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


Most recent archives
814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 825, 826, 827, 828, 829, 830, 831, 832, 833

Undid revision 859569058 by Bankster (talk) History has been updated by Telearuba employee previously on Sept 12th 2018[edit]


We are trying to update a page of Telearuba13 on Wikipedia by adding the correct information as well updating the logo with the right one, but twice the changes has been rolled back by an editor, it is a little frustrating that the correct version cannot be updated because it has been rolled back already two time by an Wikipedia editor. Any advice what should be done or if there might be an editor that can give advice to have it done right that it would not be rolled back ? Thank you, Richinald — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telearuba (talkcontribs) 21:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, Please read WP:PAID Thanks. :) Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Telearuba Hello and welcome. You will also need to read about conflict of interest. As you work for the company, you should not edit its article directly, instead making edit requests on the article talk page(Talk:Telearuba 13). You should also see your user talk page for important information about your username. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for all the replies, No I am not being paid for, the reason for the update is because this month the station would celebrate it's 55 anniversary and would like to update the history page on Wikipedia of the station from it's start from 1963 up to now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telearuba (talkcontribs) 21:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if the editor that is doing the roll-back can't provide a specific policy statement to defend the roll-back (which isn't clear from the OP) than the roll-back counstitutes vandalism, and should be dealt with accordingly. USN007 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

USN007, please read Wikipedia's definition of "vandalism".   Maproom (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Maproom I've read the policy- it makes explicit mention of edits which are not "constructive". In my book, one ought to be able to adequately justify a reversion based for alleged reasons of policy, or else the edit becomes quite destructive. i.e. it is important for editors to explain the justification of their actions or else everything becomes quite chaotic, which is destructive to any internet forum, yet alone something like Wikipedia. Notably, arbitrary edits for reasons not firmly grounded in policy are also quite destructive, and where it is not obvious why an edit or reversion was made, it follows that one must necessarily conclude that the edit was made on an arbitrary basis not grounded in the editing guidelines or policies. ==User Page== (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

USN007, the key phrase in the definition of "vandalism" is "intentionally disruptive". The roll-back in question was not intentionally disruptive. Maproom (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the editor be asked to change their username. The current name (Telearuba) suggests an affiliation with the subject of the article they are editing (Telearuba13), which could mislead other editors (and apparently has misled at least one) into thinking that they have some authority for their edits which they now claim not to have. In this case that misimpression has worked against the editor, but it could work to inflate their influence on this or other articles. If the editor will do so willingly, they should visit WP:RENAME for instructions. If not, I can file a report at WP:UAA. General Ization Talk 01:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

General Ization, I would tend to disagree with that conclusion, as it is quite presumptuous in the sense that it suggests an affiliation with any particular entity, absent anything more concrete that would suggest such an affiliation, since we must also assume good-faith. USN007 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree with anything you like; our policy concerning usernames is that they should not imply affiliation with the subjects of articles being edited, or have the effect of promoting any company or organization. I did not imply anything other than good faith (I'd like you to explain how I did so); I pointed out that this editor's username clearly and not unreasonably led one editor to assume something that was (apparently) not true, and that is the definition of misleading. See the name of this section if you have any doubts as to the facts. General Ization Talk 02:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse participation[edit]

Hello there, I look forward to participating more in the teahouse forum and other noticeboards as well, but I am new and don't have the skill or experience to do so. Can you please advise how can I increase my presence here and what recommendations do you have or any feedback is appreciated. I do contributions to articles on a daily basis, maybe I can start from there? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talkcontribs) 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Anon york. Certainly the first step in helping others is to become thoroughly familiar yourself, which you can do by helping to improve articles, and participating in talk page discussions regarding article content. It can also be helpful to hang around at the Teahouse, and read through answers, even if you don't know them yourself yet, because many questions here are asked and answered over and over again. So the next time someone asks a question, you might know the answer because you've read it before. When in doubt, it may be helpful to make a note of what you think the answer is, and then see if you were right, because a wrong or misleading answer can often just be frustrating and confusing to very new editors. GMGtalk 15:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GreenMeansGo. Can you or anybody else recommend a good website or documents where I can look for government figures, or finantial information about companies, stuff like that? Please let me know, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talkcontribs) 16:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I see what happens to my additions?[edit]

I am really new to this, I just started editing yesterday, and I have just been correcting small grammar mistakes and other minor stuff. Where can I see when one of my changes gets deleted or something like that? Do I get a notification? Thanks, cpscm! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualcpscm (talkcontribs) 16:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Actualcpscm, and welcome to the Teahouse! There is "something like that", but you will not (in general, but see WP:UNDO, if someone does that to one of your edits, you get a "ping") be notified when someone edits your edits.
At Special:Contributions/Actualcpscm you will see some edits marked current which means nobody has edited the page after you.
If you add articles to your WP:WATCHLIST you can check that now and then, and see who did what to which article. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If you add to your watchlist any articles which you edit (which is, I think, still the default in Special:Preferences), you'll see any further changes flagged in the watchlist. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Actualcpscm, and welcome. I want to acknowledge you for that approach. Many new users start straight in with trying to create new articles, and that often leads to frustration for them and others. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Actualcpscm. Can I just make a very small observation about your username? It might be absolutely fine, but something about it hints to me that it could have been created by you on behalf of an organisation (such as the Center for Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, for example). Should that be the case (and I'm not suggesting it actually is), you ought to be informed at this early stage that we don't allow usernames which imply shared use by more than one person - see WP:NOSHARING. It can be got around quite easily by simply abandoning one account now and choosing a different user name (cpscm(Nick) for example, Nor do we encourage that account to edit on topics related to it without declaring an interest. I'm not in any way trying to discourage you from editing, but just wanted to highlight a potential issue that might arise in the future. One way around any other nit-picking editor like me asking questions is to introduce yourself via your userpage (which you've not yet created), and you can tell the world a little about your Wikipedia editing interests. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick Moyes, thanks for your input! I am in no way related to that organisation. In fact, my username was originally a play on "salt" in online communities; capsicum is Latin for pepper, and because that name is often already taken, I just removed all the vowels... I will consider changing my name, though, so thank you!

Article declined, need help[edit]

Popovy Sisters

Hello, I was trying to write an article about Popovy Sisters, but for some reason my content was blocked and I was sent to this section. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia mji (talkcontribs) 05:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

hello, Julia mji - welcome to our Teahouse. The article you wrote under a correctly-declared Conflict of Interest/Paid editing statement on Popovy sisters was declined, not blocked, in 2017. An attempt to resubmit it at Article for Creation was declined earlier this year, and the draft deleted. I'm sure you've seen the notifications about this on your Talk Page which explained the reasoning? Not being an admin, I am unable to view the deleted content, but it appears that not only had you copy/pasted copyrighted text directly from your employers' website, but the feeling was that the page was purely promotional in nature, so the draft was declined. This is why we discourage anyone to take payment to write on behalf of others, as gaining neutrality is never as easy as it is with a non-incentivised editor. The only help I can give you is in the form of advice we give to everyone. If you can find a number of reliable sources that write in detail and in-depth about the subject, then you might stand a chance in creating an article. This Vogue article shows they have been taken note of by serious media, but sadly it's in the form of an interview, so we ignore the writings of the subjects themselves. Similarly, this Huff Post page is in the same format. Maybe you can source others and ensure neutral, encyclopaedia content in any attempt to recreate/review the page? If you're unable to do this then I'm afraid you will never get a page here, no matter how much they might want you to write one for them. I hope this helps a little. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes, I am art manager of Popovy Sisters, I do work with them, but I do not get paid for articles. It is my own will as they are a very notable artists who have been published internationally, won several awards, and collaborated with some important Artists and Designers. How can I restart writing the article again? Julia mji (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Julia mji: You could start a new draft. However, to keep you from wasting your time, I would suggest you very carefully read the advice above. It is required that articles be written mostly from reliable and independent source material. That material should be substantially or entirely about the article subject, not just name drop them. If a substantial quantity of such material exists about that subject, write a draft in a neutral tone, and ensure to stick only to facts verified by reliable references, not any personal knowledge you may have. If a good quantity of such reference material doesn't exist, they are not an appropriate subject for an article. In that case, you might want to consider writing about them elsewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, Julia mji. If you are their 'art manager', then you are most definitely paid, but that really isn't a concern here because you've correctly declared your working relationship on your Talk Page, so thank you very much for that. If they've won awards, find the references that prove this; if they've been featured in international exhibitions, show the sources that demonstrate this. Find the mentions in books or news media. You are, of course, (as has just been said above) able to start another draft and resubmit if for review (or you can keep one for as long as you like within your own personal sandbox) but my advice would be to avoid repeating the approach you took last time, whatever that was. I often advise that 'less is more' - just get past the hurdle of Notability for artists, and don't puff up an article with irrelevant references that just seem intended to promote. I thinks that's all I can offer you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to articel genrated wrong place?[edit]

