under another name; if so, see Help:redirect, or sometimes Help:disambiguation if there is more than one instance of the term. If it is long, create it in your sandbox first to avoid a bunch of initial edits. There may be other ways to create an article. - D Anthony Patriarche (talk)
Also check out several references to Notability below, or your article may be rejected. - D Anthony Patriarche (talk)
Another alternative, if you want to spend time working on an article to get it ready to be published, and want other people to help you, is to use WP:Draft space. Dbfirs 09:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
See also Create article above. - D Anthony Patriarche (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Trying to improve a band page[edit]

Hi there,

I'm trying to improve a band page. What information should be included in the most top section of the page. I think it might be called the summary part of the page.

Also, I'm trying to figure out which categories would be most appropriate to include under this section, e.g., history, influences, etc.

Thanks!Radditor (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What type of band page are you talking about? The music type of band or the gangster band? Typicalfrances (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The "lead" (topmost section) should be a general introduction that presents basic facts that are a summary of the detail given in later sections. Are you asking about an infobox? Have a look at some articles about similar bands for ideas on layout. Dbfirs 09:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, band as in music. Radditor (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both Radditor (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


what is machine translation? (Abasule (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)) what is the importance of machine translation?(Abasule (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)) what is the objectives of machine traslation?(Abasule (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)) what is the advantages and disadvantages of machine translation?Abasule (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You will find useful information in Wikipedia's article at Machine translation, and (in the context of Wikipedia) at WP:MACHINETRANSLATION. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I replace an older photo?[edit]

Hello, I've searched everywhere and cannot find an answer to this question. Am I able or allowed to replace an old photo of, say the River Len in Maidstone, with a newer photo, showcased on my userpage that I've taken myself? The quality is greater in my photo as it is newer, but I don't want to infringe on the author of the first photo. Any advice? JoshTilley (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Josh. The short answer is, yes. Go right ahead.
The slightly longer answer is yes, but in the event that your change is reverted, be prepared to discuss the merits of your image on the talkpage rather than simply putting it back in. But do feel free to update the article with your image if it's of better quality. Yunshui  15:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you to both of you, that helps a lot! JoshTilley (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Just my 2c but that image is beautiful so thank you JoshTilley for taking it and uploading it here :), Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 16:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I really appreciate that Davey, thank you! JoshTilley (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The picture looks beautiful! Hbran21 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I note that the previous image, File:MaidstoneLen0169.JPG, is being used in the articles Medway watermills (lower tributaries) and River Len. It might be appropriate to change those too, JoshTilley. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry, that's done, thank you for bringing it to my attention. JoshTilley (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hbran21, thank you, I really do appreciate that :) JoshTilley (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Help w/Harvard references[edit]

I am not understanding why my short citations are not linking to my full citations at: User:RM2KX/sandbox#References, if someone can explain, please? RM2KX (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(1-15 only) RM2KX (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, RM2KX, and welcome to the Teahouse. Long story short:
For Blackmar 2012, it's because you are using |author=Last, First instead of |last=Last|first=First.
For all others, (i.e. those that use a citation template other than {{Citation}}, like {{Cite book}}): you need to add an extra parameter ref=harv.
Granted, those Harvard references are difficult to understand. I wholeheartedly recommend this tool: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, thank you!! I was almost there, but I didn't create the Blackmar reference so I didn't notice it was a different format. RM2KX (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please create article[edit]

Where to request creation of an article that I have not found on wikipedia. Serjatt4 (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Serjatt4. The place to request an article is WP:Requested articles. But there is quite a backlog, and like everything else this is operated by volunteers, so it is worth you doing a bit of research first. Try and find some reliable published sources, independent of the subject, that cover it in some depth. If you can't find any, then the subject is almost certainly not notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and it is impossible for anybody to write an acceptable article on the subject. If you can find some, then citing them in your request will make it more attractive for somebody to pick up. --ColinFine (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Using blogs as sources[edit]

Hi, I'm back with another question! Currently I'm working on writing an autism-related article, and I'm aware that citing blogs is generally frowned upon; however, I'm a bit uncertain about blogs of activists who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages (e.g. the blog of Lydia Brown or Amy Sequenzia). Would those be considered sources I could use (albeit not preferred ones), or should I not even cite them as a last resort? - Galactic-Radiance (Talk) 03:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Galactic-Radiance. Definitely a grey area. Activist implies someone with a distinct point of view, so that could be a problem. You are required to represent all mainstream viewpoints. Blogs are generally a poor choice for sourcing due to the lack of editorial oversight. Two types of blogs can be used with a judicious dose of care though. Blogs of recognized reporters hosted on newspaper and magazine websites can be used, as well as blogs from recognized experts in a field of study. Just be careful to choose sources representative of the major viewpoints, and since autism is a medical issue, remember that WP:MEDRS applies. John from Idegon (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot of gray areas in the policies here! Thank you for letting me know - I'll keep that (and MEDRS) in mind while looking for sources. - Galactic-Radiance (Talk) 04:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

main page[edit]

who created the main page? The garmine (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

or does anybody even know? The garmine (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi The garmine. Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles has some information about "HomePage". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It was found there by the first Wikipedians. There is footage of the event. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thanks, Primehunter The garmine (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Creating a user page: need more details[edit]

I started to create a user page and I'm having trouble 1) putting in colors and borders and 2) minimizing the skill badges I've received. I have looked at the instructions for designing a user page and they're not helpful enough for me Dustmouse3 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dustmouse3, welcome to the Teahouse. You could for example place {{collapse top|Wikipedia Adventure badges}} before your badges and {{collapse bottom}} after them like the example below. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia Adventure badges
Hi Dustmouse3. I made a few changes to reduce their size and clean up the display. That could be combined with what is suggested above. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi PrimeHunter, thank you Dustmouse3 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Editing an article about a politician[edit]

Hi, I'm a newcomer, I did create an article yesterday and it was removed without suggestion of modification or invitation to change or modify incomplete content before deleting the article. I couldn't have choice or time to protect it, it was removed by an administrator than I doubt about his competence to judge the subject and appreciate the opportunity of it in the iranian actuality. At the point I am now I don't know how to change things. This politician is official candidate of Presidential elections in Iran for this year, and even he is not already referred in information medias, he has an official website and references are all verified. Now many medias looks about wikipedia articles when they search about a personality especially a politician, so how can I fix the problem and publish the article. Many thanks.

TheSimorgh (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @TheSimorgh:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please provide a link to the now-deleted article so editors are better able to help you. In general, you could ask the deleting administrator for clarification about their reasoning - and the deletion reason usually contains blue Wiki-links to the relevant guidelines. Politicians' articles must meet any of the criteria outlined in WP:ANYBIO or WP:POLITICIAN (as well as general content guidelines like neutrality and verifiability). Our personal opinion about a topic's importance doesn't matter in that regard, independent published reliable sources (either in English or any foreign language is OK) are required. Hope that helps a bit, I'll also post some basic links for new editors on your user talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello @GermanJoe:

Thanks for all informations you've sent. At the instant sadly the administrator that deleted the article gave confusing informations. Here is the link of the deleted article:

Now I wrote from you and other users to understand the situation.

I respected all terms of use especially the question about neutrality. You can see the biography I wrote on the official website of the candidate . The picture I've uploaded is under Antoine Homayounfard Copyright, the son of Mr Hossein Homayounfard who I'm creating article, so I did have authorization to use the picture. I hope this article can be restored. Thanks as advance.

