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


WP teahouse logo.png

Most recent archives
609  610  611  612  613  614  615  616  617  618
619  620  621  622  623  624  625  626  627  628

Hi , i am looking for feedback on my article (currently a draft , waiting formal review )-for libby Birch[edit]

Hi , i am looking for feedback on my article (currently a draft , waiting formal review )-please for libby Birch

thank you Beerch (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Beerch. Your draft article is filled with extremely promotional language like "a natural and extremely hard working athlete with an elite mindset", stated in Wikipedia's voice. That violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Any evaluative language must be referenced to an independent reliable source. There are also violations of our Manual of Style, such as capitalizing section headers and referring to the person by her first name instead of her surname. I suggest you read Your first article and review our notability guideline for athletes. It is unlikely that this draft will be accepted in its current form. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I see no indication that Draft:Libby Birch has been submitted for review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The indication was in the line {{AFC submission|||ts=20170606043645|u=Beerch|ns=118}} at the foot of the draft. There was, however, an unterminated comment above it, so the submission was not effective. I have corrected the unterminated comment in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The edit which left the comment unterminated (and thus removed the draft from the submission queue) was this one. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

could i have further feedback on the latest draft Libby birch please thankyou .[edit]

could i have further feedback on the latest draft Libby birch please Also is this draft libby Birch submitted in the waiting list for official review please

thankyou .Beerch (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
See the section above. You don't need to start a new section to continue the discussion. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

draft article libby Birch has been modified according to your valued suggestions .please re review thanks[edit]

draft article libby Birch has been modified according to your valued suggestions .please re review and if possible provide further feedback on libby birch many thanks Beerch (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read what I said above? Please do NOT start a new section when you are continuing a discussion on the same topic. Your draft in now back is the queue for review (along with more than a thousand other drafts). While you are awaiting review, please take the time to read some of the links on your user talk page, and particularly WP:Your first article, WP:Autobiography, and WP:Notability (sports). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The draft in question is Draft:Libby Birch. The referencing is a mess, with no working links to the online sources. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

draft review and feedback Libby Birch thankyou[edit]

NewYorkActuary many thanks for your suggestions and feedback If anyone else has any further suggestions and recommendations for my draft article Libby Birch than i would be thrilled to receive them also is this draft libby birch in a que for official review thankyou Beerch (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Draft:Libby Birch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
How many more times do you need to be told? When you are continuing to discuss the same subject DO NOT start a new section. Yes, your draft is still in the review queue, as indicated by the big coloured box at the top of the draft. I have reverted (twice) your removal of the comments which you received. Comments and review feedback stay in the draft to help you and other reviewers; they will be removed if and when it is published as an article. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry for any inconvenience i have caused and deeply apologise as i was not reading your comments as i had not found them re Libby Birch . Thankyou for your help David Biddulph it is greatly valued . Is there anything else i should do as i note my Beerch user name is still in red ?? again Thanks Beerch (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason that your user name is in red is that you haven't yet created a user page. You don't need to do so, but information is at WP:User pages. Please read the advice at WP:Autobiography if you haven't done so already. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou again , i have red the section on autobiography and this is definalty not an autobiography as i am not the notable person in the article draft Libby Birch and have no bias as such . but thankyou Hi my name is Greg . Also just to check i have also read the section on user pages and dont fully understand the difference between what i thought was my user name Beerch and wha i have ...sorry ...but just to confirm i can still create articles with what i have yes ? again thanks for your help ..Greg Beerch (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)..Greg I think further reading has helped me understand that i have a user name but not page and that still allows me to contribute ? thanks Greg

Beerch (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi , does anyone have any further feedback for the draft article .Libby Birch thanks Greg Beerch (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beerch, DESiegel, and David Biddulph: Considering that "Beerch" is very close to "Birch" — in most languages, the letter "i" is pronounced like English "ee"— I must ask, are you related to Libby Birch? Because if you are, you should not be writing this article, as it is a major conflict of interest. See WP:COI. --Thnidu (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thankyou for your query , when i was trying to create the wikipedia account as a beginner i made a mistake and used beerch for the first proposed articles name in stead of the family name "Kennedy" for myself . i tried to correct this and re enter the user name Kennedy on the same day but it was subsequently denied for some reason ?. As discussed in one of my thankyous i am merely a supporter of this sporting club and hoping to put up a draft article for all the women players(who dont have a wikipedia page on as some already do eg Katie Brennan ). now that i have got the draft with the help of others including yourselves for this first player on the notable womens players list(in alphabetical order beginning with rookie libby Birch) , i have begun to write in my sandbox other drafts for the other players in alphabetical order . If you have advice as to how i can change my user name to kennedy then that would be great to save any confusion .I have tried to follow all the guidelines as stipulated by Wikipedia and understand and respect the importance . thankyou Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerch (talkcontribs) 04:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC) oops i forgot to use the sign off sorry i am trying but make mistakes so if you have any help then please feel free to provide advise at any time thankyou Greg Beerch (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beerch: For information on changing your username, please see Wikipedia:Changing username. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC) thankyou for your asssitance i will try to find a name close the one i want that hasnt been used Beerch (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi i have an image in my commons uploads that needs to be deleted while i get a new Wiki template signed by the image author . unfortunalty i dont know how to do that yet and cant seem to work out how . So I Was wondering if someone could help me and delete File:Western Bulldogs lib birch.jpgin user name Kennedygregb many thanks Greg kennedygregb (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Updating page after rebrand[edit]

The company I work for rebranded at the end of the month and I was wondering if it was possible to have our Wikipedia updated as the website, logo and name are now out of date. The rebrand was not formally noted in press, instead recent articles published about the company have simply used the new name. This means that there is no verifiable evidence in the eyes of Wikipedia. However, the website link noted on Wikipedia now auto-redirects to the new website. (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I suggest posting an edit request on the article's talk page, as described at Wikipedia:Edit requests, or giving us a link to the article here so that we can look into it for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

If you could look into it that would be much appreciated. Here is a link to the page: A link to the new website: A link to our publications that state there has been a rebrand: A few links to where the new name has been used in press: (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Galbraith (business) and have performed a basic update of the text to reflect the rebranding. I haven't uploaded the new logo as I'm not an expert on image copyright. Perhaps another Teahouse host could help with that? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. Your help has been very much appreciated. (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Unable to edit any page as logged in user.[edit]

I have edited some pages without logging in. However, in the history of the edited article, it shows my ip address instead of username. I want to edit as logged in user. But when I save my changes after editing as logged in user. I get following error.

"Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try saving your changes again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in."

I am using Chrome in Mac OS and I have enabled my cookies. Please suggest. (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, 96. What is the username you're trying to use? John from Idegon (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
If you get that "loss of session data" message, all you need to do is what it says – try saving your changes again (i.e., press "Save changes"). It usually goes through OK the second time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC) (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Hi John, I am using my username psmeeta to login to wiki. After login, it takes me to read page as logged in user. ( Read page from right top corner). When I choose edit. It directs me to edit page but logs me out and gives me following message "You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits.". If I try to login again, it logs me in but takes me to "Read" page and the cycle repeats. Any idea ?

As far as I can see, the user name User:psmeeta ‎was already taken. Registered and made one edit Feb 06, 2014 14:43:05 in 2014, and never made another edit since. I don't think you have ever successfully registered an account. Try again with a different name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sacharya (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I registered new account.Thank you (Kudpung)

Can I request an archive bot?[edit]

I have a page with many many dead links, is there a way to request an archive bot to come look at the page and search for archived versions of the links. The page is English Apocalypse manuscripts and all the deadlinks lead to the same website, but the deadlinks are formatted as single square bracket external links and not as cites. Thanks in advance. Mramoeba (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Mramoeba, you can indeed ask User:InternetArchiveBot to check a page (or up to 5000 pages) for you, by submitting the page title(s) here. Since I'd never used the tool, I submitted English Apocalypse manuscripts out of curiosity. The job ran almost immediately; the bot checked 31 links, and changed none. Sorry! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It sometimes takes a while before IABot is ready to declare links as dead. It does this to make sure it's not just marking a site that is temporarily down as dead. If it's just one page, your better off just using the single page analysis tool. There you have the option to add archives to all non-dead references, and proactively archive live URLs not yet in the Wayback Machine. I'm going to be adding configuration options to the bot job submitter.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all for responding. It looks like IAB didn't pick up on any of the deadlinks, I waited a while to check but no. I'm now going to take a look at the run single version, I have made a start by manually updating the British Library citations, so if nothing else it should allow me to archive the ones I have added from the BL didital database. Thanks again. Mramoeba (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Update: still nothing. It can only be because they are single square bracket external links and not cites. If anyone else has any thoughts I would be glad to hear them, otherwise it looks like a manual job Mramoeba (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I wrote my first article and I named it wrong. How do I change its name?[edit]

Dear All,

Well like a dork I wrote my first article "Thymoma associated multiorgan" and I named it wrong. The correct name should be named "Thymoma-associated multiorgan autoimmunity (TAMA)." This disease appears in Up-To-Date (major medical reference) so I thought it should have its own Wikipedia page.