Dear Team. I generated an article about corn sauce. It was rejected. I would like to know the comment about the rejection to learn more. Where can I find it?--WuHaiJie (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, WuHaiJie. You have the information you need (supplied by Cullen328) on your talk page at User_talk:WuHaiJie#Article_Corn_Sauce. He indicated that you had wrongly created a draft article directly on your User Page. We never place drafts there - so it was moved to Draft:Corn Sauce. To me, it looks overly detailed, very under-referenced and rather essay-like. A good start would be to remove anything that can't be supported by sources (no pun intended, sorry!), and to place inline citations (including page numbers to book) after each statement of fact. Get rid of the gallery with huge charts, and put the images as 'thumbs' per WP:MOSIMAGES. That should do for a start, and ensure that the page doesn't duplicate any other page. I hope this helps? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Help:Contents has links on how to write and reference for Wikipedia. Looking at Soy sauce should provide ideas for sections. David notMD (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear both. Thanks for the guidance. --WuHaiJie (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've done some work to make Draft:Corn sauce comply with Wikipedia's standards for an article. But the referencing needs a lot of improvement. Reading Help:Referencing for beginners would be a good start. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How to contribute to Wikipedia[edit]

How can I contribute on Wikipedia to write content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morkieflash (talkcontribs) 06:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Morkieflash. There's lots of ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for some suggestions. However, edits like this, this and this are not constructive and are going to be seen as a type of spamming. One of the quickest and surest ways to find yourself having problems as an editor is to try and use a Wikipedia article to promote someone or something. It's OK to make a mistake once (maybe even twice), especially when you're new to Wikipedia, but please don't do that type a thing again.
In addition, your choice of username does not comply with Wikipedia:User name policy#Promotional names, so I suggest you change it asap before your account is blocked. I've posted more specific information on how you can request such a change on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a company article[edit]

I am trying to create a company page on Wikipedia. This contains general information about the company and not any promotional content. Still I am receiving the "speedy deletion" message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipro.enterprise (talkcontribs)

Hello Wipro.enterprise, welcome to our Teahouse. Oh dear; I'm afraid you've made quite a number of really fundamental errors - details of which are on your talk page at: User talk:Wipro.enterprise. Let me try to summarise:
  • Your Userpage is only there for you to say a few words about you as an editor, not to write an article about your company. So has been flagged for immediate deletion. It contravenes our policies, explained at WP:USERPAGE.
  • Your Username contravenes our policy on implying shared use and must be abandoned and changed immediately. (Wipro.Nick or Wipro.Jamshed would be acceptable forms) See WP:NOSHARING
  • Writing about one's own organisation is seen as a 'Conflict of Interest', and an employee paid to do that is obligated to declare it on their individual userpage. See WP:COI and WP:PAID for details on our requirements from you in that regard.
  • Your article on your userpage is hugely promotional. It would never be accepted as a Wikipedia page in that form. We only care about companies deemed to meet Wikipedia's 'Notability' criteria, and must have been written about in-depth and in independent, reliable sources. Please read this page on Notability for organisations to learn more.
  • There is already a page entitled Wipro - this could be the place for brief, factual statements about the company or subsidiaries to be made and fully referenced.
I'm sorry I can't be more encouraging here, but I hope this brief explanation helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Academic titles in film plot[edit]

We have an unresolved discussion on the talk page about whether it is sexist to call the female academics in the plot by first name, while calling their male partners by last name. Related, my recent edit "adding academic title to female characters in the cast (male characters are already listed with academic titles" was reverted as being tied to that discussion. Please add your opinion to the talk page, where the discussion is not moving on: Talk:Interstellar_(film) : "Calling adult female scientists by first name and all male counterparts by last name is sexist" thanks --Vigilius (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Neoteric Evolutionary Theory[edit]

This Wikipedia page was deleted apparently because there was 'no activity'. The content was intended - as in a dictionary - to be seen as a reference available for scrutinity. If a strong objection to its content arose, surely as 'flag' of some kind would alert the author of the submission to 'trouble a'foot'? If not, why delete it? Is every submission treated this way? What is the heirarchy or ordering process that determines the submission has a fleeting 'shelf life' or some measure of permanence if suitably argued? How to publish and 'have it stick?' Sorry if I fail to comprehend the subtle mechanisms behind Wikipedia's modus operandi; byzantine or machiavellian? DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey DeQuinceyMalden. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary. For an open source free dictionary, see our sister project Wiktionary. Furthermore, for a subject to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and be suitable for its own article, it needs to have received sustained in depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, usually things like books, magazines, newspapers, and academic publications. If the subject has not yet received this type of coverage, then it is probably too soon for it to have its own article. GMGtalk 13:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Articles are not deleted from the encyclopedia because of "no activity". The article Neoteric evolutionary theory was deleted in July because editors reviewing it "[couldn't] find mention of this in the literature and the term is not used in the references cited. It currently seems to be wp:original research." We require scientific theories and other concepts to be documented in reliable sources, and for that documentation to reflect significant support from experts in the appropriate disciplines, in order to retain them here. See Original research and Fringe theories. General Ization Talk 13:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Also: the creator of the article would have been notified that a nomination for proposed deletion of the article had been submitted and invited to respond. General Ization Talk 13:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the OP saw the notification at User talk:DeQuinceyMalden#Proposed deletion of Neoteric_evolutionary_theory. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The article has now been undeleted per the OP's request and I have opened an AfD to consider the matter further. Further discussion of this matter should occur at the AfD. General Ization Talk 13:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Merged Pages[edit]

Is it possible to see all the pages which have been merged into a specific article?

I want to know because I'm looking at the page theme music which in my opinion should be called Theme Song or Theme Tune (both of which have been merged into it) and wondered what other names the music at the start of a radio/TV show/film/video game, or a celebrities entrance (aka Entrance Theme, Entry Theme, Walk-On Music, etc) could be referred as.

Danstarr69 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Danstarr69. You can use this tool to see all of the current redirects to that page. You will have to check them manually to see if they were created as redirects, or if they were created as articles and then redirected and merged. GMGtalk 14:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you start[edit]

How do you even start this? I am so lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadiantTiger (talkcontribs) 15:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey RadiantTiger. It looks like you've already found our interactive tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure. I'm sorry you've gotten lost, but maybe if you could be more specific about what you're trying to find or trying to do then we can be more helpful. GMGtalk 18:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Biography Page for a Hacker[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to know how to properly create a Wikipedia biography page about a few hackers. Is there any template I could follow? I wanted to make a page similar to Snowdens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angogaru (talkcontribs) 17:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Angogaru: Hello and welcome to Teahouse. First, you will have to see that if the subject of your article is notable and if it has received enough coverage from reliable sources. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." So after reading WP:GNG and other guidelines, if you think that the hackers are notable you may create an article. Otherwise, Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted. As for how to create, the method is same as you would create any other article. You may read WP:YFA for more help regarding article creation. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

About drafts[edit]

Are drafts about content which obviously aren't notable able to be proposed for deletion, or do they have to be submitted for review first? CoolSkittle (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey CoolSkittle. Any page can be deleted if it meets one of the General speedy deletion criteria, although being non-notable isn't one of them. Alternatively, you can nominate a draft at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. GMGtalk 18:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Am I allowed to contribute to wikipedia if i only contribute articles about CD Projekt Red and The Witcher[edit]

Or do i have to edit more things than just CDPR and Witcher--GeraltOfRivia2077 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey GeraltOfRivia2077. Anyone can pretty much contribute in whatever topic interests them. But it does look like you might enjoy participating in WikiProject Video games, which is a whole community on Wikipedia dedicated to improving the quality of our articles on video games and gaming culture. GMGtalk 19:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1st Documented Church Shooting in the US[edit]

I am a police officer preparing a class on church violence - including church shootings. Although I've conducted research for the "first" documented church shooting in the US I cannot find anything. Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You might have some more luck finding information at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities board. Regards SoWhy 20:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Have you looked at the articles that are members of Category:Attacks on places of worship in the United States? General Ization Talk 20:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The earliest that I can find is Daingerfield_church_shooting in 1980. You can also read this report which states that there have been 139 shootings on church properties from 1980 to 2005. Ruslik_Zero 20:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
74, you might want to rethink your approach here. Places of worship (and limiting yourself to churches, which by definition are Christian houses of worship is clearly a distinction that serves no purpose in the analysis of a particular type of violence) have been significant gathering places for, well, forever. There were churches attacked on the frontier during the so called "Indian wars". If the class your prepping for is for church leaders, that is a rough subject, because whatever sound advice you have for them will have to be tempered and filtered through the congregation's and the denomination's interpretation of Jesus's teaching on brotherly love. I will say that since the incident in Texas, there are always at least three people that are carrying concealed at every service in my church, and sucky as it is, the leadership has drilled in responses to armed attack. Thanks for everything you do. John from Idegon (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Since you are after violence, bombing and burning might be included. If this is the case, you could take a look at the outline of incidents involving African American churches and work from there. Darwin Naz (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Question on Reverting Vandalism Efficiently[edit]