--TheSimorgh (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello @TheSimorgh:, in case you are employed to write for this politician, you should also read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Another quick point: verbal consent to re-use copyrighted material on Wikipedia is generally not sufficient - in an anonymous online project we cannot verify such claims. Information about a possible written verification via mail, and other copyright-related aspects, can be found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. When you have read the notability guidelines and believe an article could meet them, your best approach would be to follow WP:Your first article. But please make sure to collect enough reliable sources and to disclose an eventual "conflict of interest", before you continue to create a new draft version. GermanJoe (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi TheSimorgh. Further on to what GermanJoe said above, this page was required to be deleted as it was a blatant copyright violation of this site – even if that was not the reason Materialscientist deleted it, and even if you were unaware you could not do this. Although the text was not written in a manner that Wikipedia could use anyway, that might have been able to be fixed, but the fact it was copied and pasted could not be, unless the owner of the copyright released it into the public domain or under a suitable, free copyright license. That is, but for short, transparently marked and cited quotations, we would need an irrevocable release of the copyright to the world in order to use the content – not the owner's permission for us to use his/her-its non-free content. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Fuhghettaboutit:. I have read your answer. Thank you for your informations but in reply of your explanation, I do have all authorizations from Ayyaran group and Dr Homayoun Fard, (who's website is propriety and copyright propriety) to use every elements useful of the website in the process of creating an article about this politician. Preventively, you could ask and demand me to modify the page and explain me how to modify text to be in the best form before deleting it without any explanation. I mean we're an open source system of information, and users are seemed to be consider as equal by each others like our five main rules are written. So where your right to delete my article is larger than my right to write it and have the right to see your prevention about copyright and form of the content and time to modify my article in consideration of your indications before my work being erased ? I'm absolutely ready to rewrite it according to the indications you will have given to me, even from the form than from the way to use rights and copyrights for uploading a picture. Explain me how to prove that I have those authorizations. Thanks as advance and also best regards. Sincerely. --TheSimorgh (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi TheSimorgh The website that you link says: " AYYARAN GROUP - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1976-2017". Wikipedia takes copyright laws very seriously, so text from that website cannot be reproduced here without procedures that you have been given advice above about (suitable, free copyright license). It's not worth considering that procedure because the text will have to be rewritten to comply with neutral point of view. The rules on WP:Biographies of living persons are particularly strict, so you need to read up on these first, and collect some references where the subject has been discussed (not just mentioned) in WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:Notability. All editors here are volunteers, and all editors are equal, but rules have been agreed by editors over the years, and those do not include a right to publish except under the usual rules of an encyclopaedia. It is normally advisable for new editors to create articles in WP:Draft space or in a sandbox page so that there is time for advice and improvements. Dbfirs 11:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi again. TheSimorgh. As indicated in my post, and clarified above by Dbfirs, even if you went through the exercise of providing a proper release of the copyright, it would need to be substantially rewritten and much of it not included, so I don't think that is worth your time. What would be needed, if a neutrally-written article is possible is for it to be supported by citations to reliable, secondary and entirely independent sources—and not ones merely mentioning the topic but ones that treat him in substantive detail. That would demonstrate the notability of the topic to warrant an encyclopedia article, and at the same time, verify the information content.

To be clear, only those types of sources are useful to demonstrate notability, which show the world taking note of the topic. Non-independent, primary sources like the one you copied from, can also be used for limited purposes to verify straightforward facts, but do nothing to demonstrate notability.

So, the way to write an article is to gather those sources first, then determine if an article is warranted by their existence, and if so, write the article only including information they verify (writing in your own words; source are used to verify the information, not the sentences; as you do so, pretend you know nothing about the subject, and write in a just-the-facts style.

Nevertheless, if you still want to try to use some portion of the previously written content from the website (even though much of it cannot be used as written anyway, as promotional, evaluative, self-serving prose), then ways to provide a verifiable release of the copyright are set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials – such as changing the posted copyright notice at the website to properly release the content under a suitably-free copyright license or into the public domain. (You can archive such a release at the talk page using {{Text release}}.)

Meanwhile please note that if you work for the subject, or are receiving any compensation for trying to write this article here, you must disclose your paid contributor status. You can do so by posting to your user page the filled out template {{Paid}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

sandbox access[edit]

Is there a way to invite another wiki user to my sandbox so that they can make edits to it as well?Kcling3 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can send them a message on their user talk page, with a wikilink to User:Kcling3/sandbox. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kcling3 if you wish to invite "interested editors" rather than a specific individual, you could post an invitation to WT:WikiProject Microbiology, which is where editors interested in bacteria (and other microscopic life) can be found. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kcling3: In case it isn't clear, all users can see and edit your sandbox. There are no private pages in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Kcling3. PrimeHunter's answer is 100% true but can be slightly misleading; the relevant guideline is found here. Everyone else can see and edit your sandbox; however, it would usually be impolite to do so without an invitation (explicit or implicit), so it is a good idea to place one. Also, few people (if any) go around looking at sandboxes for article drafts they can improve, so if you want some help it is better to ask. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Why does this link not work?[edit]

Hello again. I've tried to add a reference to, but I appear to be unable to. The link in question is the following: AWearerOfScarves (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I think I have provided insufficient information. Here it is:

I want to add a reference with the aforementioned link. When I try to add it via the visual editor, it creates an error message. I would like to know how I can circumvent this issue so that the reference can work. Thank you for your patience.AWearerOfScarves (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello AWearerOfScarves. I am not sure what problem you encountered; I was able to insert that reference, though not by Visual Editor. Can you give us the exact content of the error message?
I am not sure what you want to use that link for (and to me it just looks like a giant dump of bugs/features/fixes), so I reverted my inclusion, but you can copy-paste the syntax for non-VE edition if you want to. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Tried it again using the Automatic reference generator, didn't work. But, I don't think I need to add it, since another reference leads almost directly to the log (yes, it is a dump; it is an update change-log for the game on that (Wikipedia) page. Sorry for wasting your time.AWearerOfScarves (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

User Page Move[edit]

I'm not a newcomer. I drafted my new user page at User:CopernicusAD/about and am ready to move it to User:CopernicusAD. However it won't let me. I need someone to delete User:CopernicusAD in order to move my page. @ thx User:CopernicusAD or my talk User talk: CopernicusAD :D 16:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of...mostly. There ended up being some...unexpected G6s, but I'm sure they'll disappear soon. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My article was moved to redirect[edit]

Hello! I was in the process of editing my article. I had to put it down for about three weeks and I came back today, it has been moved: The pages in this category are redirects from moved (renamed) titles. I am not sure how to find it and complete my edits for submission. My article is Constantine Mavroudis, MD. This is my first article and am learning a lot about the process, as a first timer and a clinician by trade I am quite slow at navigating the system but am really trying! Any help at all would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!Amr247rn (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article can be found at Draft:Constantine Mavroudis. ~ GB fan 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I would send you a barnstar or something cool if I knew how. How about a smiley face emoji :)Amr247rn (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Amr247rn. Just for future reference, at the top of almost every page here you will see a link for "contributions", which will show you all (non-deleted) edits you have made. Other ways to access your contributions include searching for Special:MyContributions or, when at your user or user talk page, clicking on "User contributions" from the links in the "tools" menu on the left-hand side of the page. This last one is also the way to see other users' contributions, e.g, if you went to my user or user talk page, that link would show you mine. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My article was declined: how can I identify the parts I need to change?[edit]

Hi there and thank you in advance for the help. I submitted an article for approval but it has been declined because it "included copyrighted content". I wrote all the content - everywhere - for that project, so I need some help in identifying the bits that are considered copywright so I can change them. How can I do that? Fronfin (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fronfin, and welcome to the Teahouse. The copyrighted sections have already been removed, so you can carry on working on the draft (although there isn't much of it left). It's important to note that, even if you wrote the original text, we can't use it if it has already been published elsewhere. You can, however, amend the licence of the site where it initially appeared to allow it to be used under Wikipedia's licence - the instructions on how to do so can be found at Donating copyrighted materials. Alternatively, you can just recreate the page using sourced information and phrasing it in original language. Yunshui  15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much Yunshui! Fronfin (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you create a Wikipedia Page?[edit]

