Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1066

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1060

←

Archive 1064

→

What

What is a vector skin on touchscreen device. Tbiw (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Tbiw, that is the default interface style (or skin, as Wikipedia terms it). The other skins can be accessed from the appearance section of your preferences page. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

After going there how will you view the twinkle menu.Tbiw (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tbiw: Twinkle is enabled in the Gadget tab of your Preferences settings (the 13th tickbox down, if I remember correctly) From then on, you can find Twinkle's menu in the main tabs at the top of the page. This answer relates to using Wikipedia in desktop view, which I almost always use on my own touchscreen device (a tiny iPhone) in preference to mobile view. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Like Nick Moyes, I do most of my editing on a mobile device using the fully functional desktop site instead of the amateurush mobile site. Where we differ is that I use Android on a Google Pixel 2XL, instead of an Apple device. Plus, I am American and he is British. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Images

I need to include copyright proofs in images and I can't remember how. Can you point me in the right direction? Also on the inclusion of alternative descriptions for the blind, is that just alt=? Does it have posts around it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Search in WP:IMAGE. If you meant permissions, you want WP:OTRS. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay Victor Schmidt, let's just assume I'm not very bright and that having already read that, I was unable to find something that said "put 'a' here by doing 'b'." In good WP fashion I got a description, and it went as far as saying "a tag should be on its own line." Where good Victor? Where? I thought all info on an image was supposed to be included inside the brackets of the file citation itself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jenhawk777. Regarding accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images. You simply type in a description of what is in the image into the "alt" field, such as "a still life painting of a vase of flowers, two pears and a plate of cheese ". This gives more information for blind people using a screen reader than a typical caption which might be "1879 painting by Jane Jones". As for copyright and licensing information, that goes in the file for the image itself, which may be hosted either here on English Wikipedia, or at Wikimedia Commons. That does not go in the wikicode that displays the image on an individual page. You can access the image file page by double clicking the image itself, and then clicking "details". You can edit the file page if you need to. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 So I go in and edit the information on the image itself?!!!! Yikes! I don't think I've ever done that! These images I am using have their copyright info posted with the "details"--is that what you're referring to? That would mean someone else has already done that edit, and I am good to go with those, right? One says I need a tag for the US. I guess I can follow and find that. Thank you thank you thank you!! You guys are great! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, images are a tough subject to help people with. Some images are hosted on en.wiki, but most are hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Although most hosts here can help you with basics on Commons, it is a separate entity from en.wiki, with different policies and guidelines and Commons help is really outside our purview here. Additionally, policies both here and on Commons are purposely vague and are meant to be interpreted on a case by case basis. If you could point specifically to the file or files in question, we'd probably be able able to help you much better. John from Idegon (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I agree with John from Idegon that it is best to describe your specific problem with a specific named image, because there is such a wide range of possible problems with the licensing status of images that generic answers are not likely to address the particular situation you are dealing with. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 and John from Idegon I didn't realize this was foreign territory to you too. :-) These are the images I'm using on [History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance]: [1]. Europe [2] Occitane [3]expulsions--disputed due to translation [4] Baltic tribes [5] central Europe, and this is the only one with copyright info posted on its licensing details. If I recall correctly--it's been a while--I think I have to hunt down the copyright info and be sure it meets criteria and then post it like you said, on the licensing info. Thanx for trying to help even though it's outside your wheelhouse. I'll stumble through and figure it out, this has given me a direction, so thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, thanks for linking to specific images. I do not see problems with the licensing of any of those images, and you are free to use them anywhere you want on Wikipedia as you see fit. Why do you think that you need to do anything about copyright? What problems do you see? Neither John from Idegon nor I said that image usage is "out of our wheelhouse". We just asked for specific details so that we could give you a specific answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought that's what John meant when he said {{it is a separate entity from en.wiki, with different policies and guidelines and Commons help is really outside our purview here.}} When getting an article ready for review for FA, I was told in the past that not having the copyright tags on the image licensing--I think that's where anyway--would be cause to fail the article. I get every image I use from Wiki commons and thought the statements of free use were sufficient, but I was told I was wrong. Does FA have different rules? Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, of course incorrect or incomplete image licensing or unresolved copyright problems would be a major issue in an FA review, but I see no such problems with those images. So, I will ask again so that we can be clear about this matter. Specifically what problems do you see? What concerns you? Cullen³²⁸ [[User talk:[6]] |Let's discuss it]] 03:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 Copyright tags are supposed to be on images. I found them here: [7]

I was able to put them on this image--[8] --but was unable to do so on the others as they had no information on the original sources. That means there is no actual way to ensure that the person that uploaded it here and who says 'sure use it freely' actually has the right to say that. I think I have to go to Flicker and see if I can find where they came from originally.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, the CIA image is a work of the United States federal government and is therefore copyright free. Indisputably. The other images have valid GNU or Creative Commons licenses. The uploaders made a legal declaration that the images were properly licensed and could be used freely. Why would you go to Flikr to research these images, which are maps and charts, not photos? What evidence do you have that any of these images has copyright or license problems? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me, Jenhawk777, that you have mistagged File:Europe 814.svg. That image was not published before 1925. It is a contemporary image that used the pre-1925 atlas image as a source. That is an image licensed for free use under Creative Commons. It is not an image whose copyright has expired. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 It says it's original source was "The Public Schools Historical Atlas" by Charles Colbeck. Longmans, Green; New York; London; Bombay. 1905. I may have misunderstood, but that's the copyright I was told to go by. So anyway, that has answered my question. Thank you Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Using images on a wikipedia article about a living artist Specify links to images and works of an artist in her article

I recently asked about putting images of an artist and her works in a Wikipedia article and found that it would be difficult to get copyright permission. My follow-up question is about putting links in an article to an external site that had a photo and showed some artworks. Often the reference list will have links to external articles or sites that will show photos and artworks but I wonder if it's Ok to put something explicit in the body of an article such as "

A photo of Jane Bloggs can be found on the University of Utopia page and her artworks can be seen at the Beautiful Gallery page". The links would be from the names of the institutions. This happens incidentally anyway sometimes when there are external links in the article, but could it be a specific sentence to direct readers to the images or even a subheading section to make it easier to find? LPascal (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi LPascal. Generally, external links shouldn't be embedded into the bodies of articles per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and item 19 of WP:ELNO. Moreover, text directing readers to external websites (e.g. "To see some examples of Bloggs' work, check this website.") shouldn't really be added the bodies of articles as well. If you feel the links aren't a problem per WP:ELNO, then the best place to add them would be to the "External links" section; however, be aware that Wikipedia encourages us to try and limit external links to "official" websites as much as possible per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Ideally, the only links which should really be added to directly to the body of an article should be WP:WIKILINKS (i.e. internal links) to other relevant Wikipedia articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Some other suggestions based upon looking at some of your edits to Elizabeth Gower

Please don't add citations to section headings per MOS:HEAD. You add should add citations inline near the content that it's intended to support. If you want add a citation for a specific entry in a table of list, add it directly to that entry. If the citation is intended to support the all of the content in the table of list, then add an introductory type sentence before the table or list and add the citation to that.
Please don't use "level-1" section heading syntax for sections of articles as explained in WP:SECT#Creation and numbering of sections. Level-1 section headings are reserved for the titles of articles.
Please be aware of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTCV when making edits like this. One of the problems with such content is that the article can become quite bottom heavy where in that the encyclopedic content at the top of the article written in WP:PROSE is being overwhelmed by the excessively detailed/comprehensive list sections at the bottom of the article. Try to focus only on major exhibitions/awards of things which might even have Wikipedia articles written about them. Such detailed information might be fine for the artist's official website, but Wikipedia articles aren't really intended to be a detailed or comprehensive as official websites.
Try to write out short sections like Elizabeth Gower#Education in prose instead of simple tables or lists if possible.
If you're going to add content like Elizabeth Gower#Public commissions, then you should add supporting citations as well per WP:BLPSOURCES. The more unsourced content you add to an article, the more likely it's going to be tagged with a maintenance template like {{More citations needed}} or {{Unreferenced section}}. Unsourced content can be removed at any time per WP:BURDEN, and this especially true for articles about living persons per WP:BLPSOURCES.
I'm sure your converting of the bullet lists (shown here in the version prior to your editing of the article) to tables was really an improvement. That could just be my personal preference. Sometimes when you make a big change like that it might be a good idea to be WP:CAUTIOUS and propose it on the article's talk page first.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly, all of those comments are very helpful and I will re-edit the EG page later with them in mind. As a new editor I;m finding it difficult to find the instructions/policies quickly on for every issue I have so that's why I ask questions on the Talk page. I will try and read more of that guidance material now that you reference before I do a lot more editing. LPascal (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The site : Hans Andre, some more info

https://www.artribune.com/artista-mostre-biografia/hans-andre/ is a good decription of Hans Andrés work, but in italian. 80.216.193.97 (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The best place for you to suggest its addition is Talk:Hans Andre. -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to How to upload an write up

i have a request,i should upload a writeup regarding of "How an ESP can design in high viscosity oil wells" . This is my write up. this would help others . please let me know if this topic is acceptable. Ellipzys (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ellipzys: Welcome to Wikipedia. As mentioned in the previous replies, Wikipedia does not accept original research. See WP:OR. RudolfRed (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

its not original research, research already done but the informations are limited in internet. SO i planned to upload in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellipzys (talk • contribs) 02:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You can use WP:YFA to see the instructions for writing an article and use the wizard there to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

You were advised on your Talk page that your User page is not a place to create an article (hence deleted). Also, the existence of information accessible via internet searches does not mean that those sources meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources WP:RS. Looks to me that ESP refers to Electrical Submersible Pump. Submersible pump exists as an article. Perhaps - if you can identify valid references - you can add to that article. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

To move from Sandbox to Publish

I posted A Profile which is in my SANDBOX titled A profile of Dr. Ulaganathan sankar under the category 20th Century Indian Economists in February 2020. When will it be published? Mythili2020 (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Mythili2020: Welcome to Teahouse, you are new user, if you have completed your article in Sandbox then you should create a draft. See WP:Drafts . You must create a draft and them submit it for review. To know about creating new article see Help:Your first article#Create your draft. Hope this helps, if any problem kindly reply here. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 06:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have posted matter in the SANDBOX. It is a profile of a person. How do I come to know if the material is still in process or dismissed? Please help Mythili2020 (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

How to move the content from SANDBOX to DRAFT? Mythili2020 (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing's going to happen to that draft until you ask for an evaluation. For now, don't do this. Please remember that Wikipedia doesn't have profiles; it has articles. And that everything said (and not just a sizable minority of what's said) in an article has to be referenced. And that the way to reference is not "<sup>[3]</sup>" but instead something like "<ref>Author, '[http://www.domainname.in/wherever/pagename.html Page title]', Website, date. Accessed accessdate.</ref>". -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't start multiple threads, each asking the same thing. (I have merged your second and third into this first one.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

to create draft

Mythili2020 (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mythili2020: Please tell us about the topic you are considering for your new article, and whether you've attempted to determine if it meets Wikipedia's peculiar definition of notability. This trips up a lot of people. (BTW, if you really want to help, you can work on fixing problems with existing articles. There's always plenty of articles that need fixing.) Fabrickator (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Fabrickator, see User:Mythili2020/sandbox. Mythili2020, if you have a new question, please put it in this section; please don't put it in a new one. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

An editor moved it from your Sandbox to Draft:Ulaganathan Sankar. I created section headings. Once you create proper referencing, you can click on the submit button. Once submitted, can be days to months before it is reviewed, and either accepted or declined (with advice on what is needed), or in worst cases, rejected. David notMD (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Which sources or cites are considered legit?

Hello fellow Wikis :) I'm a new editor on Wikipedia and was wondering if I could get some help. I want to create a Wikipedia page for an entertainment entrepreneur but seem to keep hitting a wall for not having "notability", despite being published in some of the best magazines in the world (Entrepreneur, Vogue, ELLE, and so on). I reached out to an experienced editor on Upwork and she suggested that we create a wikitia page, and that this would guarantee notability. Two questions here: Will the wikitia page help in getting my Wikipedia article published? If not, what sources are considered "reliable", given that none of the said sources are press releases or merely interviews? May Rostom (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The only article (not 'page') you appear to be working on is Draft:Rabih Mokbel. The 'Declined' comment was "Please read the Manual of Style and format this piece to match it. It requires headings. Also, for clarity, avoid long paragraphs. I have not reviewed this piece further because it requires a substantial edit to be readable." If this is not the draft you are referring to, please provide a link to the one you mean. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "Wikitia", and wonder if you mean Wikia. Would a Wikia page help getting a draft promoted to an article? No, it certainly wouldn't. Can your draft be promoted in anything like its current form? No it can't. To take a sample at random: Mokbel is not only leaving his mark -- what mark? -- in the Music industry in Egypt but he changed the whole world’s perception of Egypt’s huge hidden potential -- Potential for what? And the whole world, really? -- and caught international attention when he encouraged huge international names -- by "huge international names", do you mean celebs? -- to fly over to perform in Egypt, creating memorable events for the Egyptian crowd -- by "the Egyptian crowd", do you mean the spectators? And where are your sources for this? Incidentally, your mention of Upwork is surprising: could you say something about where the money is flowing from? -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Meaning, do you intend to pay Upwork for work on this article? That implies you are being paid, which must be declared on your User page. David notMD (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@May Rostom: I am sure you will hit notability issues during Draft:Rabih Mokbel's life, but I declined it simply based on WP:MOS and legibility. I did not review further. It's far easier to solve one issue at a time.

The subject of your draft is living. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Wikia cannot help assert nor verify notability, nor can any self generated vehicle. Equally, if it is your hope that an article in Wikipedia will grant notability to the subject, it can not and does not. It reports that verified elsewhere instead. Fiddle Faddle 12:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Constructive Edits

Hello Teahouse,

I recently tried editing an existing wikipedia article with updated and corrected information on the subject, and I received a message from an editor saying that my edits "did not appear constructive." What does that mean exactly? I've looked through the various help pages but can not find any specific information as to what constitutes constructive edits.

Thank you!

Aladinsane 1972 Aladinsane 1972 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Aladinsane 1972, it appears to me that your edits to Zerobridge were intended as constructive. However, you supplied no reference in support of any of them, which I assume is why CommanderWaterford reverted them and posted to your talk page. Maproom (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Aladinsane 1972, first of all welcome to the Teahouse, good place to ask - but you could have also asked me directly on my talk page. Your edits were completely without any given source, you will need to give a reference for your allegations, that’s all. Thanks Maproom for pinging me. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, you could be sanctioned for an WP:NPA violation. Explain here now how the OP's edits constituted WP:VANDALISM, which is what you called them. John from Idegon (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Where do you see the word "vandalism" used? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Getting too old to multitask. Sorry, I've struck that. John from Idegon (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon, AlanM1, I see that word used in CommanderWaterford's edit summary at Zerobridge: "Reverted to revision 929691772 by Bonnie13J (talk): Vandalism (TW)". Maproom (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maproom: Yeah – there's an inconsistency between the template naming/description and the content, which I've raised at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#uw-vandalism1 template. After choosing that template and reading the preview, a TW user can reasonably expect the softened terminology, and not "vandalism", to appear in the result. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on draft

I'm sorry for this very basic question, but I'm a Wiki-neophyte: is my draft still pending a review?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jason_Szep

I suspect it is but I just wanted to be sure.

Thank you. Journalism prof 68 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It had not been reviewed. Now it has. These things take a while sometimes. Fiddle Faddle 13:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

My first article

Hello there, I am new here so please show me some warm love. I know Wikipedia is a loving community. I just started my first article of a clothing brand I think deserve an article. Here is the draft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sebastian_Cruz_Couture# Please any help? Suggestions? Much needed. Thanks! Tripplehaze7 (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tripplehaze7, and welcome to the Teahouse. I hope that you will find it a friendly place; but please be aware that plunging into creating an article as a new user is like going to your first music lesson and expecting to play a concerto, or starting French lessons and expecting to be able to write a magazine article in French. The particular problem is that if you write an article from what you know, you are doing it wrong: Wikipedia readers have no way of telling who you are, or whether what you know is reliable. For this reason we require that all Wikipedia articles are based on reliably published information, and mostly on sources unconnected with the subject. So the way to start your draft is to find several places where people completely unconnected with the company have chosen to write at some length about the company, and been published in places with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. (And note that information sourced to the company, such as interviews and press releases, does not figure in this). If you cannot find such sources, then the company is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and you are wasting your time trying to write about it. If you can find the sources, then you are in a position to start writing your draft, by summarising what those sources say about it. Please see your first article for more guidance. But my advice would be to shelve it for now, and spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles (many of them need it!) and learning how Wikipedia works. The Community portal is a good place to go. --ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine, that’s good to know. I am taking my time to go through the guidelines and I will definitely do well to contribute to existing articles. I think the article in my draft has many such reputable sources I will look at. I am willing to take time and work on this as I think it is exciting and challenging at the same time. Awesome! I think I will love it here on Wikipedia. Kindly keep an eye on things for me if you can. Thanks a lot for your time and assistance. I really appreciate it.

Cheers! --Tripplehaze7 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Your only reference is an interview with Mr. Cruz. In Wikipedia parlance, interviews do not count toward establishing notability. You need independent content about the company. David notMD (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I got to understand this. I am taking my time to work on it and dig up some notable sources. Thank you for the heads up. Cheers! --Tripplehaze7 (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately you prettified the draft with copyright photographs. I have not reviewed past that point, and have declined it n that basis Fiddle Faddle 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

How to wrote a plot of the movie?

Oliverdrinkstars57 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Oliverdrinkstars57, and welcome to the Teahouse. The guidance for that is at MOS:PLOT. However, if you are talking about User:Oliverdrinkstars57/sandbox, worring about a plot summary at this point is like trying to paint the windows of your house before you have got the foundations laid. Creating a Wikipedia article starts with the independent reliable sources. It is a waste of your time writing anything at all in the draft before you have found these sources; first, because if you cannot find suitable sources to establish notability, then the draft will never be accepted, and all the time you spend on it will be wasted; and secondly because if you do find sources, anything you have written which is not in a reliable published source will need to be removed. Please read WP:CITE and WP:YFA if you haven't already. --ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Hello Oliverdrinkstars57, WP:FILMPLOT has some advice. Looking at examples in some high quality articles on movies might be a good idea. For example, The Shawshank Redemption has a straightforward plot and the article on it happens to be a featured article, the best of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Memento has an unconventional plot, and our article on it happens to be a good article. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I create a redirect?

Treaty of Ramla seems sure to be a mistake, it's one and the same as the Treaty of Jaffa (1192), some editor just picked up the wrong title. I want to remove it altogether and place a redirect, in case some user still does look the topic up under this name. Please help with advice. I'm not a new editor, I just haven't cared for technical stuff until now. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Arminden Blank the page and replace with #redirect [[Treaty of Jaffa (1192)]] Hillelfrei ^talk 13:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

But don't do that without adding something to Treaty of Jaffa (1192) that will explain why you have been redirected there, Arminden! There is no mention of Ramla in that article. --ColinFine (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirect - done, many thanks! What about an "autodirect"? That one means that there isn't any more redirect page with the old name at the top, instead the user searching for the specific name is automatically directed to the correct page? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That is what you have created, Arminden. --ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia age

How old is Wikipedia? QwertyDummy (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@QwertyDummy: Welcome to Wikipedia. I added a header to your question. According to the article, Wikipedia was founded in Jan 2001. RudolfRed (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@QwertyDummy: And see also History of Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

How to edit article without being copyright or blocked?

Oliverdrinkstars57 (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This may sound obvious but do not add copyright material that you have found elsewhere to Wikipedia. That is the very best way of avoiding it, and of being blocked (eventually) for it Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I need to add village in Wikipedia .How can I do it?

The truthful falcon (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please visit WP:AFC which will give you all the tools that you need Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@The truthful falcon: Welcome to the Teahouse! I also suggest that you read Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Best-Practice for Rewriting an Article

Hi,

I've discovered that the article on Freeline skates is in pretty bad shape; it might be easiest to start with a clean slate. I'm hoping that someone can help guide me on what the best-practices are when considering re-writing an article.

Here are some specific questions that I have:

Is it advisable to re-write the article? How can I best respect the article history?
- Should I do a re-write in my sandbox, then release the content all at once, or write a section at a time in the live article? Maybe some combination of the two?
- In the talk page another user, Th0rgall already drafted a rewrite in their sandbox. It's a good start, but it still needs work. Perhaps the article should be re-written in their sandbox?
I think that the page should be moved so that instead of using the brand name Freeline Skates, it uses the generic name Freeskates.
- Is a page move advisable here?
- Would that be done before, during, or after updating the content?
- This brings up ambiguity between the hypothetical Freeskates article, and the Free Skate article on the form of ice skating. I think that a Hatnote would be sufficient for that case. Does that sound right?
For such a niche sport, I'm concerned about finding really solid sources. It looks like most sources are supplier "about" pages, blogs, and YouTube videos. My plan right now is to try to not get research paralysis and get something on the page, with the intent to find really good sources later. Does that sound like an okay plan?

Thanks so much for your help! I really appreciate your patience with my beginner's questions. I want to ensure that I follow best-practice for a scenario like this. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify for you!

Thanks, Raspberry Curator (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Is a page warranted?

After scrolling through some of the other teahouse comments, maybe the sporting equipment isn't well-known enough to warrant a Wikipedia page? If necessary, I can provide links to some vendors that might provide evidence for popularity... let me know! 00:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspberry Curator (talk • contribs)

@Raspberry Curator: Welcome to Teahouse. After reading your whole Questions and the articles you are talking about like Freeline skates and Free skate. In between you want to move Freeline skates to Freeskates. And your another question is should you rewrite the article or not.

*Taking the first point of Page Move, first all you should be clear that whether Freeline skates and Free skate are similar or on same thing? If yes, then you have to Merge not Move.

*Now another question is rewrite. If you think it should be rewritten and you have the more valid sources (most preferred reliable sources) then you are welcome to rewrite. You can rewrite in sandbox and then copy and paste it in main article. Also you said I will add reference later, it would be better if you rewrite the article and don't not copy-paste it to main article until you get some valid references for your edits.

Now Conclusion:

We discussed page move, where I suggested 'Merge if topic is on same thing, and you believe that it should be in Free skate instead of having separate article.
Rewrite: You can rewrite in your sandbox as Sandbox is a experimental page. But try add valid references to your editing, otherwise it can be reverted by other editors.

Hope you got some help from these points, if you have any confusion, kindly reply here, I or any other editor will be there to assist you. Thanks and regards — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 03:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Raspberry Curator, let's assume for a moment that an independent page (however titled, and whether concentrating on a concept or on a trademarked product) that would replace the (very feeble) Freeline skates is warranted and that User:Th0rgall/sandbox/Freeskates is worthwhile as a start. I'd suggest that you copy the content of User:Th0rgall/sandbox/Freeskates to User:Raspberry Curator/sandbox/Freeskates (or somewhere else in your userspace), your very first edit to it (your creation of it) having the edit summary "copied from User:Th0rgall/sandbox/Freeskates". Then edit it ruthlessly. When you're happy with it, announce at Talk:Freeline skates your intention to replace Freeline skates with it. Wait two weeks. If there's no objection, first move Freeline skates to the new title (if you're giving its replacement a new title) and then ask an admin to move your draft there to replace the old (non-) article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoary and TheChunky, your replies really helped to clear things up for me. I feel like I have a clear path forward with the article now. I look forward to contributing to this article and others into the future. Thank you so much! Raspberry Curator (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Raspberry Curator. In answer to one part of your question: "For such a niche sport, I'm concerned about finding really solid sources. It looks like most sources are supplier "about" pages, blogs, and YouTube videos. My plan right now is to try to not get research paralysis and get something on the page, with the intent to find really good sources later. Does that sound like an okay plan?", I would say, No, that's a bad plan. If you can't find independent sources, then an article on the subject will never be accepted, and any time you put into writing it will be wasted. Articles start with the good sources, not with "getting something on the page". --ColinFine (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, ColinFine! --Raspberry Curator (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Specific help wanted on articles?