Hello, I want to ask in kind how I can be able to revert vandalism with efficiency without trouble. Is there anything I can do because its admittedly hard to so manually since I tried. Also can this article Felix Brych get protected for a while. It's been vandalised repeatedly since today's incident. I hope to get a response 6Packs (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello 6Packs, welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. I can understand your frustration when you see articles being vandalised but it's actually very easy and quick to deal with vandalism, revert the changes, get vandals blocked, or get pages protected by one of our Admins.
In case what follows below seems a bit complicated, do have a read of this page about dealing with vandalism.
If you do see a page being vandalised, go to the View History tab for that page where you will see every past edit. There, you can compare the differences between recent edits to see if it was made in good faith. If damaging, you can hit the 'undo' button to restore to the earlier, undamaged version, leaving an edit summary like "undo vandalism" in the edit summary box. The process of reverting and warning vandals can be speeded up using a tool called "Twinkle" which you enable by clicking the 'Preferences' link at the very top of every page, near the logout link. Go to the 'gadgets' tab and scroll down and tick the box to 'enable Twinkle'. Having saved your changed preferences, you'll now find you have the extra option when you view history of 'rolling back' vandalism via a bright red link. Having rolled back/reverted a damaging edit, you are then taken to the user's talk page where you can leave them either a personal message, or use the Twinkle tool to automate the warning process by leaving an escalating series of warning notices. (you find the tool by looking for the letters 'TW' just to the left of the Search Box when in desktop view. The various Twinkle drop-down options let you 'Warn' editors or report them (ARV) for administrator attentionor, or even request page protection (RPP) when on an active and heavily-vandalised page. Its important the first time you see vandalism by an editor that you treat it carefully, assuming a degree of good-faith and leave the lowest level warning message. But this can be increased if they repeat their damaging actions. The same tool allows you to report vandals to administrators for their attention. Once that editor or IP user has been warned 4 times and you report them via the Twinkle tool, an admin will review the complaint and decide whether to block the user.
Now, all this might sound a little complicated, but it's easy doing so in practice, though it may take some practice for those completely new to Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll get other advice and further tips for helping to deal with an important problem here. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Nick Moyes thank you 6Packs (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating an article[edit]

How do I create a Wikipedia article from scratch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owensetty (talkcontribs) 21:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article. General Ization Talk 22:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

RS book[edit]

Hi How can I find out if a articular publication on a publisher list is considered RS If it isnt how can it be added as? The book I am asking about is Light on Life by Hart de fouw & Robert E Svoboda SBN: 9780940985698 published bu Lotus Press ThanksKahouna Dreaming (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kahouna Dreaming, and welcome to the Teahouse. Having just looked at the Lotus Press website, it appears they specialise in what I personally regard as the weird and wacky end of publishing, so I am not really qualified to answer your question. The book appears to be about Astrology, which is nothing but a fanciful pseudoscience, so do be extremely careful how you use its content, and in what context you apply it. However we do have Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can ask for more specialised advice. I would advise you to tell us (or them) precisely what statement it is that you want to use this reference to support. That should elicit a far better answer for you. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. Can you pass my enquiry on to someone in Wp who does not think that the subject of eastern philosophy including yoga as weird and wacky' If such a person exists! Kahouna Dreaming (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kahouna Dreaming. There really isn't a concept of "pass my enquiry on": all communication in Wikipedia is done through Talk and discussion pages, so it is up to you to find people you want to work with. That said, you might find WP:WikiProject Astrology helpful. As Nick implied, but didn't say explicitly, whether a source is regarded as reliable or not depends partly on what information it is being used as a source for, so it would be helpful to know what the information is in question. But the WP:RSN is the best place to ask, as Nick said. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I was hoping to use part of a chart analysis of Adolph Hitler which times events in his rise and fall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahouna Dreaming (talkcontribs) 23:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

a few questions[edit]

are we allowed to talk to people and ask stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmanclaw (talkcontribs) 00:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Catmanclaw. It's fine to contact other editors on their Talk Pages to ask about editing, the reason for their edits, or to seek consensus over editing or content, and so forth, but it's not OK to chat generally about a subject, or try to meet/befriend people, talk about last night's TV show etc. See WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. If an editor tells you that your contact with them is not appropriate for Wikipedia for some reason, then you should be very wary of continuing, or you could find complaints made against you. But we work by consensus here, so contacting others to discuss how we build this encyclopaedia is fine. If you want to ask general stuff, here is not the place, though we do have a WP:REFDESK which tries to answer certain factual questions for people. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Catmanclaw, as Nick has said you shouldn't generally talk about topics unrelated to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. However, it's of course fine to befriend people on Wikipedia and establish off-wiki forms of communication via the email tool. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 07:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Still don't understand[edit]

Why my emails keep changing and still getting tons of spam and fraudulent emails. Scared to open any email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merhansen (talkcontribs) 00:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Merhansen. The Teahouse is generally a place where people come to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. It's sounds like you're question might be more related to a problem you're having with your email account than a problem you're having with Wikipedia. So, you might be able to find someone who can help you out at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Just pick the category you think applies to your situation and post your question there. Now, if your question about emails does have to do with Wikipedia editing in some way, please clarify how so that it will be easier for a Teahouse host to try and help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing a new article from my sandbox to the encyclopedia[edit]

I wrote a new article about the singer "Oshri" it is in my sandbox: User:מיקרוז/sandbox, can anyone here guide me how to remove the article from my sandbox to the encyclopedia? (whenever I try to open a new headline it refer me back to the sandbox) thank you מיקרוז (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi מיקרוז. The first comment I have is about your signature. While some people do use non-English characters for their username, try and remember that this is English Wikipedia and most likely not many of the users are going to be able to read Hebrew (I'm assuming that's what language is being used); so, they might not know how to refer to you in posts. So, it might be best to tweak your username as explained in WP:NONLATIN.

Regarding the page move, it's technically quite a simple thing to do as explained in WP:MOVE, but you might be better off submitting the draft for review first via WP:AFC. When you directly add something to the article namespace, it's there for all to edit (for better or worse). This means it's also there to be deleted if the community feels it's not up to Wikipedia's standards. Having the first article you ever create being quickly tagged or nominated for deletion can often be quite a shock for a new editor, Currently, your draft appears to be a good start, but it's not really clear how this person meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO since the current sources cited don't appear to be sufficient for establishing Wikipedia notability. There are also some formatting fixes as well that can be made, but the main issue appears to be questionable Wikipedia notability. If you submit the draft for review to AfC, a reviewer will look it over and assess it. Even if the draft is declined, the review will leave suggestions on what things need to be improved to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. There's no guarantee that your draft will untimately be improved, but it will at least give the chance to get some feedback. There's also no guarantee that anything you submit via AfC will never be deleted, but drafts approved via AfC generally seem to survive more often than those directly added to the article namespace by their creators. AfC is option and whether you choose that route is up to you, but writing a proper Wikipedia article is quite hard and many first time editors unfortunately really come to understand this only after their first attempt at an article has been deleted.

If you decide you want to submit your draft for review to AfC, the first thing you will need to do is move content in your user sandbox to the draft namespace. You can create a draft by following the instructions in WP:DRAFTS#Creating and editing drafts. You will need to select a name for the draft according to WP:COMMONNAME, but "Oshri Elmorich" is probably OK. Once you've created the draft, just copy-and-paste the content from your sandbox into the draft and leave an edit summary explaining what you did. Just follow the instruction on the draft creation page since it seems fairly sel-explanatory. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly for your answer, as you suggested I removed the article from my sand box to Draft:Oshri it is now on a waiting list for review, it mentions that it might take some two month to be approved, I can add more refernces but I think The Article is in right standarts. is there any way here to speed it? מיקרוז (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi again מיקרוז. There's no real way to speed things up. AFC reviewers are WP:VOLUNTEERs like the rest of us and occasionally get WP:BUSY. Moreover, there aren't really any firm WP:DEADLINEs when it comes to draft approval; so, all you can really do is wait for it to be reviewed. While you're waiting, you can continue to improve the draft or work on improving other articles; you can even work on sorting out the issues with your username. Try taking the WP:ADVENTURE to learn more about editing and then maybe join a WikiProject to find articles that of interest to you which need improvement. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly for your detailed answer Face-smile.svg, but since my English is "not the best", I better concentrate in what I can contribute better to the Wikipedia project: writing and editing articles in the Hebrew Wikipedia (There I usually write aboute more sirius subjects). It was a nice experience though, just waiting eagerly for the approval of my first new article in English Wikipedia. If one here wish to improve the article Draft:Oshri especially in Wikipediation it - you most welcome! מיקרוז (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How to: a) handle apparent vandalism-only account (4th offense); 2) revert last spam after another's innocent subsequent edit; 3) warn x4 ; 4) notify admins[edit]

Hi, I've never personally dealt with handling vandalism and may have just stumbled across a simple case that could help me learn the ropes.

I saw a spam link (to on one article (Citizen Schools and corrected it. User contribs showed only four edits to four articles, all adding same non-relevent link. As most were most recent edits, reverting worked fine for first three: 1) View history -> 2) Compare selected revisions -> 3) Rollback Vandal

But vandal's most recent edit was followed by another user's edit that I don't want to clobber.

Also, I need guidance on how to send 4 escalated Talk page warnings as apparent prerequisite to reporting user to Admins for blocking account.