I would like some assistance in creating a Wikipedia page.Macynthomas (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Macynthomas. You may want to check out our tutorial on writing your first article, or take our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. TimothyJosephWood 14:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
User has created a totally inappropriate autobiography Macy Thomas with personal details that should be removed ASAP for her own safety. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I did that...@Macynthomas:...please do not recreate this here. You are giving away too much personal information. Lectonar (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

how can edit some semi-secreted articles[edit]

some semi-secreted articles like homoeopathy - how we can edit it, because like these articles are written by some criticizer persons without proper informationDrhishamct (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Drhishamct. You should request that a volunteer add the information by posting {{edit semi-protected}} on the article's talk page along with your request. When you do this you should be as specific as possible (for example, Please change 1877 to 1897 because the date is wrong.) and you should include reliable sources to back up the information you would like change.
Broad suggestions like Can someone fix this article because it's biased? or requests that don't include sources that meet, in this case, our exceptionally high standards for medical content will almost certainly not be accepted. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Drhishamct. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not compatible with the edits you want to make. You wish to treat patent pseudoscience as if it is not. Whether you disagree with me on whether it is or not is not the issue. The issue is that the majority of mainstream, reliable, high quality, peer reviewed, scientific sources disagree with you, and at Wikipedia we follow what those sources hold. We do not provide a false balance to take into account fringe theories and fringe sources, but strive to give due weight, as reflecting in the world. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions regarding policy, editing while on talk, and community interaction norms[edit]

Hi, I'd really appreciate some advice regarding a discussion on the John Fleming (American politician) talk page I'm involved in. I have three questions:

1. Am I understanding policy, particularly notability and undue weight? 2. At what point is it appropriate to add the two scholarly references I mention to the article itself, given that there's a discussion ongoing on the talk page? 3. Is this interaction in line with community norms?

Thanks! Shelfpea (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Shelfpea. So that's a pretty involved conversation, but we'll give it a go.
undue weight is primarily a concern where there are minority and majority perspectives on a subject So, the answer here is not necessarily. This is the way I like to think about DUE: Imagine that you had the perfect search engine and you could pick a topic, like coverage of this guy's gaffe, and get 1) every article, book, literally everything that has ever been published on this person in the history of the world, and 2) be able to sort those by every piece that mentions this Onion gaffe and every piece that doesn't. If 4% of these mention it, and 96% don't, then in a perfect world you would commit about 4% of the article to the information.
Having said that, in my hypothetical there is also some theoretical threshold of "outright insignificance" and at some point you wouldn't try to commit 0.08% of an article to a subject; you would simply ignore the information as not being important at all.
Of course in the real world we don't have this, but what we try to do is approximate what it would be like if we did. So this is both important when deciding how much weight to give "support and oppose" viewpoints (e.g., the vast and overwhelming majority of research supports the fact of human contribution to climate change), but it is also useful in trying to judge whether content should be included at all, or simply ignored.
That's a bit of a convoluted answer I know, but hopefully it helps illustrate the point. TimothyJosephWood 13:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. But we need to integrate the differences among sources into your hypothetical, no? So reliable sources would be valued more highly over unreliable, regardless of numerical spread. And reliable tertiary sources, which suggest the material in question is likely to pass the ten-year test, should similarly have different weight. Right?
Could you (or someone else) also weigh in on my second and third questions here? I should add that with regard to the third question, this interaction on the talk page follows an all caps shouting at me in edit comment boxes for the article (which led to a warning from an admin) and a request for mediation (which was denied), both from the same user. Is this considered normal community behavior here? It is...not welcoming. Thanks. Shelfpea (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey Timothyjosephwood (or others) I'd really appreciate it if you could advise me further, particularly on the last two questions. Thanks Shelfpea (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hey Shelfpea. Thanks for the ping. I'm afraid I spent most of the afternoon over at commons and didn't follow up here. here we go. (Sorry for the wall of text response.)
  • As to my hypothetical, basically yes. If we were building our "ultimate due weight calculator" we would "weight" (in the statistical sense of Weighting) sources according to their type, primary > secondary > tertiary. Not only that, but we would judge their importance not only by the raw number of publications, but also by the actual word count dealing with the topic specifically and what proportion of the whole that represented.
So in your book (I don't remember which one I looked at yesterday) it would get a "bump" for being...lets say 75% secondary, but 25% tertiary (overall more like a tertiary source than a news article although still arguably very secondary). But it would also get a "downgrade" because such a very small portion of the book actually deals with our topic. In comparison, a news story would get a downgrade for being 100% secondary, but it may get a bump for being 100% about the main topic.
  • When to add the sources? Well we have to deal with WP:OVERCITE, which an essay but a useful one. Basically, we don't want to cram in 9,000 citations just because we can. The Onion article itself can probably be removed, since it is totally primary here and not actually about Fleming at all, and I would probably drop at least one news story, since they pretty much just duplicate each other. So you start and end up with four sources, but probably get an overall upgrade in quality. Of course this still falls under WP:BRD, and you would need to get consensus if the change was controversial.
  • Finally, about norms. Yes and no. WP:5P4 is the standard. However, there's also a little bit of WP:COMMONSENSE that has to go along with it. You can't realistically expect to edit in...say...articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and think that everything is going to be tea and sunshine. Emotions are predictably going to run high in politically charged topic areas, and there's really only two ways to deal with that: either you become the kind of person that runs to WP:ANI and WP:AE with every little complaint and wastes a lot of time doing little of any value, or you can be the kind of person that doesn't sweat the small stuff, and tries to redirect the conversation to a place where it's civil and productive. I recommend the latter in all but the most extreme circumstances. TimothyJosephWood 12:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox government agency[edit]

Hi I recently tried to change some names in the infobox for this article Board of Admiralty I added |type = Board so that it reads Board Overview which then changed the officials to Board Executives instead of agency executives however preceding this board was an office it now reads preceding board and superseding this board was another board it now reads superseding agency both of which are not the correct term this government department was consistently changing names of its subsidiary functions and sometimes eventually going back to the original name I would like to know how you can change it or adapt it to included additional options for the following, Board, Branch, Council, Department, Division, Office, Section. You can see another example where its a division and the same problem occurs here: Anti-Submarine Division many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Have I placed this request on the wrong help board?--Navops47 (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Navops47, this is a proper forum for newcomers to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia, but for the life of me, I have no idea what you are asking. Your question is almost all one run-on sentence and it is virtually indecipherable. Sorry. Please re-add with clearer syntax. John from Idegon (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Navops47. If I understand your question correctly, it would require an extension to the definition and implementation of Template:Infobox government agency. I suggest asking the question (perhaps a bit more clearly) on Template Talk:Infobox government agency. If there is no response there, try WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi apology for not making myself clear I'm not that technical and have difficulty explaining myself properly. I think Colin you are correct the solution to my problem is that the current template is restrictive, it does not provide me with the number of options I need to insert correctly either preceding office, branch, division and so on. I also need the same choices for superseding. If you look at the infobox in these two examples Board of Admiralty, Anti-Submarine Division you will see what I mean.--Navops47 (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

What is and is not appropriate language for a Wikipedia article[edit]