Beyond things like [citation needed] or basic grammar, is there any way to see exactly what help people want for a specific article? e.g. "elaborate on this idea further" Loafiewa (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Loafiewa, sometimes you can fnd relevant discussions on the article's talkpage. Wikipedia:Community portal may have some of what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Loafiewa: Welcome to the Teahouse! On the article talk page, you can also look at WikiProject ratings and read the associated quality assessment scale to see how the article could be improved. For example, if you go to Talk:Submachine gun and click the "show" link next to each WikiProject, you'll see the links to the quality scales. For the WikiProject Military history template, if you click the "show" link next to "Additional information...", you'll see that an editor noted it needs improved Referencing and citation. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the correct formatting for election result table titles for UK constituencies?

Should table titles for UK constituencies election results be formatted as <year> general election: <constituency> as per the formatting of article titles? Or should it be General election <year>: <constituency>? There seemed to be no consistency among articles or clear guidelines. It seemed to me the most sense would be to go from general to specific information. So, General election <year>: <constituency>. Keeping <constituency> means that table can be easily copied and still retain information specific enough to differentiate it from any other table.

Can anyone give any input on which is the most acceptable? Gharbhain (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies refers to WP:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style, but also to the template {{Election box}} which apparently contradicts the style subpage. It may be worth raising the question on one of the talk pages, perhaps WT:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you! I am still new to navigating Wikipedia, so didn't know how to find these. Gharbhain (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The talk page for each article will usually give you a clue as to which Wikipedia projects are applicable for that article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Access to page

Hello Teahouse. I was wondering if I could get access to List of Sex Symbol page since its semi-protected and what I have to do to access it. I understand the policies on Wikipedia and I hope you could get this message as soon as possible. Have a very nice day. Thank you. (Junoongrill (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)) Junoongrill (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Junoongrill. That article is semi-protected so you cannot edit it at this time. You can submit an edit request at Talk:List of sex symbols. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Junoongrill: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you click on the lock icon at the top right of List of sex symbols, you'll be taken to Wikipedia:Protection policy#semi, which explains the policy and how to request edits. GoingBatty (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone review this Draft

I have submitted a draft some days ago which is about a "region" namely Draft:Saraz region . Can anyone please review it? As I have seen interaction of people with Sarazi which is a language of this region. So kindly approve. So that other editors can copyedit and contribute more. Thank you. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What is says in the box at the foot of the draft is: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,090 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there - draft reviews sometimes take a good amount of time to go over, as the number of reviewers we have is sort of low in comparison to the number of draft articles that need reviewing. I can give you a few pointers so far, however:

"hilly region" - re-word this as "mountainous region", or whatever is appropriate. (I don't know anything about the area myself.)

I would put the word pargana into a {{lang}} (language) template. This template ensures that people who use technology to help them read on computers - usually because of poor eyesight - have the word, in this case pargana, pronounced correctly. So, even though it's written in an English Wikipedia article, it's pronounced correctly, and not using English syllables.

If you edit this section, you can see how I've used the language template to do this in my comment, and copy it over. I think the word is Bengali, so I've used the Bengali language code "bn" here. However, the Wikipedia article on pargana also lists Hindi and Urdu spellings - the language codes for these are "hi" and "ur" respectively. If the word is Hindi, then the language template looks like this: {{lang|hi|pargana}}. If it's Urdu, then it looks like this: {{lang|ur|pargana}}

next to pargana - a small definition of what a pargana is in brackets would be useful. You've already put the definition for a pargana in the notes section, so you can use some of the information you've put there in a small sentence next to it.

"Saraz is a backward area" - perhaps you mean that it's rural or mostly undeveloped? Those would be better word choices. There's a small typo within this section as well: "includes it's district headquarter" should be "includes its district headquarter". The same typo appears later on, in the sentence "by it's local language" - it should be "by its local language".

Try not to write "settled here" - you may be from this area, but other Wikipedia editors come from around the world. Other tips on language - the word "muslim" needs to be capitalised to "Muslim", "kashmiri" needs to be capitalised to "Kashmiri", and so on. Basically - if it's a place name or the name for a certain people, it needs capitalising.

The rest of the article looks really good, and it's really well-referenced. Try and find some more varied sources, such as local newspapers talking about the area, and so on. Your sources don't have to be exclusively web links; lots of people use books that aren't available online to write Wikipedia articles with. This will help it to be recognised as WP:NOTABLE enough to be written about on Wikipedia.

I hope this is helpful - your draft is one of the better ones that I've seen. Good luck! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, although I agree with most of what you say, a couple of your points puzzle me. (i) "hilly region" - re-word this as "mountainous region", or whatever is appropriate. (I don't know anything about the area myself.) Me neither; but "hilly" seems a perfectly good word to me. If the area's hilly, how is "hilly region" not appropriate? (ii) Try not to write "settled here" - you may be from this area, but other Wikipedia editors come from around the world. Must "here" always be deictic; can it no longer be used anaphorically? -- Hoary (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference Citations are failing to "insert" themselves

This morning I tried to add some references to an article, yet when I pressed insert, it looks like it's going to add the reference as usual for a split second, but nothing appeared. I tried to create an automatic reference a few times, all of which failed, before creating a few manual references, which also failed to appear. So I left the page open, watched a few Youtube videos, did a few edits on IMDB, and forgot all about it, until just now when I tried to add references to a different article, which again failed. Why are citations failing to insert?

This is off topic but, the article I was trying to add references to, or more accurately, re-add references and information to, were for an actor from the City of Bradford, which were removed by someone in December 2019. Those facts which were removed a month after I added them, were regarding the fact he was born, educated and trained in the City of Bradford, yet all references to the City of Bradford were removed, and only his neighbourhood, which is adjacent to mine (2 miles from the city centre) was mentioned.

There seems to be an agenda against my city - the City of Bradford which is officially the 6th biggest city in the UK by population and the 6th biggest city in the UK by area (according to the Office of National Statistics, the Queen and the British Government) by the mainstream media, the tourism companies, the map makers etc and Wikipedia.

Why do I think that? I think that because every time I add information to Wikipedia articles of people, places or things, which were born, are situated in, or from the City of Bradford, to say that they are from the City of Bradford, they get removed by people claiming things like it isn't relevant it's not needed or they are doing it to clean up an article. More like you're removing things which Bradfordians can celebrate about the city, because you want to keep the stereotype that "It's full of crime, it's poor, and there's nothing worth visiting."

Why is the 6th biggest city in the UK missing as a filming location, from productions which were filmed in the City of Bradford aka the world's first UNESCO City of Film?
Why is the 6th biggest city in the UK missing from practically every single tourism website on the internet?
Why is the 6th biggest city in the UK missing from most maps of UK cities?
Why do the majority of the neighbourhoods, hamlets, villages and towns in the 6th biggest city in the UK, fail to mention they are situated in the City of Bradford in the first couple of lines of their Wikipedia articles, and sometimes in their infoboxes too? The majority of the ones which do mention the City of Bradford, say they're near Bradford rather than in Bradford. I've even seen TV shows filmed in neighbourhoods less than 2 miles from Bradford city centre, in the 227.4 miles squared City of Bradford say they're "near Bradford" rather than "in Bradford".
Why do a lot of Wikipedia articles about celebrities born and/or raised in the 6th biggest city in the UK fail to mention they're from the City of Bradford.

If someone is from Wythenshawe, Manchester, Greater Manchester you don't say they're from Wythenshawe the neighbourhood alone, you say they're from Manchester the city alone, Manchester the city along with Greater Manchester the county, or all 3 by mentioning the neighbourhood, the city and the county.

If you're talking about the village of Arthington, which is in the town of Otley, which is part of the City of Leeds, you don't forget to mention that it's in Leeds or say it's near Leeds, you mention all 3.

Yet those are just a couple of examples of what happens with City of Bradford related Wikipedia articles on a regular basis. I like being specific with my information and facts, especially with things like addresses and TV networks, as there's too many people in the world who don't know what a British city is, and think the BBC is the only TV network in the UK. While Wikipedia seems to have a policy of being vague, especially when it comes to facts about places in, and people from the City of Bradford. Danstarr69 (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Danstarr69. I'm with you on Bradford - I lived there for 25 years, and always talk it up when I hear people talking it down (You know the plaque in the pavement in Tyrell St that marks that Bradford Beck goes under it and commemmorates the 56? That's there because I crowdfunded it). But with my Wikipedia hat on, I want to remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not for or against: it reports what the sources say. Also, Wikipedia works by consensus. So, for each of your edits that got undone: first, does the source say "City of Bradford" or does it give some more local name? Secondly, when somebody reverted you, did you start a discussion on the matter? --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ve posted a bug report here. Oddly, I can’t even copy-paste URLs within Wikipedia (iPad 2017). What device were you on, by the way? RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you, @Danstarr69:. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine I wasn't reverted. My edits were simply changed. I came to the Wikipedia article yesterday, to easily get the links I had added, and use them as proof of his birth place on IMDB. That's when I noticed that:

The acronyms for the 2 City of Bradford acting schools he attended had been removed, even though they predominantly go by those acronyms, especially for things like shows, just like with organisations like NASA, the BBC or MI5 predominantly go by their acronyms. Those 2 schools are:

Buttershaw St Paul's Amateur Operatic Dramatic Society (Buttershaw St Paul's AODS).
The Yorkshire School of Acting (YSA) which is based at the Bradford Playhouse.

The City of Bradford had been removed from the introduction completely.
The City of Bradford had been changed to simply Wibsey in the infobox.

I used 3 references. One of those references mentioned his Buttershaw training. Two of those references mentioned his YSA training. One of those references said he was specifically from the neighbourhood of Wibsey. Yet all 3 of them said he was from the City of Bradford. Therefore I used some of those references multiple times, for different things, using the footnote thing. Now those references all only appear once.

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 As for my main problem, which is the ability to add references, I'm using an Acer Aspire laptop on Windows 8.1, as Windows corrupted my other laptop in October 2017 with their forced Windows 10 updates. It's possible I could add references by coping text for other references, and changing the text, but that's a lot of hard work for something which normally happens automatically. Yes I know automatic references don't always add everything, which is why I've recently started editing the occasional reference when I notice things like dates, website names, authors, page numbers etc are missing, or just to give the reference a better title.

Danstarr69 (talk) 07:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Danstarr69, I suppose that means the issue isn’t with Apple or Microsoft. Anyways, the bug report I’ve linked also doesn’t say that the issue is iPadOS or Windows, so we won’t have to change that. It really is odd when these bugs spontaneously happen for no apparent reason, and that too for people using different devices. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 08:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Danstarr69 If it helps, I've been having issues with auto-citations recently (past couple days) within my edits so I guess it is a bug. Giraffer (munch) 08:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Giraffer I don't know about you two, but I can now add citations again. I've just added my first couple of references, after 3 days of being unable to. Danstarr69 (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Giraffer Actually, no I can't. I can add references in visual mode, but I still can't add references in source mode. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T55785

Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (08:33 Mon 22, AEST) 22:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think my drafted article is ready to be published. Help needed please.

Hello, my drafted article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sebastian_Cruz_Couture is complete and I would like help with publishing it finally. Thank you very much.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Tripplehaze7 I have added the tag to allow you to submit the draft; however, I believe that if you were to submit it now, it would likely be rejected. Your draft just tells about the brand and is sourced to sources that do not establish notability, as they mostly consist of interviews with company staff, mostly describing why they think the company is successful. Wikipedia articles must summarize what independent reliable sources say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. I would ask if you are associated with this brand in some way. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

331dot thank you for adding the tag. I am not associated with the brand in anyway. I just thought it looked like it deserved an article as a prominent fashion brand. Nevertheless, it seems they do not have much online articles from independent sources. I want to see how my first article goes and learn from that as I believe in learning from experience. Thanks a lot.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Declined because you included copyright protected images (which are in the process of being deleted from Commons). David notMD (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

After images removed, review approved, and moved to main space. David notMD (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

My edit disappeared

Hello! I made edits to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen_(South_Korean_band) last night. Changes appear last night but was gone this morning. Can someone share what likely happened? BarbaraUkulele (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Barabara. If you look at the history of page revisions, you will see that the edit was removed by Abdotorg. Here is the permanent link (diff). El_C 01:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You can ask Abdotorg why at User talk:Abdotorg and/or post a comment on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BarbaraUkulele, and welcome to the Teahouse. While I cannot speak for Abdotorg, do note that, with some limited exceptions, twitter is not usually considered a reliable source and statements supported only by citations to Twitter are often removed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Batch tagging and relinking tool

Hello everyone! I was looking through Wikipedia and I found a backlog of about 4000 files that needed to be converted into SVG format. I could probability convert a few hundred and many a thousand. But, I cannot/will not manually tag hundreds of files and to relink every instance of the image to the new svg file. Is there a tool/bot that could do that? Thank you! The creeper2007^Talk! 05:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: Thanks for wanting to help out with image conversions. Most images in Wikipedia articles are actually located on Commons. I'm assuming the list is actually of such files (you didn't link to it). You might want to ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Technical. You might also look at c:Commons:Graphic Lab for any guidelines or input on the subject. If it is a list of images that are actually (only) on Wikipedia, try WP:VPT. (If you don't get an answer here, of course). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Benstown for advice about how to do this quickly. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: Most images in that category are logos, and each one has to be manually reviewed, as far as copyright goes. Also, many of the images are of poor quality, or have gradients, which make vectorizing difficult. If it is not too much work, you can upload a trial batch as a zip file here (or any other service you prefer), and I'll gladly work on it. Thanks for the initiative! --Ben Stone 07:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Benstown: I am alright with reviewing files for copyright and reviewing the results to compare agenst the originals. I am also not sure what you mean by I’ll gladly work on it. Thank you! The creeper2007^Talk! 17:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@The creeper2007: I don't know if there is a bot/tool to automate uploads. If there isn't, I can do it manually. --Ben Stone 04:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you please take a moment and help. Thank you

Hello, and thank you for taking a moment to help with this project. I'm trying to make this (link below) into a live article that can be approved for public view. Would someone with experience in Wikipedia please let me know if something is missing or not completed correctly. Any time is greatly appreciated and I thank you for your consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft%3ADerek_Victoric_Picard 96.237.188.80 (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was rejected because it lacks reliable sources to independent reporting on the person. Wikipedia only has articles on subjects that other people have written about. I had a look in a search for sources and I don't think this subject is notable enough to have an article here, as I could not find articles that had been written about the subject. However, if you can find numerous reliable sources and add them to the article, that could change. Without them, the article very likely will remain in draft. I hope that helps. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Wiki Article Declined. Please need help.

Please help anyone to get publish my article about 'Geever Puthuparambil'. I have given an external link https://www.keralaviews.com/geever-puthuparambil-janadhipathya-kerala-youth-front-ernakulam-state-president/. Please help me to publish this article. Anupriya0123 (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anupriya0123 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has currently no chance to be published in its state - you did not add any reliable sources or references, your external link is not considered a reliable source. Please study Help:Your_first_article and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources before submitting it again. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

lack of perspective

a wiki article will typically give all the known uses of a concept when what I want is the most reasonable up-to-date understanding. it's like reading fifty books on a topic, instead of one book agreed to by fifty experts. also, when I think of power, I think of the ocean, a flood, a cyclone, a whale, an elephant, etc. this ancient and natural concept does not appear on your 'power' page. for me, power is more about ability than it is to control. as such, wiki seems to have an "established institutional" feel to it. yours sincerely, john John j weyland (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi John j weyland, welcome to the Teahouse. The page Power is not an article but what we call a disambiguation page. Its purpose is not to give information by itself but to lead readers to the article they are interested in. We deliberately try to list all potential articles for somebody searching on "power". The most likely articles are often listed first but it can be difficult to predict. I have added Strength (disambiguation) to Power#See also. If there is a clear primary meaning of a term then the base name is about that like Gold and it links to Gold (disambiguation) at the top for other meanings. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

hello!

If we are writing our own article and want to include pictures, can they be off the internet, or does it have to be your own work?

Class 66 and 67 and 68 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Class 66 and 67 and 68 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that accounts are for the exclusive use of a single individual and may not be shared; if you are a single person, you will need to change the name of your account at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.

The answer to your question depends on where you get the image; not all images on the internet can be used here. Please read policy on using images for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Class 66 and 67 and 68, and welcome to the Teahouse! In short, any random pic you find on the net is probably copyrighted and can't be used. However, you can check for images at Commons, and there you can also upload photos you have taken yourselves, but read the guidance carefully [9]. Also, if you are several people using this username, see WP:NOSHARE. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Please how can I delete this mistakenly published article 2019–20 Ligue 1 (Ivory Coast). thanks Josedimaria237 (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome Josedimaria237.

You can request speedy deletion of the article you created by nominating it for speedy deletion per G7.

In order to do that, you just add {{db-g7}} to the top of it. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 10:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ayurveda, Traditional Medicine from India, termed as "Pseudo science". Help needed to edit!

Hi,

I am appalled to see a major traditional medicine of the Indian subcontinent being defined as pseudoscience in its introduction of the wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda

TCM, which is of the same class is referred to as 'traditional medicine' and so are Siddha, Unani traditional medicines. And this is the right and proper way to classify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unani_medicine

Editing is disabled and from the history of edits, I see that there is a dedicated group intent on reverting it back to their claim of Ayurveda being a "pseudoscience".

How do I get this resolved to reflect factual information based on historical facts and available literature, not opinions of individuals? Salilasukumaran (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The proper place to dispute whether the article presents a bias versus a neutral point of view is on the Talk page of the article. I recommend that you look at prior discussions on this very question at the Talk page, including what is presently there and in the archived earlier discussions. David notMD (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is "semi-protected," meaning that editors must have accounts that are at least four days old and have made more than ten edits. There are some other restrictions listed at the top of the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Tips on small edits, to improve articles.

Does anybody have any tips on small edits, that will just help to improve credibility? I'm not to big on adding info as much as improving whats there. GhostWRLD (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

GhostWRLD Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want tips on finding such edits to make, the Community Portal is a good place to start. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thanks so much, I'll go check that out right now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostWRLD (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Request

The Lakhahi Raj Wikipedia article has not original infobox settlement how to make that original one i.e what exactly infobox settlement looks like 2405:204:A51A:7492:4441:6FF:FE9B:900F (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are asking where to find details of the template infobox settlement, you'll find them at Template:infobox settlement. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

photos and logos

I want to learn how to add photos to update wiki bios, is it different for logos and brand for a company? MaycockR (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia:Uploading images yet? 217.68.167.73 (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@MaycockR: See Wikipedia:Logos#Uploading non-free logos. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

hi!

I worked it out - thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaycockR (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Help creating page

What if I want help on creating like a new page about someone that has not been created yet? WHere could I go for someone to help me?Brysonjett (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Brysonjett (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Brysonjett Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article(not just a "page") is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. If you are new to creating articles, you will greatly increase your chances of success if you spend a lot of time first editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content and sources. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.

If you still want to attempt to create an article, you should read Your First Article and then visit Articles for Creation, which has more information and a process to allow you to create and submit a draft for other editors to see before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you find out any problems first, instead of afterwards, when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

On Past Vandalism

I would like to apologize for making edits that were just blatant vandalism. I've read up a lot on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia in the recent days, and I would love to become a helpful and constructive member of this community. I guess my question is where I can post this. Xtat1c (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Xtat1c Hello. You could post such a statement on your user page if you wished. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Mayor's name - appears to be intentional

City of Darien - the Mayor's name was correct; however, the below link shows it to be Mayor Joseph Mama - instead of Mayor Joseph Marchese for the below link - unable to correct. https://www.google.com/search?q=city+of+darien&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS821US821&oq=city+of+darien&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j46j69i59j0j46l2j0l2.4975j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 173.9.248.233 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP user. The Wikipedia page Darien, Illinois is correct, unfortunately that Google search is not. That information is provided by Google, and not controlled by Wikipedia. So you would need to contact them directly to fix it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles being deleted

Why Wikipedia volunteers is deleting my articles? Help me Shahnwaz aalam (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You have created no articles. For other pages which have been deleted you can see the deletion logs: Draft:Elfin ruler, User:Shahnwaz aalam, and for your sandbox. There are links to explain the criteria such as U1, U5, and G11. There has been further advice on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Shahnwaz aalam, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read the notices on your talk page? And at WP:ANI#User:Shahnwaz aalam. Those pages have been deleted because they were not suitable for Wikipedia. Your latest attempt (Draft:Abhishek Kumar Yadav looks more appropriate - though it is not clear yet whether Yadav is notable in Wikipedia's sense), and your Draft:Why people want Wikipedia Biography page, though not suitable for a Wikipedia article, seems to show that you have begun to understand a bit more about Wikipedia. It might some day be expanded into an ESSAY, though I would wait until you have more experience before you try. Have you taken The Wikipedia Adventure? Or read WP:Your first article? --ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Shahnwaz aalam indefinitely blocked on 22 June. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

hey fellas

whats' everybody been up to lately? Herschel Goldman (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Herschel Goldman Hello. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

HG registered an account and started editing on 22 June, and was indefinitely blocked one hour and six minutes later. Probably not a record, but still.... David notMD (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Whole30 articles edits always being removed

Hi All! I am a student editor who just completed an assignment adding on to a wikipedia article. I chose to update the Whole30 Wikipedia page as it was on the shorter side and was clearly biased against The Whole30 Program. However, for some reason as soon as I publish an edit it is immediately taken down. Can someone look into this? SallyLittle (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

At Whole30, two editors who are deeply experienced in editing medicine/health/diet articles each reverted your edits, giving their reasons in their Edit summaries. The next step in disputes about content is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article to make your case for your proposed changes, perhaps inviting those editors to discuss with you their reasons for reverting your changes. David notMD (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SallyLittle. Your most recent sequence of edits was thjis. It added non-independent, promotional sources, and what looks to me like promotional language. It removed the businessinsider and delawareonline sources, which look reliable on a first glance. Discussing this on Talk:Whole30 would be the way to go. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong info from WIKI article in Google knowledge box. How to fix or update?

Hello!