Thanks. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. - I've looked over WP:VANDAL and am looking for guidance in this specific case. Thanks -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Paulscrawl: Hello! I see that you are using Twinkle. It's a great tool. You can easily revert edits by Twinkle; there are three options for that. Rollback Vandal, Rollback, and AGF. For warning users, you can again use the Twinkle options, it gives all four levels of warnings. If you want to warn them manually, you may see these warning templates.
You can also report a user with the help of Twinkle.
If a vandal's edits are followed by another user's constructive edits, you can simply undo the vandal's versions.
As a summary to your subject; a) Report it using Twinkle by checking 'vandalism-only account'. b) You can undo the versions. c) Refer to those templates or use twinkle. d) Twinkle had the option.
Beside this, you may also wish to get trained from one of the trainers listed at WP:CVUA. Thanks,Knightrises10 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Knightrises10: Thanks, I never did delve into why I installed Twinkle, but thanks to your recommendation I'll be going to the Academy! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Paulscrawl: I'm also getting trained at the moment from Mz7 Face-smile.svg. There are 3 trainers, you will have to leave a message to any one of them at their talk page. Knightrises10 (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Photograph on wikipedia page so disgusting I wanted to vomit - could someone cover it up please?[edit]

This was the page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:NOTCENSORED. MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi If you peruse enough Wikipedia articles, you're probably going to come across an image you don't like. Best advice I can give in such a cases is to simply just make a mental note of the article and avoid it in the future. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project with people from all over the world contributing to and reading; so, there's not really a practical way to ensure that every article and every image does not offend everyone who ever looks at Wikipedia. As MarnetteD posted above, Wikipedia doesn't censor content except when it's clearly in violation of relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If you create an account, you can then suppress the display of images if you want to avoid potentially seeing an image that offends you. Please read WP:NOSEE for information on how to do that(once you create an account). 331dot (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Article[edit]

I wish to ask if my article below will merit publication under the NASA Page: Thank you.

not the place for draft content

Latest NASA programs

The NASA launched a planet-searching mission to discover alien worlds. It launched the TESS or Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite in April 18, 2018 on top of SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-spearheaded NASA mission conducted an all-sky exploration survey for passing or transiting (extro) planets. These planets move in front of stars as observed from telescopes. The space telescope analyzes many bright stars in the sun's neighborhood. It looks for minuscule dips in brightness resulting from the passage (or "transit") of revolving planets as small as the planet Earth across the stars. Scientists utilized the TESS data in discovering another planet around the Pi Mensae star or HD 39091 located roughly about 59 light years from the earth in the Mensa constellation. At the beginning of 2018, NASA maintained two space rovers on the planet Mars. However, the Opportunity ceased communicating with earth because of the huge dust storm that engulfed the planet. This cyclone prevented sunlight from reaching the solar panels. Since June (2018), NASA has not heard from the craft even if the storm has stopped. The Curiosity Rover also experienced a technical issue prompting space engineers to shut down all scientific instruments temporarily while performing troubleshooting functions. NASA tried to rescue Opportunity in August but shelved its plans. Like the TESS telescope, the NASA Parker Solar Probe radiated first light data recently. These referred to images from a set of four instruments meant to analyze the sun’s corona. The data provides NASA the opportunity to inspect all systems.

The Wide-Field for Solar Probe (WISPR) opened its protective door on September 9, 2018. It allowed Parker to take its first image of outer space. The WISPR includes an inner and external telescope at the back of Parker’s sophisticated heat shield. The Probe also transmitted data from three instruments aboard the craft. These are ISOIS, FIELDS, and SWEAP. ISOIS refers to Integrated Science Investigation of the Sun. The FIELDS Experiment checks the magnetic and electric fields around the sun. SWEAP or Solar Wind Electrons Alphas and Protons take specific measurements of the solar wind. The Parker Solar Probe flies through space. It will finish the first of seven flybys of Venus on October 3, 2018. This accomplishment will put the Probe in an elliptical course around the sun that will last for around 150 days.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the place for draft content so I have collapsed its display. If you want to include content in an article you will need to format references appropriately, see Help:Referencing for beginners. If you want to suggest changes and hope for others to implement them, the place is the article talk page, so if you are suggesting changes to NASA you would need to do so at Talk:NASA. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Help For The Creation Of Article in Mainspace[edit]

Hey There!

It's My Pleasure To Contribute the knowledge through wikipedia, But Now I want to understand all the process to create a Mainspace Article on wikipedia so please Notify Me For that Procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susung (talkcontribs) 07:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

See the section #Creating an article above. Please also note that English does not put a capital letter at the start of random words in a sentence; see MOS:CAPS. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Look into[edit]

Can someone look into this article Wikipedia:Unusual articles. There is an IP user who has messed it up. I warned him but he has continued on his disruptive path. I am struggling to put revert vandalism on my preferences attached to my account so I am only reverting articles manually 6Packs (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted & IP warned again. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How can I upload my profile on Wikipedia. Please help .[edit]

Actually I create a profile on Wikipedia. And login. But there is no option for upload the details. How can I do that. Because I wanna do it now. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED (talkcontribs) 10:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

User blocked. Promotional username, promotional edits. GMGtalk 10:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Wiki Loves Monuments banner[edit]

Is there any way to set my user preferences to remove the Wiki Loves Monuments banner (and all banners) from appearing? I've accidentally clicked it many times when its loaded a second after the rest of the page. --LukeSurl t c 10:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey LukeSurl. If you exit out of the banner via the little x in the corner, it should stay gone on that account for that device. I believe there was a way to disable banners across the board, but I can't seem to find it now that I'm looking for it. GMGtalk 10:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
In Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, under the section "Browsing", one can disable central notices (which'll disable wiki loves etc) and fundraising banners. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Galobtter, Perfect, thank you. --LukeSurl t c 11:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the best practice to cite an old reference document only available in hard copy and/or scanned version?[edit]

There happens to be an old certified (duly signed) hard copy of an official document which is now successfully recovered & scanned as PDF document. This particular reference happens to be an official press release duly signed by an authority (then director). Unfortunately since it's old, there are no available web reference stating the facts mentioned in this official document.

How can I go about adding/uploading this particular reference (PDF file) to wikipedia and cite it as a reference in an article of my choice?

*Truth* (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey *Truth*. When was the document made and by whom? It may be in the public domain, and so we could upload a copy to Wikimedia Commons. GMGtalk 11:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If it was published you merely need to cite the details so that an interested reader can (in principle at least) find the document, and it may well be a copyright violation to try to upload a copy. If it has not been published, then it is not acceptable as a reliable source. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi David. The document (press release) was published by the President's Secretariat in 2002 regarding a certain individual duly signed by an official from the office of the President. Since it's a press release, it is a public document - then available to mainstream media however since it's almost 2 decades old, there aren't any web source confirming the same facts as stated in the said document. To my understanding, it's a reliable source and I'll go ahead and upload the same to Wikimedia Commons.
Dear David could you please help me understand how do I cite a reference on an article using the same document when uploaded on Wikimedia Commons? *Truth* (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Wait. I'm confused. Our guidance on copyright in India seems to indicate both that works of the Indian national government are public domain after 60 years, but also indicates that works of the Indian national government may be uploaded under c:Template:GODL-India. I'm not really sure whether this would be public domain or not. GMGtalk 13:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Uhm. You're right, however c:Template:GODL-India states the following exemptions: The license does not cover the following kinds of data: a. personal information; b. data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive; c. names, crests, logos and other official symbols of the data provider(s); d. data subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade-marks and official marks; e. military insignia; f. identity documents; and g. any data that should not have been publicly disclosed for the grounds provided under section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
Since the said document is a press release (neither non-shareable and/or sensitive nor marked not to be publicly disclosed) , irrespective of it being the work of the Indian national government it should still be applicable to be uploaded under public domain. Please correct me if I'm wrong David. *Truth* (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi JK-RULZ. If the document is a press release, then it's value as a reliable source regardless of its copyright status may be suspect. Press releases often are written in a promotional tone or self-published, so the WP:RSCONTEXT needs to be considered. In addition, press releases are often considered to be WP:PRIMARY sources and such sources need to used with care. This is especially the case when dealing with article content about any living person as explained in WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. You might want to ask about the reliability of the source at WP:RSN.

As for how to cite such a source, sources don't need to be online; they only need to be WP:PUBLISHED and accessible to others. Something found in some government or library archive which can be accessed by the general public is probably OK; something in a private collection or with limited access by only certain persons, on the other hand, is probably not. There has to be a reasonable way for the source to be verified, and being available online does tend to make verification easier though it's not required. See WP:SAYWHERE and WP:CITEHOW for more details on how to cite sources which aren't available online. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"Kaam" Page[edit]

Hi There, I came across a very common hindi (Indian national language) word called "kaam" which has a completely wrong interpretation and definition as currently laid out [1]. Even if the description is correct, the term to be used should be "kama" and not "kaam".

"Kaam" simply means "work" in Hindi, India's national language and below are the citations to support this. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

I tried making the edit but was overturned by a Wiki user. How do I make this change? The page needs to be corrected as "kaam" is a very popular Indian word and should have the right meaning reflected on Wiki. I am new to Wiki editing - would really appreciate any help anyone can provide.