Can someone help me rename this article? Your help will be much appreciated.


Waldo Is Here

Waldo is here (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Mduvekot (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!! I really appreciate it!

I will work on the article more over the next few weeks and make it much nicer. Thanks again!!

Waldo is here (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Waldo is here and Mduvekot: Please rename the article again to remove the acronym from its title:
Thymoma-associated multiorgan autoimmunity (TAMA) → Thymoma-associated multiorgan autoimmunity
See for example ALS, COPD or PMDS. --CiaPan (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Also  Done Mduvekot (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

html <-> wacky wiki: eclipsians and wikipedians ...[edit]

I tried to arrange what I believed would be an easy love affair between eclipsians and wikipedians: (Is there such a thing as a Wikipedia local editor/compiler?), but after 18k views and not a single reply since May 4th, I would say I wasn't successful. Now, I may succeed if I provide at least a SAX HTMLContentHandler to that project, for which I would need the official html <-> wacky wiki map. I can't quite understand why wikipedia uses its own markup for editing, but all cultures come with their own quirks. Albretch Mueller (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Albretch Mueller. I share your interest in eclipses, recently expanded Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017, and will travel to Oregon to view that eclipse. But Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It is a project to build an encyclopedia. So anyone interested in eclipses is welcome to help improve our encyclopedic coverage of eclipses. I do not understand the technical aspects of your question. Perhaps the volunteers at Village Pump/Technical can help you with that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
It is virtually impossible to tell if you are being humorous or if you are just confused. I am not talking about the article on eclipses, but the java editor ( I would like for an HTML component which "save as" wiki wacky source to be implemented Albretch Mueller (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I think Cullen can be forgiven for not having the slightest idea what you were talking about, Albretch Mueller, when you gave hardly a hint what you were talking about, used jargon known to very few, and peppered your question with meaningless and rather disparaging jingles like wacky wiki. I get that you don't want to sully your hands with learning how to write Wiki markup and want to autogenerate it from some other markup. I don't know whether or not this is technically possible, but I agree with Cullen that VPT is the place to ask. --ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I included in my initial post a link to exactly what I was talking about and why. Had you read that post, you may had had a better idea about your "sullying my hands" insinuation and done a better mind reading job. Albretch Mueller (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Albretch Mueller, I did look at the link you provided and the logo at depicts a stylized solar eclipse and the heading is "Eclipse community" so I went by the ordinary meaning of the word "eclipse" and answered accordingly, directing you to the proper place to ask technical questions. So I was being helpful rather than humorous or confused. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I also read the link and it doesn't say what eclipse is. It's written lowercase in both the logo and the post here so it's a natural assumption that it refers to the common word and not a proper name. People at "Eclipse Community Forums" of course know what eclipse means in their context but Wikipedia editors should not be assumed to know it. And I'm still trying to figure out whether "wacky wiki" is the name of something (many Google hits but no common meaning) or an expression made up by the poster for Wikipedia's markup language. I guess it's the latter but when you ask for help it would be a good idea to say what you are asking about without using made up names, or common words with unexplained uncommon meanings. Eclipse (disambiguation) lists numerous meanings including many in computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the topic at hand is getting eclipsed by off-topic remarks. If you take Cullen's advice and post at VPT, you might have more success, instead of trying to walk around in the dark. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for Editing a Content on Wiki Page[edit],_Biwi_Aur_Gangster Ashu Gaur &#124; Business & Technology Consultant &#124; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Produced by Ashu Gaur &#124; Business & Technology Consultant &#124; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Rahul Mittra Ashu Gaur &#124; Business & Technology Consultant &#124; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Sunil Bohra Ashu Gaur &#124; Business & Technology Consultant &#124; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Now the second name Sunil Bohra was not a producer (It was a legal issue of manipulations of him getting listed as Producer). For reference a news in leading Print Newspaper: Ashu Gaur &#124; Business & Technology Consultant &#124; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

So the Producer was only Rahlu Mittra (Other name needs to be deleted) Ashu Gaur &#124; Business & Technology Consultant &#124; (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ashu Gaur. If Bohra as producer is not stated in a reliable source, then you are welcome to remove it: unsourced material may always be removed. (I started looking at the references to see if it was, but gave up after I found several of them to be dead links). If Bohra as a producer is mentioned in a reliable source, then you are welcome to add that this has been disputed, citing the article you link to above; but it is not Wikipedia's job to resolve disagreements between sources, only to report them.
If you are not happy editing the article directly, then the article's tak page Talk:Saheb, Biwi Aur Gangster is the place to suggest and discuss changes.
On another subject, Ashu Gaur, your question above was hard to understand, because you have got your signature wrong: you need to make sure the "Treat the above as wiki markup" button is checked when setting your signature. My personal opinion is that your current signature is inappropriately promotional anyway, but others may not agree with me. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

ST_How long before my page appears when searched for section of wikipedia[edit]

ST_Hi to Wikipedia, How long does it take before my page appears when searched for section of wikipedia Geelongsbestbusker (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Geelongsbestbusker, and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is all about. An encyclopaedia cannot be used for advertising, as on your user page. You are welcome to contribute genuine articles on topics that are suitable for an encyclopaedia (WP:Notable), but your user page will never be accessible in an internet search, so it is pointless to put advertising there. Dbfirs 06:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


Hi, where does WP obtain its coordinates information - e.g. in the info box on the right? Is there a sort of database of this available? (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Please have a look at WP:Obtaining geographic coordinates, and come back if that doesn't answer your questions. --11:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot anonymous user! I'm logged out as I'm at work :) (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
That was ColinFine (see Special:Diff/786424626). :) CiaPan (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

nfl template[edit]

Hey can you please help me with the NFL template again? I updated it again. Also on my page for 2016 nfl starting qbs, how do I get all the names for the injured qbs section in the center of the block. Can you please help, thanks. Vinnylospo (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you want help with regarding Template:NFL lists? In 2016 NFL quarterbacks win–loss records#Starting QB Changes you had an unwanted pipe at the end of row styling align="center"|. The recommended code is style="text-align:center;". If you want to do it in all rows then it's easier to just do it for the whole table.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

How to access and edit when reflist appears[edit]

When I attach references in the body of the text, below under the title of references...I see only reflist. I can not find how to see, or edit the individual references to clean them up, or attach URLs into the refs. Now I am attaching the URLS directly into the body of the text as refs..because I cant construct or edit in the References itself. I am specifically trying to clean up the Karol Hutten-Czapski page which is being reviewed for acceptance --Gzegosh (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gzegosh, welcome to the Teahouse. There are different reference systems but references are usually written and edited where they are used in the article text and not where they are displayed in the references section. Click a symbol to the left of the reference to see where it is used. See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Advice on referencing notability[edit]

Hi, I wrote an article recently but it got declined because the references weren't adequately able to show the subject's notability. I don't understand what this means. Could someone point me in the right direction or show some examples to explain this point of view please? Thank you.Bmoy94 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Below are my current references for my article.Bmoy94 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Chaker, Anne Marie. "America's Next Top Super Berry", The Wall Street Journal, Retrieved on 13 June 2017.

Chaker, Anne Marie. "The Veggie Burger's New Dream: Be More Like Meat", The Wall Street Journal, Retrieved on 13 June 2017.

Hunt, Kevin. "A focus on food texture", General Mills, Retrieved on 14 June 2017.

"Are you a 'cruncher' or a 'smoosher'?",, Retrieved on 15 June 2017.

Hartman, Lauren R. "Formulation Trends for 2017",, Retrieved on 15 June 2017.