I am an editor of article Mykola Lebid. After article was posted in first editions - in Google search automatically appeared this knowledge box [[10]]. First problem is that the person died in 70 y.o. age, but box said he is 84yo (as he still alive), despite that both born and death dates are metioned in the article and in Wikidata item. Second - no photo appeared in box, despite that it is in the article and in wikidata. These changes were made in wiki months ago, so google had plenty of time to update box, but until today (22/jun/2020) nothing happened. Please, give me advice. Thank you! El nomad (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Google indexes pages reasonably regularly but does not index every page in every web site. This information is in Google's hands, not Wikipedia's. My best advice is that you ignore it. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi El nomad, welcome to the Teahouse. Here is our standard reply for similar posts (which often fail to mention they saw the problem at Google):

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

How to edit more substantially in a specific subject

Hello! I am interested in tropical cyclones, and would like to edit more substantially in that realm. Can you give me tips on how to make large edits to tropical cyclone articles? I sometimes feel unsure of myself when making large edits. NOOBSKINSPAMMER (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@NOOBSKINSPAMMER: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. I suggest starting with smaller edits until you become more confortable. Also, for large changes, it is a good idea to post your idea to the article's talk page to get input from other editors who are also interested in that article. RudolfRed (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you! I will try to do what you suggested. NOOBSKINSPAMMER (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@NOOBSKINSPAMMER:, Hello! The article is a so called WP:Featured article, meaning it's supposed to be one of WP:s best. Best does not mean perfect, and it became FA in 2008, which is quite some time ago. However, like RudolfRed says, you can be WP:BOLD but try not to be reckless. If you add stuff, cite good sources. Note that many sections mention a "main article", and sometimes details fit better there. Try to focus on one section at a time, and see how that goes. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

ADMINS FROM INDIA MISUSING THEIR POWERS FOR MONEY TO PROMOTE BIASED PROPGANDAS ON WIKIPEDIA

This post is not for this forum. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

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

HI RECENTLY A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM INDIA STARTED EDITING ARTICLES IN BIASED WAY PARTICULARLY TO MALIGN reputation and spread disinformation to wikipedia users . their team has two admins with other simple users too. they works on monetary purposes . then they block the users without no reason when someone exposes them . they also do blacklisting of news websites on wikipedia and add protection to wiki pages they even undo other admins revisions or restoration Loneltrussia (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Loneltrussia sounds pretty strange to my ears but anyway: Can you give an example? User/Article?! If so sysops could check this over here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Loneltrussia. If you are talking about English Wikipedia, then please give us some examples. If you are talking about another language Wikipedia, then nobody here has any control or influence: different language Wikipedias are entirely separate. --ColinFine (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

HI SURELY THERE IS ALREADY A NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT THE GUYS AND ITS ON english wikipedia mainly. here is detailed info about the members of the group. the guy named newslinger IN THIS blog there is twitter thread in detailed way must see the blog .they blocked website which exposes them from wikipedia and added it in blacklist . iam using landing page to allow it so you can see their misdeeds. they blacklisted or blocked everyone who raised voice. please srr (Redacted) Loneltrussia (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC) i have info about another guy who vandals history pages of india on english wikipedia they are team of two first one vandals the page the second one thanks and if anyone revert their change the second guy revert again and made article to vandalised version again . they are causing edit wars on wikipedia too . i can provide their info too if you need for taking the action and inpection. Loneltrussia (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging user:Newslinger, the admin accused in the link by journalist Soumyadipta of being "a well-known harbinger & promoter of vandals". No wonder Soumyadipta's account was blocked for off-wiki harassment. Meters (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Note that the article is on a site called OpIndia, which our article suggests has a reputation for publishing fake news and spreading hatred. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed the link, it is listed as a popular scamming website. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

just read the article sir the opindia is blocked by these guys due to exposing them and maligning reputation of it all proofs are in there blog. you can watch there and then verify on wikipedia if you are unfaithful about the site coz this site wiki is distorted by these guys . because they are exposing fake news of someportals then those portal hire these guys on monetary basis to do this type of thingsLoneltrussia (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

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

A problem regarding a category of pages

I've noticed many pages in the "in other media" category, tend to be filled to the brim with grammatical errors, and nothing is being done about it.

these pages are often poorly worded, in a more essay type of writing than documentation, and they have a few other problems.

Sbob99 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We will look forwarded to seeing your improvements to the articles in question. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

not to come off as lazy, but i think improving these articles is gonna have to be a group effort. it's that widespread. Sbob99 (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sbob99 Thanks for the information, but if you want others helping you, the best way to start is to begin making the changes you want to see yourself. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and it's more persuasive for others to help when they see the person asking for help doing the requested activity. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I went to look, Sbob99, to see if there was an obvious Wikiproject to suggest you try, but since there is no Category:In other media, I don't know which articles you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Just look at a few articles of well-known comic book characters, then you'll see what i'm talking about. Sbob99 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the topic for article significant enought?

Greetings! I'm new on wiki project and have some doubts about about future article, which i want to create. I want to create an article about university. It's official partner of Polytechnic University of Turin and i think some people could be interested to know about it. I want to know is this topic significant enough to be published as an article? I also collected some sources to confirm provided information, but information in some of this sources not in English language. Would it be a problem? If yes, what can you suggest me to solve it?

Thank you for attention! Turquoisecacke (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Turquoisecacke, and welcome to the Teahouse. Many universities are notable and are suitable topics for a Wikipedia article, but not all. Sources aree essential. They do not have to be in English, althoguh if some are tht is helpful. There should be multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the topic in some detail and depth. "Independent" is key, this excludes sources published by the university itself, or its affiliates or partners, and by its employees. If there are not at least three or four such sources, don't waste your time trying to start an article. News sources are often good, but other kinds of sources are fine. In the case of sources not in English, it is possible to provide a translation o0f the title of the source, which can be helpful. (If using citation templates, the |trans-title= parameter serves this purpose.)

Please review Your First Article and our guideline on the notability of organizations before starting. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, DESiegel! I'll try to follow your suggestions!

With regards, Turquoisecacke (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Turquoisecacke. It is probably a good idea to work on a few existing articles, first. It can take a while to get a feel for what is good in an article. As a result, creating a new article as a newcomer can be quite a frustrating experience. If you first do some work on existing articles, you'll learn naturally how articles should be written.

About sources in different languages: they are allowed; see WP:NONENG for more information. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Official documents

Hi!

When writing someone's biography, do official documents like school records and birth certificates constitute acceptable references?

NB: I've already been told several times what my draft's flaws are instead of answering the questions I had, and I've taken note of them and will make relevant edits as I go before resubmitting the article. Please just answer the specific question I've asked here, thanks ^^ AengusB (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AengusB

, and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, no such sources are not acceptable. See WP:BLPPRIMARY which says:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Does that answer your question? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Unpublished documents are of no use to Wikipedia's verifiability; please read about reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel and David Biddulph, and thank you for answering.

This does answer my question. What is the next best thing in terms of proving when someone was born and what education someone has? I suppose reliable articles aren't more reliable than official records since the person the Wikipedia article is about could have just told them that info themselves.

DESiegel and David Biddulph, I will pose a related question. The text quoted above includes "... about a living person ..." Are such items therefore considered acceptable as sources in biographies of dead people? I often see birth certificates, death certificates, etc. cited in biographies of people who have died. I am tempted to remove them, but the specification of "living" in the rule makes me think I might be wrong to do so. Otherwise, why specify "living"? Eddie Blick (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The part about "living" people was in DESiegel's reply which was talking about primary sources, which are materials that are close to an event or written by people who are directly involved. WP:PRIMARY talks about the limitations under which "primary sources that have been reputably published" may be used. If, however, they have not been published, they are not of any use to Wikipedia (whether the person is alive or dead). --David Biddulph (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel and David Biddulph, could I get an answer to my question, please?

Regards,

AengusB (talk)

AengusB the rules are stricter when dealing with living people in many areas, that is the difference between WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY. Government documents are often not published at all, and when they are , are not published by a reliable source that a reader can verify. But when being used about a subject other than am living person, they may be used with care. They are best used when quoted by a secondary source to provide analysis and context. Individual official documents often fail to provide a complete story, being only a fragment of a chain of events. Errors in them may be hard to correct, so they may go uncorrected. I suspect that mostly you will see such sources cited when a secondary source has quoted or mentioned them, providing such analysis and context. Of course some articles cite things that they should not, which is one reason why WP:OSE is an argument to avoid. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

... and (in case I didn't make it clear enough earlier) if the school records and birth certificates are unpublished (see WP:SOURCES), they can't be used as references. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

AengusB, twice in this thread you've complained about not getting your question answered. I understand your bewilderment, but it's part of the environment here. Most folks are used to working in a structured defined environment. On Wikipedia, policies and guidelines are intentionally vague. They are interpreted and implemented on a case by case basis. Decisions are not made based on rules directly, but on the consensus of the interpretation of policy in that individual case. Hence, there usually isn't a specific "answer" to any queston. John from Idegon (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph Hi! This is not my question, but I am interested in the answer too. {{What is the next best thing in terms of proving when someone was born and what education someone has?}} I am guessing the differentiating criteria is what has been published, reputably and publicly, am I right? I intend to write on an academic I am interested in seeing on WP and I'm assuming the publication of their curricula vitae from their school would be considered a good source. Is that correct? What else? Interviews? Book reviews? Thank you so very much for what you all do here at the Teahouse. It's wonderful. You make WP a better less bewildering place.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For an academic, a formal CV is an excellent source. (as distinct from a blurb written by the university's press office, which is adceptable for this sort of plain data, but less accurate). Another good source is Worldcat: look for their PhD. thesis. This will give the date of their degree, and should link to the viaf record for their bio, which is normally taken from the national library (Library of Congress name authority file, in the US). There is only one complication--if Library of Congress can't find a better source than Wikipedia , they use wikipedia. This gives a considerable degree of circularity, DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I corrected my mistakes in one of my articles.

So after I corrected my mistakes that a reviewer did, can someone review it again? My article is called "Draft:List of prefectures of the Central African Republic by Human Development Index BloxMoon (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@BloxMoon: Your draft will be assessed as part of the normal review process, though you can continue working on it whilst you wait for a volunteer to take a look. I must be frank and say that, in my view, it doesn't really seem to work as a List article might. Why not suggest at the talk page of Prefectures of the Central African Republic that you simply add Human Development Index as another column into that existing article? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I need help. Can you check my HDI chart if it's correct?

@BloxMoon: I'm sorry. I can't help with that. If you are not sure of your sources then you should not use them. I am not familiar with the HDI index, so my contribution here is unlikely to be of much help. You have very little experience here, and only 12 edits to existing articles. So, my suggestion would be to forget trying to create new articles until you have spent time trying to edit existing pages and to understand how Wikipedaia works. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: What I am meaning is, how to add lines on the chart in Draft:List of prefectures of the Central African Republic by Human Development Index, like every chart on Wikipedia? I don't get it!

BloxMoon, have you read the material at Wikipedia:Tables?--Quisqualis (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Response to permission emailWasuwatanabe (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have sent though three emails to verify permission granted for free images I would like to add to a wiki site but have had no response. What should I do next? My images are going to be deleted in the next day. Please help. Wasuwatanabe (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasuwatanabe, let's take a look at a file you uploaded (File:Henry Kulka.jpeg, later renamed File:Villa Khuner, Eastern façade, Kreutzberg, Semmering, Austria in 1930.jpg, later deleted). You wrote: Permission: Not-for free copyright use for this specific Wikipedia article granted by permission of Kulka Estate 2020, under the Wikipedia not for free policy and doctrine to illustrate the original exterior of this unaltered structure.

I don't understand which copyright license this is supposed to be. You should have specified the particular Creative Commons or GPL license, or straightforwardly and simply admitted that the images wasn't released under such a license.

But you then followed this with a lengthy "Not free content rationale". If you were thereby claiming fair use, then I don't understand why you were previously writing about any kind of permission.

If the only reason why use of an image within Wikipedia is legitimate is claimed "fair use", then talk of permission by the copyright-holder to do this or that with the image merely brings confusion. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hoary editors often obtain "permission" from a copyright holder to use an image in a Wikipedia article, but the permission given is limited and does not permit free reuse. Such a permission is not a free license, and is of no value to Wikipedia under our current policy, but we do have a license tag for it. I suppose that is what Wasuwatanabe has obtained. You are correct that in such a case any use must be under a claim of fair use, which applies whther or not a limited permission has been granted. However, recording such a permission may be of some value, as it can make the case for fair use a bit stronger by showing that the copyright holoder did not object to some free use, which helps establish the "respect for commercial opportunities" aspect of WP:NFCC.

What you should do, Wasuwatanabe, is clearly indicate that the image is used under a claim of fair use, and show how all the provisions of WP:NFCC. have been complied with. Unless the copyright holder will release the image under a compatible free license, such as CC-BY-SA, that is the only way for the images to be used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to you both, I think you have helped to verify the problem.Wasuwatanabe (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

link had been removed

my link was removed from the page in external link but someone elase link of youtube is still showing in external link what is the reason, why only mine removed? 182.190.82.36 (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Already done. Already answered help request on user's own talk page. El_C 04:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

New page review

Hello! I've received great help publishing the page TCO Certified. Now I wonder what the next step would be to improve it further? I've seen that it has not been reviewed by the New Page Patrol. Is there a way to request a review? Since there is a COI I don't want to edit the page too heavily myself. Ellasoderberg (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ellasoderberg Basically, a review will come when it will come. I've on occasion been given one in hours, today I had one that's been waiting since March 4. Like anything else on WP, it needs a volunteer who thinks it's a good idea to spend time on it (and Reviewers aren't that many). You can try to ask nicely at WT:WikiProject Sweden or WT:WikiProject Organized Labour. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Ellasoderberg (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ellasoderberg: I've reviewed the page and made some fixes. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 05:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding Test Edits

Hello, I was writing an edit for Daedalion, in a wacky alternate story where a certain Poetica Mythologia claims that he was transformed into a penguin (rather than a hawk, for those you are unfamiliar with the Greek myth). I provided a source as well as a link to the English translation, but it was quickly taken down by another user, saying that it was a "test edit", even though I provided the appropriate sources. How do I avoid this and have my edits go through? Richardp88 (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Richardp88: and welcome to the Teahouse. I would personally have removed your edits here under the heading of "joke"/"hoax" rather than "test", since there are several clear indications of that. If you actually have a source for this, please double-check it and post the actual information about what it contains, as well as the bibliographical information, to Talk:Daedalion. --bonadea contributions talk 06:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if deadly serious, this was Original Research to a self-published source, and not reliable or acceptable for Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

New episode of LIsten out loud|||

Did you hear ther is a new episode of the Listen Out Loud podcast? I wrote all about it TheLoudHouse#Listen Out Loud Dandro08 (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dandro08: welcome to the Teahouse! This is not a forum for chatting about general topics, though. If you have questions about editing Wikipedia you are welcome to ask them here, but general discussions don't really have a place anywhere on Wikipedia. All the best, --bonadea contributions talk 07:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I cite newspaper archive sites which require subscription?

Hi. I was planning on writing an article about The Pottery Cottage Murders and I've been searching for sources to use. Following the publication of two books about the case earlier this year, I've found some media coverage (mainly local), I've found some accessible Hansard references too - but the bulk of the media coverage is only available via The British Newspaper Archive. This is free to access from the British Library & you can get 3 free searches if you register, but beyond that it's a subscription service. I am aware that paywalled articles are used as sources (such as The Times), but I'm not clear whether archives are acceptable or not. I'm not sure I'd have enough coverage to support an article without it, as I'd be relying too heavily on the published books. Please can you advise? Thank you. --DSQ (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC) DSQ (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi DeltaSnowQueen. Please see WP:PAYWALL for more details, but the short and quick answer is "yes". As long as the newspaper you're citing qualifies as a reliable source and is used in proper context, then the fact the you need to subscribe to see it doesn't disqualify it. There are, however, certain ways to cite such sources so that those reading the article are aware that a subscription is required, and you can find out more about such things in Template:Cite news#Subscription or registration required. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you for your quick response and useful links Marchjuly. To be fair a lot of the coverage in the archives is the The Daily Mirror, which is far from ideal. But I'll be very careful selecting which articles to use and would only cite them if the information is available elsewhere too. Thank you again! --DSQ (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

How much time it takes from a draft article to be live?

I have created an article which is in draft now. How much time it will take to become live. Ranjeet.saini7 (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ranjeet.saini7: Welcome to the teahouse! It's very hard to say how much time it will take for your draft to be approved. Drafts are reviewed by volunteers in no particular order, which means it could be tomorrow or in months time. There's a lot of drafts to review, so please be patient! ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 06:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:PDC T10 League This is about a new cricket league that has yet to play its first game. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement editing

Is it acceptable to insert a relevant statement (a tech review, to be precise) word-for-word even if it has a phrase that violates Wikipedia:NOPRICES, or should the phrase be edited for the statement to be acceptable? I’m asking this because I’m divided between keeping the statement as close to the original source as possible and strictly following Wikipedia policy (If it helps, the phrase is "at $199," and was part of the original statement in 9to5google’s review of the Nokia 5.3 (which is currently edited in the article)). RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 07:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Context is everything. There's quite a difference between stating:

"..it’s hard to truly fault the Nokia 5.3" and

"At $199.99, it’s hard to truly fault the Nokia 5.3"

...one puts the product on a pedestal; the other puts any weaknesses or criticisms in context of its low price. But what is a low price in one part of the world, might be quite unattainably high in another (which is why we don't encourage prices to be included in articles). The article you linked to gives the name of a reviewer and his website as part of the quote (I've not heard of either, so I'd probably leave them out unless they're famous/respected). But I would prefer more context, such as:

One US-based review site said of the product: "At $199.99, it’s hard to truly fault the Nokia 5.3".^[1]

You need to decide if the source and quotation has true relevance to the article, but I think in this instance it would be unwise to selectively quote just part of a statement, and I hope my suggestion gives greater context for you. Looking again at your source, I'd now actually like to suggest a far better quote for you to use from that reference, namely:

"It's [a] sensibly priced smartphone that gives you a heck of a lot for your low entry price."

I hope this helps; let me know what you think. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nick Moyes:. I’ve trimmed down the statement to include why the reviewer considers the device to be good and the "It’s a sensibly…" quote. As for relevance, it is a tech news site that focuses on Android, and one of the few sites to have reviewed the device at the moment. Besides, it appears to have a proper editorial policy, so I believe it would be as reliable as CNET or any other such site. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. OK on the source, too. (Curiously, I wasn't even aware Nokia were making phones again) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Wilde, Damien (2020-06-10). "Nokia 5.3 review: Excellently affordable [Video]". 9to5Google. Retrieved 2020-06-21.

One point, Nick Moyes, when the person being quoted is known from the source, that person's name should be included in the running prose, as per WP:QUOTE to give proper attribution, whether the person is well-known or obscure. Similarly the site or publication should be listed in the prose, as well as in the citation details. IMO somethign like One US-based review site said... should, always be changed to the US-Based site Tech Reviews said... or better Joe Blow, writing in the US-based Tech Reviews said.... I see that the attribution is in the article, so no problem there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks David. I don't think I was aware of that. I've rarely used quotes in the stuff I've written, so I'll bear that in mind. I think the OP did actually follow that advice, so it's always good to learn something. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Update/Delete Inaccurate entry (Raul P. Benavidez)

While fact checking an entry on the page for MSG Benavidez, in the "Personal honors" section, the first entry in the subsection "Buildings and institutions with Benavidez's name include:" "Roy P. Benavidez American Legion Post #400 in San Antonio, Texas".

In checking the American Legion website (https://www.legion.org/), there is no Legion Post 400 in Texas. I conducted multiple Google searches with no Post 400 listed as being in the State of Texas.

One search result was the American Legion - Department of Texas (txlegion.org) which represents all Texas posts. I contacted them via FB Messenger to ask if they could confirm Post 400 being named for MSG Benavidez. The response to my question was "We had a Post 400 named after MSG Benavidez but it was closed on 2014. We have no other records of the Post."

Is the FB Messenger response sufficient to remove the entry or update the entry noting the Post was closed in 2014? If not, what additional documentation is required? Jdyates751 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jdyates751 and welcome to the Teahouse. Such a FB messenger communication is not published, and therefore cannot be cited as a source on Wikipedia. But now that you have reason to believe that the post existed but was closed in 2014, you could look for sources, such as news articles, that mention the closure. If one is found, it can be added to the article, and the existence of the post, ending in 2024, properly described. If no such source is found, a {{cn}} tag could be placed in the article, indicating that a source citation is needed to support the current content. fg after a time no one is able to find such a source, the unsourced content could be removed -- assuming that it is currently unsourced. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jdyates751: Also note there appears to be a VFW post 12171 in San Antonio. Post 400 may have been based on this Navy site, which I think a lot of sources have repeated. Looking further, this 2019 article lists both places (though apparently didn't know that 400 was closed). There's plenty more to look at out there. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Writing Asad Khan's Biography

I need help to publish a biography of Mr. Asad Khan - who is sixth generation Sitar from Mewati Gharana. Pathakshashik (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Pathakshashik Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft you are attempting to write has no independent reliable sources to support its content. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone. Wikipedia articles about people must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not brief mentions, routine announcements, interviews, etc.) choose to say about a subject, demonstrating how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. In your case, you would need to show how Mr. Khan meets the definition of a notable musician. Please read Your First Article; you can then visit Articles for Creation to submit your draft for review once you have independent reliable source to support the information in the draft. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Milton Huddart

There a new editor, who has been editing Milton Huddart, the edits seem to express personal issues with the family. This needs to be watched. --Devokewater (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You have rightly reverted those edits and put a vandalism warning on the Talk page of the editor. Suggest you put the article on your own Watchlist. David notMD (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD --Devokewater (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

English version of my wiki posts

Hello,

I am a French contributor of fr.wikipedia and I am planning a series of wiki pages on Holocaust survivors and Alain Husson-Dumoutier's artwork on them.

Does any American or English contributor could help me to publish the translations for en.wikipedia?

Thank you !

Alexandre AlexandreDevil (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi AlexandreDevil. Are you planning on translating some articles existing on French Wikipedia into English so that you can add them to English Wikipedia? If that’s the case, please take a look at Wikipedia:Translation for general reference. If you’re looking for editors who understand French, you might want to try WT:FRANCE or Wikipedia:Translators available.

One thing to try and understand is that each Wikipedia project has its own policies and guidelines; so, what might be considered acceptable for French Wikipedia may not automatically be considered acceptable for English Wikipedia. Since English Wikipedia has the most articles and the most editors, its policies and guidelines can sometimes be more restrictive and rigorously applied than perhaps is the case for some other language Wikipedias, particularly when it comes to Wikipedia:Notability. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on deletion nomination

Hello, why is it mandatory that a stub article be deleted eventhough it is a work in progress and sources are still being gathered? Here is the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sebastian_Cruz_Couture Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Tripplehaze7, if (as it appears from the AfD discussion) it is not in an acceptable state for an article, you should move it to draft space so that you can continue to work on it. Wikipedia does not accept articles just because someone says "ok, it's not acceptable yet but I hope it will be one day". Maproom (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Tripplehaze7 (ec) I am not aware of any mandatory policy requiring the deletion of stubs; but if an editor in good faith opens up an Articles for Deletion discussion and the result of that discussion is a consensus to delete, it will be deleted whether it is a stub or not. If you feel that there is a prospect for addressing the concerns given in the discussion, or you have independent reliable sources that are not yet in the article, you should do as Maproom suggests and consent to the article being made a Draft, for further work. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Tripplehaze7. At risk of pile-on, but without wanting to sound rude, none of us here are mind-readers. If you (or another editor) chooses to put a short article into this encyclopaedia, rather than carrying on building it as a draft until you are 100% happy with it, then that is your/their choice, and you live with the consequences. The article will be treated just like any other. If it's a work in progress and you are still gathering sources, then why did you put it forward for AFC review? I see that it did get through WP:AFC, but has subsequently been seen by other editors and was then put forward for a deletion discussion. That can happen to any of our 6 million+ articles at any time, and especially when it comes to the slightly mor critical but essential process of New Page Patrolling. This is our defence against nonsense and promotional pages being pushed into this encyclopaedia. But there is absolutely nothing to stop you carrying on looking for those reliable sources you mentioned to help you demonstrate how it meets WP:NCORP whilst that discussion is ongoing. I see nothing untoward in the process that it - like innumerable other pages here - is going through. But to answer your question 'no' there is nothing mandatory that says a stub article will be deleted. Deletion is only mandatory after our community have had a 7 day discussion and it has been concluded that there is a clear consensus to delete. Many articles fly through a deletion discussion with no problems. It all depends on whether we feel the subject meets our Notability criteria, and this is helped by your finding good sources now, rather than hoping another editor will do the research and dig around for them. I hope this makes things clearer. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes this is much clearer for me to understand now. Thank you for the clarification.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

why my submission got declined?

Today I submitted for our University but I got declined. How can I improve it? Please suggest me. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:University_of_Computer_Studies_(Taunggyi) DigiSoft (Myanmar) (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

DigiSoft (Myanmar) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If by "our university" you mean that you are employed by the university, you are required to read and formally comply with the paid editing policy and declare that. You should also review conflict of interest.