Hi, I have been following what looks like the beginning of an editing war, which I do not understand. My general question though, is first of all, is there some reason that just because someone said something, that that something has to be quoted on Wikipedia? The quote I have been following here:Anthony Scaramucci/Politics, seems to be unrelated to anything about this man, ie, totally irrelevant, and to top it off, contains a profanity that should be avoided to the greatest extent possible on an encyclopedia that prides itself on its neutrality. It appears to me that the entire paragraph in which the profanity appears is gratuitously placed there in order to make the subject of the article look bad, ie, does not add anything to our understanding of the subject. Doesn't this violate BLP standards? Pangera (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Pangera. There's two broad principles that come into play here. The first is our policy on verifiability, meaning that the content needs to cited to a reliable source. Our goal is not to present "Truth" per se (capital T, Truth in a philosophical sense), but to present things that are verifiable and thus likely to be true.
The second is our policy on relative weight, meaning that just because something is in fact verifiable, doesn't mean it gets automatically included. It should be verifiable and important. We judge importance based on the relative prominence (not simply existence) in reliable sources.
The first point seems like a go, since it appears to be pretty reliably sourced. So if you wanted to argue that the material shouldn't be included, you have to argue that doing so would be providing undue weight, because the content is presented in only a single or very view sources when compared to coverage of the individual as a whole. TimothyJosephWood 12:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Yes, undo weight seems like a good argument. I wonder what you think about using "common sense" to argue that any reasonable person can see that the entire statement is out of place. It is not connected to anything about the subject, and seems clearly there only to make the subject look bad. I actually disagree with your first point- just because there is a good source for the statement, does not make it appropriate for Wikipedia, this is just common sense. We do not include in a Wiki article everything a person is quoted as having said, even if it appears in the NYTimes. Another point has to do with the profanity involved. I just looked up Wikipedia's policy on profanity, and found this statement: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I believe it is clear that the removal of the offensive statement in the Scaramucci article would not in any way make the article less "informative, relevant, or accurate." Do you think I have a leg to stand on here to remove the paragraph? Thanks so much for allowing me to discuss this with you. I appreciate your time and expertise. Pangera (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability problem: two music artists by the same name, one is on WP, one is not...[edit]

The artists in question are:

1 - Solomon King (aka Allen V. Levy, Randy Leeds) Born August 13, 1931 in Lexington, died in Norman, Oklahoma, January 21, 2005.

2 - Solomon King the contemporary blues guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter with 4 independent LP releases since 2008, one of which was nominated for a "Best Contemporary Blues Album" Grammy; two songs used for a massively popular HBO original series; played the leading role in an independent feature film about the night Phil Spector murdered Lana Clarkson; frequently booked at blues festivals, iconic nightclubs, etc. from Hawaii to Chicago; reviews and write-ups in numerous publications over the last 9 years.

Because of WP notoriety rules, the former artist who is deceased over a decade, hadn't recorded anything for over 30 years, and never wrote a note of original music is considered notable because he had a couple of songs on the UK charts in the 1960s.

The latter artist is not considered notable because he isn't on a major label, didn't WIN a Grammy, his movie was not produced by a major studio and didn't win any major award, apparently licensed reproductions in major television series' are not considered a factor for notability, and the publications that have reviewed his work are mostly dedicated to the blues genre and therefor not "mainstream" press outlets.

I always thought of Wikipedia as a triumphant example of crowd-sourced curating, capable of telling the true stories that matter in this world of media hype, legal payola, and "fake news" (whatever that even means anymore). But, as I am digging deeper into the criteria that WP uses to determine it's content, I am finding that it's not based on relevance, accuracy, completeness, or merit at all.

WP's primary criteria is "public interest" which obviously translates directly into search hits, so I understand the importance of that content to WP's bottom line. But, don't they have an obligation as an unbiased compendium of human knowledge to include information that is RELEVANT to a subject, even if it, in itself, is not POPULAR??? Isn't the regurgitation of already-popular content, i.e. content which has "public interest" as measured by agencies of the mainstream media exclusively, just more of the same rather than being a source of complete, unbiased, uncensored information?

I came to WP to get accurate information to help differentiate the works and history of these two namesake music artists. It became a project for me after noticing that both Amazon and iTunes have no method for delineating artist identity in search results. So, in order to know whether a song or album was recorded by Artist A or Artist B, I would have to know their discographies and songbooks already. So, in trying to obtain that information I came across numerous numerous entries on sites like that were not accurate. An example:

The songs "Frankie & Johnny" and "Jack Me Up" are attributed to the deceased Solomon King on his record in the database, when in reality they were written by the living Solomon King and both were on the soundtrack of the HBO series "True Blood".

This was not at all apparent though. It was only after carefully examining the songbooks of both artists from several sources and spotting the mismatch, researching the song titles, and finally contacting the living artist and asking him if he knew anything about an artist by the same name recording two songs with the same titles as his recent recordings, that I was able to finally conclude that someone must have just copied the song list off a site, like Amazon or iTunes, perhaps without even knowing they were looking at two different artists' work listed in the same search results.

So, I am trying to disambiguate a frustrating tangle of erroneous songbooks, album releases and recording credits across the internet that have occurred because of these two artists having the same name. I was counting on Wikipedia to either provide an accurate source of data to reference, or be a venue for publishing the correct data in a trusted publication if there wasn't already an entry.

Now I find out why Wikipedia was unable to help me research this information. It's because one of the two artists wasn't "notable" enough. Well, if you are searching for one artist and another artist's work comes up right along with the one you're looking for, that artist becomes pretty damn "notable" to you.

So, being that Wikipedia is supposed to be a research tool, not an anthology of popular media icons, I suggest they append their "notability" policy to at least include an exception for non-notables with the same name as notables. Ideally, I think they should expand their criteria to include more than just mainstream success, and take into consideration timeliness and notability within a subtopic. By that I mean: for those who interested in contemporary blues artists, the living Solomon King is very notable, whereas the the deceased one is completely irrelevant.

Brown Miller Brownianproductions (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I will start by the unpleasant stuff first, but please, keep reading. I suggest you change your username, because organization names are not allowed as usernames. Moreover, I suggest you give a read to our policy on conflicts of interest and paid editing. Also, try to be more concise in your posts - I think the above could have been cut by half while keeping all the important points. Finally, in Wikipedia as in other venues, starting off in a new circle by telling everyone how they should behave when you are the new guy in town is not a great idea, even if it is a genuine offer for improvement - a much better strategy is to come with "I don't understand why..." so that if there is a good reason it gets explained to you, and if there is not it gets changed easier because you did not trigger a fight or flight response.
Now for the bottom of the issue. First thing: you found a mistake in Wikipedia (misattributed songs); great, go ahead and correct it!
One criterion Wikipedia uses to determine the content is notability, which is not quite the same as "public interest", although the difference is subtle. You obviously took some time skimming through our guideline pages, but you probably missed this part and that part, which give some advice about how to weight various measures of "public interest" (there are countless others, I will not link them all).
It is extremely unlikely that Wikipedia will adopt a rule to have articles about homonyms of notable people; to me it seems like a form of "inherited notability" (which is not valid grounds to have an article, nor should it be). If you want to propose such a rule, you should do it at WP:VPP or WT:BIO, but I would not bet a lot on you managing to get that change.
However, if as you say there are reviews and write-ups in numerous publications about the living Solomon King, these can prove notability even if not from "mainstream" sources under current rules. What matters is that the sources be reliable for their particular context. For instance, an editorial in Diapason (a French music magazine) would probably not be a reliable source for analysis of the political situation in Germany, but it would certainly support notability of a rising classical artist.
How to manage the various "Solomon King" articles if the new one is created is a merely technical issue, I can take care of that for you if you want. For now, I suggest you create Draft:Solomon King (blues artist) and add the references you know; you can read this page for the basics of article creation. Drop me a note when you are finished and I will give you further advice / submit the draft. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Need clarification with WP:RS and with WP:SELFSOURCE[edit]

Concerns with understanding WP:RS and with WP:SELFSOURCE are in regards to a new article for Talalima Mobley - basically, I've written an article about myself, Talalima Mobley, and now it has been flagged as an Article for Deletion because the sources provided aren't from fully reliable publications. However, under the WP:RS it's explained under WP:SELFSOURCES that the self-published materials may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. As long as the following criteria are met.