Manuell, Roy. "New Food presents…the ‘The 10 Top Trends of 2017",, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Starostinetskaya, Anna. "Dairy-Free Milk Market to Hit $16 Billion",, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Green, Elizabeth. "Special Report: The Indulgence Factor Innovators Play with Texture, Mouthfeel and Freshness", [], Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Shoup, Mary Ellen. "Booming plant-based drinks market set for more category innovation",, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

"Increasing the appeal of dairy-free drinks",, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Nunes, Keith. "Got milk alternatives?",, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Cabel, Denice. "Global plant milk market top US$16bn in 2018",, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Hensel, Kelly "Setting Meat Aside",, Retrieved on 19 June 2017.

Bmoy94 (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is Draft:Innova Market Insights. It would have been useful if you had told us that, so we don't have to go and search your contributions. I've only looked at the first three or four citations, but they all seem to just have passing mentions of Innova. We need reliable sources that contain in-depth coverage of the subject. Have you read WP:Notability and WP:Reliable sources? Rojomoke (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Bmoy94 To amplify the above reply: You need to find articles that are specifically about the company "Innova Market Insights" itself. Passing mentions of the company in articles about other topics are of little value. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Rojomoke, thank you very much for your response. I'm sorry I forgot to put in the article name. I will remember next time. So, I need to find articles that have more in-depth info about the company, right? I have read some parts of the Notability and reliable sources sections. Thank you. Bmoy94 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello Roger, thank you very much for your helpful information. I have a much better understanding now that you have simply explained it. I hope that I can find those articles.Bmoy94 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I submitted my first wikipedia article and get *declided*, because its more like an essay than an enciklopedia article.[edit]

I'm looking for feedback and more detailed comments on my article:

I dont realy know what to change:

- the title?
- more references?
- the wording?

If you can spot some parts which are god enough for this criteria (or parts which aren't) I'd be more than happy! Hgazsi (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hgazsi. The feedback says "Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research." The thing to realise is that Wikipedia has no interest in what you (or I!) think or know; and in an article about van de Rijt's research it has almost no interest in what van de Rijt thinks or says. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with him have published about his research, and the article should be based almost 100% on that. I've looked at the first two references you give, and while they are certainly reliable sources, neither of them appears to me to be independent: the first seems to be based on an interview, and the second on a press release. You need to find some sources independent of him, and base the article on what they say.
There is also an issue of tone: you are telling a story, not giving a neutral summary of independent accounts. You also draw conclusions, ask further questions, and draw a moral: none of these is remotely appropriate to an encyclopaedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

References and sources.[edit]

Hello Cullen328. Teahouse host, Please let me know if I am sufficiently including "References and Sources" to

I just want to make sure we have reliable references sources added within a seven-day grace period for this article.

Thank you.


PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Haven't heard from anyone yet.

PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PeterColemanUSA and welcome to the Teahouse. Other wikipedia articles are never acceptable as sources for Wikipedia articles. This is partly because of the danger of circular sourcing (where A is a source for B, B is a source for C, and C is a source for A), and partly because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, so they are not considered reliable sources. Peter Coleman (sailor) currently has no citations to sources other than Wikipedia articles, and is therefore in effect unsourced. It needs citations to independent published reliable sources. The format of citation you used is not the standard one for inline citation on Wikipedia, but that is less of a problem. If the information is there, we can help with its formatting. But do please read Referencing for Beginners.
Currently, this article does not demonstrate the "notability" of the subject. Please read our guideline on the notability of people. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
PeterColemanUSA, do please understand that everyone here is an unpaid volunteer, doing this in spare time. 24 hours is generally considered a prompt response. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, I think it's safe to warn you about Conflict of Interest editing, glancing at your username. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The page is already tagged as an Autobiography. Creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged, but if it is going to be done, it should be done properly. The curent version does not seem overly promotional, alhtoguh earlier versions seem on a quick look to be more so. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I had originally tagged it for deletion as an unsourced blp, which was correctly removed when a citation to United States Sailing Association page was added (although incorrectly formatted). The autobiography tags have been removed several times, and now an ip is editing the article. Would be so much easier if the editor simply declared his conflict of interest. As an fyi DESiegel - I removed the unsourced blp tag you had placed on the article, since the citation I mention above remains on the page, although it's been moved to the external links section. My understanding is that as long as there is a single reference, either in the reference section, the el section, or a link to a webpage in the infobox, than that counts as a reference. Feel free to revert if I've misinterpreted that. I also left links to WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:CIT on the editor's webpage, as well as letting him know it was a no-no to use other Wikipages as references. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You are correct, onel5969, and I have now formatted that as a proper inline citation. I hadn't realized it was a supporting ref when I placed the tag. I suspect the editor has logged out and not seen the comments here or on his talk page, but that is just a guess. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


Please let me know how we make a minor edit of the below from "who has missed qualifying for the Olympics" to "who has just barely missed qualifying for the Olympics". Thank you.

Sailing Career[edit] Coleman has competed in many world class events such as the J/24, Soling and Etchells classes.[3] Coleman is a North American Champion who has missed qualifying for the Olympics five separate times with his brothers Paul Coleman and Gerard Coleman. PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The correct section for this discussion is #References and sources., PeterColemanUSA. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved here from the section where it was asked. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

PeterColemanUSA, You don't. That change has now been reverted by at least two different experienced editors. More exactly, you don't unless you can find and cite an independent and reliable source that uses the words "just barely missed". Otherwise it is opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and puffery, and does not belong in the article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was referred by a nice Wikipedia person (Cordless Larry) to go to "References ans sources."

Please let me know how we make a minor edit of the below from "who has missed qualifying for the Olympics" to "who has just barely missed qualifying for the Olympics".

Sailing Career[edit] Coleman has competed in many world class events such as the J/24, Soling and Etchells classes.[3] Coleman is a North American Champion who has missed qualifying for the Olympics five separate times with his brothers Paul Coleman and Gerard Coleman.

Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule for this.

PeterColemanUSA (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally think the addition of "just barely" isn't a value to the statement, unless there is some source that validates the quantity. Whether it was missed by one point or twenty-two points, it was still missed. Now if a recognized reliable source states that "the group failed to qualify by a margin of X", then that could be included in the article and wouldn't be disputed. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 15:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
PeterColemanUSA, You don't. That change has now been reverted by at least two different experienced editors. More exactly, you don't unless you can find and cite an independent and reliable source that uses the words "just barely missed". Otherwise it is opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and puffery, and does not belong in the article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

publishing help?[edit]

I uploaded an article to the commons. I see a requirement for "4 days and 10 edits". I fixed the English and uploaded this article [2] for a German friend, and neither of us has any interest in further uploads or edits. Can it be published without my making further edits?Mjolsen (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mjolsen. I think you are a bit confused. Wikimedia commons is a repository for freely licensed materials to be used in other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia. Most of its content is images, and some other visual and auditory media. It is unusual for PDFs to be uploaded to Commons, as doing usually serves no useful purpose - I rather expect that commons:DHARMA_RAP.pdf will get deleted soon as inappropriate to that project (though I am not an expert on Commons).
If you want to create an article, you need to create it within Wikipedia: please study your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

References and sources.[edit]

Please let me know if I am sufficiently including "References and Sources" to

I just want to make sure we have reliable references sources added within a seven-day grace period for this article.

Thank you.

Peter PeterColemanUSA (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see two sections up the page, where your question has received multiple responses. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

haven't heard back...[edit]

I submitted a question and haven't heard back... suggestions? (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good afternoon. If you scroll up a bit, you'll see an entire conversation above, plus I'm presuming some on your talk page as well. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 19:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Article in Sandbox Moved to Mainspace[edit]

Hello, I am a new Wiki user. I wrote an article (Salma Okonkwo) in my Sandbox over the past week and moved it to Mainspace on yesterday. First, did I follow proper procedure? I am now reading that I should have submitted the article for review. Secondly, when will the page be accessible by searching the internet? Currently, it can only be accessed in the Wikipedia Search box.

SHerron (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no rule that forbids moving an article to mainspace without review. But doing so runs the risk that the article will be deleted, as not meeting Wikipedia's standards. In this case (indeed in many such cases), the article provides no evidence that its subject is notable, and it is likely to be deleted for that reason. Maproom (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I haven't myself proposed Salma Okonkwo for deletion, because I think it possible that evidence of notability may be found, for instance . Maproom (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, SHerron, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved your article to Draft:Salma Okonkwo, because as Maproom notes, it was liable to being deleted where it was. I have also added a template with a button that allows you to submit the draft for review when you think it's ready to be published. You need to make sure that the draft is fully sourced and does not contain promotional language before submitting it though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all!