Best, Nparwani (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


Welcome to our Teahouse, Nparwani, and thank you for raising your question here. Actually, the best way to proceed would have been to have raised your concerns on the Talk page of the article itself. Explaining why you are concerned, what you propose to do, and the evidence upon which your concern is based - just as you've done here - would have been most sensible. What you actually did was delete all the existing content of the page and insert your own view. Twice. And the way you wrote the replacement text did not conform to the way we construct encyclopaedia pages. So, almost inevitably, your edits were twice reverted. Sadly, this is not an area I know anything about. But there seems to be two questions worth asking:
  1. is the current article explaining the meaning of Kaam wholly incorrect and improperly cited? If so, maybe it should be proposed for deletion at WP:AFD, or at least discussed on the Talk Page with maybe a view to renaming the article?, and...
  2. If not, is there a second meaning in a second language which can be proven with citations and inserted as an additional section within the article, and the lead paragraph modified to summarise both meanings? In other words, does the article deserve to contain two completely different meanings of the same word to two different cultures? 
Gaining the consensus of other editors is always the best way to proceed. I hope this small observation might be of help. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
---- Thanks Nick. Rookie mistake to change the contents the way I did. As you suggested, I have posted the same contents on the page's talk page - seems like its been inactive since 2009 so not sure if I will get a response but will wait for a couple of days before opting for the other alternatives you suggested. Thanks again for your help.

Nparwani (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Nayeemuddin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity (talkcontribs) 13:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Iamheentity Please note that Wikipedia policy of WP:CANVAS prohibits editors from trying to canvas others to join a deletion discussion to influence the outcome. If you need any other help you should state that clearly. Simply saying Help and asking others to figure out what help you need is not very effective. regards. --DBigXray 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Changing username[edit]

How do I change my username? I want to change it to "IFlameI". 🔥flame🔥talk 14:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Page semi-protected

Hey LFlamel. See instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. GMGtalk 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi, a Wikipedian friend of mine passed away a few months ago. Recently, I got permission from their family to add a banner to their Wikipedia user and talk page to indicate what has happened. I got a link to a WP page about it, but I lost it. Can anyone help me? Thanks a lot. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 14:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Miss Bono. See guidance at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. GMGtalk 14:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 19:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


I want to know if (and how if possible) if it is possible to upload new photos on iOS iPhone (SE is the model) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbobtron2007 (talkcontribs) 16:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The type of phone shouldn't matter. Just load Wikipedia in your phone's browser and change to desktop view (bottom of page option). Then click on upload file on the left and go through the wizard. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jimbobtron2007: I've uploaded images (like this one) from my iPhone5S which is older that yours, but bear in mind that you'll need to ensure the image from your phone is a .JPG file, not one of the new HEIC formats that I believe Apple introduced with iOS11. I believe there's an option in the software to select the format you need, but I can find nothing on this Wikimedia page to suggest that that format is actually supported. So stick to jpeg or another compatible format. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking to hire a Pro to teach me 1 on 1[edit]


I have been using wikipedia as a resource since day 1. I have a degree in history, and a lot of experience researching and writing proposals, and blog articles, but feel kind of lost here. I tried adding/citing references to my article, and kept having a hard time adding them for whatever reason. I now saw that it isnt a good idea to write an autobiography, and feel like I just made a big mistake (Wish I read the guide more clearly first before trying to dive in and write).... I did it to clear the air about some nasty rumors about me, in addition to practicing a bit, but I feel like I failed miserably... Would love if there was some kind of 1 on 1 tutoring class on mastering wikipedia with someone, or to teach me how to navigate wikipedia like a pro :( ... In other words, H E L P Please! I want to be a contributor for both editing and writing, as wikipedia is like a giant library, and a historians dream. Thanks in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solonz1 (talkcontribs) 18:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Solonz1: Have you heard about Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure? It's a fun way to learn the basics of editing. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
You'll also want to check this out: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Solonz. I guess you now recognise that we don't encourage editors to write articles about themselves, and that you've rather walked into that trap. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. This might sound harsh, but I'd suggest you blank all the different version of your biography from your various sandbox pages (don't panic - deleting the text still keeps a copy in the history of each page, so you can retrieve bits later if you wish (or save them off-site). Then just write four of five factual lines, showing why you should be regarded as 'notable'. What that means is that you must either meet our WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN criteria. - simply put, can you demonstrate with links to Reliable, independent sources how you meet those criteria. If you headlined President Clinton's farewell concert in 2001, there must be lots of news coverage and stories about you - though I fear I couldn't find anything, except your own website, which we'd have to ignore. To insert a reference, look in the editing tool for a 'Cite' button which then gives you various templates to fill in (source details, newspaper, date, author, article title etc). It's quite straightforward once you've found that Cite button. Having done that, you'll have a short skeletal framework with none of the hyperbole and unprovable childhood trivia that you've currently included. It'd just be the bare bones that shows why you, amongst a million other musicians, merit a page here by having been written in some detail about by others. We base all articles here on what others have written about the subject, not what the subjects wants to say about themselves. Having done that, you could go to Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters and invite non-connected editors to write about you, and provide a link to those key references on your sandbox. Just bear in mind that, if there are nasty rumours out there about you, and the stories have been reported, you will have absolutely no control of any Wikipedia page that might be created about you. Both the good stuff and the nasty stuff, if reliably sourced, will probably end up in it, and you can do absolutely nothing about that, nor delete the bits that upet you (assuming they're true and reliably cited, of course). The 'Requested Article' process can take a very long time indeed, so it's good that you have your own website to promote yourself, as that's most definitely not what Wikipedia is here to do for you or anyone else. I hope this helps a little. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Solonz. Nick has explained how you should go about writing your autobiography, but if you're genuinely more interested in improving the encyclopedia, I suggest you drop the idea and focus on editing other topics as well. To seek mentorship from an experienced user, you can ask interested users via this page. To do that, click "talk" next to the adopter's name, click the new section tab on the top right hand corner of the talk page, then write a short request for adoption. Note that it may take some time for adopters to respond. In the mean time, here is always a good place to ask questions, and you can join the help channel on IRC as well. Since you seem interested in editing history related topics, you might find Wikipedia:WikiProject History interesting. Best of luck. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 07:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all your help and advice everyone, much appreciated! I just completed the interactive earth adventure tutorial, which helped me get up to speed a bit, and will start continuing my learning here. I will approach experienced users for adoption, and help. History, politics, music and cooking are my areas of strength, so will see about helping in these areas somehow. Embarassed to say that I haven't made a bibliography or references in over 20 years since I was back in college studying history, but it should all come back to me fairly easy. A bit rusty though, lol. Thank you very much again!

Solonz1 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy Formation and Purpose Edits[edit]

I originally asked to replace this quote:

"Like the KKK's children's groups, the UDC utilized the Children of the Confederacy to impart to the rising generations their own white-supremacist vision of the future."

With this quote from the same source (Kristina DuRocher's Raising Racists) “The object of the organization included uniting the “children and youth of the South in some work to aid and honor ex-Confederates and their descendants.” The Children of the Confederacy was intended to “indoctrinate southern youth into the culture of the Confederate ‘Lost Cause.’” Another editor offered these two quotes, which I also think might work better that the DuRocher quote currently on the page:

    "When UDC took up the cause of history they did so as cultural guardians of their tribe, defenders of a sacred past against Yankee-imposed ignorance and the forces of modernism. They built moats around their white tribe's castles to save the children from false history and impure knowledge." (Blight)
    "the perpetuation of conservative class values, as well as a pro-southern version of history" in oder to "creditably fill the place of men and women who have in the past given the [South] both name and fame."  (Cox)

galndixie (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This belongs on that article's talk page. The RFC will summon other uninvolved editors. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Tim, this has been on the talk page for months, and it's also been an Rfc. I brought it to the teahouse because I was told that could possibly help in getting the article changed. I'm new at this, so any help or advice you can give me would be appreciated. Thanks. galndixie (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey galndixie. The RfC has been open just shy of two weeks, and these normally run about 30 days. Having said that, if there is a local consensus that the content is appropriate, then simply put, the content will probably remain for the foreseeable future. It's usually a good thing to have a diversity of opinions among editors, but that also means that not everyone will always get exactly their preferred version of an article. Having said that, I have left a brief note at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to attract more robust participation in the ongoing RfC. GMGtalk 12:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. galndixie (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


how do i make a subcategory for articles?? i have some articles i want to list. thanks! Huff slush7264 19:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Huff slush7264: Sub-categories are merely categories that have been categorized themselves, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization. The same guideline also explains how to create new categories and what to pay attention to when doing so (see also Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts). If you are unsure whether a certain category makes sense, you should consider asking for more input at the talk page of a related WikiProject. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Silver Flying Cross awards list[edit]

Hello, I am questioning your list of the Silver Flying Cross recipients. My dad have received 2 but he is not on your list. How do I need to change this?