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

I feel that each criteria has been met, then again, I'm new to this and possibly could be wrong. If anyone can assist in verifying that my understanding is reasonable or far from it, please let me know. Please refer to the Wikipedia Article for Deletion/Talalima Mobley discussion to get the full scope of the proposed article. You're more than welcome to reach out to me at talamobley[at]styleheirs[dot]com Thank you in advance.

Inherit Love, I AM, Talalima Mobley. Talamobley (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Talamobley. Self-published sources can indeed be used in limited circumstances (i.e. to confirm uncontroversial details about a subject), but the issue here is that in order for us to have an article in the first place, our notability guideline requires there to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

assignment work[edit]

Hello i am a university student and i have an assignment to publish a Wikipedia page of a female leader in our community. I did write a draft but till now there are no reviews that it will be published or no. It has to be done this Friday. Can you help me in publishing this page. MichelleGrace01 (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi MichelleGrace01 and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid your teacher does not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a blog where people post articles. The person must already be well-known to have an article as shown by sources such as newspaper articles, books, etc. published by reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Did your teacher offer you any training on writing for an encyclopedia before making the assignment? I am putting a welcome message on your talk page which will have some helpful links about writing articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Please ask your teacher to change the wording of the assignment to "write an article in Wikipedia style ..." so that the task is possible within Wikipedia rules. Dbfirs 07:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello can you please view my article in the draft section and give me a feedback if it can be published.

Hoping for a favorable reply. MichelleGrace01 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again MichelleGrace01. The short answer is it cannot be published. The longer answer is that a person who is only locally well-known and had not been written about extensively elsewhere is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Your teacher asked you to do something which cannot be done. I am sorry. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert or leave it?[edit]

Hello again. I'm wondering if I should revert the Ma Barker article to its March 19 revision. I don't personally have a problem with the recently removed material, and already have reverted two other major changes (one marked as "minor") on other articles made by the same editor in a short time (which I found unconstructive or even destructive). I also wouldn't want to be considered to "stalk" if this third revert was unwarranted. On the other hand, I only noticed these edits because of other destructive edits, one being on a page on my watchlist. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, PaleoNeonate. I took a quick look at the recent major reversion but did not spend a lot of time studying the history of the article. This looks like a situation where serious talk page discussion is in order. The issue of whether Ma Barker was just the mother of some murderers, or herself a criminal mastermind, should be described in the article based on summarizing what the full range of reliable sources say. I am unfamiliar with the literature on this topic so will not express my own opinion. The article should not reflect the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors but rather what the range of sources say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Glad to meet you again. I also can't really evaluate the quality of those sources and claims in a reasonable time, and am not particularily interested in the topic. As for the editor, he just blanked the two comments I left on his talk page without answering back, apparently moving on elsewhere to censor what he doesn't like. Maybe I could take the chance to revert his changes to this Barker article, and leave a message on the talk page as well, then, hoping that it has regular editors who will know better. I'm tempted to track this editor's future edits, but maybe should not. Or, should I, and report to ANI the next instance (which would be my third message to him) I find is obviously inappropriate? It appears that he was blocked twice in the past, for disruptive editing... Thanks again, PaleoNeonate (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I reverted the changes and left a message on the article talk page for now. PaleoNeonate (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thanks again for your kind assistance. PaleoNeonate (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to improve my hometown's Wikipedia article[edit]

The article in question is Lake Tahoe, it's one step away from being a ga rating, and I want to try and push it in that direction. I have two main questions:

  1. Is there a good place to find geographical and city maps in creative commons?
  2. Is there a definitive guide that states the criteria for a good Wiki article? That could really help.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks - SpiderGnome (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SpiderGnome. You can find a full set of resources and tools regarding maps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria for a detailed description of what is expected for a Good article.
Please do not think of Lake Tahoe as an article about your "hometown". It is an article about a geographical feature, the physical lake. We have separate articles about each of the various populated communities around the perimeter of the lake, such as South Lake Tahoe, California and Zephyr Cove, Nevada. By the way, I have visited Lake Tahoe many times and you are fortunate to live in such a beautiful place.
This article went through a Good article review in 2008, but that was not a successful process at that time. Although I am sure that the article has been changed a lot since then, you may want to go back to the archived 2008 discussion to see whether all the problems identified at that time have been resolved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

my first article is nominated for deletion. on the issue of copyright and publicizing an individual. how do i solve this this[edit]

my first article is nominated for deletion. on the issue of copyright and publicizing an individual. how do i solve this this Soplux (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Soplux. As to the copyright, I saw what you wrote on the talk page, but it misses the issue. Even if that content is owned by the individual:
  1. we could not use it here unless it was released by him into the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license – his permission for our use here is not what we need;
  2. such as release would have to be done in a verifiable manner and not by you claiming he had given permission, because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how this might be done), but;
  3. this material was blatantly promotional, so we could not use it here even if it was released, without a major rewrite; and
  4. it is unclear whether this individual is notable in the special sense we use that word here to mean being the subject of substantive treatment in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic; and if he is
  5. The way to write an article is to look for those sources first, and then only if they exist, write the article in your own words, citing those sources for their information, but not for their sentences, essentially including nothing that is not in them, and leave out every bit of evaluative and flowery promotional language. Just. The. Facts. (Which should speak for themselves.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Good day formatting my article[edit]

I was rejected for my lack of MOS. Is there a cliff note version. I certainly hope so.

Thank you Sharen Sierra (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sharen Sierra and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Writing better articles may help, but read Wikipedia:Your first article first. The article has been marked for deletion as not having been edited in over 6 months, so you will have to start working on it if you want it to stay. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating info on Fiji Times Wikipedia page[edit]

I need some help updating Fiji Times Wikipedia page as the current information is outdated and I've tried but kept getting reverted. This is an urgent issue because the information has been outdated for over 7 years now. Would really appreciate if I could have this update. Foster679 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Foster679. You should probably discuss your concerns on the article's talk page in the first instance - which I see you have already started to do. A major issue with your edits is that they removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced material. The former might have been out of date, but the solution to that is to update the article with content that is supported by sources. Some of your wording wasn't particularly neutral, either, such as "The Fiji Times is synonymous with news in Fiji". Wikipedia articles shouldn't contain that kind of commentary - or at least not expressed in Wikipedia's own voice. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi I am trying to create an article on Dr Suresh David. I have received some help from people, It's really challenging to add, edit etc. I am trying. Need some help. When you find some free time can you please give me suggestions on how to add date of birth, award pics. Thank you so very much. Yourgirl (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi,welcome to the Teahouse. We'll try to help you. We add reliable references in articles. I suggest you to read these two pages:

Please go through these pages, and feel free to ask if you have questions. -Tito Dutta (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Yourgirl is asking about the mechanics of adding a date of birth and pictures to a biographic article, Titodutta (although a date of birth should be sourced). Dates of birth are typically added in brackets after the person's name at the start of the article, Yourgirl, as described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Opening paragraph. Adding images is a bit more complicated, but Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial tell you all you need to know. I would suggest working on ensuring that all of the content of Draft:Dr Suresh David is fully referenced to reliable, published sources first though, before trying to add images. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, remember that you are writing an encyclopedia article, not a CV. We don't need to know about every conference that David has presented at, for instance. Most of the bullet-point list items should be removed from the draft, in my opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so very much everyone

I will go through the pages and make the necessary changes Yourgirl (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is that community live online help page?[edit]

HEllo, I'm new and am looking for the community live online help page where you can post questions and have real time volunteer support. I found it once and didn't bookmark it. Please advise, thx! BESH 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentMBeshara (talkcontribs)

Hello @BrentMBeshara:, you are probably referring to the IRC chat channel for online help. A link to this channel is available in the upper right box at Wikipedia:Help desk. Of course you can also always ask questions here or at the help desk. GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @GermanJoe! That's the one, cheers! BESH 18:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentMBeshara (talkcontribs)