I will get better...

SHerron (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Are "in good order" ?[edit]

Please let me know what I can do to help.

I received a nice email from OTRS at Wikidpia and he suggested that I contact the Teahouse to discuss and ensure that things are "in good order". I am more than happy to provide you with additional information, just let me know what I can do to help.

Yours sincerely,

Peter (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter, I was trying to direct you to the section where you asked your original question above, #References and sources.. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

list 2016 presidential electorate college[edit]

name all 2016 presidential electorate college50.38.79.126 (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. General knowledge questions belong at the Reference Desk, and you can use the Teahouse for asking about how to use Wikipedia. For your question, start at Electoral_College_(United_States) RudolfRed (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a page waiting in the draft.[edit]

Hi guys, I have Draft:Edgar Phillips waiting in the draft. Is anyone able to check it out and help me activate the page please.

Georgiethejourno (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Added link. John from Idegon (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Submitted Page for Review - Received the Warning[edit]


I submitted Salma Okonkwo page for review< I received a the following warning:

Warning: The page Salma Okonkwo already exists. Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title.

I moved the page before submitting it for review. Could this be the issue? How do I correct to prevent any further hindrances?

SHerron (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That's just because Salma Okonkwo still exists from where you moved the draft into mainspace, SHerron. It will be deleted shortly. The main problem with the draft as it stands is the lack of sources, and I expect it will be declined because of this if you don't act to ensure that all of the main points are supported by references to reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Got it.

Thank you.

SHerron (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What else?[edit]

Wondering what other content would make this article better Still feels a little thin. Any ideas?

Also, lately whenever I google the article only the talk page of it shows up. I have to go to Wikipedia then search it. Any ideas on that?

Thanks. Arsenl2017 (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

YouTube and External Links[edit]

Hi TeaHouse!


I have removed all of the YouTube references from but I am unsure what to do with your comment "Secondly, there is too many external links..." I tried to provide as many external references as possible. Is that a mistake and can you provide some suggestions as to which references you think are unnecessary?

Thanks and have a great day. Calgarytech (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Calgarytech. References aren't the same as external links. The former are used to note sources that directly support something that's written in the article. The latter are supplementary in nature, and the question of whether to include a given one should be determined by consulting this guideline: Wikipedia:External links. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

image upload wikimedia commons issue of copyright[edit]

I have uploaded two images both belongs to my client Kutty Padmini and it was her own images. I am her PR. Those two images got deleted. Kindly help me out Seetha raghavan (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Seetha raghavan. Wikimedia Commons accepts only freely-licensed material. If the copyright holder is willing to license the images under a licence such as CC-BY-SA (which means that anybody can reuse them for any purpose, as long as they attribute them properly) then they can be uploaded to Commons: see donating copyright materials. If not, then they may only be used as non-free images. They would have to be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons), and used in a way that met all the criteria in non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Howver, Seetha raghavan, if Kutty Padmini is your client, please read the policy on WP:Paid editing. You are strongly discouraged from editing the article Kutty Padmini, and it is mandatory for you to declare your status as a paid editor. --ColinFine (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine. I am not being paid for this process. I am doing this upon her personal request. What should I do now? Seetha raghavan (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Image for article.[edit]

I have clearly blundered twice. I am looking for an image (of the front page of Chess Today) for the article Chess Today. I found an image of the front page of Chess Today online, uploaded it to wikimedia commons, and linked/embedded it. It showed up fine and looked right. However, it was quickly pointed out that I'd got that wrong in terms of copyright and all that (big red boxes and things), so I requested it be deleted and it was. Then I took a low-res screen-capture of the front page of chess today myself and uploaded that. That's been deleted too. Fair enough, I'm clearly out of my depth here. Lots of Wikipedia articles about newspapers have images of their front pages above or in the info boxes of those articles. How can I put a 'Chess Today' front page in the article without making a complete mess of it again and it getting deleted? When I tried to mimic the way it had been done in other articles I had clearly got it wrong, and I'm not sure how to get it right. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much. Imnikrist (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Imnikrist. What you're missing is that Commons only accepts freely licensed images. You can indeed upload a low-res image of a cover, provided its use meets all the criteria of the non-free content criteria; but you must upload it to Wikipedia itself, not to Commons. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ColinFine! I'll look up how to do that now. Thanks again. I really appreciate your speediness too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnikrist (talkcontribs) 13:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Trying to submit article for review/assessment please[edit]


I'm trying to submit my article for review/assessment - I've looked through the help pages, but I'm unable to find a way to change it from draft to submit - could you please let me know where the relevant page is? My apologies, I always seem to stumble on how to do this. Thank you

Draft:Wear_it_Purple_Day SunnyBoi (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, SunnyBoi. Simply insert {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top of your draft. --ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, SunnyBoi. I have added the AfC tremplate, so you can submit just by clicking the blue button near the top. I have also fixed yjr infobox in the draft, and many usages of the |website= parameter in {{cite web}} calls. This should be the name of the website, preferably as shown on screen, not the domain and particularly not the full url. the site name should not be included at the end of the |title= parameter, as some automated tools incorrectly do. If the site name is redundant with the |publisher= parameter, leave publisher out. For example if the site is |website=The New York Times it adds nothing to state |publisher=The New York Times Company. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate pages for "Human", and a user page in the categories section[edit]

If you go to this page You will see this entry in the pages section: - User:Emphrase/Human I thought if I went to the page that this links to I could remove it, but it seems to be a link to the actual "Humans" wiki page too. How do I change this link so that it is just the "humans" wiki page and not this special user link?

Upon further investigation, I just realized that is only in 2 simple categories... while is in many more categories that seem relevant.

Are these two distinct pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortseb (talkcontribs) 14:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bortseb, they are indeed two distinct pages. The one at User:Emphrase/Human is in fact a copy of the mainspece article, however the copy was not properly attributed so it is in fact a violation of the copyright of all the editors who have contributed to the article throughout its history, thus I have tagged it to be deleted. The category situation is that the "extra" categories that appear in the userspace copy are actually all parent categories of Category:Humans thus they are redundant. However yet another complication is that article categories must only be used on articles in mainspace, drafts and (legitimate) copies of articles in other namespaces must not include "live" article categories. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

New wikipedia page/profile and deleting the old one[edit]

Hi, Want to know if an existing profile page can be disabled/deleted and a new one created. The profile of the person I'm referring to has her surname, but she would like it to show the name people call her by. Or is it possible that the name be edited please? Also, am unable to change her photo displayed on the current page, didn't understand the rule mentioned about it.

Thank you, ArathiArathibnarayan (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Arathibnarayan I have reverted your changes to Shivani Verma because they added overly promotional content. The nature of an encyclopedia is that we don't write about a given subject, we write about what is written about the subject in reliable sources. So in order to change any information a reliable source would be needed. Facebook and Youtube are not considered reliable sources. We don't host profiles we create articles from what the independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


I tried to publish an article I translated, but it won't go. Why is that? Jtarvin (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jtarvin. I'm afraid you may have to give us a bit more information. Are you getting a particular error message? TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You mean one that says something about an abuse filter? Then yes I am. Jtarvin (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Jtarvin, you're probably going to have to give us the details of that message. There are a few hundred edit filters that are in place currently. TimothyJosephWood 19:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
An error occurred while publishing the translation. Please try to publish the page again. Error: Hit AbuseFilter: Content Translation Edits