Thank You

Kristal Tighe — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kristal. As far as I can tell, we do not have any article about a "Silver Flying Cross", or indeed any mention of such an award in any article on Wikipedia that I can discover. Are you referring to the Silver Star?
If you are not, please reply below with a link to the article you do mean.
Please be aware that lists of recipients in most articles about awards are not meant to be a complete list of all recipients, only of those that have a separate article about them on Wikipedia because they are "notable" (in Wikipedia's special sense of the term, please read the linked page) for reasons other than just their receiving the award. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that the OP may be referring to the Distinguished Flying Cross (United Kingdom) article, but as TPFKA said, such lists normally include only those people about whom Wikipedia articles exist. Deor (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

move wikipedia pages[edit]

I am unable to move any Wikipedia pages. Can you please fix that setting to allow me to do so.Newyorkelection (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In what way are you unable to move pages? Your account is Autoconfirmed, so you should be able to. How are you trying, and what happens when you try? --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to ping Newyorkelection. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Newyorkelection. It appears from this edit that you are confusing WP:REDIRECT with WP:MOVE. Also, since you're fairly new to editing, it might be better for you to submit Draft:New York State Senate 34th District Democratic primary, 2018 to WP:AFC for review. An AfC reviewer will look over the draft and offer suggestions on how it can be further improved if it's not quite up to Wikipedia's standards; on the other hand, if the draft is accepted, the AfC reviewer will move the page to the article namespace for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the formation and purpose of the UDC[edit]

It's been on the talk page for months now, and the same group of editors over and over will not allow it to be edited. It's been an RfC, and the same group of people are doing the same thing. They won't even change it to the quote they suggested. I don't understand this process, and was told that Teahouse could possibly help with this. Please, can you look at the talk page and tell me what to do next? --galndixie (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Galndixie. It really helps to provide links to pages you have concerns over. This makes our lives so much easier in answering you, as not everyone knows what UDC even stands for. You seem to be referring to United Daughters of the Confederacy, this talk page discussion plus the ongoing RfC you opened immediately beneath it. It looks to me like the RfC has not yet been closed. I will leave it to others to wade through the discussions and offer suggestions as my excuse is that it's very late here in the UK, Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Nick. I would certainly appreciate your help here. The page link is In the last few years, the page has had many modifications, and it now looks extremely biased against the organization. In the opening statement, it talks about 'historians' view it as 'white supremacist', and the UDC denies that claim. I think that statement needs to be clarified, since it's not highly likely that all historians view it that way, though certainly some do, and that is strictly their opinion and not documented fact. It should say 'some historians'. In the formation and purposes section, a statement has been added referencing the KKK, and the UDC isn't a KKK affiliate, though this statement seems to strongly imply that. For months several people have tried to have this remark changed to more subtle and less biased language, using less accusatory quotes from the same references they cite for this statement. The editors refuse to cooperate or consider any change. One refusing editor even offered two other quotes from the already used reference authors, which I fully agree with using, either or both of those statements would be much better than the vague and biased statement now used. Those two statements explain why the UDC appears to the author to be similar to the KKK, in the reference author's view. And yet they still will not allow the change to or the addition of these statements. The second anyone sees the KKK reference, it sends a biased yet unfounded message. It seems that the page has become more of a 'political statement' and less of an informative and unbiased article. I'm not sure how to proceed, I am very new at this, and any help and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nick. galndixie (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Also see section #United Daughters of the Confederacy Formation and Purpose Edits above. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Galndixie: Thanks for coming back to me with that invitation. Despite it being a new day now, I feel I must politely decline to get further involved. It is not a topic I have any experience of, nor time to delve into the intricacies of past discussions and disagreements so that I could offer a worthwhile opinion. There are others more able and willing editors than me to offer input (and I see that at least two Teahouse hosts and admins have done that recently), and there appear to have been a number of RfCs run to gain consensus there. I can see it's an article that galvanises opinion. As always, it's what reliable sources say about a topic that we care about, not what an organisation says or tries to say about itself. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

trying to prove notability for Derek Reese[edit]

Hello everyone i am working on an article for a musician Derek Reese. My article is in the draft stage, i am trying to show notability for Derek, i wanted to ask you a question, i came across pictures and video footage of Derek playing live onstage with the last poets at the national black theatre in harlem NY in 2011. Derek was on the bill for the show as a special guest, along with a few famous people such as, Doug E fresh, Bobbi Humphreys, comedian Paul Mooney but derek's name didn't appear on the advertisement. I even have a picture of a typed program guide which shows Derek Reese as a special guest. Is any of this useful for me to show notability for derek ? if so, how would i go about displaying the video and pictures i have ? as it stands right now, the pictures and video footage are not on the internet or newspaper. Thank you, Carolcappetta (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

If not using whole name, use Reese rather than Derek. You keep on adding stuff of poor quality and poorly referenced in the belief that quantity will succeed. So much of this is not about Reese, or not relevant to whether he is notable, such as what hospital he was born at, or stuff his parents did. I deleted stuff in attempt tp make it better, but still needs work. When you write that you "came across pictures and video," who took them? That person owns copyright. You cannot use. David notMD (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I am adding as much as i can, which is why the draft stage is good for me, thank you for cleaning it up :-)
Reese had a manager who took the pics and video who i am friends with.Can i get permission to use the pictures and video footage ?
Thank again David
Carolcappetta (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Carolcappetta. You posted above that Reese had a manager who took the pics and video who i am friends with and your first edit to Wikipedia was to create a draft about Reese. So, I'm wondering if there's some connection between the two because if there is then you might be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to Reese when it comes to Wikipedia. Just for reference, Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it is something which is highly discouraged because it can lead to some serious problems. So, the Wikipedia community has established certain guidelines that it asks such editors to follow and you can find out more about them at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. These guidelines are sort of an honor system in that you are encouraged to follow them because they can help you avoid having problems with other editors if you do. It's best to be as upfront about any COI you might have right from the start because it will not only make it easier for other editors to help you, but it might also make more editors want to help you.
As for your question about pics and videos, you might find Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files and Wikipedia:Image use policy helpful. Basically, the copyright holder of the content you want to use needs to give their explict consent to allow their work to be uploaded under a free license accepted by Wikipedia. This is a bit more involved then it sounds, so it might be a good idea for you to take a look at c:Commons:Licensing for more specific details. Commons and Wikipedia are technically separate Wikimedia Foundation projects with their own policies and guidelines, but copyright verification is one area which their policies tend to be the same.
Finally, you need to understand Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not if you want to avoid any problems when it comes to editing exisitng or creating new ones. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be a means for promoting their subjects or be sort of a "second official website" for their subjects. A Wikipedia article is not intended to be like Instagram or Facebook, updated daily with the most recent bit of news or photos, etc. Wikipedia article can in fact include negative content about the subject of the article as long as the content complies with relevant policies and guidelines, and the subject of the article doesn't have any final editorial control over article content. So, you might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing if by chance you're working on the draft at the behest of Reese (or one of his representatives) because he might not realize what he's getting into. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not Reese,writing an article about myself, and me being friends with reese’s Old manager isn’t a conflict of interest from what I have read.
I spoke to reese’s Manager to see if he might be able to add anything useful.
He mentioned the photos and video footage.
As far as notability, would this be useful ? As I have stated that the photos and video footage are not on the internet?
Carolcappetta (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
See also section #a little help editing ? above. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
IMO, adding a picture of him at a show does not add to notability. And your adding more weak refs and inappropriate stuff to a draft just gives the potential reviewer more cause for rejecting it. Can you find refs that have several paragraphs about Reese, rather than simple mentions? Otherwise, this will never be approved. David notMD (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Good morning David,
Their are a few pictures of Reese and a video of him playing on stage with the last poets, but I guess that won’t cut it.
What I have found that has been written about Reese is his album reviews in performer magazine and the aquariun weekly.
His name is credited to a few recordings her participated in on major labels.
All of what I have found doesn’t seem to be enough unfortunately.
I will keep searching for results.
Carolcappetta (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I deleted two worthless refs (remember, quality over quantity). My suggestion is work on converting existing refs to proper Cite format and then resubmit. See WP:Referencing for beginners. Even if rejected, you will get information on where the weaknesses are. David notMD (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Carolcappetta: When I brought up COI editing in my last post, I was just trying to provide some general information about something that new editors often are unaware of when it comes to Wikipedia; I wasn’t accusing you of doing something improper. The same goes for the mention about writing about yourself; I only added that because many people eventually find out that having a Wikipedia article written about them is not as great as they originally thought it was going to be simply because they have no control over its content and cannot use it to promote themselves. I didn’t bring that up because I think you’re Reese.

As for images, I’m pretty sure their copyright status is not dependent upon whether they can be found online. So, if you’re the photographer who took the photos or video and want to upload your work under a free license accepted by Commons, then you can; however, if you’re not, the permission of the person who is needs to be verified. Now, being able to upload photos and videos doesn’t automatically mean they should be added to the draft/article, and further discussion maybe needed to establish a consensus for that. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I have a general question here. If the article gets accepted, would it be best to name it "Derek Reese" and move the current redirect Derek Reese to "Derek Reese (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles character)"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I add another entry to my sandbox?[edit]

I am trying to upload a new page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadelineRosene (talkcontribs) 02:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You can generate as many user subpages as you like, providing that they are for relevant purposes. You can generate User:MadelineRosene/sandbox2 or User:MadelineRosene/proposed_new_article_title or whatever. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Question About Adding a College Name to a Biography[edit]


I am thinking of editing a Wikipedia article about a writer so that it includes the college he graduated from, Pomona College, and a link to that college's Wikipedia article. Do I need to add a reference to the writer's Wikipedia article so it can be verified that he graduated from Pomona College? I've noticed that many Wikipedia biographical articles do not provide a reference for the college graduated from.