As the reviewer noted, you need to provide independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support the content of the article. It should not just describe the offerings of the university, the draft should only summarize what independent sources state. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, DigiSoft (Myanmar), since it is an Encyclopaedia, not an advertising medium, Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject says about themselves: it is only interested in what other people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. An article should be based almost entirely on such sources, and absolutely the first action in trying to write any article is to find such sources, or you risk all your work being wasted.

I'm afraid there's another issue as well: your username is not acceptable, as it suggest that you are editing on behalf of an organisation, and that the account may be used by multiple people: see ORGNAME. Every account must be used by a single person, and have a distinct name (which may be their real name, as I do, but does not have to be). Please change your username (see CHU); or, since you have only made a few edits, it might be easier just to abandon it and create a new, personal account. --ColinFine (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello, everyone! I am interested in developing an article over the course of several days to add to Wikipedia. However, whenever I close the page that I was working on, all of my work disappears. Is there any way to use your sandbox in such a way that you can save your progress in between different days? Thanks! Kokopelli7309 Kokopelli7309 (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kokopelli7309: Welcome to the Teahouse! To save your work in your sandbox, be sure you click the blue [Publish changes] box before you close the page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Kokopelli7309, and welcome to the Teahouse. I do not see that you have ever made and saved any sandbox edit, at least not with this account. The central sandbox is at Wikipedia:Sandbox, and its contents are periodically refreshed. Your personal sandbox would be at User:Kokopelli7309/Sandbox. You can also create separate userspace drafts with such names as User:Kokopelli7309/Topic A or User:Kokopelli7309/Topic B. This makes it easier to work on more than one topic at the same time. You can mark such a page with {{Userspace draft}}

However, I wonder if you have been editing a sandbox page but close the page without saving. Until you save the page, closing it will lose all your work. The "save" button is marked "publish changes". New editors sometimes think this means publish changes to the main article space. It does not. It simply reminds you that any and every page on Wikipedia can be read by anyone, so even sandboxes are in a sense published. You must click "publish changes" to save your work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokopelli7309 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I change references

I am new to editing and wanted to correct an error on the Ava Gardner page, she was 13 when the family moved to Newport News, VA, not 7 years old. That's when I notice the site was using the book "Love is Nothing", by Lee Server as a reference. As a board member of the Ava Gardner Museum, who is the official source of artifacts and knowledge of Ava Gardner's life, we do not sell or use Lee Server's book for anything. It's a collection of false stories and incorrect information. We would like to insert as a reference book, "Ava, My Story", which was Ava's biography, and "Grabtown Girl", which was written by the founder of the museum, a journalist and author, Doris Cannon. The facts are correct in these books and should be the ones used a references.

I am just trying to correct wrong information and site truthful sources. Are there some instructions that would help me do this. Visitoco (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Visitoco and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read referencing for Beginners tom learn how to insert referencing citations into Wikipedia articles. However, it seems to me that as a board member of the Museum, you might have a conflict of interst, particularly when citing a work by a fellow board member. Thus I would advise that you place a {{request edit}} on the article talk page, so an uninvolved editor can verify the edit.

I thank you for wanting to have proper reliable sources used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

First, you are not that new to editing, as have been editing since March 9th. Second, you have been repeatedly warned, to the point of potentially being blocked, to cease adding website(s) as new External links to dozens of articles - this is considered spamming. Given your connection to the museum, it is essential that you declare your conflict of interest on your User page. And given your past questionable behavior, I strongly recommend that you do not attempt to directly edit Ava Gardner. For example, you may believe Lee Server's book is flawed, but you should not have attempted to removed it from the Further reading section. Instead, you should open a new section at the Talk page of the article and be specific in what content should be added - with proper citations. If there are 'facts' in dispute, it may be necessary to state that one sources has ____ whereas another source has ____. David notMD (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What reliable sources can be added for an academic journal?

I have created an article titled 'Nature Environment and Pollution Technology' which is about an academic journal in the field of Environmental Science. The reviewer has rejected the article stating the reason as it should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established.

As this article is about an academic journal i have added its inclusion in Scopus which is one of the notability factor in its field. What other independent sources do you expect for a scientific journal? Should i add some more references to other databases where it is included like the proquest, EBSCO, Index Copernicus etc. Or should i add references to its most cited articles? Please help me what kind of references are expected for an academic journal. Regards Apurva1410 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Apurva1410, and welcome to the Teahouse. I haven't read it myself, but WP:NJOURNALS may have something helpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey mates! Pls tell how to access protected pages like that of sushant singh rajput

INSTALKER (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

INSTALKER Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a page is protected as such that you cannot edit it, you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing any changes you feel are needed, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding my draft to article

I have recently created this draft

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruan_Galdino

I want to add this to Articles but because this is my first article I am weary of the process in terms of whether or not the article is up to scratch. I do not understand what I should do. Please an we talk. Thank you DanceEnthusiast (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Ruan Galdino has not been submitted. There is a submit place to click. Once you do that, a reviewer will review it in days to months. David notMD (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Consider removing double brackets [[ ]] that you have placed around names which cause those names to show up as red. Red Wikilinks are used to indicate topics that might be article-worthy. You have created many, and some of these may not be justified as potentially article-worthy. David notMD (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the input. My follow up question is this- do drafts have to be submitted for review? I see under publish there I could hypothetically post drafts directly onto the Article space. I hope that my question makes sense. I just wonder what stops a person from pujtting their draft up onto Articles without going through the submission process? Thank youDanceEnthusiast (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Help me edit an article

Please someone should help me edit this article 2019–20 Nigeria Professional Football League, I've asked for help earlier concerning this but the reply I got was unsatisfactory.

I made a mistake; I'm trying to note that the match was originally played by Delta Force but it turned out to be a citation Josedimaria237 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What you are asking now doesn't seem to be related to the question you've linked to in the section heading. What exactly is your problem now, or can you give us a link to the relevant previous question if there was one? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is the link to the previous question on archive 1065

b:FFE48329Someone_should_help_me_on_thisSomeone should help me on this

David Biddulph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josedimaria237 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've removed the link which you originally gave, but not provided a new link. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was going on with <ref>{{#tag |title= | ... in the infobox, but I’ve changed it to a plain footnote in the References section. Is that the effect that was intended, Josedimaria237? I’d be inclined to write it inline with parentheses as Kano Pillars 6–1 Delta Force (Kwara United) (8 December 2019) – the change from Delta to Kwara is explained elsewhere in the text. —Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (06:51 Wed 24, AEST) 20:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does this Huggle Rollback Special:Diff/962907221 by another editor seem a bit overzealous? —Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (06:51 Wed 24, AEST) 20:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-free files are only permitted in articles

Non Free files: a simple question (no need to see the article as the image is no longer there).

This is my first visit too the tea house. I have finished my article in sandbox which I am about to publish, one of my images has since been removed by JJMC89 bot with this message. Editor's summary: WP:NFCC#9: Non-free files are only permitted in articles. This image was uploaded directly into the article using 'upload image' not via Wikimedia Commons nor using the Wizard. Windswept (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The non-free image cannot be in your sandbox. You need to wait until it is moved to mainspace then add the image. RudolfRed (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Q1) Please would you advise if this image can be added back under the same licence into the main page after it has been accepted?
Q2) Will the image that has been removed remain on Wikipedia or will I need to upload it again?
Q3) If the image is still stored on Wikipedia how do I find it again. Is this by the file name or the link in the email I received from JJMC89 bot?

Thank you I look forward to receiving your reply. Windswept (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Barkercoder. I removed your second header: please don't start new sections unnecessarily. For one thing, it is confusing, because you signed only the second one. You can add to existing section. . Another condition on non-free images is that they are used in at least one (mainspace) article. So the image will be deleted from Wikipedia, But once your draft is accepted as an article, you will be able to upload it again, with the same licence. --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

One more point: "uploading to an article" is not possible. There are two separate processes: uploading the image to Wikipedia (or to Commons, if it is a free image); and using it in one or more articles. The Upload wizard gives you the option of putting it straight into an article, but you will have been on the description page of the image in Wikipedia before you added it to your draft. You can now go to it, if it has not yet been deleted, by looking at your contributions (link at the top right, in the default skin). There you will see the entry File:Cedars School, Leighton Buzzard England Rugby 1st XV 1932.jpg, which is the image (it has not yet been deleted). --ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Colin and Rudolf, Thank you for your quick and detailed answers to my questions. All understood now. Windswept

Catatonia Greatest Hits

Good day to everyone viewing this page,

I was wondering if someone could help me with an issue I've just come across.

I recently joined Wikipedia to make a (small) contribution to the project, mainly for articles relating to musical artists, and mainly in cases where a page has been edited rather haphazardly and doesn't meet the high standard to which most other pages on this project adhere. This 'hapzard editing' also applies to releases by musical artists, such as the one in the title here.

Catatonia have never released an album called 'Catatonia Greatest Hits', the album is in fact called 'Greatest Hits' and the page should be titled 'Greatest Hits (Catatonia album)'. However I am not able to do this is searching that title redirects to the main band page. I've tried to remove the redirect but upon further research of the issue have discovered that this is something that can only be done by an administrator (understandably).

Could I ask for assistance in the matter please?

Kind regards, Sburbridge92 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sburbridge92, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the article to Greatest Hits (Catatonia album). It looks to me as if one or two additional sources would not be a bad idea for this article. I added one. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi DES, thank you for the welcome and for the assistance. It is much appreciated. Thanks again, Sburbridge92 (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

requested edit to the entry for Brian Edwin Tucker, seismologist

I am Brian Edwin Tucker, listed in Wikipedia. I'd like help to add to my Wikipedia entry. In particular, I'd like to add to the list of my awards. In 2017, I received Pomona College’s Blaisdell Distinguished Alumni, and in 2020, I received the Seismological Society of America’s Frank Press Public Service Award. Thank you. 32.212.105.234 (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tea House. The place to suggest this is on the Talk page of the relevant article. Please include a reliable source for your proposals. Courtesy link Brian Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brian! Please also see WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing

How do I edit Atieno Julian (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Atieno Julian Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. By posting to this page, you successfully made an edit. Every article has an 'edit' tab at the top of the screen, you click that to open the edit window. If you are inexperienced with editing, you may wish to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atieno Julian: Treat Wikipedia like a powerful car that you don't yet know how to drive. Go slow at first, and stay in the right traffic line. this first edit of yours was rightly reverted for being damaging to the article. Use Page Preview to see how your edits will impact on a page before you publish them. If they are good, they will remain. If they are rubbish, like that one, they'll be swiftly removed. We all make mistakes to start with - just try to learn from them as you drive carefully. Bon voyage. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Atieno Julian, you have made one edit to an article, which got reverted. The reason for this was that you did not supply an in line citation to support your facts. That blue-linked page will tell you about citing your sources correctly.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Could an impartial editor please check out a page?

Hello, Could an impartial editor please check out Patricia_Olynyk and possibly remove the banners? I had many discussions on the talk page Talk:Patricia_Olynyk with the editor who put the banners on, DGG. Ultimately, they put up more banners after discussion on the talk page; and they changed the subject sections, which made the article more convoluted, making it appear as if the artist's art projects were separate from her career. I tried to work with that but decided to rework the article since it seemed convoluted. On top of that the original subject format https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patricia_Olynyk&oldid=904565898 is pretty standard for artist's listing as far as I can tell and much easier to parse, which is why I reverted the page back to that format. Any suggestions to improve the page would be great too. I would appreciate an impartial editors insight and help on this. Thank you. Ogmany (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Ogmany (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ogmany and welcome to the Teahouse - as far as I see you already are in discussion with DGG, which is by the way sysop and a long experienced editor - the Talk Page is absolutely the correct place to handle this issue, by far better than the Teahouse over here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello CommanderWaterford, I did continue discussing it with DGG on the talk page and they never replied. That was last year. I will post there again. Also, I think they did not get that an artist's career encompasses the art work and scholarly work together, they broke it into separate sections, which is why I asked for an impartial editor to review it. (By the way, I did edit this question: the title line to make the issue clearer, and because I forgot to make the links active.) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogmany (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ogmany In its current state, I think the page does still require cleanup. Consider making a cleanup request over at the WP:Cleanup page. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, Ogmany, if I never got to your question. I concentrate on seeing if new drafts or articles are basically acceptable enough to stay in WP, and I tend to leave their further improvement to others. I see, in fact, that others have helped,, & it's certainly better. This is the sort of interdisciplinary careeer which, as you probably realize, is relatively difficult to write about as it doesn't quite fit any one usual pattern. But:. In an artist's career, it is usual to list the exhibitions separately--not because they're distinct from the career, but because they are a formal kind of objective evidence about their achievements, which is usually clearer if separated from general discussion. (Similarly, for musicians or authors, we put separate sections or the list of their works).As one obvious need of reorganization, regardless of the nature of aperson's career, we usually move the education to the beginning. What the article eeds most immediately is a reduction of the "known for" inthe infobox to one short phrase of a vey few words--the rest belongs in the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

DGG Thank you for getting back to me. Now I get breaking out the shows, also the education. Makes more sense and so obvious now. Could you remove the banners? That would be appreciated. I think the article is improved enough to warrant it.Ogmany (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

How to create a disambiguation page

Hey everyone, I changed the names for Pablo Marquez to Pablo Márquez (wrestler) and Pablo Márquez to Pablo Márquez (guitarist). I'd like to create a disambiguation page for both Pablo Marquez and Pablo Márquez, which allows Pablo Márquez (wrestler) and Pablo Márquez (guitarist) to be prompted. I've never established a disambiguation page, and I'd like to know how, especially, given the internal links present. Or, could someone just set them up? Philotimo (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:Dab (not to be confused with a dab. :) --David Tornheim (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the instructional link. Also, I loved your dab pun ;) Philotimo (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Philotimo: You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for specific formatting. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, I'll look at that too :) Philotimo (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Philotimo: :) The easiest way to code it is to look at code for existing WP:DAB, e.g. foo.

But you should look over Page moving procedures if you haven't already.

Once you are done, you can ping me, or ask someone here if they can review your work. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Good to know, I'll work on it now. I'll ping both of you when I'm done and feel free to critique them. Thank you, Philotimo (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Philotimo: Another set of examples more similar to yours with both missing diacriticals and misspellings:

--David Tornheim (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: and @Ganbaruby: I believe it Pablo Márquez (disambiguation) is now complete. I think all of the internal links are correct, including their associated talk pages. If I missed something, please let me know. Philotimo (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Philotimo: The disambiguation page should be at Pablo Márquez, and Pablo Márquez (disambiguation) should redirect to it. You also dont need the "People" header. Everything else looks good! ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 06:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I'll work on that. Philotimo (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Philotimo: Did you go through the section Page moving procedures I referred you to above? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Yes, I believe it is correctly done. It was honestly more convoluted than I was expecting. Thank you, Philotimo (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Nice. I learned something too. I think it is correct now. Should Juan Guaido and Pablo Marquez contain the same language about diacriticals found in Nicolas Maduro? --David Tornheim (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: also, is there a guide to follow with regards to diacritics? Philotimo (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Philotimo and David Tornheim: I'm pretty sure WP:COMMONNAME applies here as well, meaning that the most common usage is the article title (in this case, with the diacritic). The other one redirects the disambiguation page and are tagged with Template:R to diacritic or Template:R from diacritic, depending on if the disambiguation page has a diacritic. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and two more minor things. First, Pablo Márquez (disambiguation) should be tagged with Template:R to disambiguation page. Second, the disambiguation talk page at Talk:Pablo Márquez shouldn't be created if it will only contain Template:WikiProject Disambiguation. The WikiProject should only be added if the talk page already exists, which happens if the page "Pablo Márquez" was originally an article but became a disambiguation page later because there's no primary topic, but a talk page had already been created. It's a bit confusing, I know. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you for putting up the template. What needs to be done about Pablo Márquez's talk page? Philotimo (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Philotimo: Just leave it. It's really not that big of a deal. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 09:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, I appropriate all of the help from both of you! Philotimo (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems that we’ve had some successful dabbing! Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (10:50 Wed 24, AEST) 00:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

How/where to get discussion on appropriateness of a certain type of edit (links to slave trade)?

I am engaged in a discussion on a talk page regarding an edit I made which has twice been reverted. The discussion is probably ongoing but it raises a larger issue for me, and I am wondering how best to deal with it. I edited a page about a country house to show that the source of the wealth used to purchase it was from the slave trade. I've been told by a more experienced editor that it is not appropriate to put that information on the page about the house and gardens, only on the page of the person. I don't agree that it doesn't belong, and I don't agree that there is a consensus on that, and have provided links to a bunch of existing pages for country houses where the source of wealth used to build or buy it is mentioned. I believe there is a lot of public interest in this topic, but I also recognise this is a sensitive issue - if I made an edit about the money having come from selling hay we probably wouldn't be arguing about it. My problem is that there are a lot of country houses with extensive and varied links to the slave trade (as described in the 163pp book by professional historians I cited in my original edit). I intend to edit pages of other houses and estates to make these links clearer. Is there a place to discuss with other editors the appropriateness of these sorts of edits beforehand, to reach a consensus I can use to help guide me, or do I need to engage in the same discussion on every separate talk page? My interest is in trying to have Wikipedia better reflect recent research in slavery and the British Empire, not in having edit wars. DrThneed (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Which article are you trying to edit?--Quisqualis (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's Lydney House but please note my question is not about the specific edit there (which is why I didn't link it), it is about how to deal with this as a wider issue that will affect lots of potential edits? I'm not experienced with the behind the scenes processes.

DrThneed, bring up the issue on the talk pages of the various articles you wish to change, as discussion needs to take place, and a consensus arrived at, prior to the changes being made.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

DrThneed - Part of the problem is that you were being quite cavalier, rather than precise, with your language. The source you found would justify a statement that "a" source of their wealth was the family's involvement with the slave trade - but what you were trying to claim was that "the" source of their wealth was their "extensive" involvement with the trade, which is not what the source says. As you rightly say, this is a sensitive issue, and so we need to be sensitive about what we say and ensure that it is justified. There is also the question of whether it is worthy of mentioning in an article.about the estate, or whether a more appropriate place to use the source would be in an article about the family or its prominent members. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle - I'm glad you are finally engaging in what the words of the edit should be rather than simply obfuscating with irrelevant objections. I believe the question of relevance has been asked and answered. You might be better to ask how it is relevant to the current reader that Bathurst's father was a cofferer to the Queen.

Where does it say that subjects on Wikipedia can only be mentioned in one place, or sources can only contribute to one page? Information about the Bathurst family links to the slave trade is absolutely relevant on pages about the individuals, but it is also relevant on the pages of properties they own, and it is common practice for pages of such properties to talk about how they were acquired or disposed of. I have suggested an alternative edit that replaces extensive with longstanding, as supported by the source. If this does not satisfy, then I think it is because you are determined not to be satisfied.

I've answered you on the talk page as well, I'm not sure why you have followed me here when I specifically came here to ask about process to reach consensus, not this edit?DrThneed (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating an article of a person with the same name as an existing article.

Hi! I have come across something I can't figure out. I want to create an article on Tim Kirk, a documentary filmmaker. There already is an article on Tim Kirk, the fantasy artist. I see that there are many articles on Wikipedia with same name, and a page pops up asking if you want Bob Jones (artist) or Bob Jones (filmmaker).

How do I proceed? THANK YOU!

Peter Peter puppet (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter puppet: Welcome to Wikipedia. When you create the draft, just name it something like "Tim Kirk (filmmaker)" It can be named something else, if needed, when moved to main space. RudolfRed (talk) 02:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter puppet: If you click "Edit" on an article and type in this:

the result should be a note that looks like this:

...but you should probably create the article Tim Kirk (filmmaker) before you add that note to the current Tim Kirk article. You might also want to create Tim Kirk (disambiguation) with links to both Tim Kirks (See also Tim Kirkman, Tim Kirkby, Tim Kirby?), but usually Wikipedia doesn't bother until there are at least three articles about subjects with the same name.

You can visit Talk:Tim Kirk to discuss whether it might be appropriate to move Tim Kirk to something like Tim Kirk (artist), and discuss making Tim Kirk and Tim Kirk (disambiguation) the same page.

For more detailed rules, recommendations, and instructions, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation

96.244.220.178 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

p.s. Are you talking about Tim Kirk (producer) (nominated for deletion on 10 July 2013 (UTC), currently a redirect to Room 237)? If so, you could Edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Kirk_(producer)&redirect=no (either put the article there, or edit it to redirect to Tim Kirk (filmmaker) instead)

p.p.s. FYI, here's what the "deleted" article looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Kirk_(producer)&diff=prev&oldid=563931586 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.220.178 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

THANKS ALL! Very helpful. When you say that I can edit a previous deleted file, is that the best way to proceed or start a new one? - Peter

You'll have to judge that yourself--you know more about Tim Kirk than i do! But compare the old article, and the discussion about deleting it, against what you know. Can you add new information and/or new sources so that the prior reasons for deleting the article no longer apply? Does the old article include any information you're missing? Is calling Tim Kirk a producer enough, or is he involved with other aspects of filmmaking so that "filmmaker" would be a better (parenthetical) disambiguation? --96.244.220.178 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The year should be 2015 and not 2010

The photograph (File:28apr10.jpg) which was taken by me during the festival in 28 April 2015 is found in the article Brihadisvara Temple, Thanjavur with the caption "Temple festival procession, 2010". This procession happened on (28th April) 2015, and not in 2010. Actually this photo was taken by me on 28th April 2015, prior to the day of Thanjavur Chariot festival on 29th April 2015. As part of Chariot festival held on 29th April 2015, many programmes were held on the previous day (28th April 2015) and this procession was one among them. Necessary correction may please be made in the caption as "Thanjavur Chariot Festival related procession, 28th April 2015" or "Temple related procession, 2015" or "Temple festival procession, 2015". Regards. --B Jambulingam (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I've made the change. -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and regards. --B Jambulingam (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Article Talk page - section title not appearing nor Ping to user

Hi, not sure why but my new section on Talk:Mr Cruel didn't create a new section with a title and it also didn't create a Ping Template:Reply to the user. thanks Melbguy05 (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There were a bunch of unclosed <ref-Tags. I have esceped them for now. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

...and a minute later, I deleted them. Melbguy05's new thread is now visible, but I doubt the ping will have been revitalised. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Melbguy05: I've pinged the user again. They should get a notification now. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Mapping issue

Please I don't understand what's wrong with the labels and positions on the map at 2019–20 Ligue 1 (Ivory Coast), the labels keeps positioning itself 'outside' the map. Please I would like if it's corrected before I can continue. ThanksJosedimaria237 (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: Hi, and welcome to the teahouse! You're missing a negative sign, so I added it in for you. The western hemisphere uses a negative sign, while the eastern uses a positive. Hope this helps! ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

◢   Ganbaruby!   Thanks, never thought of that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josedimaria237 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox

How would I submit my edits on a sandbox onto wiki?-Thanks Sandbox Midshipman Percy (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Midshipman Percy (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Midshipman Percy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for review; I would not do so yet, as I'm not certain that you have the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time out of your day to help me! Have a great afternoon/morning/evening! Midshipman Percy (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit. Not sure it achieves Wikipedia notability. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD! Midshipman Percy (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

footnotes for law

To any experienced footnotes editor. Do we have something like Template:Sfn, but to be used for law/act. Since {{sfn}} only shows page number and it is works well for books ({{cite book}}) and journal ({{cite journal}}). but in case of certain law/act ({{cite act}}), usually we refer to it's article number. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: There are quite a few legal citation templates. See {{United States legal citation templates}}, Category:United States law citation templates, Category:Law citation templates. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:, It's not United States Law. And, I'm looking something similar to Template:Sfn but shows article number instead of page number. Seems, we are stuck with using {{cite act}}. Thanks anyway Ckfasdf (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ckfasdf: Did you check Category:Law citation templates? It has templates for several countries. You might also check other articles similar to whichever one you're working on to see if they have cite templates that someone created but haven't been categorized. Good luck. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I did check Category:Law citation templates, but also couldn't find it there or any other articles. Again thank you for your advice. I'll just use multiple <ref>{{cite act}}</ref>. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox page deleted

Hi, after getting deleted the sandbox page, How can I edit the content for creating another article. Where should I start? Dereena (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dereena: Welcome to the Teahouse. I've recreated it for you (though you could have done it yourself). Go to User:Dereena/sandbox and be careful not to use Wikipedia to promote non-notable businesses in future. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Lucien Dulfan

Greetings, friends! maybe you can help with this article Lucien Dulfan I have written some information + links. Could the the banner warning at the top of the page be removed now? Thank you! --Art of Odessa (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

merging article and borderline copyvio violation

FYI

– Fixed two links. dibbydib 05:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

an article SLEEP PROBLEMS AND ANTI IgLON 5 DISEASE in my sand box needs to be looked at for merging to an existing article on Anti-IgLON5 disease .kindly guide me how to proceed . also inspite of referencing the article to source and writing it in my own words there seems to be borderline copyvio ..i request for clarity on how to improve this NANDAN YARDI (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at what you've written, but if you say there's borderline copyright violation then I believe that there is indeed borderline copyright violation. This is not just an "also" matter. Removal of this material is the first thing you should do. When you've removed it, then you can consider what further steps to take. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@NANDAN YARDI: In short, Wikipedia should only have one article on the topic, which we already have (at Anti-IgLON5 disease). If there is information that you feel is missing in our existing article, you can help by editing that article. I've left a note on your draft about some punctuation issues. I'll also say that medical articles here routinely have the problem of being incomprehensible to the average reader. Whatever you can do to explain, link, or simplify terminology and concepts would be most useful. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What should I do when I notice paid/COI editing?