Jtarvin (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well Jtarvin, it looks like the relevant history is here, and it looks like you have to be extended confirmed in order to avoid it when translating an article. Although I don't really understand why we're blocking new users from translating article to begin with. Then again, I'm not really tech savvy enough when it comes to the edit filter. Maybe someone who is can weigh in. Maybe User:Xaosflux, who it looks like was the one who put this setting in the filter. TimothyJosephWood 19:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jtarvin: The translation tool is disabled at the English Wikipedia for users who are not extended confirmed, meaning they have at least 30 days and 500 edits. See Wikipedia:Content translation tool. You can submit an article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation but see Wikipedia:Notability. Articles from other languages are not necessarily acceptable at the English Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

im about to loose my article, please help[edit]

i have been warned that my article will be deleted due to the following reasons, 1. i am making a promotional rather than encyclopaedia article. 2. copyright infringement of a blog. so please i have included the blod as the reference what else should i do to salvage the situationFabregado (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Fabregado. If it is copy/pasted from elsewhere on the internet, and therefore a copyright violation, then it has to be deleted, and there's nothing we can really do about it. We're legally compelled to make a good faith effort to remove such content.
As to the promotional tone, maybe User:Alexf who deleted it can be more specific, but articles deleted under WP:G11 are usually so overtly promotional in tone that they would require a 100% rewrite. You may wan't to consider creating an article as a draft, which you can do by clicking on Draft:Godwin ezeemo, and then using your own words and reliable sources (i.e., not blogs) work on making an article that would be suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fabregado. Agreeing with what Timothyjosephwood said, I have taken a look at the article (as well as the draft which had the same content, which I have separately deleted as a copyright violation from the same website noted in the other deletion). It contains statements that you might expect to see in, for example, a resume posted to a LinkedIn page (where a person is touting their accomplishments) but which would never properly appear in a "just-the-facts", neutrally-written, encyclopedia article. To provide one example, this said that he "leaves bold and indelible footprints on the sand of time". That is evaluative, flowery, grandiose, non-neutral, promotional language. It's not "wrong" per se, but has no place in an encyclopedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
OK,so what exactly do I have to do now to ensure my article is posted? I Need a thorough guideline Fabregado (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Here: Wikipedia:Your first article Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

More than one quote in a citation?[edit]

Editing Carlos Núñez Muñoz just now, I noticed that while his latest album, Inter-Celtic, was listed with the date 2014, there was no citation for it. (Or the other albums, but this is the one that interested me.) I found evidence on his official website, on the page, where the top has a thumbnail of the cover and the text

Inter-Celtic 2014

and the page text says, much further down,

All of that can be heard to great effect on his new CD, Inter-Celtic, released by Sony Music on February 10.

I thought the publisher info was worth adding as well as the citation, but two duplicate refs to the same page, differing only in the quote parameter, would be absurd. I could have just ref'ed the whole line

  • Inter-Celtic - 2014, Sony

without any quotation, but including the quotes from a long page seemed preferable.

There seems to be no way to include multiple quotes in a single citation. quote1, quote2, etc. seem like reasonable ways to do it. I wound up joining the quotations in their order on the page, with "..." to mark the (very long) ellipsis between them. Is there something I'm missing here?

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not all facts supported by a citation need to have a |quote= to support them. Indeed a quote= is never required. It helps people who cannot readily see the source understand how exactly the source supports a statement. This is particularly useful for offline sources and sources that require payment for access. A quote also helps locate the place in the source where support is given. There is significant resistance to overusing the quote= facility, lest a copyright issue arise, so i doubt that a quote1=, quote2= set of parameters will be added, although you could propose it. In this case I think the sentence "All of that can be heard to great effect on his new CD, Inter-Celtic, released by Sony Music on February 10." provides petty nearly all the information, and would be sufficient to include in the quote= parameter. But what you did is in no way wrong. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, DESiegel. --Thnidu (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

How to make the side bar language option to show Okazaki, Aishi instead of Aishi.[edit]

So, how do I go and make it show/direct ms:Okazaki, Aishi instead of ms:Aishi for ms language. Hayate891 (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to mention. This is for english wiki Okazaki, Aichi, just in case. Hayate891 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hayate891. None of the pages ms:Okazaki, Aishi and ms:Aishi exist. I assume you wanted to show ms:Okazaki, Aichi instead of ms:Aichi. I have removed [[ms:Aichi]] from the English article.[3] This means it will use ms:Okazaki, Aichi which you added to the Wikidata item Okazaki (Q242783). A local interlanguage link overrides a link in Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks PrimeHunter :). Yeah sorry, I meant Okazaki, Aichi and Aichi. So, I look at the diff, and now I know why Aichi is there. Thanks a lot. Hayate891 (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Help! I don't want to loose my article again[edit]

Please,I saved my article while I was still typing to avoid loosing the entire write up. It happened that I have not included my reference. Now I have done it I want the article to be retained, please if there are other things I did wrong inform me to make amends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talkcontribs) 10:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Fabregado I´ll give you my opinion. The article is not perfect, but you have found what seems to be (at least partly) sources that discuss the subject in depth, which is essential, so I don´t think the article is in danger of speedy deletion. Next, you should look at Help:Referencing for beginners and add inline citations to the rest of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course, sometimes things happen very quickly: Godwin Ezeemo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Fabregado, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I take it this is about Godwin Ezeemo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is that correct? I don't think that article is in danger of speedy deletion either. Expansion would be good, and there are some minor technical issues with the citation formats, but all that is just a matter of normal editing. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe that´s correct, based on Fabregados contribs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Is fixing articles and grammar issues in them a COI?[edit]

Hi, I am having some issues, I am seeking help but the editors who are placing tags on my contributions are not helping me and not explaining why they are doing that and I think they don't even verify anything and just place tags/banners blindly. As an example, this page Ivan Olita, I fixed some categories and grammar section wise as a process of learning and the editor just seen the number of edits and placed COI banner. I don't care seriously, but I want to know the policies if fixing issues in the articles and fixing grammar and typos is a crime then what else I should do on Wikipedia. As per my understanding, the person who places banner should express in the talk page that why they have placed it, whereas, nobody writes and answers there, they place tags and disappear. Not even help when I ask and instead accuse me of being a paid or etc. I already planned that I shouldn't contribute anymore where people are getting personal. I was really happy to contribute that I am at least helping people in some way but I think I am not at the right place. I'll appreciate help and answers, and I would like someone to verify my changes on the page I said above and guide me what I did wrong, so I can avoid that in the future. Thanks HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi HeatherMPinchbeck, I see no problems at all with your edits to Ivan Olita except some overcategorization which has since been fixed. It seems to me that the editor who tagged your contributions as a possible COI, Bilby might possibly be a bit over-zealous and failing to assume good faith, however I have not examined your whole contribution history so there may be some other factors involved. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
There are other factors involved. In this case, the tag was placed on the grounds that with two editors hired to edit the article in recent weeks, it is very likely that the article has long-term COI problems. However, I'm not overly worried as to whether or not it remains tagged. If you feel that the article is neutral, that's ok with me. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) HeatherMPinchbeck: you have made numerous changes, most but not all of them improvements, to Ivan Olita. Since then several other editors have tried to make further improvements to the article. That's how Wikipedia gets improved: people deal with things they think are wrong, sometimes reversing what previous editors have done. Doing something which someone else thinks needs correcting is not "a crime". (Incidentally, I see that you wrote no edit summaries, while those other editors all did. Edit summaries aren't compulsory, but they do help with communicating with other editors.) Maproom (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much guys, I really appreciate your help. I was seeking replies and everything but every time I am accused of editing and fixing pages. I want to contribute much but I am just holding because when I see my talk page and what people say I feel like a criminal. I try my best to fix issues I see in the articles, but if my edit gets an article tagged, it's not good and I think it's my right to know what is wrong and what could be done to fix it. When I see people here say 'I' it makes me feel that they self-assuming things and see you guys checked the edits and guided me to add a description and it's nothing wrong, why not the people who tag, checks it before tagging blindly again and again. I am having issue with another article, I spent 3 days on research and when I published I discovered that page is with COI, but instead of removing problematic text that editor reverted everything, while he self-claimed some are useful but he never mentioned and removed them also, I kept asking for help he seldom replies. I am not saying he is totally wrong, but he simply ruined my efforts and I lost most of the things in it due to editing again and again. He himself said to keep an example article format but never accept changes. Anyway, I am scared of touching more articles lol. Well, thanks Dodger67 and Maproom I am really happy that you guys helped me HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Haha look at the page of Ivan Olita again, that's what I was saying and he is the guy just placing tags like a tagging machine HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)HeatherMPinchbeck, I think the problem is that, while you deny that you are editing for pay (and good faith demands that we accept that denial), your behaviour often suggests otherwise. Your creations such as Taehoon Oh, Mark Gottlieb (Literary Agent), Jasmine Directory or HK URBEX, additions such as those you made to SurveyGizmo and Mark Tedeschi, your repeated attempts to add a huge block of inappropriate material to Francesco Clemente (where at least three COI editors have been active in the last three months), are all fairly typical of the sort of editing we expect from paid/COI editors. You could perhaps try using the articles for creation process to get some feedback on what you are doing, using the Article wizard to start a page and submitting it for review when you think it's ready. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