Also, I noticed that alumni of Pomona College also appear in two places - in the Pomona College article in a section titled "Alumni and Faculty"; and in a separate article, "List of Pomona College people". Would I need to add this writer's name to both articles? Or would I need to request that an editor add his name to the articles?

Thanks very much! Linda — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindaPenn04 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi LindaPenn04. All article content is typically expected to be supported to a citation to a reliable source so that it can be verified as needed. Sometimes information is mentioned multuple times within in an article, so it might not be necessary to cite it each and everytime. This is the ideal, but the reality is that there are lots of articles containing content which is not properly supported by a reliable source. The fact that you've noticed this in other articles doesn't make OK to do in this particular article, or mean that it's not a problem; it might just mean that perhaps nobody has gotten around to trying to fix things yet.
In some cases a bit of editorial discretion might have been used and the content judged to not be contentious, and not something requiring immediate removal; so, maybe a template such as Template:citation needed, Template:More citations needed or Template:Unreferenced was added instead. There tends to be much less wiggle room to work with when it comes to unsourced content in biographies about living persons, but even in such articles an alternative to outright removal might used instead. Basically, unsourced content can be removed at anytime by anyone, and it's the WP:BURDEN of those wanting to re-add the content to provide a citation to a reliable source for verification purposes. So, you can add the content, but you should also not just assume that just because you know it to be true that other editors will simply take you at your word; if the information is challenged and removed, you then will have to sort things out according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieval of a write-up from archive[edit]

Sir, Please advise as to how to retrieve a write-up on a dead person to a biography. Jena Amiya Kumar (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jena Amiya Kumar. Is your question related to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 813#Sikhareswar Jena or Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 831#Follow-up to Sikhareswar Jena? If it is, then perhaps Thnidu can help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Contribution marked as "draft"[edit]

Hi there, I seem to be new to, however, I have contributions on the German wikipedia. My most recent contribution is still being marked as a draft, and it seems like I'm not authorized to post the draft yet. Is it because my "credentials" don't transfer over from the German wikipedia and now I have to make 10+ edits? Thx in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by And1handles (talkcontribs) 07:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your draft at Draft:Greg Logins Jr is not yet suitable to be transferred to mainspace. You need to include references as inline citations, see WP:Referencing for beginners. After that you can submit it for AFC review. As you are new to the English Wikipedia you may find it useful to read the guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How to filter for tags AND WikipediaProject[edit]

Hi, I'm interested in generating a list of all pages with Unreferenced BLPs (eg AND filtering that against all pages that are part of the WIiiproject:Australia. Does anyone know how to do that?? Cheers, Cabrils (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping someone more tech savvy than I. GMGtalk 12:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I have to say, the amount of times the answer is petscan is surprisingly yeah, Cabrils here's it Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Galobtter. You could be superhuman with skills like this... Another quick question hoping I am not wearing out the welcome: I see in PetScan, under the Categories tab, there is a field for Categories in which you have specified the desired template "Unreferenced BLPs". If I want to make other searches for other other templates, can I just replace "Unreferenced BLPs" with a different template? And if so, where do I get a list of those templates? Cabrils (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Cabrils, Unreferenced BLPs is the category you wanted to filter by (see Help:Category and Help:Template); you can replace that with whatever category you want. I suppose the easiest way is to search for your desired category. There are somewhere in the order of a million categories so a list would be rather unwieldy :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Need help to edit a scientific page[edit]

I need help from an editor from scientific background about a inserting a controversy on 2015 regarding Noble prize on discovery of artemisinin. The summary of the matter is here

Extended content

The draft write-up is below. Reference will be added later.

In 2015, Verma actively criticised the basis of this years Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine award to Tu Youyou for the discovery of the chemical artemisinin and her work on malaria[1]. Artemisinin is an active compound present in a medicinal plant called Artemisia annua that is used for curing malaria. In his social media post[2], Verma claimed artemisinin was a variant of artemisin that was already known to Indian scientific community [3]. To substantiate his claims, Verma provided a snapshot of an article from a book, "Indian Medicinal Plants" published in 1918 by Lieutenant Colonel K. R. Kirtikar and Major B. D. Basu (ref). The book clearly described the use of "artemisin" in India to cure intermittent and remittent fever (the common phrase for used for malarial fever till 1880).

The controversy resulting from Verma's claims was published in many news papers [4][5][6][7][8][9]. According to Outlook India's article, "Questions In A Petri Dish: The Nobel for medicine has gone to a Chinese researcher. Has the work of Indian scientists been overlooked"[10], Verma stated “If a minor variant of a well-known compound extracted from a plant found around the world can be given the Nobel, poorer countries will be the losers, as scientists from technologically advanced societies can always find plants with similar chemical compounds elsewhere and extract the ingredient from them. Communities with traditional cures will lose out” [11].


The controversy abruptly ended when in contrast to Verma's claims, it was realised that artemisinin is not a minor variant of artemisin and the two are entirely different chemicals. Amrev (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Amrev. Without knowing which specific scientific page you're refering to, it's going to be a bit hard for anyone to help you. It's sound like you want to make a change to an existing article. If that's the case, then there are two possible ways to do that: (1) be WP:BOLD or (2) be WP:CAUTIOUS. If you decide to be bold and your change is subsequently reverted by another editor, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and use the article's talk page to discuss the matter with others. On the other hand, if you're cautious, then do your best to explain why the change should be made, providing links to reliable sources which support your position as needed, and then simply wait for others respond. If nobody responds in a reasonable amount of time, scroll up to the top of the article talk page and see if the article falls under the purview of a WikiProject. If it does, you can then ask for assistance at the WikiProject if you want. It's important to remember that other editors might be WP:BUSY, and you shouldn't expect an immediate response to anything you post; however, if nobody has responded in a week or so, then you can probably assume WP:SILENT and just go ahead and make the desired change. You don't really need anyone's permission to edit an article, but you need to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project which means that discussion is the way to resolve things if another editor later disagrees with the changes you make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly,
I wanted to edit the following page with the content above but my edits were reverted - because they didn't read neutral. I just want someone to edit the content above to make it concise and neutral.
Amrev (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Since you were already bold and reverted by another editor, you should now use Talk:Sunil Kumar Verma to discuss the changes you want to make. The editor who reverted you probably has the article on their watchlist and may notice your post, but you can post a message on their user talk page asking them to join the discussion and clarify their concerns. Perhaps through this discussion, a neutrally worded version of what you want to add can be worked out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again Marchjuly. The editor of that page who reverted the change now says that my correcting my edit is beyond his/her expertise. Furthermore, he asked me to seek help here and so I am here. All I am requesting now is experts to fix my draft or it doesn't appear vindictive - as it did in the beginning. I can insert all the reference etc here if it help. Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrev (talkcontribs) 08:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As Marchjuly told you, and as the editor who reverted you told you in the edit summary of that revert, the place for discussion is on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
For background to this, It may be worthwhile considering that Alt-Med proponents think that this Nobel prize was for work done in TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) which is of course not the case. She did real science. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 09:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I have a big problem with this section. The text above was first submitted by a User "Chutia verna" immediately blocked for being derogatory (in its most benign translation, "chutia" is idiot or fool, and Verna is the scientist being written about). The text and refs were reverted. Within hours, Amrev posted the identical content. Reversed by W. Carter NOT on basis of the science but because the references were inappropriate. Amrev has also added the criticism of Verma to Talk:Nobel Prize controversies. Amrev has not started a discussion section at Talk:Sunil Kumar Verma, which is what MarchJuly recommended. David notMD (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, understood the process. Further discussion shall happen in the talk page. Irrespective of the users who edited the page above, facts should still get incorporated into wiki. One of the editor who reverted the changes, later says it is beyond her/her expertise to edit the article. Furthermore, how come references to published news article where members of Nobel Committee have responded are not credible? Amrev (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I wrote a short version, using one of the references, and added it to the article. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Above, Amrev has written "it was realised that artemisinin is not a minor variant of artemisin and the two are entirely different chemicals." In Wikipedia, Artemisin is a redirect to Artemisinin, which does not mention the name artemisin. So there's some misunderstanding somewhere. Maproom (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunate coincidence of names. Artemisinin is C15H22O5 and Artemisin is C15H18:04. However, some website content misspells artemininin as artemisin when describing the anti-malarial drug (which is the former, not the latter). See In my opinion the redirect treats "artemisin" as a misspelling, but that is confusing given the existence of artemisin. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I've created a stub article at artemisin to reduce this confusion Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
artemisinin and artemisin compared

→Thanks for this David notMD. I followed the controversy since it erupted. As you mentioned about the names are quite similar. Verma's main argument was artemininin is a minor variant of artemisin and the latter was known to Indian community almost a century ago. I will talk more about it with the references in main article for you to further edit. Galobtter, Maproom, here is a file showing the difference between the two, if needed. Amrev (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi I need help with editing my first write up. Can anyone help me please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your starting point is to read the links in the feedback which was left on the draft and on your user talk page. You also ought to read the guidance at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Company/product mixup[edit]


I'm doing some Google knowledge graph work for FileMaker.

One issue I come across is the wiki snippet when you type FileMaker into google, it displays an article for FileMaker Pro (an old product). My assumption is it defaults to this because the url is "".

What is the best way to work with this? Should I update the existing FileMaker Pro article to be about the company (one already exists here:, redirect the company article to the "new" article, and finally create a bunch of articles about the products.