Rules on uploading photos[edit]

I just created a bio page on an artist, Debra Yepa-Pappan, and I am a bit confused about the rules/how to upload photos. Can someone explain? 17:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

PetJ (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey PetJ. For full guidance see Wikipedia:Uploading images. In a nutshell, the first thing that has to be done is finding an image that is either 1) licensed in a way that would make it free to use on Wikipedia, or 2) able to meet our non-free content criteria. You may also want to check out our tutorial on finding images for Wikipedia.
At the end of the day, uploading images is easy, but finding images Wikipedia can use is often pretty hard. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi PetJ If the subject is currently alive only photos that are completely unencumbered by copyright restrictions may be used - then non-free content is not an option. In the vast majority of cases the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, this presumption holds unless it is conclusively proven to be otherwise. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What is a portal?![edit]

I am new and wondering...What is a portal? Nova003 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Nova003. For the full explanation and lots of related links, see Wikipedia:Portal. But in a nutshell, a portal is a collection of articles related to broad topic area. So, for example if you wanted to read articles on science generally, you could browse through Portal:Science to find articles that might interest you. For the full list of Wikipedia's portals you can visit Wikipedia:Portal/Directory. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Search engines finding new Wikipedia page[edit]

Hi. A Wikipedia page I created -- 'A. M. Pattison' -- went live last Monday but search engines aren't listing it yet. Should they be by now? The artist's full name is 'Albert Mead Pattison' and searches using his full name do return results of other sites where his art appears, so I'm wondering whether I should have named the page using his full name instead. Thanks for your help!Ian.fraser1 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. An article title should be based on the subject's common name. The choice of title doesn't govern when it gets indexed. As of a change last year, each new article is now NOINDEXed until it has been reviewed through the new page patrol process. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I marked the article as reviewed BTW. But the whole thing is quite weird. Since User:SwisterTwister is autopatrolled, my understanding is that the article should have been automatically reviewed when it was published by them at AfC. Not really sure what went wrong there. TimothyJosephWood 16:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll check to see if that has fixed the issue.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I can confirm that by marking the article as reviewed, it is now the first item on Google, so thanks again Timothy for doing that. Best regards.Ian.fraser1 (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Where is the rule to discourage editors from claiming credit by name?[edit]

History of the Spanish language has acquired a recent edit saying "(Created by Nikki Reynolds)". I know this is inappropriate, and I'm ready to delete it, but I want to quote a Wikipedia policy rule to support my action. Where is that rule? Kotabatubara (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

At WP:SIGNATURE I find "When editing a page, main namespace articles should not be signed, because the article is a shared work, based on the contributions of many people, and one editor should not be singled out above others." Bus stop (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That claim was added by an IP from Buckhannon, West Virginia, who has made no other edits - whereas the article was created in 2004, by an Australian editor, who currently has 11,500 edits, so I have simply deleted the claim. - Arjayay (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
My interpretation, based on the edit summary, was that the IP was jokingly claiming credit for inventing the Spanish language, not for creating the article. I would just have reverted this as vandalism, Kotabatubara. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

How to change image of a page?[edit]

I want to ask you how can we change a title card picture of a drama serial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza590 (talkcontribs) 12:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hamza590. I'm sorry that your question has gone unanswered so far. I think this might be because it's not entirely clear what you mean by "title card picture". Do you mean an image at the top of an article (perhaps in the infobox, in the top-right)? Could you tell us which article you want to change? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I want to change image on the top left corner of the page. The page is Sasural Simar Ka. Please help me. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza590 (talkcontribs) 19:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have moved your reply here, Hamza590, so that it is in the same section as your original question. You can change the image by editing the code that currently reads | image = Sasural Simar Ka.png to the name of the image you want to replace it with. If the image isn't already on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, then you will need to upload it. See Wikipedia:Uploading images on this. My understanding is that images from TV programmes can only be used in quite limited circumstances, as discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Adventure Reply[edit]

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! nathanlucy (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, N mc lucy. WillKomen isn't actually a real person, but if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, please do ask them here and we will do our best to help. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually...if this is a wordplay on the German "Willkommen", welcome...why is it written with just one 'n'. For German speakers this looks weird :). Lectonar (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Request Feedback - How to submit[edit]

I'm a new editor - first article. Been working with editors in the Help IRCChat. The feedback was to remove 2 sentences with 2 sources that didn't reflect encyclopedia tone. Otherwise it was good feedback. Made the changes. How do I Request Feedback or a review from an editor in Teahouse that would indicate it's an acceptable article to move to main space? Do I need to type in subst: submit at bottom of draft?Ktlnlindler (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your draft was moved to article space at Mary Whyte soon after you posted here, but you have been subsequently editing the draft. Perhaps you could update the live article with the latest alterations? These are the changes. Dbfirs 09:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Request feedback on Draft[edit]

This is my first article. I think the draft is ready to move to the live que or main space for acceptance but I am relying on Teahouse feedback if you believe it's acceptable. The last items that needed additional editing are the following: Per suggestions from an editor, I removed quotes and 2 blog sources and put in a credible newspaper source in it's place. Source 3. I've addressed all previous suggestions from editors. Can you please provide edits and/or approval? I appreciate your time very much. Draft page: Ktlnlindler (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ktlnlindler. There's a seeming embarrassment of riches to draw from. Why not move this to the next level with some of these?: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
For my first time - I wanted to see if it was acceptable to move into main space as is and then once it's accepted go back in and continue adding to/editing with the sources you've included. What do you think? Appreciate your time!Ktlnlindler (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You will see that your draft has been moved into main space at Mary Whyte, so you should continue editing there. Dbfirs 14:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Species distribution map?[edit]

Hello. Is there a template that can be used to create basic species distribution maps? If there is no such templates, what should I do? Note that it would be for the following article: AWearerOfScarves (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. At this time, I don't believe Wikipedia has a native template for representing regional distributions of any sort. Most editors use third-party cartography/image editing tools for these types of applications. Cheers, Kevin12xd 20:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!

AWearerOfScarves (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Where to ask for help on an article?[edit]

I am creating an article about Timothy Caughman. It is the first time I have done one from scratch and I'm discovering it's pretty challenging. So far I am just collecting links, sources, quotes, data. What I have is a total mess.

Is there a place to invite Wikipedians to chip in?

Lucas gonze (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lucas gonze: There are already article about Timothy Caughman and Stabbing of Timothy Caughman. Can your material be worked into one or both of those articles? If not, then the Talk pages of those articles seems like a good place to outline what your article will be about and ask for help. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that tip, Gronk Oz. Timothy Caughman is the article I am working on. Stabbing of Timothy Caughman is an article I want to replace, or merge with, under the reasoning that murder victims should be known for their lives. See the talk page for conversation on that.
Lucas gonze (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas gonze: I see that the merge has been done now, so this is moot, but it might be helpful to know for later. That feeling that everything is a total mess is normal when creating a new article - it means you're on the right track. But even before starting the project to write a new page, you first should assess whether the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word). That will determine whether there should even be a separate article on the subject. There are general notability guidelines, and there are also specific guidelines covering particular situations. In this case, the appropriate guideline is Crime victims and perpetrators, which describes how "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event" normally will not be the subject of an article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I will bow to convention on notability, because it has so much thought and consensus building behind it, even though I believe it is in harmful in the case of victims of racist violence. I will put work into improving the writing about the life of this person on the page about his death. --Lucas gonze (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Musician classification[edit]

Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm editing this article The artist is categorized as a jazz musician but based on everything I read I think he is just a regular musician. How do I change his classification? I'm referring to the classification "Jazz musician" which appears directly below his name when I view his page on mobile. Is it possible to change "Jazz musician" to "Musician"? JazzKatherine (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse. Though generally, original research is discouraged, in small cases like these, I encourage you to be bold and make the change. Editing categories is a little trickier than regular body content - I've gone ahead and made the edit for you, but when editing categories in the future I strongly recommend you enable HotCat by following the steps here. Cheers, Kevin12xd 19:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, JazzKatherine. Brown performed in jazz saxophonist David S. Ware's band and was reviewed by All About Jazz. It seems that categorizing him as a jazz musician is accurate. Such categories do not exclude performing in other musical genres. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JazzKatherine. I see that you have discovered that the "subtitle" that appears in the mobile version does not derive from categories, as Kevin12xd implies, or from anything in Wikipedia itself, but from the Wikidata item corresponding to the article, and you have edited that. (I'm putting this answer here, even though Katherine does not need it, for other people's benefit). --ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing Title of article. Name of scholar/Jesuit priest[edit]

I recently created an article for the American Jesuit priest and Hegel scholar, Quentin Lauer, S.J. I now realize I probably should have written the title as "Quentin Lauer." I instead wrote "Quentin Lauer, S.J." I now think it would be better for the "S.J." (Society of Jesus) to be after his name is first used in the body of the article and not in the title. This seems to be format for all other Jesuits with Wikipedia pages. How do I change the title of the page? Do I need permission to do so?

Johnwhalen (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Normally, you'd use the move tool to change article titles. However, this requires the autoconfirmed flag, which is granted automatically to users after 4 days and 10 edits. Seeing as you don't yet have this flag, I've gone ahead and moved the article for you. Cheers, Kevin12xd 10:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Johnwhalen. We do not use titles or post nominals in Wikipedia. It would be fine to state in the lede that he was a member of the Society of Jesus, but appending the initials SJ to his name would not. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Social Media as a source?[edit]

Could I use a tweet as a source, if the account is verified? The Verified Cactus 100% 22:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey The Verified Cactus. With use of sources, it almost always depends on the specific context. Even seemingly extremely reliable secondary sources can be poor sources in certain contexts. For uses like this, where you are looking to apply the exception to the rule, it is even more context-specific In its absence please see WP:TWITTER. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
One context in which social media is generally acceptable is finding out birthdays of notable people. It's often tough to find a birthdate in a more acceptable source. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I would take White Arabian Filly's advice with a pinch of salt, VerifiedCactus. Unless it's from a verified account of the subject, I would say that a birth date on social media is pretty well worthless; and even if it is on their own account, celebrities do not always tell the truth about their birth dates. Independent reliable sources are always to be preferred. --ColinFine (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that, if you can't find a notable person's birthday anywhere else, and they post on Facebook saying, "Today is my birthday" then it's ok to cite that. I wouldn't trust a fan's post, but finding birthdays can be a huge pain. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, White Arabian Filly. I'd have to disagree with even your last reply, especially for a celebrity. A living person's date of birth just isn't significant enough information to accept their word for it. There are multiple reasons why a person, especially a celebrity might not want their true age known. Unless you have a reliable secondary source, just omit it. John from Idegon (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Not Able to Use my Signature using four tildes (Wikibaji 12:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC))[edit]

Hello Wikipedia experts,

Please help me to fix my signature hyperlink. If i use four tildes with any message that doesn't reflect in to a hyperlink. Wikibaji 12:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talkcontribs)

Look at Special:Preferences. In the signature section is the "Treat the above as wiki markup." checked? If it is does the box right above have a link wikilink to your usertalk or user page? If you check that box you have to put the code exactly how you want your signature to appear including any wikilinks. If you uncheck that box then the software creates the wikilinks. ~ GB fan 12:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems resolved – see the user's sandbox page Special:Diff/771242628. --CiaPan (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much User:GB fan, my issue is fixed now.Wikibaji (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Marked as resolved, based on the OP's statement above. --CiaPan (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I was having a similar problem, signed comments (4 tildes) were being re-signed by sinebot. After sandbox experimenting, I found a likely cause: If there is an accidental CR/LF (i.e. <Enter>), or probably space or any other invisible charcter after the tildes, SineBot adds another signature. Makes sense, actually, although I suppose SineBot could be refined to ignore white space after the tildes. D Anthony Patriarche 18:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D A Patriarche (talkcontribs)
I've never found that to be a problem myself, D A Patriarche. Note that your signature needs to include at least one link to your user page or user talk page, per WP:SIGLINK. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and as mentioned above you can do that by removing the "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkmark at Special:Preferences. Then your signature will say "D Anthony Patriarche (talk)" and Sinebot will be happy. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll try that, thanks. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Changed UserPage signature as suggested by PrimeHunter above; now there is no date/time and sinebot adds those! See 30 Mar 2017: mb 03:09 Wikipedia:Teahouse‎ (diff | hist) . . (+174)‎ . . SineBot (talk | contribs) (Dating comment by D A Patriarche - "→‎Create and Article: See also")
Which is "best" practice, User Page "Treat the above as wiki markup" checkmark at Special:Preferences or unchecked??  I just want to cut down on the minor changes by sinebot! BTW, is there any difference between 3 tildes and 4? D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Leave it unchecked, D A Patriarche. Signing with three tildes will add your name but not the time and date. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please sign with four ~~~~ to include time stamp. Three ~~~ will omit it. If you only want to change the displayed name from the username to something else then leave "Treat the above as wiki markup" unchecked. It's a setting for more personalized signatures like changing color, font and "(talk)". See more at Wikipedia:Signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I've got it now, thanks especially for the clarification of 3 vs. 4 tildes. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Make a Wikipedia of my name[edit]

Plz help me for make a Wikipedia of my name but it's extremely difficult — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hira Laraib (talkcontribs) 11:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless your name is WP:Notable, there should not exists a Wikipedia article for your name. What particular article did you wish to create? Dbfirs 20:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hira (surname) is an article about your first name, assuming it's "Hira". stranger195 (talkcontribsguestbook) 07:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

New Article[edit]

I'm currently making this article on the game 60 Seconds! heres the link Bunsdome (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bunsdome and welcome to the Teahouse.
Normally people come here to ask questions, but you've simply announced something you are working on. I took a look at the draft in your sandbox. You need to find more references that help establish that this game meets notability standards. I also saw that you went so far as to create a disambiguation page, but that was not needed and has been deleted. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Getting an article accepted[edit]

Hello, I have tried twice to get my article accepted and it keeps getting declined! And I was told I could come here for help with my article! Any advice can help! I really want to get this page out there and started! Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostalgic 8907 (talkcontribs) 06:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nostalgic 8907 and welcome to the Teahouse.
I assume we're talking about the article you've been working on at Draft:Milton Crosby III. The review comment says that you must use "inline citations" and points to the instructions at WP:ILC. The purpose of this citation style is to make it easy for the reader to identify what the source is for each fact or claim made in your article. In practice, this means sentence-by-sentence referencing, it's not sufficient to do it by paragraph or by section.
The other problem that you're going to run into is that the references you've provided will likely be deemed insufficient to establish the subject's notability. What Wikipedia would like to see is that the subject has been covered by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Newspaper or magazine movie reviews might help establish notability, but you really need more in-depth coverage to meet this standard.
One thing you might do is spend some time improving other articles on Wikipedia and thereby "learn the ropes". Creating an article on WP is pretty hard, since there are increasingly stringent requirements on what you have to do to establish notability and the kinds of sources that are acceptable. Have you looked at WP:Your first article? That might help you understand why it may feel like you are swimming upstream. Having your first article rejected can be discouraging, but the Teahouse is here to help. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Nostalgic 8907. I endorse jmcgnh's comments above, but can I also add that you shouldn't deleted previous review comments, as you did with this edit? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

creating a page for someone who has no online reference for his date of birth[edit]