Hi, One of the pages that I have on my watchlist has some recent editing that is clearly COI or paid. The username is the name of the organization in question. But their edits aren’t incorrect or anything. They also haven’t created a user page. What should my next step be? Is there someone I report it to, or do I create their page so I can comment about COI, or do I undo their edits? Apathyash (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Apathyash and welcome to the Teahouse - please have a close look at Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide, there you should find all the answers to your questions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, CommanderWaterford. If I should discuss with the user on their talk page, but they don’t have a talk page, should I create one so that I can comment? Or is it better practice to just try to have the discussion on the article’s talk page? Apathyash (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Every User has a Talk Page on Wikipedia - in your case it will just be blank I guess, so you are free to create a new entry on its talk page. But of course you can also discuss this on the article talk page as well. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: Not so. A user does not have a talk page until someone creates it. The link will show red until the page is created. Your answer may have confused the OP, who placed a message by creating the user page, rather than the user talk page, of the editor concerned. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph, I explicitly mentioned the user TALK Page, David. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you said that it would already exist. At that time it didn't. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Apathyash Normally, you should create the user talk page in such cases. However, see Bonadea's comment below. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Apathyash: Usernames representing an organisation are not permitted, even if they are editing in good faith and not adding blatant promotion. If you report such user names to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, the user will receive a block notice explaining about allowed usernames and COI editing. --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Does The Sign film meet standards for being notable?

We made a feature length documentary film called The Sign about a confederate marker of Confederate General John H Winder in Salisbury MD in 2017 and 2018. It premiered at the Ocean City MD Film Festival News on premier . News on Film 2 News 3 News 4 News 5 Full disclosure I was the Executive Producer and one of the Directors. Dan O'Hare

In the last few weeks the film was viewed over 1,500 times and then the confederate marker was removed by the county government. Winder Sign Removed News 2

Link to film

Would you consider The Sign film notable enough for it's own page? I thought I would ask before going through the work of trying to create it. Warriorsvoice (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Warriorsvoice: Welcome to the Teahouse! The references you provided don't seem to meet the "significant coverage" criteria explained at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Even if they did, creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially if you don't have much Wikipedia experience and have a conflict of interest. I see the film is already mentioned at John H. Winder. GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thank you, the link really helped explain the criteria. Thanks again for taking the time to elucidate. Warriorsvoice (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Dan, and thanks for the links! I’ve left a note at Talk:John H. Winder#The Sign (movie) linking back to this discussion. —Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (08:47 Wed 24, AEST) 22:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pelagic Thanks so much. Still feeling my way around here. I noticed there were lots of errors on his page so I attempted to fix what I could and fill in some key missing details.Warriorsvoice (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

ADEKS - Advanced Design Electronic Key System

Would like to write a short article relating to the telephone line concentrator mentioned above that has nothing available in the public domain cuently and was widely used in UK command and control rooms from 1980-2010. Is this an article that would be appropriate for Wikipedia? Adbone47 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly you need to read Wikipedia's definition of notability. After that you could read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Article Declined

Hello! Today I began work on a Wikipedia page for "The Spiffing Brit" a relatively well know YouTuber. I created a draft which can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Spiffing_Brit and submitted it. It was declined due to "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." From what I understand, this is due to the fact I cited sources which are deemed and correctly so possibly biased. My question therefore is: Do I have to cite a source for every piece of information? A lot of it was gathered from the person in question and his friends and followers on The Spiffing Brit discord server. Any help would be greatly appreciated! :) KermitTeaHermit (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, KermitTeaHermit. You ask "Do I have to cite a source for every piece of information?" The answer is yes. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what published, reliable sources say about the topic. You say "A lot of it was gathered from the person in question and his friends and followers on The Spiffing Brit discord server." All such information must be excluded from the draft article, because that is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Article bias

I read on several pages that primary sources should be avoided, especially court proceedings. However, I recently found an article (which in my opinion is biased) which gives explanation of the topic on the basis of a statement of judge from the court proceedings. Is this allowed, If no, then how should I edit it or who should I ask? Parlebourbon (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the article title? "Should be avoided" is not the same thing as "can never be used", so it really depends. --bonadea contributions talk 12:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Article's title is Hindutva. Understood, but can you still check the article? Parlebourbon (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Hindutva. --bonadea contributions talk 13:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That is quite a large article. First of all, it is not a biography about a living person, which is where we should avoid using court cases per WP:USEPRIMARY. Guessing, without knowing, that you refer to the section that discusses the definition of Hindutva in the Supreme Court, having the court's own documentation to provide the background makes a lot of sense, and the larger part of that section is supported by secondary sources. If you refer to something else in that article, or if you want to discuss the sourcing further, please bring it up at Talk:Hindutva. The article talk page should always be the first place to go to when you want to discuss the content of an article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I am new around here, so I don't know much, but thanks for the info! :) Parlebourbon (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding random articles

I wanted to know if the Random articles are completely random, or can we set some region preferences or if Wikipedia tracks user activity and shows articles of those regions in which user is active?? Parlebourbon (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Parlebourbon: No, you cant set a preference for that. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical#Is_the_"random_article"_feature_really_random? for the implementiation details. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Parlebourbon (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Parlebourbon: If you want a non-random, but geographically selected set of articles close to where you are located, go to Special:Nearby and, when prompted, 'allow' en-wikipedia to have access to your location.

@Parlebourbon: There is also SuggestBot which can apparently filter by subject area. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try it. Parlebourbon (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ajay Bhupathi

HI, please help me approving making this liveDraft:Ajay Bhupathi. DeccanTelugu (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ajay_Bhupathi

please look into it thank You DeccanTelugu (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

DeccanTelugu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted your draft for review and it is pending. As noted, this could take five weeks or more, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

331dot can please help me in geting it approve.Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeccanTelugu (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

DeccanTelugu Linking to my username does not work to draw my attention unless you sign your post with four tildes(~~~~), which you should do with all talk page posts. There is nothing that I or anyone can do to speed up the process. As I said, you will need to be patient. Do you have a particular need for an urgent resolution to the submission? 331dot (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot for giving me a clarity DeccanTelugu (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have difficulty reading English? 331dot's reply was clear, and on the draft itself it says, very clearly, "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 5 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,082 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph sorry not actually as he said he will helo i thought of any thing like submission i think i miss-understood it.DeccanTelugu (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Appears you just joined Wikipedia on 22 June, and so perhaps can be forgiven for not understanding that the backlog of AfC submittals waiting for review is what it is, and asking at TeaHouse cannot speed it up. You declared a COI for this draft. What is the nature of your involvement with the subject of the draft? David notMD (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

David notMD NO not like that just created Randomly as i though it will be helped for me for betterment,nothing COI. DeccanTelugu (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed three time stamps in DeccanTelugu's posts above; @DeccanTelugu: did you add your local time manually to your posts? Please sign your posts using four tildes, ~~~~. That will automatically add the time in UTC to your signature. It is important that all signatures use UTC, because otherwise it is very difficult to know the order of posts. For instance, your post just above this one had the time 11:09, 24 June 2020, and this post will show something like 06:50, 24 June 2020. You can change the display of the time stamps in all signatures (how they show up to you) in your Preferences. --bonadea contributions talk 06:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

About the COI question: @DeccanTelugu:, you say here that you have talked to Bhupathi on Instagram and have got information straight from him, though. That is a form of involvement with the subject. Unfortunately, the information that Bhupathi gives directly to you can't be added to Wikipedia. Information has to come from reliable sources that are published by third parties, and personal communications don't count. The example I like to use is that if queen Elizabeth came to English Wikipedia and edited the article about her father, she would not be allowed to add her personal memories of him unless those were already published somewhere else (in a reliable source, again – not all sources count as reliable.)

I just asked him about Date of Birth only not all matter DeccanTelugu (talk) 10:49, June 24, 2020 (UTC)

In the edit of yours I linked to, you have also changed another editor's post so the time stamp shows a different time, probably your local time. Please don't do that – again, you can change how all times in signatures show up, by changing your preferences. --bonadea contributions talk 07:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

~~There is a copyright issue here, as at the draft, DeccanTelugu confirmed that text was copied verbatim from IMBd.~~ David notMD (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Text has been changed to no longer be a copy. David notMD (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It's taken as source not copied entire thing, what can be done to make it publish will develop on it DeccanTelugu (talk) 10:49, June 24, 2020 (UTC)

Had been copied, now not. Articles submitted for review are often reviewed within days to weeks, but can be months. It is not a queue. David notMD (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Rejected Biography

Hey Ive received a message and rejection that the article I worked on for a german artist would not be notable. Heres the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clemens_Krauss_(artist)

Ive included references to curator texts, bibliography of exhibition books, and exhibition list of museum exhibitions.

According to wikipedias notability check for creative professionals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals): The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Shouldnt it be alright according to (d)?

What did I do wrong? Christian Fichtl (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Robert McClenon: as the reviewer. I don't have an opinion on wether the two book references are reliable or not. Note that declined and rejected have different meanings on Wikipedia. "Declined" is used when the current submission is not acceptable, but could be improved to do so, while "rejected" means that this either cannot be done or, less common, that improving it woud result in starting from scratch. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Christian Ficht and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have listed various exhibitions solo and group, where Krauss's work has been displayed. But that is not the same as having been added to the permanent collection of an institutio0n. And in any case, you have not yet included citations to sources that verify the exhibitions, and that Krauss's work was a "substantial part" of them. If there are independent sources that offer a critical assessment of his work, whether positive or negative, that would be very helpful. Note that sources do not have to be in English, nor available online, although both are nice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I thank User:DESiegel for the explanation. As User:Victor Schmidt says, the draft was declined, not rejected. Your draft didn't establish notability, which is not the same as saying that the person is not notable. It means please improve the draft. I will reply briefly to the question, "What did I do wrong?" You, User:Christian Fichtl, didn't do anything wrong. You didn't do enough right yet. What you are doing at this point, which is discussing and improving your draft, is what you should be doing at this point. Your draft, as submitted, didn't provide a reviewer with enough information to warrant accepting it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello,

I have done some editing, but am new to reverting vandalism and not quite sure how it works. I understand that urgent vandals who pose a large threat should be reported at AIV but I am not sure where vandals that aren't as urgent should be reported. The user (IP) in particular is 94.250.255.226, who has recieved over 15 vandalism warnings, albeit over the course of ~7 years. Where should I report them?

Thanks,

Giraffer (munch) 13:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Just as I was about to post this, I double checked the contribs and talk page for the IP, and they have been blocked for 6 months. Nothing to do in this case, but what should I do in future?

@Giraffer: Welcome to the teahouse! For first time occurences of vandalism, we usually revert the edit and hand out Template:Uw-vandalism1 on their talk page, and no further action would be taken. If they vandalize any further, we would hand out higher level warnings, which go up to 4. We would go to AIV if they vandalize past level 4 or if the damage is urgent. Note that you don't have to go in order: you can skip levels to your best judgement. Also, warnings go stale, so if there's a period of time (~a few months) between the vandalism edits, we would go down levels. AS for the IP you mentioned: it's used by a school, meaning the edits are likely students messing around, which explains the long span of warning messages. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Giraffer: Many (most?) IPs we see are dynamically assigned, and will get re-assigned to new users by their ISPs with varying frequency (sometimes every connection by a mobile device). So, "older" warnings were not necessarily as a result of edits by the same person – you have to dig into the details to see if the edits are similar to identify if it's likely the same editor. Less urgent (than AIV) requests normally go to WP:ANI. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: @AlanM1: Ok thanks. I was referring to what to do after level 4 vandalism when it isn't urgent (Sorry if that wasn't clear...), but I guess I still go to AIV (or ANI). (Final question) Is there anything you should do differently if the IP is registered to an institution (such as in the case mentioned above)?

Thanks for your help, Giraffer (munch) 17:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Giraffer: If the IP belongs to an institution, you can put {{Shared IP edu}} or another shared-IP template on the IP's talk page if one isn't already there (though there is already one on the talk page of the IP you cite). Otherwise, there's nothing special you need to do. A blocking admin will usually notice that an IP is institutional and indicate that the block is a "schoolblock" or equivalent. Deor (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Work

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia, and I would like to find articles that need minor edits, as I am best at gnome work; like fixing typos. Also, I would like work that is meant for one person, as I believe I work best alone. Wikiffeine •‿• 16:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiffeine: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. Start at WP:TYPO for hints and tips for finding and fixing typos, and also on that page are links to other cleanup projects. RudolfRed (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wikiffeine, and welcome to the Teahouse! Check Wikipedia:Community portal. However, the idea of a wiki is that you are not alone, so sooner or later you will run into other people. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. Wikiffeine •‿• 16:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikiffeine I would note that while fixing typos should be uncontroversial, if your edits are reversed or challenged, you will need to talk to and work with others, as this is ultimately a collaborative project. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

331dot I'll keep that in mind. Wikiffeine •‿• 17:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikiffeine There's one more thing to keep in mind. Our articles are written in many different varieties of English, so don't fix "typos" like color/colour or theatre/theater, unless you are sure of the particlular variety of English. See WP:ENGVAR fo guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dodger67 I'll take a look at that, because I know there are varieties of English, like American English and British English, but I am not always sure which variation (and not only those 2). Thank you for the link. Wikiffeine •‿• 18:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiffeine: If the appropriate variety of English is not obvious from the subject of the article, when you edit the article you may find a template such as {{EngvarB}} (or one of the other options) at the top of the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thanks a lot for that. I'm sure it will help. Wikiffeine •‿• 18:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

What tools can we use to stop the forgery of history right in front of our own very eyes?

I am a new Wikipedia comer, the interest to join happened after noticing articles that are missing key facts about the Palestinian Israeli conflict. A recent article I came about is the Shooting of Eyad al-Hallaq an autistic Palestinian man murdered by the Israeli border police in East Jerusalem. Apparently there are attempt to water down the incident and mislead the public about what happened, for example someone added the word "warning" to describe the shots fired at the man without any reference, there is no mention of the testimonial of the caregiver who witnessed the police shooting the man while lying on the ground injured from close range or UN resolutions that dictate that East Jerusalem is an occupied Palestinian territory that suffers continuous and systematic human right violations, furthermore the one who created the page never bothered to put a face to the man or any of his family. I wanted to help so I added changes to the article with solid references, shortly they were removed by UnequivocalAmbivalence because they violate the 500 edit 30 day tenure on articles related to this topic. I left UnequivocalAmbivalencea [message] and waiting to hear back?

What other options do I have to make fair to this innocent man at least for the history to remember ? MYS1979 (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a difficult role. It can look like authoritative history, but what it does in reality is reports what others are saying. If only one 'side' of history is saying something and getting significant coverage of that thing in reliable sources, Wikipedia reports that coverage. What editors can not do, may not do, is form opinions of their own and put those into articles. Our role is to record faithfully facts (even 'untrue' facts) that have references. We are recorders, not opinion formers. We have no part to play in the creation of history, nor in fighting manipulation of history. Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I would add that the UN General Assembly does not have any authority to back up its resolutions or opinions(unlike the UN Security Council), so its resolutions are just one more viewpoint added to the pile. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If you have missing information supported by an independent source, you may make an edit request on the article talk page, detailing the changes you feel are needed, given that articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are under special restrictions. However, I think that the edit you attempted to make is extremely unlikely to be accepted as it is clearly intended to push a particular viewpoint.

Please understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. If you are only interested in advocating for a particular viewpoint or side, you are going to have a difficult time here. If you want to work with others who may feel differently from you in improving articles and their content, then please start on the article talk page. We will not solve the conflict here on Wikipedia, but we must work together to maintain articles related to it. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, MYS1979, and thanks for your interest in the topic. As you can imagine, Israel–Palestine issues are loci of conflict on Wikipedia as they are in real life. I see in the article history that UnequivocalAmbivalence has taken out the content about the "warning", so I hope that addresses part of your concern.

Whilst you were right to contact UA on their talk page, your views there were expressed quite strongly. For use of the Haaretz article, I suggest starting a discussion at Talk:Shooting of Eyad al-Hallaq (currently empty) where it will be visible to other interested editors. Detailed edit summaries are good, but eventually you get to a stage where "discussion-via-edit-summary" should give way to discussion-on-the-discussion-page.

— Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (09:40 Wed 24, AEST) 23:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Please use an encyclopaedic tone when adding content to articles. Emotive language runs counter to the purpose of an encyclopaedia. [For reader convenience, I edited your link to the article page, wiki links are case- and punctuation-sensitive.] Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (10:21 Wed 24, AEST) 00:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you all, Pelagic, Faddle for your valuable responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MYS1979 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The Muppets

The Muppets Edit I do not believe that my contributions to The Muppets page were not helpful. Could you explain why it was removed? Smojawa (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Smojawa: This edit to the infobox heading and this edit inserting a new first sentence in the article are your only two edits to The Muppets. Both are clearly unconstructive, as have been your other edits. If you persist in making "joke" edits, you will surely be permanently blocked from editing. Deor (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This editor has now been blocked. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A new record? Joined at 17:01 and indefinitely blocked 17 minutes later. David notMD (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Sadly, not even close. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The personal attack on WildChild300's talk page was certainly the last straw. I was going to do the block myself when I noticed that, but Cullen beat me to it. Deor (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

As an American, I didn't even know what that British insult meant. I know now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bans Geet , Review

Hello,

I have added many sources for the subject of this article Draft:Bans Geet. I think that would be enough. I have given reliable sources like news, news papers etc. It was clearly explained about that subject. So please review. Send it to the main article. Thank you Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arun singh Yaduvanshi: Welcome to Teahouse, While viewing your Draft:Bans Geet, submission is declined for the reason saying that the article doesn't have reliable sources. First of all you need to understand what are reliable sources (click to learn) . The article needs more citations like you have added most popular folk song of Chhattisgarh. How would you justify it is most popular! There is need of citations. The article notability depends upon the topic and the reliable sources taken in general. There are some sections in your draft which don't have a single Citation. I will add a tag at some places of your article, you need to find some sources (most preferred reliable sources) and replace those citation needed tags with your references. After replace all with different references, your article may get stable. Start adding reliable sources to your article to get it reviewed faster. (Note: If you are saying your draft article you should place it as [[Draft:your article name]] like [[Draft:Bans Geet]] produces Draft:Bans Geet and is directly clickable to your draft.) — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 20:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

/

This draft declined 24 June, resubmitted 24 June. As mentioned in answer to earlier question about a different draft,the next review may take days to weeks, but even as long as months. Meanwhile, you can continue to improve the draft. David notMD (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arun singh Yaduvanshi: I have added some tags on your draft, improve them and after addressing every tag, you can remove. Most important thing is your article need Copyedit for grammar. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Accessing an article

Good day. I am researching for a biographical piece and I came across this article posted on the authors blog portfolio http://portfoliowork09.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-menue-this-year.html http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QFGnPr1KYss/Su3ZL04_i3I/AAAAAAAAABI/wGbVPkJkux8/s1600-h/Digital+angela+malan.jpg It is written that this article was published 3 May most likely in 2009 issue of Fair Lady. If I were to use this article as a citaion I assume I would have top use the original post of the article . ie - the Fair Lady magazine itself. fair Lady has a subscription and therefore I am unsure how to go about using this article as a possible cite. Please if you could help me understand what to do when I run into this type of problem. Thank you DanceEnthusiast (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. DanceEnthusiast. Please remember that cited sources do not have top be online. Just providing the title, publication, date, and page(s) is sufficient. An interested reader could get the magazine from a librtary, or choose to pay a subscription fee. While normally something found on an author's blog is not an independent source, in this case the source is the magazine, not the blog. If you want to confirm that the copy on the blog is unaltered, you could ask a local library about getting a copy on interlibrary loan, or find a library that holds Fair Lady, but really that should not be needed. You can use the |quote= parameter in a citation template to provide a key quote from a source, which can be helpful for an offline source. See also WP:PAYWALL. There is also Resource Exchange. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again DESiegel So in this instance I can say (Just providing the title, publication, date, and page(s) is sufficient)

Title ; South Africas very own Prima Ballerina, publication Fair Lady, Date ;2009 March, Pages 2 and 3?

Using that as the cite for this particular instance?

And with the |quote= I can for instance, quote a paragraph in the article to show the cited information?

Thank you DanceEnthusiast (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, just so, DanceEnthusiast. In this case the citation would look something like

<ref>{{cite magazine |title=South Africas very own Prima Ballerina |work=Fair Lady |date=March 2009 |pages=2-3 |quote=Quoted Text Here}}</ref>

Please read WP:QUOTE and keep the quotation to the minimum needed to provide context. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Much appreciatedDanceEnthusiast (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this article shouldn't be accepted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_McAulay_(businessman)

Before resubmitting I wanted to check to see whether people think anything else needs updating to improve it's chances of being published. I have now made the following changes in line with the moderators comments:

Added a COI admission to the Talk section: I am a friend of James. He has a problem where whenever his name is Google's a little-know Victorian goalkeeper who made 9 appearances for Scotland comes up. His name is regularly Googled so I offered to help set up a page for him.
Notoriety: I have added a number of sources showing both James appearing in high profile events *(TED talk, X Factor appearance, multiple podcasts) as well as links proving the notoriety of his company (winning international awards, being featured in national mainstream press)
Neutrality: I have removed all primary sources and have written objectively about what James has achieved. In order to prove notoriety I have obviously talked about some of his highest achievements - but I have tried to do so in a way that doesn't make it appear as praise.

I'd be very grateful if an experienced Wikipedia member could take a quick glance at the article to see whether there is anything I've missed which might lead to my article being declined.

Thank you! Performing.sculpture (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Performing.sculpture I would note that if his only concern is search results, he needs to contact the various search engines. Search results are not a concern of Wikipedia insofar as people with similar names wanting an article for that reason.