Or should I create new articles for the products, and have the existing FileMaker Pro article ( redirect to FileMaker Inc. (

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlstampy (talkcontribs) 13:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of those is a good idea. Problems with Google knowledge graph are a Google issue; the information at Wikipedia is correct, and Wikipedia has no control over what Google or any other downstream user does with the information here. If it is wrong at Google or any other website outside of Wikipedia, then you'll need to work it out with that website. --Jayron32 14:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I appreciate the comment, and we have made recent requests to Google. Our issue is actually the URL should be referring to FileMaker Inc. and not FileMaker Pro (a product built by FileMaker). I was asking what was the best way to correct that particular issue on Wikipedia. Dlstampy (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah! So you want the FileMaker Pro article moved to the title "FileMaker Pro" and you want the Filemaker Inc. article moved to FileMaker? Is that correct? Sorry I misunderstood. If that is the case, what I would do is start a move discussion (See WP:RM) at Talk:FileMaker and see if anyone objects or has any suggestions. If, after a few days, your proposed moves seem to have consensus, then it will be moved. --Jayron32 15:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
My bad. That's exactly it. Thanks I'll take a look at starting a move discussion! Dlstampy (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Did I archive correctly?[edit]

I was wondering if someone more experienced could see if I archived correctly. I don't see any mistakes, but I'd really like someone to verify that there aren't any. Also, I was wondering if user talk pages have a different procedure than article talk pages if they are on, because it looks like some user's who have their talk pages on there have been inactive for a while. Clovermoss (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Clovermoss and welcome to the Teahouse.
I just looked at the archiving you did for Talk:John R. Bolton. On the whole, you did nothing particularly wrong, but since you asked for advice let me make some suggestions.
  1. It would generally be better to set up automatic archiving rather than manual archiving. There are many archived talk pages and you can get an idea from looking at them what parameters people generally prefer to pass to the archive bot.
  2. In the Bolton archive you created, you carried away even fairly recent threads. I believe leaving something like 2–4 threads visible on the talk page is better than trimming it to just the banners and boilerplate, even if that means leaving a somewhat old thread on the talk page. The point of archiving is to make talk pages more manageable, not to hide older stuff by an additional layer of indirection.
  3. Your new Bolton archive has an archive template at both the top and the bottom. I think just one at the top is standard.
  4. The earlier Bolton archives have date ranges. When you added yours, it would have been good to update the list in the archives box with a date range for Archive_3 for consistency. Also, as a matter of consistency, the interchangeability of underscore and spaces in file names means that you could have been more similar to the earlier archives.
So, on the whole, nothing that needs undoing, but a few things to keep in mind when you do this in the future. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
As far as the user talk pages go, I would just leave them, especially users who appear to be inactive. Once you learn how to set up automatic archives, you could reach out to still-active users who have requested help and get them going. But make the offer on their talk page and engage with them a bit on the available options; don't just act based on the archive request template. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

What should I start in wikipedia?[edit]

Do you have any suggestions anyone? Any articles I should edit? What people I can collaborate? Thanks I love rpgs (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

There's some good info that was added to your talk page that will help you understand editing guidelines. If RPG is role playing games, you can look at the Role-playing game article, and even the RPG template could give you some editing ideas. Read the talk pages, look at the history, and if you have questions about the articles, leave them on the article talk pages. You can also put some info on your user page, such as adding hobby templates, so your user name isn't red. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


Can I get some more info about New Page Patrol/School? Is it similar to CVUA? I know both are different subjects, but I mean are they similar in training? Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPP is an advance permission, unlike vandalism patrol. Minimum requirements are 6 months of editing, at least 500 mainspace edits and you must have demonstrated a clear understanding of WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:COI. Additionally, you will need to be able to interact with new editors, so some experience here or at AfC is also considered a positive. NPP, while a rather new initiative in Wikipedia, is considered a very crucial role and administrators are quite selective as to who they grant the permission. John from Idegon (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I call other Users to look at a talk page?[edit]

I'm having a problem with a user. There's an article that's poorly written and is about two different topics (I verified this by showing it to real-life friends), and clearly needs to be split. One User (out of three, including myself) is ignoring most of my arguments and seems to want to keep the article as it is. How do I call on other Users for neutral outside help?Wacape (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This must be about Neo-medievalism, which actually starts by stating that it's about two different topics. Maproom (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Wacape. The Request for comment process is intended to bring uninvolved editors into discussions about content disputes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Did I delete my own draft?[edit]

I was working on a draft late last night and didn't complete it. I came back to it this morning but left the page thinking I'd be able to find it later. Was my draft lost forever? I tried looking for it using various URLs but can't seem to find it. And, for future reference, how do I save my drafts? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uthoperis (talkcontribs) 02:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Uthoperis and welcome to the Teahouse.
Since there is nothing shown in your contributions list, it sounds as if you never actually saved your draft. Were you afraid of clicking on the "Publish" button? You should make a practice of saving your draft frequently by clicking on that button. That's the only way the text that you've been working on in your browser gets sent back to WP's servers. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I was scared of clicking the "Publish" button! So clicking that from a draft wont make the article "live" and I'll be able to come back to it? --Uthoperis (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it remains a draft and you can get back to it.
I think someone is collecting examples like this to take to the powers-that-be to get them to change the name of that button. I've been suggesting that we just call it "Send". I still think it's better to give users the option of when to save than to have the editing software send everything back keystroke-by-keystroke, which just seems wasteful and somewhat creepy. But I'm afraid this is bad news for you, you'll have to create your draft anew. If it's any consolation, some writers have reported that losing their novel-in-progress to a disk crash resulted in an even better novel when they had to start over. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was pointed out to WMF that changing the title of the button from "Save" to "Publish" was causing much confusion to new contributors, but such remarks fell on deaf ears. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieval/upgradation of write-up on Sikhareswar Jena, to an article[edit]

Respected sir, Kind attention: Mr.Marchjuly

The article on Sikhareswar Jena who led Odisha Fire service for nearly a decade,1980s and whose idea of setting up rural Fire stations,impacting the lives of of majority of population of Odisha,particularly in its countryside,the first Fire officer,being awarded the President's award for meritorious service in 1980 , a notable Fire engineer of Odisha, needs to be reviewed and upgraded to an article as it meets all wikipedia guidelines.He was largely responsible for development of Odisha Fire service in post-independent India.He used to deliver talks on fire-fighting and prevention regularly in All India Radio and Doordarshan in 1980s,which are not preserved due to lack of Archival facilities then and computerisation.He has no doubt impacted rural common folk of Odisha in fire services in fire-fighting and prevention.He was a leading fire engineer of Odisha.I have supplemented the write-up on Sikhareswar Jena, duly edited by esteemed editor,Ammarpad.I earnestly request that the article on Sikhareswar Jena,who is no more, be upgraded to an Article.With warm regards and submissions. Rkranndhir (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to address your remarks specifically to User:Marchjuly, the place to do so is on the editor's user talk page, User talk:Marchjuly.
The draft currently has many unsourced statements, so to comply with Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability you need to find references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to support those statements. The references you have are all bare URLs, and it would aid reviewers if you would expand them, preferably by filling in the relevant parameters in a template such as {{cite web}}. You will find further advice at WP:Your first article, and after reading that and taking note of the advice, if you are convinced that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria you can submit the draft for review by adding <nowiki>{{subst:submit}</nowki> to the top of the draft. It was pointed out at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 813#Sikhareswar Jena that the draft at that time did not demonstrate notability; there has been no substantial improvement in the draft since then, so I suspect that the subject (however worthy in his own field) may not meet the requirements in WP:Notability (people). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Respected sir,Mr. Marchjuly Noted sir.Thanks a lot for the prompt response.I will review the same as per wikipedia guidelines and abide by your valuable advice.Warm regards, Rkranndhir (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

About uploading logos[edit]

I wanted to confirm my understanding of the proper way to go about adding logos to articles. I'm currently working on a new article for The Hard Times, and I wanted to add their logo to the page (, but I'm not sure about the copyright policy around this. According to, logos are okay to include even if they're non free, but I don't know any of the source information around this image's copyright. Can I still use this logo, since the article will be about the site itself? Thisdangguy (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

How to contribute to Wikipedia ?[edit]

I am new to editing so I want to know how to contribute to Wikipedia.Shonku07 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shonku07: - welcome to Wikipedia! You can contribute in a wide array of ways, but the best revolve around editing articles to enhance them. Given that you are new to editing, perhaps edit in areas which you find interesting, be it via copyediting or the use of citations from reliable sources. Make sure you are familiar with Wikipedia's editing policy, and the five pillars of the encyclopedia. You should likely acquire some experience with editing before creating an article, but there is a guide for this. Remember, we are always here to assist should you need assistance with editing. Hope this helps, and best of luck with your editing aspirations, Stormy clouds (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

How to edit protected or semi protected pages?[edit]

Please tell me how to edit protected pages?Shonku07 (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Shonku07 and welcome to the Teahouse.
You can't edit protected pages directly, but you can almost always make an edit request on the talk page of the article. Be quite specific about the change you want made to the article. Another editor with the necessarily user rights will take your request under consideration and perform it for you. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)