I am currently creating an article for someone, with limited references. For instance, the person does not have an official launch of his date of birth online. However, he has that information on his company website and other related platforms. He is highly involved in international works and close partnership with USAID and won the Quality Era Awards, Geneva Switzerland. I want to sure if at least 4 references can make the article breakthrough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excellence360 (talkcontribs)

Hello @Excellence360:, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no fix number of required references for an article, but most of the newly created content should be based on published independent reliable sources. Limited usage of self-published sources (including the topic's own website) for non-controversial claims is acceptable (see WP:SPS for more information), but will do nothing to establish the topic's "notability" itself (see WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO). The absolute amount of necessary published coverage can vary from topic to topic, so it's difficult to give specific advice without knowing the specific case and the currently available sources. I'll also post some additional links on your user talkpage. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Venant Nkurunziza[edit]

This isn't the place for a draft article

Venant Nkurunziza


Venant Nkurunziza was born on the 02 January 1983 in the village of Gasumba, Nyamagabe/Gikongoro Province today's Huye District in Southern Province of Rwanda. He is a young Rwandan politician who serves as Minister of Justice of the Rwandan people’s Government in Exile. He is one of the leaders of Ishema Party, described as a new generation political organization in which he holds the position of Deputy Secretary General in charge of Legal Affairs and Conflict Management.

Background and education

Venant Nkurunziza come from a middle family. His father was a businessman and mother a housewife. He is the 5th among his ten siblings.

At the age of six (1989) he was sent to School (Mugano Primary School) and completed in 1997 to attend his secondary school (Tronc commun) at ES Mbogo Commune Kinyamakara today's Huye District, Southern Province.

He then did “Humanities science” at GS Mutura/Gisenyi today's Northern Province. At the age of 20 he was awarded his Advanced General Certificate of Secondary Education in 2003.

Venant Nkurunziza pursued his legal studies in Faculty of Law at the National University of Rwanda (University of Rwanda) from 2004 after which he was conferred his Bachelor Degree of Law (LLB) at the congregation held in Butare on the 27 March 2009.

Currently Venant Nkurunziza holds a Master’s degree (LLM) in International Law and Protection of Human Rights from the University of the Western Cape (UWC), South Africa in 2013.

Professional Jobs

Venant Nkurunziza is a Lawyer by Professional. Since 2008 he was employed by Supreme Court of Rwanda as a court Clerk at Nyarugenge Court before and after his university studies. Court clerk

He worked as a Researcher Assistant at the African Institute for Migrants Workers (AIMW), then at University of the Western Cape in South Africa.

He is currently an Expert Consultant in different domains of Law. Such as International Law, Protection of Human Rights Law, International Family Law, Child protection and International Humanitarian Law. Etc.

Exile and political career

Having witnessed boundless injustice, vast of human rights violation, and seeing how political space has been closed under Paul Kagame’s regime, Venant Nkurunziza obviously decided to flee his homegrown and mother country on 29 September 2009 to South Africa.

Ishema Party

On 28 January 2013, while he was still a student at the University of the Western Cape (UWC) Venant Nkurunziza intrepidly managed to overcome the refuge situation in Africa and founded Ishema Party together with other young Rwandan activists and scholars. Particularly these are: Rev Father Thomas Nahimana,  Mme Claire Nadine Kasinge, Dr Basesayabo Déogratias, Mr Chaste Gahunde, Kabanda Jean Baptiste and Mr Ernest Tanvir Senga as they were met in Paris, France to launch it.

Up today Venant Nkurunziza holds the position of Deputy Secretary General in charge of Legal Affairs and Conflict Management in Ishema Party.

The vision set by the founders is “promoting Democracy through the truth, intrepid and social justice”. From the beginning they proposed the non-violence and peaceful way based on the dialogue and consensus upon the constructive initiatives to be implemented in a manner evenly beneficial to all the citizens.

After one year the Party convened its first Congress on 08 February 2014 and decided that the time had come to go back home and realize their political program as it is well summarised in their main socierty project named “Together to Modernise Rwanda”.[1] That is why the congress nominated Rev Father Thomas Nahimana as the presidential candidate for the party in the upcoming presidential elections of 2017. For the next extraordinary congress of 2015 held in Le Havre France, Venant Nkurunziza was nominated among others as Candidate Campaign Manager to accompany the presidential candidate for the party registration and campaign procedures. It was in that congress they decided that they should be in Rwanda on 28 January 2016.

However the following congress held in Brussels on 17 November 2016 determined the steps to be taken before going back in Rwanda. The major step was to finalize their main society project named “Together to Modernise Rwanda”. Therefore, they decided to land in Rwanda on Wednesday, November 23, 2016 instead of 28 January the same year.

Back Home for politics

While Venant Nkurunziza and his colleagues Father Thomas Nahimana, Claire Nadine Kasinge with her baby Kejo Skyler were prepared to board Kenya Airways on Wednesday 23rd November 2016, the Government of Rwanda through a letter written to Kenya Airways and other connecting airline operating to Rwanda, warning them against allowing those Ishema Party’s leaders from boarding any flight en route to Kigali.

  Seeing Rwanda Government categorically denied their rights to return home and found themselves blocked in transit at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport.  They decided to go on hunger strike, sleeping in transit for four days,  saying that the government should recognise their rights and let them go back home. But it was in vain.  After unsuccessful effort to return to Rwanda Ishema Party leaders were obliged to return where they were coming from.

On Monday 23 January 2017 Ishema Party leaders attempted again to realise their project and due to the convivial speech of the President Paul Kagame, the high and mighty of Rwanda, they believed to reach Rwanda on the stipulated date. But Paul Kagame was not a man of his words as these compatriots leaders have been blocked at Brussels for second time at the order of Kigali Government.  By this time they decided to hold quick discussions with all other representatives of opposition political parties striving for Democracy in Rwanda, other members of civil society and individual activists by founding Government of Rwanda in Exile.

Government of Rwanda in Exile

After three days of an extraordinary retreat from 17-19 February 2017, the day after, they declared a separate official “GOUVERNMENT OF RWANDA IN EXILE”. And Venant Nkurunziza became Minister of Justice in this Government. The members of the cabinet are the following:

President of the Republic: Rev Father Thomas Nahimana 2. Prime Minister: Mr Abdallah Akishuri

3. Deputy Prime Minister: Mrs Nadine Claire Kansinge

4. Minister of Culture, Family and women’s welfare: Mrs Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza represented by Mrs Claire Nadine Kansinge

5. Minister of Foreign Affairs: Mrs Immaculée Kansime Uwizeye

6. Minister of Justice: Mr Déogratias Mushayidi represented by Mr Venant Nkurunziza

7. Minister of Information: Mr Chaste Gahunde

8. Minister of Interior and Local Development: Mr Daniel Nduwimana

9. Minister of Finance and Commerce: Mrs Marine Uwimana

10. Minister of Education: Mrs Chantal Mukamana Mutega

11. Minister in Charge of Refugee Protection and Suppression of the Causes of Aslym: Mrs Virginie Nakure

12. Minister of Infrastructure and Housing: Rev. Father Gaspard Ntakirutimana

13. Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Land: Mr Jean Léonard Seburanga

14. Minister of Health and Social Walfare: Mrs Speciose Mujawayezu

Based on their declaration, they considered the Government of Kagame as illegitimate and undesirable by the people. It is “a Government that lost its legitimacy and legality in the eyes of Rwandan citizens because it does not work for their interests.” They declared. 

As they set up the Rwandan People Government in Exile, the main duty for the Government was “to stand ready to replace the illegitimate Government led by Paul Kagame”.

Related topic

Thomas Nahimana

Ishema Party


  1. ^ Ishema. "Party".  Check date values in: |access-date= (help);

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatwa (talkcontribs) 11:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't the place for a draft article, so I have suppressed its display. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)