See, that's what I am saying, this answer clearly shows you are getting personal with me for none, I explained you everything before, but you are on the same track. Obviously, I'll create and edit pages, that is what Wikipedia is for. I made myself very clear that I'll disclose my COI if any, ever. But you are taking all that personal, and it shows clearly that you intentionally tagging an article that I discussed here. You know all rules but what are the rules if you are doing things intentionally and getting personal? Instead of removing problematic text from Francesco Clemente you just reverted everything and forced me to edit I lost all format and efforts including references. If you are taking things up to that extent because of me I don't know what to say, because Wikipedia is not your property nor mine. You are not even valuing the opinion of your fellow editors. The purpose of Wikipedia is to add knowledge and information. If all my contributions are referenced and the people who reviewed them have no problem why you have issues? Please explain. I am really upset because of your attitude and how you are after me. You are harassing me at every step. When I ask you don't bother a reply and when I do something you jumps in like you did here and on Ivan Olita. You are now saying to use Article wizard where were you before? I learned Wikipedia and spent a lot of time in gathering codes and things, I feel easy in creating articles the way I do, so explain to me what's wrong in it. Should I swear to God or should I jump from a mountain to let you believe that I have no connection with anyone HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Everyone involved, please assume good faith, and even the assumption of good faith. And, btw, I ask myself if the Teahouse is really the right venue for that about moving to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest? Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My behaviour is to learn and that's why I am asking questions and seeking help. Your behaviour clearly shows you are chasing me, threatening and harassing me again and again. Getting personal over my edits.

Dodger67 and Maproom I'll wait for your opinion, I just want to understand. As you can see that you removed a tag and that guy placed many, why? Because I am involved, I think they are hitting articles especially I contributed due to some personal grudge now. Maybe I am wrong but that's what is pretty much clear. He isn't valuing your edit and after placing that tags, he removed and fixed article but left the tag. Isn't it vandalising Wikipedia content? I mean if people visiting pages for knowledge and see such kind of tags isn't it wrong? And if they know issues, instead of fixing them they place tags and disappear. Who will fix Wikipedia articles with such issues, because if I do they place tags and threat and accuse me, if you do they place more tags. Is that how Wikipedia works? and is totally dependent on any person's own mindset? and he can do whatever he wants and never fix but only place tags and just remove edits and all. I am seeking answers, please. Or let me know any higher authority where I can ask this. Or just simply tell me that I cannot use Wikipedia because they owns it HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If a tag is warranted (which I don't know in this case, I still haven't figured out what tag in what article you've been referring to), then placing one is justified. An editor may notice that something needs attention, while lacking the knowledge or the time to fix it himself. Maproom (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Maproom Thanks, I am talking about the same page Ivan Olita you guys just fixed and then he placed more just because I raised the issue here and that's clear from his talk above. Well, I'll now try to fix that and please you also help me. I want things fixed in Wikipedia and I want to go to an extent of learning what issues they can create to a knowledge base by just getting personal and accusing me again and again while denying the policy of assume good faith, and even the assumption of good faith please help I see no bad in tone or anything HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

HeatherMPinchbeck An earnest word of advice: let go of this issue. Step away, go do something else, there are several million other articles that need improving. It seems you have (inadverently) stepped into what appears to be a rather contentious article that is giving even highly experienced editors significant difficulty. Please do not insist on stomping on every bomb in the minefield. This advice is for your benefit, you will be a much happier (and productive) Wikipedian if you simply walk away from this article. (Even with my 10 years and over 80,000 edits of experience on WP, I am reluctant to get involved with this article, the subject is simply too far outside my comfort zone.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dodger67, this is what I called a good advice in a better way. I was just learning, to be honest. I am unable to find issue regarding WP:PEACOCK that he placed. Anyway, I'll walk away, just tell them also to leave me alone, I expressed 100s of time that I have no COI, anyway, I'll probably not continue editing. I don't like being chased or accused. I joined Wikipedia to help people seeking info but if creating pages that do not exists and editing articles that have issues is undigestable, maybe it's better to quit. I thank you all, including Bilby, Justlettersandnumbers, it's nothing personal, it's just a part of learning and understanding Wikipedia, I did a small project while in college on Wikipedia but I never know about these situations. Well, thanks for all help and guidance HeatherMPinchbeck (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve my own article[edit]

Hello, Thank you so much for your attention. I'm trying to improve my own wiki page and my father's with infos and photos but wikipedia is deleting my media, saying I don't own my owm image and personal photos. this one:

Also I tryed to create my dad'd article since it was erased, I don't know why, but since I live in Brasil and the article is in Spanish. I cannot make it work. I already edit that but is not published.

can anyone help me please! thanks a lot! Marianaeva (Marianaeva (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marianaeva. We answer questions about editing the English language Wikipedia here. Wikipedia is each language is administered separately. You will have to ask your questions on the Portugese and Spanish Wikipedias. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile, if you really want your article here in the English Wikipedia, you will need to translate Draft:Héctor Ricardo Leis into English before it is deleted. Dbfirs 17:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The language barrier aside, you are not the best person to edit your own article. I would suggest reading WP:COI extensively before proceeding. - Stormy clouds (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am looking for some feedback on my first article written around the North Highland Way.[edit]

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated as I have been awaiting review for a few weeks now, and if i could amend my article before this stage I hope that it could speed up the process (I am also unsure if i have to post a link to my draft page or can you find it from here? hopefully you can find it from here!) thank you in advance. EleanorLC (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is Draft:The North Highland Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, EleanorLC. To link to any page, you just need to put its title inside double square brackets, so in this case [[Draft:The North Highland Way]]. You've picked what I think is an interesting topic to write about, and done a good job so far. Based on a quick skim, I'd suggest that you remove or reword phrases such as "exploring all that Scotland’s north coast has on offer", which sounds like an opinion rather than a verifiable fact. You also still need to provide sources for some parts of the article's content (e.g. "However, the walk has now been taken forward by Ian Ellis who has walked the route a number of times, and has registered the route with"). Finally, you need to remove all external links such as from the text of the article. Such links only belong in the external links section of the article (see Wikipedia:External links on what should and shouldn't be included there). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, EleanorLC, and welcome to the Teahouse. A few additional points to add to what Cordless Larry said above. When we say that no external links should be in the body of the article, that does not count URLs for citations to sources. Those are very much desired, when a source is online. I note that most of your cites are to ViewRanger. A few additional cites to other sources would be desirable, if possible. When available, please include the publication date, page number (for printed or PDF sources) and author in your citations. I added these to one cite, and combined two two duplicates into a single multi-use citation in the draft. But this does look good to me, better than many drafts at this stage. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! It is greatly appreciated! I shall edit as appropriate. In reference to the citations for the route itself, I couldn't find many details on the full route, a number of walking holiday companies provide some details of the route, but do not outline the full route, would it still be appropriate to use these as citations? Thanks again! EleanorLC (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Walking holiday companies' websites aren't likely to be the best sources, EleanorLC, as they are likely to be written with the aim of promoting the route rather than neutrally describing it, and they probably aren't subject to very strict editorial control. Coverage in specialist magazines and websites would be better, if it exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any more information about the route else where (other than on walking holiday sites, which as expected, would not be appropriate) will this have a negative impact on the article? Or will the citations I already have be sufficient "evidence"? (Thank you so much for all your help, it really means so much!) EleanorLC (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two separate aspects to the sourcing issue, EleanorLC. The first is that Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that readers can check that information in an article comes from a reliable source. So, where would I check that "During the summer, it is also possible to see puffin colonies" is correct, for instance? The second aspect is whether the draft meets the Wikipedia:Notability test, which requires an article to demonstrate that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. DESiegel might be better placed to offer advice on this second aspect than me. I would have thought that a walking route would pass this test fairly easily, as they tend to get written about quite a lot, but I've also been struggling to find sources about this particular route. It might be that the sources cited so far are judged to already establish notability, however, and in that case the issue would just be about verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
EleanorLC, it is my view that the sources already cited are enough to establish notability but only just. Things like the puffins would need to be sourced or removed if anyone challenged them. Cordless Larry is 100% correct that non-commercial sources would be better, if they can be found. Note that off-line newspaper coverage would be perfectly acceptable. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I have just checked LexisNexis and there's not much, but did find two articles in the Aberdeen Press and Journal and one in The Herald, which I don't think are available online. When I get some time, I'll read them properly and try to use them in the draft. It also turned up one that is openly available on the web, here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I managed to find a citation for the puffins, the citation also includes a map of where the puffins can be seen in the UK, so hopefully that is enough to back up the information, however, it is not a huge issue if this needs removed. I shall have read over the Scotsman article and see if there is anything that I can include or cite in the North Highland Way page. Again, I am so grateful for all your help and advice, this has been an excellent learning process for me and your knowledge has really helped. EleanorLC (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Use italics on the foreign language names of landmarks?[edit]