The article (not just a "page") should not tell merely what he has done. That would be little more than a resume. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about an article subject, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable person. Sources that rely on interviews with him(like the Forbes or Apple Podcasts sources) or otherwise briefly mention him are not acceptable for establishing notability. I regret to say-and others may have different opinions- I do not believe your draft would be accepted if you submitted it for review. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur, there is no indication that this person passes the notability guidelines, and also YouTube, Linked in, Soundcloud and podcasts are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Reliability depends on who publishes the YouTube, etc. content - see WP:VIDEOREF. Saying that YouTube isn't a reliable source is a bit like saying that Google Books isn't. It's the author/publisher, not the hosting site, that matters. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That said, I agree on the points about notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. The definition of a notable person on the Wikipedia page is "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

The citations I've given include articles in Business Insider, Forbes, Techcrunch, The Tab, and the Times - to my understanding, these are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Like any businessman, he is notable for the achievements of his company - therefore I have also cited sources that show his company is recognised on the international startup scene. Regarding YouTube - the two citations I have given are of James giving a TED talk (uploaded by the TED channel) and a performance he gave live on X Factor (500,000+ views on the X factor YouTube channel). As Cordless Larry says - YouTube can be a reliable source if the channels publishing the content are recognised as reliable. I will however, remove the Soundcloud, podcast and LinkedIn citations as I don't believe these were important contributions to the article. Given that the article relies on neutral sources from national press, international awards, and on internationally-known YouTube channels, please could anyone above give a clearer answer to why they believe this doesn't meet the notability criteria? i.e. which specific criteria do you believe are not being met here? Many thanks Performing.sculpture (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Performing.sculpture. The TechCrunch sources I looked at are based on interviews with McAulay, so are not independent: I haven't looked at others, but I can see that a lot of them are McAulay and his associates talking. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them. Note also that notability is not inherited: a company can be notable without its founder being notable, and vice versa. --ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

All of the info in my doc was verifiable; can i resubmit the page if i change the sources to 3rd parties

Hey all,

My page was recently deleted. First, I would like to get back the code and work to better it based on third party sources ---> I had 3rd party sources for everything I just used company announcements and linked the 3rd party stuff in additional readings. Second, I am an employee of the company. I realized after publishing I need to disclose COI but I have revied the piece and none of it is advertisement, it is purely factual. Can I link to the site if they are a retailer and they alone have a list of their partners? And can I use them as the source for the company mission? They alone have published it.

Thanks WaltJsmith (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WaltJsmith Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, which summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself. That includes what a company considers to be its "mission", which is impossible to independently verify as a company can change its "mission" at any time. The sources you had in your draft seem to be press release type stories or routine business announcements, which do not establish notability. As you describe your company as a "startup", it is likely too soon for an article about your company. In essence, your company must already be established in its field and be more than a "startup" to merit an article, so independent sources have had the chance to (on their own) take note of your company and choose to write about it. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response talk. Just wondering if it is notable because multiple third party sources have covered the topic and they are all publishing cryptocurrency news sites like Coindesk, theblock, and Cointelegraph. I linked them in the additional readings section and realize I should use them for sources. I falsely thought that press releases from the company itself were better because of its primary. I realize now how to change some of the stuff --> what you said about the mission statement totally makes sense. I am planning on making changes and submitting through article wizard... thoughts on that course of action? Again, thanks! WaltJsmith (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

WaltJsmith That is the way to go about resubmitting it. If the independent reliable sources are more than a simple announcement of a business transaction, as the sources in your first draft were, it may be possible for there to be an article. The coverage by the source needs to go beyond merely telling about something the company did.

Keep in mind that if your draft is accepted, you will no longer be able to edit it directly(with a few exceptions), and will need to make formal edit requests on the article talk page for future changes. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@WaltJsmith:, to expand slightly on what 331dot said above, the weird definition we use for "notability" includes a qualification that coverage not merely be in third-party sources but also that those sources be ones which are generally considered "reliable". This is a very squishy quality to assess so the assessment is reached by editors talking about it. There is a list of sources that have been often-discusses to help centralize these prior assessments. Coindesk is not considered reliable: There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics... I would suggest that any coverage of your company there should not be used as it will be rejected by other editors. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please post a link to the article in question? And if, as it seems, this is about cryptocurrencies, would someone please post the appropriate DS notification on the OP's talk? John from Idegon (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Lolli (company) was Speedy deleted. David notMD (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to all of their coverage of the company:https://www.coindesk.com/tag/lolli. Also, Coindesk is not the only source, was just an example of one of the one's that does cover it. Thanks, WaltJsmith (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn and 331dot was wondering: let's say several sources have covered it like WSJ, Business Insider, Forbes, etc. That establishes notability correct? and then other sources like Coindesk can supply some verifiability to smaller facts? Is that the process? Also, is it possible/smart to site multiple sources for the same information... that way if editors don't like the source they can keep the information if one of the sources is good. Thanks, WaltJsmith (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It depends on what the sources specifically are. Sources that are not acceptable for establishing the notability of a company include brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions like the raising of capital or similar, and staff interviews(a longer, if not complete, list can be found at WP:ORGDEPTH). Please also be aware of the sanctions in effect related to editing about cryptocurrencies, that I have just posted to your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I need help on a draft. Revised.

I would like to get some help on Draft:Saron Gebresellassi. It was rejected, but I believe the subject is notable. Can someone improve the article by properly formatting it?

Thank you everyone :) Blissfulust (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Blissfulust and welcome to the Teahouse - after reading your draft the only thing you need to modify is the tone of the article, it reads too much like a Fan Article, please have a close look at Wikipedia:Fancruft, you need to get rid of the superlatives words; i made some examples in it. You could also perhaps get help from the Wikiproject Human Rights. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blissfulust: You've put 33 references into that article, which is a lot to ask us to go through. Perhaps you could link here to just the top three that you feel demonstrates her notability? Mere mentions are not sufficient, but good sources are certainly more important that formatting or tone. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

For clarification, your draft was "declined", not "rejected". If it had been rejected, it would have meant that the reviewer believed that the draft could not be improved to an acceptable standard. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello guys, I have made some changes to the draft. Let me know your thoughts :) I believe the subject is notable because she finished 4th place in the mayoral election of 36, it was her first-ever election. She has also had the honor to meet Prime Ministers and many other notable personalities, and represented a report in the UN assembly. She has won several awards too. Also, as a lawyer, she have many cases that received news attention; not every lawyer receives media's attention on a regular basis.Blissfulust (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Blissfulust (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Blissfulust. Please read our guideline on the notability of political figures which says, in part: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. So being a losing candidate for mayor alone is not enough. I must agree with the comments above, please list the three or four best sources currently cited if you want a quick review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: She has won several awards and has been honoured with many occasions. Is that not enough?

So, please give us the 3 or 4 best links to references which show this. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: The awards sections are all referenced. Rest honorable occasions like meeting PMs and UN report are also referenced. I mean, all together, isn't the subject notable? Her name on Google news will her recent cases too. I think the subject is famous in Toronto, if not Canada. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

@Blissfulust:My thoughts are unchanged: If you can't be bothered to paste here the three or four key links which help establish notability and show in depth coverage by independent sources (I've asked three times now), then I can't be bothered to spend time trying to assist you. I'm really sorry to have to be so blunt. (I could show you around a hundred newspaper articles and radio interviews in which I've been mentioned or even featured over the years, including a couple of national TV programmes, but even taken together they wouldn't establish my notability - not even my professional awards or the hour long 'desert-island discs'-type programme I did on local radio in the 1990s! I wouldn't ask you to wade through them all, and I don't plan to do that either if you don't want to point me to the best of them.) PS: a PING only notifies the other person if you both include their name AND sign your post at the same time when you publish your changes Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Blissfulust As to the awards, it depends on the significance of the award. I haven't reviewed the details of the awards listed in the draft. A Nobel Prize is one thing, a Middletown Good Citizen Award is quite another. Most fall somewhere between. As to meeting a Prime Minister or other important personage, that may be an honor, but it does not usually help demonstrate notability. Neither does presenting a report to the UN, as a rule, although if a person is called on to present such reports regularly and is thus shown to be an expert in some field, that might be different. The most usual way is for there to be significant independent reliable coverage, in some depth and detail. It may be in connection with an award, or other event, or it may not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: So, is the subject not notable? Despite so many mentions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blissfulust (talk • contribs)

Brief mentions don't count - in-depth coverage does. See my reply to you just above. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, she seems not to be notable. Sorry! Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: @Johnbod: Blissfulust (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) I am sorry, but there must have been some kind of bug because I didn’t see your reply. I would like you to take a look at the followings:

https://lawandstyle.ca/law/best-practices-how-saron-gebresellassi-practises-law-and-activism-at-the-same-time/ https://socialistproject.ca/2020/04/free-transit-is-in-town-for-now/ https://www.byblacks.com/main-menu-mobile/opinion-mobile/item/1946-two-candidates-have-the-chance-to-unseat-john-tory-they-re-both-black- https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/04/24/stephen_harper_honours_harry_jerome_award_winners.html

I don’t know if the above are the best of references for the subject, but that’s what I could extract from the draft. Please see the list of the awards in the draft, I think there’s more if I research.

Also, I read about your achievements, here’s a small list of other articles which are comparatively less notable (in my opinion when I compare them to you). Especially, the last four articles, I would like to know what makes them notable, and why they were approved, because I think my concerned draft is more notable than them (just my opinion).

I am sure there are tons of articles that don't meet the notability. Were they successful because they just published them directly into ARTICLE, and not through AFC? Thank you. For “pinging,” as well.

Blissfulust. There are many articles which, for some reason or other, don't meet current standards. In an ideal world, they would all be improved if they can be, or deleted if the subject is not notable. Unfortunately that is a huge amount of work, which nobody has so far chosen to do. I oftens wish that new editors would spend some time improving some of our existing six million articles, rather than so often being fixated on adding another one. You would be most welcome to look at some of those, and either find and add suitable sources, or if you cannot find sources for notabiliy, nominate them for WP:deletion. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS --ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blissfulust:. Before going any further, I have posted this question about possible block evasion on your talk page. I, for one, would appreciate it if you would be kind enough to address it before we continue. Thank you very much, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Article Purge

Hello. I was just wondering if it is ok to purge an article of information which is unsourced or poorly sourced. I have been doing that on the Donald Trump 2016 endorsements page and was just checking to make sure this is allowed. Will this be seen as partisan in some way? I just want to make sure this isn’t against some policy. I don’t want to be accused of being a paid editor again. Thank you and stay safe everyone! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: Welcome to the teahouse! WP:BLP states that:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

This policy does extend to that article since we are dealing with living people and recent events. If you encounter a unsourced or poorly sourced entry, try to look for a better source, and if you can't find it, go ahead and remove it. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 06:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Appears you are removing names that had as a ref, ref name="trrump88" Your edit summaries should state that you did not find that name at that ref. It is possible, nay, likely, that these people had endorsed candidate Trump back in 2016. I am not sure that your effort to cull names is doing much to improve the article. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In looking further at your editing actions, you have removed close to 300 names from the list of people who had endorsed candidate Trump in 2016. Even to a life-long Democrat voter, this appears to be a vindictive crusade to rewrite history. Please stop. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, I’m deleting poorly sourced names. Not just anyone who I disagree or personally don’t think. The Trump88 link is either not valid anymore or has been made up. The other links I state a reason for all of them. Either the is inaccessible, it does not exist, or there is no link at all. I also delete any sites that do not explicitly state an endorsement. For example, if someone said that they are good friends with Trump, I didn’t consider that an endorsement. It is up to the user who put the name in to come up with a link that directs to a reliable source. If the link does not state an endorsement, I have the right to delete it. However, if you have a better link or if I’ve made a mistake at some point, please feel free to let me know or change it back yourself. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

the second of these deletions that I checked (Robert Ignizio) was incorrect. The source was good, and I added an additional source for him endorsing Trump.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked at more of them. These deletions look strongly like something that needs to be rolled back to the pre-Lima Bean Farmer version. I don't see how it is possible that the article could be so wrong that it needed hundreds of names removed. I agree that you should stop Lima Bean Farmer. These edits look destructive, and they are more of a potential ANI issue than a Teahouse quesiton.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Another removal by Lima Bean Farmer that I checked was for the National Black Republican Association. Their edit comment was "Source does not support the information", even though the URL of the source removed "donald-trump-gets-endorsed-by-national-black-republican-association". CNN covered it with the title "Black Republican group endorses Donald Trump". So this is another incorrect removal. I checked two, both wrong. It's an issue. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for the Black Republican group. I realize that was a mistake. However I deleted many names which were not sourced properly. I realize that I may have made a few mistakes, but overall i think I am deleting information about living persons which is not supported. Please do not re instate all of the names which do not have a proper source. If you have any further questions or issues, please let me know! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I checked six of the deletions, and five of them were wrong. It's riddled with errors, as you misinterpreted most of the sources and did not check to see if the material removed was true or not. Someone with the fortitude to do a 300 edit rollback should probably just do it. David notMD? Lima Bean Farmer, next time, do a proper search to see if the thing you are removing actually needs to be removed. The advice you got above was excellent: If you encounter a unsourced or poorly sourced entry, try to look for a better source. ThatMontrealIP(talk) 06:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t delete everything! I made some genuinely good edits ThatMontrealIP. I have followed the living persons procedure. Please do not change everything. Also I stopped editing the article a few days ago. I only deleted a faulty source today because you added it back after it was inaccessible. Please don’t delete everything. It seems excessive. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

An admin rolled this back as it had deleted too much source material and also broken the page formatting. I left you some advice on your talk page about how to do what you were trying to do, which had good intentions but not such great results. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There’s still a lot of misinformation in this article like some with no sources and people like Judge Judy and Kanye West who did not endorse him. It seems that my efforts are in vein. I hope someone else sees these and fixes them. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Description of nationality for Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain

Why are people born in Northern Ireland exclusively described as British whereas other people from the UK are described by their respective nation (such as English, Welsh, Scottish).

This is especially ob ious when used in context of people born before the partition of Ireland such as CS Lewis vs JRR Tolkien vs Warren Lewis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Lewis

It seems obvious that certainly anyone born before partition of Ireland should be described as Irish.

Otherwise it would mean that all people should be described as British (such as Tolkien) - there's no logical reason for such a difference. CuriousStapler (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

CuriousStapler My guess would be that Scotland, Wales, and England are each considered to be a nation while Northern Ireland could be viewed as part of a nation- but that's just my guess and I don't know why this might be done. I think that the best place to bring this up would be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

331dot I think I get you, Northern Ireland could then be incorrectly judged as part of Ireland rather than part of the United Kingdom?

I would think Northern Ireland is also considered a nation in its own right as those are.

It's a confusing and complicated case and I can now see the discussions on it are going back to 2006 and earlier!

I would have thought that Irish, Northern Irish or northern Irish makes the most sense for him in following other Wikipedia articles (Da Vinci is referred to as Italian etc.). Personally I would go as Northern Irish similar to how Scottish etc. are used but it all depends on if articles should be written in a modern sense or for when they lived (is it Da Vinci of Italy or Da Vinci of Florence for example. In the case of an Irish person. Orn before partition it would mean, historically, that Irish is the most suitable term except this would lead to confusion for those unaware of the complications on identity in the modern sense.

I'll take a look through that, thank you.

CuriousStapler (talk)02:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I start? Are there any earning opportunities? What do I get back? What does the society get back?

Trying to understand the basics, but I notice there is so much read. Do I need to complete all that before starting?

How start?
Earning opportunities?
What I get?
What society gets?Gub Sub Dub (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gub Sub Dub: welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse! There is indeed a lot to read and the rules and guidelines can feel a bit overwhelming at times. You do not have to read everything before you start, but if you have familiarised yourself with some of the most important things, it will help you avoid some mistakes. Help:Introduction is a series of very short tutorials which is a good place to start, and you can also try The Wikipedia Adventure, a training programme built like a game.

After that, feel free to dive in – the tutorials also include tips about editing activities to start with. It is a good idea to begin small, and not try to create new articles until you have quite a bit of experience.

Wikipedia editing is a volunteer activity, and none of us makes any money from it. (Some people try to make money from editing Wikipedia, but that is almost always a bad idea, for several reasons.) Different people get different things out of editing Wikipedia, I think, but for most of us it is mainly about the satisfaction of adding to and improving this huge body of information. As long as the information is factual and can be verified, this is also beneficial to society. --bonadea contributions talk 07:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If you don't make money for living, then how can you practically survive? Why do you think anyone will neutrally contribute towards this project without money? Don't you think every writer here will be for some or the other agenda while there is no money attained back? Don't you think offering no money is a bad idea?Gub Sub Dub (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Gub Sub Dub In order for Wikipedia to offer money to editors, it would have to generate money somewhere. The only ways to do that would be to have paid advertisments, or charge for access to Wikipedia, both of which would violate the principle of this being a resource freely accessible to all regardless of income or ability to pay, and violating the principle of having a neutral point of view, as advertising is not neutral.

Wikipedia editing is not a career. This is a volunteer activity, which most people do because they want to help build this encyclopedia of knowledge for the benefit of humanity. Most editors have regular jobs or are otherwise financially self-sufficient and participate in Wikipedia in their spare time. It is true that some editors may have agendas of some kind, but that is almost always counteracted by other editors. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think offering money would be a spectacularly bad idea, for the reasons outlined by 331dot. Yes, people need to make money for a living, but that's got nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. I don't work every waking hour (though sometimes it feels like it), and Wikipedia is a great activity for my spare time, especially since it is something I can do in short bursts when I'm taking a break. I do other things in my spare time as well, and don't make any money from them. This is a hobby.

If you don't think editing Wikipedia sounds like it would be fun for its own sake, it is probably hard to understand why people would spend their free time doing it. But that's the case with pretty much every human activity – I can't understand the appeal of some of the hobbies other people have, either. People simply enjoy different things. --bonadea contributions talk 07:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"regular jobs or are otherwise financially self-sufficient" that's a problem? If people write neutrally they may lose their jobs. That's a problem. I have not come here with my actual name. If I come here with it, I may too have to face issues. How secure is wikipedia wrt keeping my identity unrevealed? Gub Sub Dub (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Gub Sub Dub You are wise to not use your real name if you have reasons that you might not want it known that you use Wikipedia(don't tell me what those might be). Having an account means that your IP address is hidden from the general public, so as long as you are careful about what information you reveal about yourself, you should be reasonably secure. 331dot (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My Edits Won't Show up

I edited a page it only shows up when I am logged into my account. In the view history it shows my edit and no one deleted or undid my edit. It's for the King George V school — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmxhero (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Malcolmxhero The edits you made to that article are in your account's edit history and in the article edit history; this does not disappear if you log out of your account. 331dot (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove the comments of others. 331dot (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Malcolmxhero Stop edit warring, i.e., repeatedly inserting content at Malcolm X after other editors have deleted it. The proper step after being reverted is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article in question. David notMD (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

With multiple accounts, it's easy to get confused...--Quisqualis (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

im new where do i start?

Where do I start editing? Anyone wanna be friends? Softtaco33 (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Softtaco33: Have a look at Wikipedia:Maintenance. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhaukal, Review

I have added many sources for the subject of this article. I think that would be enough. Will be added if more sources are required. So please review. Send it to the main article. Thank you. Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Editor means Draft:Bhaukal, as Bhaukaal is redirected to an existing article. The draft was submitted to AfC review eight days ago. Review can happen in days to weeks, but sometimes months. There is a problem: although the draft is titled "Bhaukal", in the body of the draft and references, it is "Bhaukaal". David notMD (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

This article has been misdirected in its entirety. The article on which it is directed has nothing to do with this article. Both articles are independent of each other. I have given many sources for this and none of them proves that where it is directed is correct. Such guidance hurts who ruins someone's hard work all at once.Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

If your draft is approved, it will be given a name that separates it from the other Indian crime drama. David notMD (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Draft:Bhaukal, Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Hello Teahouse, I just wanted to know why so many disambiguation articles are semi-protected. And, on investigating the history of the articles there seems to be no obvious signs of vandalism. Eagerly awaiting your reply! Midshipman Percy (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Midshipman Percy (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Midshipman Percy: Could you provide some example links to the particular DAB pages you're referring too, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole alphabet is semi-protected (although they arent DAB pages) No and Yes are semi-protected. Sorry, the list is short, but these pages don't have a long-running history of vandalism Midshipman Percy (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I Deal with a Self-Referential article in citations ...?

I’m New. How do I Deal with a Self-Referential article in citations? If a Wikipedia Page includes citations that are provided from the Subjects own Personal Website, or a website that they are in control of, what is the protocol? Should it be deleted? Is it Flagged? Also, what it the correct terminology for this sort of citation?

For example: From the Leslie Graves Wiki Article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Graves_(nonprofit_executive)

‘Graves has also worked as a homemaker, in community theater, and in Catholic ministry.[10]’

The citation linked is to the website of the Non-profit run by Leslie Graves:

http://www.lucyburns.org/about/our-staff

But then it runs through to the website Ballotpedia.org, which is also run by Leslie Graves :

https://ballotpedia.org/Lucy_Burns_Institute

What would be the proper protocol to handle this kind of situation?

Thanks for your help. TheFinalTrophyWife (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello TheFinalTrophyWife and welcome to the Teahouse! Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self-published_sources, a subjects own webpages can be used if "it is not unduly self-serving" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources" etc. Birthdate, place of birth, stuff like that is fine. IMO, Graves has also worked as a homemaker, in community theater, and in Catholic ministry isn't interesting unless it comes from a decent independent source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

And the protocol is WP:BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Help to contest this nomination: nomination of Shawn Huang Wei Zhong at articles for deletion

After I posted my first article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Huang_Wei_Zhong, I received a notification that it will be nominated for deletion.

Notification: This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to improve the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

As I'm new to wiki, I need some guidance on what I need to do to avoid this article being deleted.

Any advice will be much appreciated. Thang324 (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Would linking this article to a national newspaper's citation of the subject help in resolving the conflict of interest?

Thanks. Thang324 (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thang324 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are conflating two different issues. The article has been proposed for deletion because has not been shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(please review). The sources offered are all brief mentions- what is required is significant coverage of the person by people completely unconnected with them. Please read Your First Article

Second, it seems that you have a conflict of interest with regard to Shawn Huang Wei Zhong. If so, you need to review the conflict of interest policy and make the appropriate declaration. If you are receiving any compensation for editing about this person, you must comply with the paid editing policy, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Porn site linked in references instead of article about cockroaches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surinam_cockroach

edu-net.nl/Flora%20en%20fauna/Boeken/Cockroache;%20Ecology,%20behavior%20&%20history%20-%20W.J.%20Bell.pdf SebastianGałecki (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

SebastianGałecki, that's a domain vacancy notice. Not finding it in the article, but it should be tagged with Template:dead link. We don't usually remove dead links, but instead tag them so someone can find an archival copy. WP:BEBOLD. John from Idegon (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@SebastianGałecki: I updated the cite with an archived version and marked the url as unfit, along with the other two uses of that site on Wikipedia. Blacklisting next. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

blacklisted url modified to allow archiving--bonadea contributions talk 11:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

my draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:VoodooSMS has not accepting

i am writing my article about the company neutrally Draft:VoodooSMS but it not accept on other side the article TextMagic accpet and publish so i confuse what we do with our article to accept.please help Syed zaid ul haq (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Syed zaid ul haq Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you say "our article" I interpret that to mean that you are employed by VoodooSMS. If so, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to read and formally comply with the paid editing policy and declare your status. You should make that declaration before you do anything else.