There's an article for a city in a Spanish-language country, and the names of some of the landmarks of that city are written in italics, whereas the English translations of those names are written in parenthesis with no italics. Is it necessary to use italics when writing the names of landmarks in another language? Lupine453 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lupine453, and welcome to the Teahouse. According to MOS:ITAL: "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized, nor are terms in non-Latin scripts." Whether the "names of landmarks" count as proper names might be debated. I would probably have used italics before reading this MOS section. If you decide to remove the italics, you might want to quote this MOS section on the talk page of the article to explain why you removed the italics. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh the MOS is Wikipedia's Manual of Style. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DES Lupine453 (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a place for a funny face in Wikipedia?[edit]

I found this image some time ago File:NewAC.jpg.
I've asked the uploader to rename the file so that a name would reflect and describe what the image contains (User talk:Acol37#Image file naming) but got no reply.
A few days ago I found out the image is included in List of EastEnders crew members where it has a caption 'Writer Andrew Collins'. In the same section #Writers the article Andrew Collins (broadcaster) is linked.
Together with the uploader's nick (Acol37) it made me believe the file is an Andrew Collins' selfie, so I hurried to add it to the infobox in A.C. bio article.
However, soon I found some comments at the file's talk page suggesting that the 'face' is not necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. So I undid my addition – but what should I do next?

Should I insist on renaming the file? Or request renaming myself with {{rename media}} instead?
Is my deduction reliable enough to request renaming 'AC' to 'Andrew Collins'?
Is the file actually 'too weird' or funny for Wikipedia? Can such funny selfie be considered as means of autopromotion? If so, should the file be deleted rather than renamed?
If it is kept, will it be appropriate to add it to the bio article...?

CiaPan (talk) in a multi-level confusion, 22:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking pages to edit them[edit]

Hi, I've been using Wikipedia since 2010 and I've been wondering how to edit a blocked page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramount Pctures (talkcontribs) 22:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Paramount Pctures, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suppose that by "blocked" you mean "protected". It very much depends on what page, and why you want to edit it. Most protected pages are protected for good reasons, and should only be edited by users with the appropriate rights while they are protected. Please read Wikipedia:Protection policy to learn about the various types of protection, why they are applied to pages, and how to request that protection be removed or reduced. If that doesn't answer your questions, please ask again in this thread, giving the name of the page involved, and more detail. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Paramount Pctures. First, as to terminology, pages are not blocked, only users can be blocked. What I'm fairly sure you're referring to is a page that is protected from editing at some level. (However, on the issue of blocks, you need to change your username. I will not block you for it, but it is a username violation, and don't be surprised if you keep using it if someone else does. Please read Wikipedia:Username policy and then Wikipedia:Changing username).

Since you are not yet autoconfirmed, you may be here about a page that is semi-protected, or one that is fully-protected or one more rarer possibility. Note that your account will become autoconfirmed once you make three more edits, and then wait until 21:43 (UTC) on June 25, 2017.

The way to edit such a page is to make your request on the talk page. To draw attention to it, you can post above your request the template {{Edit fully-protected}} or {{Edit semi-protected}}, depending on which form of protection is at issue. You can also do this by clicking view source at the protected page, and you should then see a notice with this button: Submit an edit request. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, While it is potentially confusing, I think the user name Paramount Pctures (note the exact spelling) is not technically a violation of the Wikipedia:Username policy. It does not "unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product". Still I think you would be better advised to change it, User Paramount Pctures, as it could easily be confused with someone editing on behalf of the well-known company. See WP:CHU for instructions on how to request a change of username. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
DES: There's that, but it's coupled with WP:ISU: ""Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted". Even if this teeters on the edge of WP:ORGNAME, it seems squarely in the shared type of name hole. Regardless, it sucks for any user to continue with a username that is not unlikely to be blocked at some point; always better for the person to be told and to make the request when he or she has few edits (and hasn't become too attached).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
But it is not the name of a company or group, Fuhghettaboutit, although it closely resembles one. Nor does it strongly imply shared use, in my view. If anyone blocked this for a username violation, I would unblock, unless there was a consensus at AN or ANI or UAA to support the block. All that said, a change would be very advisable to ward off possible drama and conflict. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
DES We agree on the last. The technicality that it has what appears to be a typo, in what is plainly intended to invoke the name of a famous corporation, and even were it not, where it patently reads as an entity name and nothing but, makes is subject to WP:ISU, if not WP:ORG. The policy is not about intent, it is about perception of third parties reading the name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Note that the user has been soft blocked for their username, apparently unrelated to this discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
And I have asked that the blocking admin unblock, and stand ready to do so myself if convincing reasons are not provided. Note that the policy does not deal with either intent or perception, but with actual facts. A neame either is "simply the name[s] of [a] compan[y] or group[s]" or it isn't. This isn't. A name either "unambiguously represent[s] the name of a company" or it doesn't. This doesn't. This policy is one of the clearer one we have, Fuhghettaboutit, and there is no reason to stretch it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
You think I'm stretching it. I think you are doing somersaults to avoid this name not fitting within its meaning and spirit. Anyway, you sound like you're ready to wheel war. Don't do that. Start a discussion at a larger location instead.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to wheel-war. I am strictly following the exact letter of the blocking policy and the policy against wheel-warring. Note that wheel-warring is defined as repeating an admin action after it is reverted, not as reverting one. Wikipedia:Blocking policy says "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter" I am so contacting. WP:RAAA says: "administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged." I am doing all that. WP:WW says: "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision." I am not going to do that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How do users get banned from editing?[edit]

Is there a "report" function? Or does an admin just happen to stroll on by and ban after checking edit history? How does it work? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (also somewhat new here), multiple avenues can be taken to deal with the issue. Should a user engage in disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, bullying or other bannable offences, other users will issue warnings on their talk pages. Should these warnings mount, or if the user refuses to heed them or engage with them, an administrator is notified. They can investigate their edit history and interactions with other users and act accordingly. If this plan of action fails, there is always (gasp) ArbCom, where investigations get very serious indeed.
Out of curiosity, has a specific incident and/or user prompted this query? - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
PS - I am quite likely to be entirely incorrect here, and am ready to learn a thing or two on this process myself in such an eventuality - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey The Verified Cactus, Stormy clouds. There are multiple ways but here are some highlights. After a user has been sufficiently warned (typically through an escalating series of warning templates, see WP:WARN) (though you don't always start at a first level and go up incrementally, it depends on the severity of the issue), after the editor persists with whatever the issue is, they are reported for a block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). Another way (see the discussion just above this one) is because of a username problem. That happens through Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention WP:UAA. Another avenue is people who are found to be sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Another is through a report and discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). See also the notice at the top of that page, which list other noticeboards that blocks may issue out of, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Another rather large source is just administrators doing various rounds. For example, I do a lot of copyright patrolling, and when I take action on a copyvio, I may look at the editor's other edits (where there's smoke there's fire). If I find lots of copyvios, and the user has not been issued a final warning, I will issue one, and if there's copyright violations after I check back → block. That sort of activity can of transposed to other areas. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh I forgot to mention. This is all about blocks, not bans, which is what I think you were talking about. A ban Is something else.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
As User:Fuhghettaboutit says, those are how users get blocked, and a ban is something else. Users can be site-banned from the English Wikipedia by consensus of the community at WP:ANI or WP:AN. Users can also be banned by the Arbitration Committee. Banning is a formal process that also results in a block. You were probably actually wondering about blocks. I suggest that you read both the blocking policy and the banning policy. They contain information about bad behavior to avoid. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that someone was banned just because some people wanted it and nobody helped him, so I think it can happen to anyone any day. I don't think that's right. Dolberty (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
That quite simply isn't the case. Whilst any administrator can issue a block, if they do so without good reason then a) the block will be lifted and b) the administrator risks having their tools revoked, or even being blocked themselves. Bans, as explained above, are something else, and can only be imposed after community discussion. In other words, it can't happen to anyone - if you are blocked or banned, there has to be a good reason for it. Yunshui  14:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The administrator wrote that there were enough votes and there was no reason to wait. Dolberty (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you must be mistaken, Dolberty. Blocks should not imposed according to any voting system. Could you provide a link to the discussion concerned? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
That said, people do sometimes use the term "!votes", but discussions should be closed by taking into account the quality of arguments, not just the numbers. See WP:!VOTE on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
My guess is WP:AN#User Roadcreature / Guido den Broeder. Lectonar (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In which case, my point stands - there were very good reasons to reinstate that particular ban. Again: you cannot be banned/blocked for no reason. Yunshui  14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand everything, but Lectonar you just voted and ignored what he said. He asked for evidence and you didn't give any. That's not ok. But I don't want to get involved. I have a school project to do and I am leaving this topic. I just saw that it can happen to anyone simply because people don't like you, and that's still what I see. Dolberty (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with people liking you. Hardly anyone here actually knows anyone else, so liking or disliking a person doesn't come into it. The only criterion is whether or not your behaviour is good for the project - if you are disruptive, you get blocked/banned, regardless of whether you're the sweetest little old granny on earth or a tattooed thug with personal hygiene issues. Conversely, you can be a raging psychopath and as long as you stay within the rules, you can edit here forever. It's nothing personal. Yunshui  15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes people say you behave badly because they know that is how to get rid of you, not because you really did. It has happened to me in school, so I know. Dolberty (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, you guys! And yes, I meant blocked, not banned, my bad. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Does new article require review before it appears in searches - not appearing[edit]

I would appreciate someone's clarity - despite research, cannot find answer. A recent article I created does not show up in any search, Sheryl Nields. Is this because it needs a New Page Reviewer to approve it? Maybe I needed to tag it for review. Also, I extensively reworked my first attempt in order to remove any appearance of promotion - all content is kept to solid references. I dare not remove the "peacock" label myself. Does that get an assessment and hopefully removal by Reviewer? Marcomgirl (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Marcomgirl, by my admittedly limited understanding of this, you are correct. Unless an editor has autopatrolled rights, any new article they create will not be indexed by search engines until it is marked as reviewed by a New Page Patroller, or after 90 days, whichever is sooner. I am pinging Kudpung here for clarification, as he seems to have been leading the reform of NPP (New Page Patrol). Softlavender (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Marcomgirl. The page in question has not been patrolled yet by WP:NPP. This process changed recently to make it more thorough and is currently severely backlogged. You are correct about that being the reason the page is not indexing to search engines. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do but wait. As far as the peacock tag goes, I would have removed it if it weren't for the phrase "award winning" in the lede. Whereas that is true, listing the awards as you have done is sufficient. John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@John from Idegon and Softlavender:. Marcomgirl is a paid editor whose only concern is that her clients' articles be referenced as quickly as possible in Google. I am reluctant to offer any of my unpaid time to help here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I have left what I feel is an appropriate comment on Marcomgirl's talk page. If you think it's OTT, don't hesitate to let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I've PRODded the article. Maproom (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheryl Nields. Note that the discussion should be of the article and the topic, not of any individual editors. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


There is an article already in Wikipedia that has been tagged as biased. I concluded that is partly from the periodic use of loaded language, and partly from the weight of content on one side only of a controversial issue. As someone with knowledge in the field, I thought I would make the effort to bring more balance, but my first effort contained too much that was not sufficiently referenced. I knew I was referencing published works, but I didn't have every sentence documented accordingly, so it all got reverted. I thought perhaps I could write another article and the two articles could be merged. Now I have been told I can't do that either because it duplicates what is already here. I have information on both sides of the issue, I am neutral and balanced, I am not pushing a particular point of view, I am just attempting to include the most recent scholarship with new views and information. The current article is based on 200 year old scholarship; that's a good foundation, but not adequate by itself to create a truly neutral posting. So I tried editing the current article, again, using what I have already written in my new draft (that isn't supposed to be a draft). I was careful just to do a small section this time and to be sure every sentence was referenced appropriately. It all got reverted again. The editor claimed it was opinion, but it is not. It is summary of published authorities in the field. I don't know what to do. I am feeling blocked at every turn. The article is Christianity and violence. Perhaps the title is enough to explain the controversy. But this is my field. I would like to make a contribution if someone could help me figure out what I am doing wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You've made edits, they've been reverted, and you've discussed things on the article's talk page. That's the recommended, and most likely effective, way to achieve at least some of what you want. Either carry on, or give up on this article and find a better use for your talents. Your new plan of creating a rival version of the article will provoke hostility and achieve nothing – I've seen it tried before with other contentious articles. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I strongly recommend that you move Draft:Violence and Christianity to your user space before it gets deleted. You've put a lot of work into it (misguided work, but some of it potentially usable), and it would be a shame to see it all vanish. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)~
Maproom is correct, I think. You may be able to find more editors interested in your proposed changes at the talkpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay! I certainly had no intention of being hostile to anyone! Would you be willing to give me some advice on what is misguided? I am brand new here and still learning the rules and I do want to comply and cooperate. I will do as you say and move the article. Thank you for responding. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

acting against policy[edit]

Dear Friends, I am interested in both editing and creating new entries. As part of my job, I am interested in making sure that we have a positive and truthful presence on Wikipedia - but want to make sure that I am adhering to policy. Any advice, help and guidance are appreciated.

Thanks.Kirschnik (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kirschnik. The most important piece of advice I can give is that if you are editing as part of your job, you need to make a paid-contribution disclosure. I will leave a welcome message on your talk page with further links to pages that explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Also important, don´t WP:COPYPASTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to know about money policy[edit]

Dear Wikipedia. Please don't be offended, I wish to find out if it is against wikipeida policy to create a page for a personality and request he pays me for the services i offer to write articles on wikipedia?

while i wish to hear from you back and ready to learn and stay in the community in peace without any violet of the trems of use on wikipedia. Thanks Abanda bride (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Generally you can't, because the articles you write in Wikipedia are not yours (see Wikipedia:Ownership of content), so you can not guarantee any specific contents of the article (anybody can change them, both adding, removing and re-organizing their contents), hence you can't make any 'offer of a service'.
For more help you may want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help and Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay).
Also, some of the pages at special:allpages/Wikipedia:Paid edit index may be of some use for you. --CiaPan (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Abanda bride If you charge a fee for editing Wikipedia, or do it as part of your job, you must disclose as described in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. But since, as CiaPan very correctly points out, anything you post can be changed or deleted at any point, your client can't count on getting what s/he paid for. Also, many editors are very hostile to paid editors, even when they disclose properly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Hello, when I tried to mention myself from my second account @Shorouq2911:, I didn't recieve any notification, although I signed my edit! Same happened when I tried to mention my seconed account from this account! What is problem?--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Super ninja2. A signed edit means an edit containing ~~~~. I found no signed edits with mentions. [4] was unsigned. The account Super ninja2 has no recent edits before your question. If you think an edit should have caused a notification then plese post a diff to the edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
User:PrimeHunter I mean an edit I made on Arabic Wikipedia, you can see it here. I tried to ask help from Arabic Wikipedians but no one helped. And notice that I recieve no ntifications from a lot of mentions to me that other Wikipedians do.

How do I post a diff to the edit? Thanks--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide:

Find the page which contains the edit you want to refer to. Click on its history tab. Find the edit in the history list. (If that's a problem, clicking on the word prev in the list will let you read the edit.) Right-click on its "prev" button and select "Copy link location" or "Copy Shortcut". The diff you want is now in your clipboard.

Is that helpful, Super ninja2? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Super ninja2: This page is for the English Wikipedia. Always say if your post concerns an edit or page at another wiki. You already posted a diff on "here". mw:Manual:Echo#Technical details says:
  • The diff chunk must be recognised as an addition of new lines of text, not a change to existing lines.
It looks like the edit didn't satisfy that. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I do the arrow thing when a conversation drags on for too long?[edit]

excuse my wording

Like when a parent conversation has too many children, I see people using an arrow to reset it or something The Verified Cactus 100% 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two ways to accomplish this. The first is places a line all the way to the beginning────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────like this, by using an {{od}} code.

() Another option is to use an arrow, as you mention above, which is {{od2}}. These are called "outdents". Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: - I guess it might help if I do this... lol - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
If you browser is like mine, it will try to autocorrect {{od}} to {{of}}, so watch out for that! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Spelling it out—{{outdent}}—works fine. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)