Your draft just tells about your company, and offers almost no sources. Wikipedia is actually not interested in what a company wants to say about itself or its offerings. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a company, demonstrating how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Significant coverage goes beyond brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions, or other primary sources. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. It depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft has only one ref. And TextMagic should probably be nominated for deletion as inadequately referenced and short on content. David notMD (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

AUTOPATROLLED rights

how can i access AUTOPATROLLED rights? Baran Ahmet (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Baran Ahmet: If you mean how do you get those rights, see WP:APAT, though I don't believe you have the suggested experience level of having created 25 articles. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

So i have to create 25 articles for access those rights? Baran Ahmet (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Baran Ahmet: Yes, that is the basic requirement. However, keep in mind that autopatrolled does not give you any more editing permissions or capabilities than what you already have, so you don't need to have to right at all. Its primary purpose is to reduce the backlog for New Page Patrol. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 16:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Okay, but i wanna take a knowladge from you what are differents between autoconfirmed and autopatrolled? Thanks Baran Ahmet (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Baran Ahmet: The autoconformed right is automantically given to accounts 4 days old and have made 10 edits. They get to create and move pages and can edit semi-protected pages. You should aready be autoconformed. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM for more details. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 17:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I joined Wikipedia - would like to delete my account

Hello. I am Wikipedia's stupidest and most horrible ex-user. I joined Wikipedia last week but have HURT and UPSET other users, particularly Christian American users who have sent me messages that have made me realise what an evil, stupid, bisexual bitch I have been.

I have already apologised to one user who is very angry with me for upsetting them, I apologise to all users for:

- adding the birthdates of obscure past and present Partick Thistle footballers (many of the birthdates I added have been deleted by other users) to list articles

- adding content about British television, dead British comedians who weren't famous in America and the British music charts

I am leaving Wikipedia and want to delete my account. I will never even LOOK at Wikipedia again after my account is deleted. Before I go, I would like to give other users a word of advice. My advice is: DO NOT POST ANYTHING ABOUT the British music charts, Morecambe & Wise, Les Dawson, Dustin Gee, dormant British television companies, The Wonder Stuff or Partick Thistle and its players (past or present). I have found that posting ANYTHING about these people or things offends Wikipedia's American users and constitutes trolling. I would also like to apologise to all Wikipedia users for ALL THE PEOPLE WHOSE BIRTH / DEATH DATES I ADDED TO YEAR LIST ARTICLES HAVING BEEN BORN. Boatfrog74 (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Boatfrog74, Hello, Wikipedia isn’t all about editing stuffs in articles, there are many other areas you could dive in, for example Article assessments, Identifying WP:COPYVIO, participating in Afd’s and many more. New users often make mistakes, being warned doesn’t mean another user hates you, they are just trying to correct you. I hope you change your mind and decide to participate constructively to Wikipedia. Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Boatfrog74: Wikipedia accounts cannot be deleted. You can howewer simply abandom your account. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Boatfrog74: We don't delete accounts. If you don't want to use your account, don't use it. You can change the password to some random string and then lose it if you want.

For other newbies that may read this, I'd like to point out that Boatfrog74's advice is nonsense. Wikipedia welcomes encyclopedic contributions to any and all subjects. That means what you write has to be verifiable by being cited to reliable sources and encyclopedic in nature and tone. The idea that there is one set of sensibilities among Wikipedia's (minority of) American and/or Christian users, and that somehow governs what is acceptable, is as offensive as it is ridiculous. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

One option is to put Retired on your User page. Open that page for editing, create double curly brackets with the word Retired inside. Publish this change. This will create a black rectangle across your User page with the word Retired inside. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

How do we create a page for a new film or a person

How do we create a page for a new film or a person? Mir Sarwar (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Mirsarwar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have mere "pages", it has articles. Successfully writing a new article is- as you have found out already- the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It's even harder when attempting to write about yourself or something for which you have a conflict of interest. New users are much more successful when they first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.

If you are associated with the subject you want to write about, you should review the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy before further edits. Whether you are associated with topics or not, you should read Your First Article and use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you find out any problems first. Be prepared to have your initial effort be rejected- this is normal and part of the process.

If you are going to write about a film, you should review the notability guidelines for films to see if the film you want to write about meets the criteria for an article, as demonstrated with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. For people, notability is defined at this link, although some career fields have their own, more specific criteria(actors, athletes, politicians, etc.) 331dot (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, your use of "we" in your OP is troubling. First, Wikipedia usernames are for one unique person only. Second, if you (or your employer) has any relationship with the subject you are writing about, you need to see (and follow) WP:PAID. Frankly, we don't need more people using Wikipedia to promote things. Mirsarwar, who is using your account, and what is your relationship with the subjects you propose to write about? John from Idegon (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't our math (and other highly technical) articles be accessible to non-experts?

As the encyclopedia anyone can edit, I would hope it is also one that anyone* could read too...

I see math, physics and other articles in highly technical and specialized areas written in abstruse language an ordinary person without specialized knowledge or expertise in the field would have little hope of understanding. I have long considered this a problem and heard others express it too, but I am not familiar with efforts to address it. Are there past discussions about this?

I did just find the essay WP:READABLE recently written by CFCF.

See also article on readability.

* with a sixth-grade level reading level (or maybe slightly higher).

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC) --David Tornheim (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not editing much these days, but I saw your mention of this on CFCF's talk page, and I agree with you very much. I've been reading some math and physics pages for my own learning recently, and the un-readability is really awful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This is widely recognised as a problem in many areas, especially medicine. Writing accessible prose is harder than most people think, and our editors are mostly not very good at it. Many still don't recognise the problem. At the least, the lead should be easily accessible. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, David Tornheim and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is a constant balancing act between having over-technical articles, and having over-simplified ones on technical topics. I do not think that all our articles on, for example, mathematical topics, can usefully be written to be readable on a sixth-grade level. However, Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman said that if one cannot prepare a freshman (college) lecture on a topic, it isn't well understood. Of more direct relevance here is MOS:JARGON, which says: Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using {{Technical}} or {{Technical-statement}} for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. ... Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. ... For example, consider adding a brief background section with {{main}} tags pointing to the full treatment article(s) of the prerequisite notions; ...

For example Differential equation is in my view reasonably well-written and accessible, but I don't think it is at a 6th-grade reading level, nor could it be usefully rewritten without mathematical terminology and notation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I wo0uld add that I disagree with much of the specific suggestions in WP:READABLE, although I approve of the goal of making every article as readable as possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's advice and feedback. I do agree that Richard Feynman's suggestion of making certain subjects readable to freshmen in college might be a good standard for advanced math, physics, chemistry, etc. articles. As a former math teacher, I must admit the 6th grade level standard (something I heard is used for newspapers) would make it almost impossible to cover almost any but the most basic math or arithmetic articles.

Also, having had the pleasure of studying Schrödinger's equation which is difficult to comprehend without a background in vector calculus and its operators, I am actually quite impressed with the WP:LEDE of that article. Although I have studied Einstein's work in numerous courses in college (and even in high school), I sometimes refer back to our relativity articles, and I believe I was impressed with them. Can't say I am in the mood to look at them right now, but thanks for the suggestion.

I will start adding the {{technical}} and {{Technical-statement}} templates and read up on MOS:JARGON. Rather than try to impose a standard from the community on those who work on the relevant articles, it might be more productive to get editors of the key articles to buy-in to a standard that both they and the community would be comfortable--a standard they would be willing to adhere to. I think only a minority of editors refuse to have anything but the most precise technical definition in the WP:LEDE--I have met them. I do appreciate and respect their uncompromising desire for such rigorous material. I do think those editors have expertise on the subject and have much to offer--as long as they don't interfere with our desire to make the articles useful to read who lack such expertise.

I actually don't mind a precise technical definition in the WP:LEDE, but not in the first paragraph--I think it should be the last visible paragraph a person sees when article comes up, paragraph 2, sidebar, or image, or placed such that lay people understand its not written for them and allow them to focus on material that is. Likewise I think it is good to rigorous definitions that are easy to find for those who want them. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked around for some examples of pages, some of them covering topics of reasonably broad interest as opposed to being on extremely specialized subjects, that seem to me to be written at a level that is way above what we should expect Wikipedia readers to have to deal with. I say this with the understanding that there are some people who naturally think mathematically, and may react to what I say here with something like what's confusing about that?. But I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for content that is only accessible to them. So here are: Eigenvalues and eigenvectors, Rigged Hilbert space, Sturm–Liouville theory, Lie algebra, Hamiltonian mechanics, Lagrangian (field theory), and Hermitian adjoint. When I compare these with the guidelines used for, for example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, there's really no comparison. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The guideline many of us in the math and physics wikiprojects follow for readability is Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. In fact, that guideline has recently become part of the good article criteria. The two most important points in that guideline for me for me are (1) make the lead/intro as understandable as possible and (2) write one level down. Accessibility relative to the level of the topic is a more sensible approach than an absolute reading level because different topics have naturally different levels of source material. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The Introduction to viruses approach may be useful in some cases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

As an editor who restricts himself to math articles I would say that most math articles are poorly written. I would hope that more of us could follow the guidelines that Mark has just mentioned, but they are aspirational and hard to follow in practice. I see two sources for the problem, one of which is Wikipedia policy. Our insistence on using Reliable Sources (which I wholeheartedly support) has the consequence of us having to rely on math texts that in turn are themselves poorly written, at least from the standpoint of a general reader. The general form of modern math texts (definition, lemma, theorem, corollary, example, repeat) is meant to convey the relevant information for a certain type of reader; one with sufficient background and an ability to parse very densely packed information. There are math books written for a general audience, but except for a very few they indulge in lies we tell children in lieu of dealing with sophisticated concepts, and even these do not exist for advanced topics. The second source that I see lies in the field itself. Editors who write math articles are of course influenced by the math teachers they have had in the past. If we have done our job right, our students have been indoctrinated to prize precision above all else. Words are messy, they can have more than one meaning and sometimes you can't even figure out that meaning without knowing the context in which they are used. It is no surprise that to achieve precision as few words as possible are to be used. This explains why mathematical writing is so infused with symbols having specialized meanings. Good for precision, but very reader unfriendly. I do not have solutions for these problems. On a personal note, I do revert edits that replace prose by formulae, especially in introductory sections. I have written (and have seen some other attempts as well) some introductions in a very reader friendly way, only to have them revised to more traditional "mathematical" prose. I do feel that I am making some small headway in improving the math articles, but it is an uphill battle.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I just had the experience of having an article of mine trashed. I wrote a way for students to estimate logs using addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and powers. The excuse for trashing what I wrote to simplify things for students was it was not referenced.

2 plus 2 equals 4. What reference should I use. 2^3 power is 8. What reference should I use? When teachers or lay people go in and explain things on a more simplified level, the material is trashed as original ie not explicitly stated in some published text.

I even included a note at the bottom of the section that the section in question was a work in progress and I needed others to help.

Students are introduced to logs in high school but are often NOT told how to calculate a log using only precalculus techniques and with precalculus based justifications as to how to get a the value of a log which results in a fractional value. If this method was published in a recent textbook, I would simply have referenced that. As it is not, I put it there as a work in progress.

My chief complaint is that if wikipedia editors are doing that to me...then they are doing that to others who could explain technical material in a simple way. Realize that a drawing that would markedly simplify an article could be trashed as not previously published.

Many folks carry information on HOW to do something in their minds but dont have a published book on the topic. Wikipedia needs to have a designation for such explanations.

I am DISGUSTED with how Wikipedia handled this.

If volunteers TRY to add a simplified explanation or method and mark the article a work in progress, trashing the article is not helpful. Of note if I wrote the same thing in an e booklet and had it published, wikipedia would then accept the same material no matter HOW many copies were sold.

I would have hoped that before trashing what I submitted, the person destroying that would have DONE the math and though through what I was saying. Unless elementary mathematics of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and powers is WRONG....then the argument was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatherineDRogers (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Gallery captions

How do you center the captions of images? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Dandini Here in the gallery, all the captions are centered except for the last two. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Helpfulwikieditoryay: I made them consistent with the others. I have the feeling that it's not the "correct" way to do it (either they shouldn't be centered or using HTML center tags is not the "right" solution on WP), but I'll leave that for someone who knows or wants to investigate. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

comment from 73.52.90.253

I would like to learn more about the organization and how it works. I am a moderate conservative that is totally fed up with the state of this county. I refer to myself as "The Silent Majority" and I'd like to join an orgnaization tht strives to bring peace back to this country. As a Vietnam Veteran and someone who supports President Donald Tump I'm 100% fedup with the censorship we are seeing. You can't even Fast Check items to get the real truth. i.e. Number of Black assaults on Whites.

73.52.90.253 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are here to make some sort of political comment or create a political platform then you re at the wrong web site. This is an encyclopaedia based upon cited facts recorded by other people in reliable sources. Fiddle Faddle 21:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please visit Wikipedia:About to learn about Wikipedia. Be prepared to experience facts and information that might not fit your worldview, so brace yourself. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your service in the war. To learn more about Wikipedia, create an account. Then you can edit pages without worrying about people seeing your IP address, which gives away the location which you live. Additionally, you can join the WP:CVU, which is a unit that's focused on reverting vandalism. Form there, you can read all the Wikipedia policy pages and gain a thorough understanding on how Wikipedia works. If you have further questions, you can reply to this thread and someone will reply. First, however, it's highly recommended creating an account. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a political commentary site. Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @73.52.90.253: Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Many editors do not recommend wearing your politics on your sleeve here. Polemics are not the point of Wikipedia. Editing Wikipedia solely to advocate a specific point of view is not recommended either. Remember, the second of our five pillars is neutrality. However, Wikipedia is also not censored. We have an article about race and crime in the United States, and in the section § Assault, it already seems to mention what you're looking for. I'd also encourage you to review the page Wikipedia:No Nazis—I'm not saying you are one, that's just the name of the page. It's important to remember that, as it states, Racists are inherently incompatible with Wikipedia. If you're mostly interested in editing to push a racist POV, you're not going to have a good time here. Remember, also, we are not here to right great wrongs. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting that a page be removed or merged

Hello Teahouse Hosts,

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coven_(art_collective) because it is on the June 2020 list of articles that need improvement, and from what I can find via web search, neither this group nor its individual members have been cited in reliable third-party sources, and it appears that the art collective is no longer functioning, as some of the members have no listing on the La Centrale website. I was hoping to improve the article, but now think that it is perhaps not a useful entry and perhaps should be removed or at least merged with the La Centrale wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Centrale. That said, I'm a new editor and this would be my first suggested removal. I would welcome your advice and guidance on how best to proceed.

Thanks! Nunezjohns (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nunezjohns: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I had a look at that page and I agree it is not a notable enough organization for Wikipedia to have a page on it. I've nominated it for deletion. You can follow the discussion by clicking on the link at the top of the article page's AFD notice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @ThatMontrealIP. I appreciate your help! Nunezjohns (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest concerns

Admin billinghurst expressed concern that I may have a conflict of interest related to edits that I made on both the Sears Modern Homes wikipedia page, and the Kit House wikipedia page. I can fully understand why there would be a concern on first glance, because, as my user name shows, my personal area of interest is Sears houses. Admin billinghurst expressed concern that my website about Sears houses "appeared to be commercial in nature", and he therefore felt that I must have a conflict of interest in any edits that I make on Wikipedia pages related to Sears houses or kit houses, in general. However, my website, and the others that I linked to, are in no way commercial or related to any kind of sales or services or financial connection of any kind. None whatsoever. I write factual, research-based information about Sears houses (and other kit houses, in the U.S.), and how to identify them, and authenticate them, and I do this only because I have a personal, non-professional interest in this topic, because my mother grew up in a Sears house. I have a personal hobby of looking for Sears houses, and other kit houses, around the U.S., and share my interest with a select few other researchers who also have zero profit-related connections to this topic. Through our research in historical databases (such as historic newspapers, old lumberman journals, and mortgage and deed records in counties around the U.S.), and our reading of Sears Modern Homes catalogs, we have developed an admirably strong, and accurate, knowledge base. I frequently find hugely inaccurate information in newspaper articles and historical society newsletters, and seek simply to have a venue to help publish fact-based, supported, accurate, unbiased information, for historic purposes. That is why I began documenting the Sears houses that I find, on a website, and have further developed that website to offer resources for other researchers and interested parties. It is a unique resource, because it offers images of still-existing real-life Sears houses, and historic information on the background of many of the houses, as well as tips for others interested in correctly identifying these historic homes. For this reason, I was hoping to offer it (Sears House Seeker), and another extremely reputable website, Kit House Hunters, as additional resources on the Wikpedia pages related to Sears Modern Homes and Kit Houses. Admin billinghurst referred me to the helpful Wikipedia tutorial page on adding External links, and, after reading through all of information on that page, I feel certain that I am not going against any of the policies, either in spirit or in practice. May I add, for your consideration, that the websites that I added as external links, fall under the category of: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail. The websites that I added offer carefully researched material for the purpose of helping others recognize and appreciate kit houses around the U.S. They offer many pages of images of real-world Sears (or other company) kit houses, and images of elements that help identify these historic homes, and each has its own unique educational and informative focus. Further, I would add that the external links to SearsHomes.org and Sears-Homes.com (Sears Homes of Chicagoland) that have been allowed as part of the external links on these two Wikipedia pages for years, are for websites of the same nature, in general, as the websites that I linked to -- though the websites that I linked to bring additional information to readers, because they offer more robust exploration and educational information about the process behind looking for and documenting kit houses, as well as additional historic and data-driven information. I respectfully request that my external links be reviewed, so that you can see that they are factual, informative, educational, and not profit related in any way, and I further respectfully request that my edits be allowed to stand. Searshouse (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Searshouse: Please consider reworking that wall of text into a concise and readable question, RudolfRed (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

More to the point, as Billinghurst was the editor who reverted your edits at both articles, go to User talk:Billinghurst and start a discussion there. I recommend following RudolfRed's advice - brevity, brevity, brevity. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Short discussion started on talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Searshouse: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The situation where an editor is also the publisher of a source that is used in an article is strenuously avoided here on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. The neutrality of the wiki is a paramount concern, and while you might think that your site on Sears houses is the best most accurate thing out there, but you are not in a position to say that neutrally as you have an obvious conflict of interest. If you need to discuss Billinghurst's revert of that material, the article talk page is probably the best place, or on his talk page if you have already started the discussion there. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Follow up

Quick follow up from before: Just a quick follow up question for anybody: if I find information without a reliable source but it turns out to be true, am I now in charge of adding the source? Or should I contact the editor who added the information. Please let me know for the future, thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Lima Bean Farmer. If there is unsoured info in an article, but you believe it to be true, you have several options.

You could find and add a valid source. This helps the article, probably more than anything else yo0u could do.
You could add a {{cn}} tag, in effect asking someone else to provide the source. This at elast lotes tht a source is needed. You could include in your edit summary that you think the statement is correct, and why.
You could post on the article talk page, describing why you think the unsourced statement is in fact accurate, but needs a source, and any hints of where to find a source you might have. In such a post you might ping the editor who added the statement, which can be found from the article history. That editor might know of a valid source.
If the content was not inserted by you, you could, just ignore the issue. No one on Wikipedia is ever required to edit any particular article, or to clean up another editor's errors. However this does not improve the article at all.

Note that not all statements need be cited to a source. See WP:BLUE. If a statement is not a quotation, is not an extraordinary claim, is not controversial or challenged or likely to be challenged, and is not a negative statement about a living person, a source is not required. Adding a source in such cases may be helpful, but is not essential. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you DES! That’s very helpful. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Reusing Links

Hello, Teahouse, I was just wondering whether, when editing a draft article, I could reuse the same link.-Thanks! Midshipman Percy (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Midshipman Percy (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Midshipman Percy. Can you clarify what you mean by link? Do you mean WP:WIKILINK, WP:EXTERNALLINK or WP:CITATION. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I was using external links from other pages not from wiki.-Thanks for answering! Midshipman Percy (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Midshipman Percy: Out of interest, did you know you have included this PubMed citation in your draft of a shoot 'em up software article? See WP:REFNAME for how to re-use a citation many times. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

PubMed? Must have been a mistake, thanks for telling me! Midshipman Percy (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My edit was blocked

I am new here and was attempting to edit an article for which I had made an image. The image is .png, and is 1Mb in size.

Upon deleting another image which mine was to replace, I got an error message which stated that there was something wrong, and I could follow several links to find out more. I followed a link but failed to find out what went wrong.

I then tried again, planning to follow another link to see if this would be more helpful. Instead, I was blocked as potentially malicious.

I am not malicious! I worked for a week to make a really educational image explaining the working of Stellar Parallax measurement in a quite improved way compared to what was visible on the page before.

Can anyone help me navigate to a solution?

Much obliged,

Peter PdeQuant (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi PdeQuant, welcome to the Teahouse. I see from [11] that you tried an upload method which has problems. Try commons:Special:UploadWizard instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you that worked! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax

Semi-protection

Hello TeaHouse, how long will i have to wait before I can edit semi-protected articles, I started on the 22nd of June 2020.-Thanks! Midshipman Percy (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Midshipman Percy (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Midshipman Percy: One must have an account at least 4 days old and made 10 edits. You should get there in a few hours. 217.68.167.73 (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I just wanted to add a couple of things to the Plague.-Thanks Midshipman Percy (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

How to find valid source?

How to find a valid source? If I want to write a biography of a person or to write about an organization. Apart from it, how many things I have to disclose on talk page? Bloggerkratika (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be attempting to create an article about your employer. This is a bad idea; please read and digest Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. (Unsurprisingly, your draft reads like a PR release.) Good sources probably don't exist.

If your primary purpose is to publicize your employer, please do so on some other website. If your primary purpose is to dispassionately inform readers, you are welcome to continue within Wikipedia, but please write about some other subject. -- Hoary (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I got your point, but my motive is to inform readers about honey Katiyal and his great contribution for the real estate industry.

Courtesy: This is about Draft:Honey Katiyal, which has not yet been submitted for review. Bloggerkratika has declared a Paid relationship on own User page and on Talk page of the draft. In my opinion the tone is promotional and the references weak - for example, one is written by HK, another an interview. David notMD (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bloggerkratika. I'm afraid that "to inform readers about XXX and his great contribution" is called promotion, and is fundamentally incompatible with the purposes of Wikipedia. Even if you try to be objective, if that is your purpose, it is going to be difficult for you to write sufficiently neutrally. But if you insist on going ahead, to partly answer your question, remember that Wikipedia is basically not interested in

anything said, written, or published by Katiyal about himself
anything said, written, or published about him his by employees, employers, relatives, or associates.

and that includes anything said in the course of an interview, or in a press release, even if these are published by somebody else. Wikipedia is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about them, and been published somewhere reliable. --ColinFine (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Zinc sulfide

How can you separate Zinc Sulfide into its original elements using basic means? UB Blacephalon (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: The Teahouse is for discussing how to use Wikipedia. I think you want WP:RD. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Approval of draft

Please someone should help me in approving my draft for review Draft:2020 Kansallinen Liiga, I submitted it 9 days ago but I need it to be reviewed and approved for easier updates. My last article for review didn't take up to 5 days before it was reviewed and approved. I'll be grateful if the administrators can make it quick, it's difficult for me to search for the draft then update it since the article is an ongoing event. Josedimaria (talk)11:40,26 June 2020 (UTC).

Josedimaria237 Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers(not just administrators); it theoretically could take five minutes, or five months. There is no way to know for certain, though it usually takes a few weeks. As noted in the submission template, "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,129 pending submissions waiting for review." Efforts to "jump the line" like this don't usually work. You will have to be patient. There shouldn't be any need to search for the draft if you have watchlisted it, it should appear in your watchlist, it also appears in your contribution history. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

331dot As soon as I posted this, I received a notification immediately saying it has been reviewed but the sad thing is that the article is an existing article but however it's a blank article. I was told to improve the existing article whereas when I created and submitted mine that existing article hadn't been created, now should I delete the Draft:2020 Kansallinen Liiga or should I convert the existing article 2020 Kansallinen Liiga to a redirect?

Are you referring to Kansallinen Liiga? If that article needs work still, you are welcome to edit it. You can tag your draft with a user request delete if you wish. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thanks, I'll do that now

Josedimaria237 (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

how to write an article about the organisation?

how do I start writing an article about the organization? Bloggerkratika (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You essentially got answers to this question above, please do not create additional sections for similar questions. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The answers about the organisation are essentially the same as the answers about the leader, Bloggerkratika, including about your purpose. It is possible, that the organisation is NORG notable (and an article could in principle exist) but the founder is not; or the other way round. Or they might both be notable. If they are, it is likely that some of the sources will work for both, but not all, --ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks -ColinFine

Draft:Bhaukal, Review

I have added many sources for the subject of this article. I think that would be enough. Will be added if more sources are required. Along with this, the subject of the article will also be extended. Review article. Thank you Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arun singh Yaduvanshi, as you know your draft is already being in the process of being reviewed again, this can take up to days or weeks, no need to ask here because this will not speed up this process. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

To second that - Teahouse volunteers answer questions about Wikipedia. Reviewers are an entirely separate group of volunteers. David notMD (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

In case you can't read what it says in the box on the draft, it says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,134 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

A point to note here is that adding wikiproject templates to your draft’s talk page will increase your chances of a speedy review (no guarantee, but the first time I did that, my articles were approved in a day). RBBB9911Talk 12:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

alamy.com selling my photo and making a profit how to stop it

I noticed that alamy is selling a photo I donated to wikipedia and making it look as if I am selling this photo, but I am not selling it and I don't want to sell it. What is the relationship between wikipedia and alamy? I never used alamy before and I don't even have an account with them. They are scammers selling free photos? It says I am selling the photo for $19.00 for full digital rights. This is a complete lie. I refuse to sell my photo for any reason and I am embarrassed by this commercialism. Do all wikipedia photos become property of alamy? They will certainly be hearing from me about this, but I need to know where I stand before I confront them about this. Maybe someone else is selling the photo who also stole it? How can I remove this embarrassment? Ty78ejui (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: Can you provide a link to where this is happening? When you freely license your images (which is required to donate them to Wikipedia), you permit others to sell them, subject to certain conditions. (We can check if alamy.com is complying with those conditions if you provide a link.) But others would be pretty foolish to pay alamy.com for them, when they are available for free on Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: Welcome to Wikipedia. There is no relationship between Wikipedia and Alamy. Whatever they are doing with the photo you uploaded here you will need to discuss with them. We can't offer legal advice. RudolfRed (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes here is the link https://www.alamy.com/carmelo-zito-image153128780.html This is a picture of my father and I give it freely. He was a Socialist and would not approve of this. If anyone was selling it, it should be me. Ty78ejui (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Ty78ejui: You might want to read Alamy#Criticism. I believe the second paragraph describes a similar situation. The key is that, in order for you to upload the image to Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons), you had to license it with a "free license", which allows re-use with attribution by anyone for any purpose, including selling it. If Alamy has properly cited the source, they are in the clear. Even if they haven't, it seems that, in the referenced case, Highsmith was unable to recover because she granted a similar free license to the LoC. I'm guessing that only the last licensor (in that case, the LoC) has standing, but this is just a guess, as I am not a lawyer (and not offering legal advice). As was said above, please do provide us with a link to the image in question both here and at alamy.com so that, if they are not properly following the license, the WMF can have a chat with them. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I posted the link and here is again, maybe I should go into the photo itself and restrict the rights on it? Maybe it is a matter of I had selected the wrong settings for the photo? If I was just like a plant or a flower I would not really care, but its my father. https://www.alamy.com/carmelo-zito-image153128780.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ty78ejui (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ty78ejui: Right – we were posting at the same time (ec = edit conflict). Changing to a non-free license (if it even lets you do that) would only result in it being deleted from Wikipedia (or Commons). As long as they grabbed it when it was freely licensed (which they did), you can't later reduce their their rights under that license. I don't see any attribution to Wikipedia, but perhaps someone more familiar with Alamy and these situations can comment about whether they have a license statement somwhere I am not seeing or whether the issue needs to be forwarded to the WMF copyright folks.

File:Carmelo Zito.jpg appears to be the Commons image at issue, which was uploaded in 2014 by Apriv40dj, who last edited in 2015. Is that your account as well? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I created the article and upload that and some other items. That was me. I am not sure I can get into that account anymore, due to the password situation. I am was not able to do a reset because I had not connected an email to that account. Ty78ejui (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already contacted alamy by phone and email. They don't answer the phone and they have a voice mail in place. I will be following up with them. I don't know if they are going to ignore me because they do this all the time. They must have so many angry people wanting photos removed that they probably just ignore all messages. Ty78ejui (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ty78ejui. Once you release one of your images under a free license to Commons, you can't really go back and change or revoke the original license as explained in c:COM:LRV; so, trying to restrict the rights on it is going to mean that the file will end up being deleted from Commons; moreover, Commons doesn't really deal with c:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions and there will be no real acceptable way to try add such restrictions to a Commmons file that would still allow the file to meet c:COM:L. Since this file was uploaded to Commons, you might want to try asking about it at c:COM:VPC, but I think your probably get the same or similar answers to what you've gotten here. FWIW, nothing resolved in a Wikipedia or Commons discussion is probably going to be able to stop Alamy from doing what they're doing; you most like will need to find another way to do that. Maybe try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly here to see what they say. This is probably not the first time this type of thing has happened so perhaps the WMF can advise you on what might be possible in a case like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I notice that everyone is talking about licensing, but the image is tagged public domain. RudolfRed (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ty78ejui the image File:Carmelo Zito.jpg is tagged as being in the public domain. If the photographer died more than 70 years ago, or if the picture was published in 1923 or before, that is correct under US law. Copyright law in other countries is similar, but details and dates differ. If the photo is PD, then anyone has the legal right to make and sell copies, although not to claim a copyright on them. Had it been uploaded under a valid CC-BY-SA license, reusing it without attribution would be a copyright infringement, but the Wikimedia Foundation would not be helpful here. The Foundation has long taken the position that individual contributors own their own copyrights, and are individually responsible for undertaking any legal actions needed to defend them. It defends only the various foundation trademarks and logos. I don't think anyone here or on commons will be able to help you. If you think the image is still under copyright protection, you would need to consult your own lawyer or adviser. If it isn't then reprinting it for a fee may be immoral in some eyes, but is perfectly legal. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Consult a lawyer for detailed legal advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, there are some problems with the image. It is listed on commons with a date of 2014, which seems to be the date of upload, no0t the date the photo was taken, and is listed as "own work" which cannot be accurate. That would be a claim that you took the photo, not that you scanned it or uploaded it.This should be corrected, with an accurate date for the photo given if possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ty78ejui. RudolfRed is correct. The account you say is your previous account uploaded this photo as a public domain image in 2014. By doing so, you released all rights to the image, including the right of attribution of the image to you. Anyone can use public domain images anywhere for any purpose, including moneymaking ventures. I could start a company selling posters, coffee mugs, and T-shirts decorated with the photo of your father, and you can't do anything about it. I could modify the photo, colorize it or photoshop it into a group photo with other people and sell that too. The same thing is true of Alamy. That horse left the barn six years ago when you released the photo into the public domain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Cullen328 that is not correct, at least not under US law. Under US law a work is in the public domain if its copyright has expired, or if it was never protected by copyright for any of several reasons (Federal government work, not an original work, etc) or copyright was not renewed (during the period when renewal was required, it no longer is) or if it was published without a copyright notice (prior to 1978). But no one can "release a work into the Public domain". If the copyright has not lapsed or been canceled by the operation of copyright law, it is not PD, although the copyright owner can give rights to a public entity, such as the Library of Congress, which will not enforce copyright, or can release the work under a free license.

If the designation of this photo as PD in 2014 was legally incorrect, then it is may be still under copyright, although it may be that a party who relied on the PD designation in good faith would be immune from more than nominal damages in a suit. The key questions would be:

When was the photo taken and by whom?
When did the photographer die?
When and where was the photo first published?

See this well-known chart for details. That is all under US law, if the photo was taken elsewhere the law of that country may apply. Alamy is apparently a UK company, so UK law may apply.

In any case a copyright suit is usually about economic damages, and in that case I wonder how much actual economic value this image has, which might well mean that a suit would cost far more to bring than it would possibly win. Ty78ejui please take note, and you might do well to consult a copyright lawyer if you wish to proceed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC) @Cullen328: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, my comment above was based on the assumption that Ty78ejui as the son of the person portrayed had inherited the rights to what he calls a "family photo". You are correct that the situation is murky if the photo was taken by a professional photographer or was previously published somewhere. Then, the date of publication and the death date of the photographer would be critical in determining its status. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, DESiegel, a copyright holder can voluntarily release an image or any copyrighted work into the public domain if they so choose, and it is done all the time. And copyrights can be inherited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, Copyrights can certainly be inherited, and can also be sold or given away. However, the person portrayed in a photo would not own the rights to the photo, the person who took the photo, whether a professional or not, would, initially. If that person was a member of the family, the OP might well have inherited the rights. But simply posting a statement describing a photo as in the public domain does not make it so, even if the person doing so is the copyright holder. Copyright duration is governed by 17 USC 301-305. Nothing in any of these sections provides for the ability of an author or copyright holder to dedicate a work to the public domain. Sections 203 and 303 provide that any copyright transfer or license may be terminated by the grantor(s) or their heirs, within certain time limits (for works created or published after 1978, from 35-40 years after creation or publication, for earlier works at a time related to the renewal date) and this right to terminate cannot be contracted away or disclaimed in advance. This would apply to a dedication to the public. Note that the intro to the Creative Commons Zero license says Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. ... many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain. In short, under US law, my understanding is that an author cannot effectively release a work into the public domain -- the most that can be done is to grant a free license without conditions to anyone, and even this may be canceled in the termination period. See also copyright office circular 15a: Duration of Copyright. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually I got some of that wrong. The article was created by a friend of mine who is big on Wikipedia because he felt it was a good thing to do, but I was the one who asked him to help with it. I don't mean to have said I was him, but I was the one who wanted the article created. Maybe some other person would have later done so, most likely, but this was in the earlier days of Wikipedia. There is more information about him at the UC Berkeley Library that has not yet been digitized transferred. I am hoping someone would be interested enough to research my father and add to his Wikipedia as almost all of it is in Italian and I don't read or speak Italian. Ty78ejui (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

how are you

41.113.110.21 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Introducing an indigenous language

How can I introduce an African indigenous language in Wikipedia? Mmaua (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mmaua: Do you mean creating a new article about an African language that does not have its own article yet? If so, see Help:Your first article. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

ARTICLE CREATION

How do I start creating a new article and losting it on Wikipedia? McOREAL (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@McOREAL: See Help:Your first article. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 16:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

McOREAL I would advise you that successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice, and if you dive right in without at least a basic understanding of Wikipedia and the process of creating an article, you will set yourself up for disappointment and grief as your work is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others. I don't want you to have bad feelings, so I would strongly advise you to first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, (for weeks if not months) to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.

If you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should read the page suggested by Ganbaruby and then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you find out any problems first. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

what if my editing is a little bit wrong

Createinspire (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Createinspire Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Honest mistakes or minor errors can easily be corrected by yourself or another editor- and as long as you learn from your mistakes and change going forward, that's fine. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

will wikipedia charge money i my editing is wrong grammaticaly Createinspire (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Createinspire Wikipedia will not charge you money for anything at all. I have moved your question to the section of this page you made earlier; if you have follow up comments, please edit this existing section. If you create a new section, remember to type your question in the larger edit window and not the smaller section header window. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

will my account be deleted after 365 days

Createinspire (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Createinspire Nope, Wikipedia accounts are never deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

when i created my account it was showing that save my 365 days so will happen after that Createinspire (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That refers to how long you will remain logged in if you check that box, on the 366th day you will just need to log in again. Again, type your question in the larger edit window, please, not the smaller window which is for edit summaries or section headers. If you are using the mobile version in a browser you may find it easier to switch to the desktop version on your phone. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

First article - I'm probably not doing this right!

Hello! I am new here and am grateful that Teahouse is a resource within Wikipedia as it looks as if this is the place I can ask the "stupid questions" I'd been so fearful to ask! I am creating a wikipedia page for a colleague (a university professor and researcher) and I am confused in terms of the conflict of interest. I have somewhat read about the conflict of interest but I am still unsure of how to go about disclosing the COI. I've created the page in my sandbox, but have not yet published as a draft. Is there any guidance you can give on COI; how I should disclose, if I can even create this page or if I should have someone else submit the draft for review? Any guidance you can provide is greatly appreciated. I admit I have read through many, many pages looking for guidance and have fallen defeated and overwhelmed with all of the information provided (no complaints there). I understand from some of the posts I've read that Teahouse cannot provide specific answers, but I will take whatever you all can provide. Thank you so much, in advance. Jessica Washington (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Jessica Washington Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to be aware of it but I'll link to the conflict of interest policy just in case. There are templates that can be used to declare a COI, but a simple statement on your user page or user talk page is usually sufficient.

If you are employed by your colleague, you will need to make the stricter paid editing declaration. It doesn't sound like you are, but I thought I'd mention it.

You have no edits logged under your account so I assume you have not saved the draft yet. "Publish changes" should be understood to mean "save changes", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". It used to say "save changes" but was changed to emphasize that all saved edits are visible to the public(even drafts) whether or not the page is an encyclopedia article. I might suggest that you use Articles for Creation to create and submit your draft. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetic code

When readers search for "alphabetic code" they are brought to Federal_Reserve_Bank#Banks, applicable to only a narrow range of readers. I would like them to go to phonics#The alphabetic principle (also: The alphabetic code), a world-wide topic. I would then add a hatnote about Federal_Reserve_Bank#Banks.

I have looked at Help:Disambiguation but still don't know what to do.

Can you help? John (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jnhmunro and welcome to the Teahouse. Actually a search for "alphabetic code" produces a list of articles where the two words are used adjacently or in close proximity, with Alphabetic principle first on the list (and that article links to Phonics). It is true that Federal_Reserve_Bank#Banks is the only search suggestion, but if the user dowes not accept that, the full list of results appears.

WP:DAB says: Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles.

It would be possible to create Alphabetic code as a Disambiguation page, listing several possible articles about meanings of this phrase, but I am not sure that it is a good idea. The current search results find several relevant pages. Is there reason to think this is a frequently searched term? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I created the redirect Alphabetic code → phonics#The alphabetic principle (also: The alphabetic code). Redirects are cheap and there is no need that they be used frequently to justify their existence, so the redirect is a strict improvement over a redlink. It might be that the reader would be better-served with a full-fledge article or a disambiguation page; I do not have enough familiarity of the topic to know that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jnhmunro and Tigraan: Should the redirect destination of Alphabetic code be Alphabetic principle instead? From both articles it seems as if the two phrases are synonymous. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jnhmunro, Tigraan, and Ganbaruby: I have converted this to a DAB page, with Alphabetic principle as the first entry. If this were to be a redirect instead, i agree that Alphabetic principle would be the better target. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Alphabetic code is used by teachers and gets many more results in a Google search. Alphabet principle is used by linguists. I will consider writing an article about alphabetic code for all the teachers out there. John (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If you do that, Jnhmunro, please retain the DAB page I created, either making your new article at something like Alphabetic code (Education) or else moving the DAB page to Alphabetic code (disambiguation), and of course in either case adding your new article to the DAB page. Thanks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

problem with a submission

Dear all, I am italian and new on english wikipedia. I tried to post just a translation about a italian page (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trieste_Contemporanea) I need to understand how to publish it also in english.

Thank you in advance

maluto2020 Maluto2020 (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maluto2020: Have a look at WP:TRANSLATE. Note that the english and italian wikipedia are seperated projects with different rules, so the existence of an article in one language doesn't gurantee that it will be kept in others as well. I dont speak italian, but from what I can guess the italian version lacks reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your anser but I don't understand what is the meeining or lacks of reliable source. I add Cei (The Central European Initiative (CEI) was founded in Budapest on 11 November 1989. It is a regional intergovernmental forum committed to supporting European integration and sustainable development through cooperation between and among its Member States and with the European Union, international and regional organizations as well as with other public or private institutions and non-governmental organisations. While acting as a platform for political dialogue, the CEI has developed a strong operational, result-oriented approach to regional cooperation. It combines multilateral diplomacy and fund, programme and project management as both donor and recipient. The everyday CEI activities are handled by the CEI-Executive Secretariat in Trieste, including the development and implementation of projects.) and also an important link to Gillo Dorfles (Born in Trieste to a Gorizian father of Jewish descent[2] and a Genoese mother, Dorfles graduated in medicine, specializing in psychiatry. He was a professor in aesthetics at the University of Trieste, Milan and Cagliari and, in 1948, established the MAC (Movimento per l'arte concreta) with artists Atanasio Soldati, Galliano Mazzon, Gianni Monnet, and Bruno Munari. His paintings were displayed in two personal exhibitions held in Milan in 1949 and 1950 and also in numerous collective MAC exhibitions in the 1950s. In 1956 Dorfles co-founded the ADI (Associazione per il disegno industriale) an important figure of Trieste. maluto2020 Maluto2020 Thank you for your suggestion.

Hello, Maluto2020. Draft:Trieste Contemporanea currently cites only one source, the web site of CEI Venice Forum for Contemporary Art Curators. This does not go into any detail on what the Trieste Contemporanea is and does, so it does not constitute significant coverage. In any case, even if it did, it is from an affiliated organization, as I understand it, so it may be a reliable source but it is not an Independent source. The draft should cite several sources that are reliable, independent, and include significant coverage of the Contemporanea, to demonstrate organizational notability. Does that help explain the situation her on en.Wikipedia a bit? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Difference between article accepted from draft and reviewed?

Hi,

I submitted a draft article and it was accepted in mainspace but not marked as reviewed (article Scantrust). However another article that I had submitted as a draft was simultaneously accepted and marked as reviewed by the same reviewer.

It seems that I was under the wrong impression that if I submit an article through the drafting and reviewing process and it gets accepted, then this implicitly means that the article was also reviewed. So I am trying to understand if this is usual, and if accepting an article and reviewing an article 2 separate actions? Many thanks, Factfox (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC) Factfox (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Factfox Yes, those are two separate things. The 'reviewed' that you mention refers to marking the page as checked by another editor, this enables search engines to index the article. This is a separate process so that articles directly created by users(and not through Articles for Creation/ the draft process) get checked. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thank you for the quick and clear response, I appreciate it. Just a follow-up question: since the review process is intended primarily for articles that are directly created by users, do you know if this normal that my article was accepted but not reviewed? Thanks again, Factfox (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That normal. Not all those reviewing drafts will take the step and mark the new article as 'reviewed', possibly so some other eyes look at it. New page reviewers will do that. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Note also, not all AFC reviewers necessarily have the WP:NPP permission to do it even if they would if they could. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot and Usedtobecool, it's all clear now! Factfox (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Eames chair

Can you add a picture of the famous Charles Eames chair to the Charles Eames page? 174.21.44.151 (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP Editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. The chair is not currently mentioned in Charles Eames, do you have any sources to cite about it? Do you know of a freely licensed picture of the chair, or could you take one yourself? This could all be discussed on Talk:Charles Eames. You can't upload a file directly without creating and logging into an account, i believe, but you could use Wikipedia:Files for upload. Wikipedia strongly prefers freely licensed images, and will only use non-=free images under quite limited circumstances. And in general any image in any article should help thye reader understand the subject better, not just serve as decoration. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Eames Lounge Chair (Assuming you mean this one)

Hi, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, you can’t do so, if you are talking about the aforementioned chair, because there is already a picture of it on Charles and Ray Eames. If you have a better picture, then you probably can replace the old one with your picture. RBBB9911Talk 15:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just added a picture of it to Charles Eames. I hadn't realised that there was another article, Charles and Ray Eames. Maybe the two articles need to be merged, but I'm not competent to do that. Maproom (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

.. and the latter article shows two very different chairs. Please feel free to revert my addition. I'm out of here, before I make things any worse. Maproom (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that Charles Eames was split out of Charles and Ray Eames. about a year and a half ago, but oddly does not currently contain a link to the latter article. There is currently nothing in the article about what char is THE Eames chair, it seems that he designed a number of chairs. More sourced info would probably help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maproom and DESiegel: I left a note at Talk:Charles Eames#Wrong chair. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

SOS

Hi Nyook that was my kid he was just on my pc and edited the page. 82.26.45.170 (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Made SOS a new question (?), as it appeared to have nothing to do with Jessica. 82.26.45.170 has made a total of three edits - all today - all vandalism - all reverted. David notMD (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

and Nyook was the editor that rolled one of them back. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:My little brother did it" is an essay that is sometimes worth reading. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please help me

I am not very good when it comes to computers. I had a great side bar, if that is what you call it, that shows in basket, trash, sent, all mail, etc. I keep everything there under their names. I don't know how I did it but I was in all mail and somehow deleted absolutely everything that was stored there including my medical charts, home and auto insurance information, etc. My life basically. I must have hit delete somehow and now everything is gone, no conversations left, just the title of the files. I am in a real mess. Does anyone know how to retrieve this information and put it back where it belongs? Please, anyone, help me. Alice 2600:8800:7B00:FF3:9D67:A143:9922:C7AD (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

First check the recycle bin. - than, if that doesn't work, go onto youtube (if you still have it) and type in your problem to get helpful videos. That's all I know.PMurthy1011 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Alice, this help desk is for questions related to editing Wikipedia; for your query, try the computing reference desk. For future reference, this is why you should always make sure to back up vital information. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

significance of the Mayan number 13

the revelance of turtles w/ 13 scutes, marsupials w/ 13 tits and the Mayan calender beginning w/ 13 Bakus Bigcocomo (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

What help in using Wikipedia are you asking for? -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir I am still a educaing school student at class 9 am i allowed to do editing at this age

Createinspire (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. You might find, depending on where you are at school, that editing from your school may not be allowed, but we have no age limits that I am aware of. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Createinspire: I'd recommend that you read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, which has some good advice. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Hi guys, May I please know how I can nominate an article for deletion?PMurthy1011 (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. GoingBatty (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, how may I create a new sandbox for an article?-because my original one already has one.PMurthy1011 (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite understand' but if you're wondering how to create a second sandbox, then click on User:PNSMurthy/Sandbox2 and start using it. (If you don't like the address, then change it; but it should be User:PNSMurthy/Something-or-other .) -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks man!PNSMurthy (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Pls tell how to insert signature template

INSTALKER (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear @INSTALKER, you just have to add 4(four) tilde sign [ANUPAM DUTTA 06:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)] at the very end after a blank space and voila you are done... Cheers ANUPAM DUTTA 06:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

INSTALKER Welcome to Teahouse, if you are talking about userpage signature, then you just have to put ~~~~ at last of your message here, and it creates a signature like mine at last of my reply. If you are talking about signature template in a biography article, then see Template:Bio . — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 07:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to edit your signature you can visit Preferences setting and change it there. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)}

Links in blue

If you check the article 2019–20 Nigeria Professional Football League for instance, you'll find out that at the topscorers list, only two of the players there are actually articles on Wikipedia, whereas all of the players there are written in blue but when you click on them, you'll find out they are all blank articles, this is the third time I'll be seeing something like this on Wikipedia recently.

The other players which aren't articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be in red but they're written in blue, why?

Even my user page is in blue, while there's no user page on Wikipedia with the name Josedimaria237,it used to be in red. Josedimaria237 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Josedimaria237. It's a recent error which only affects the mobile version of Wikipedia. The "Desktop" link at the bottom gives correct red links. It has been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Red links are shown as blue in mobile version and phab:T256503. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft Shamsher Singh (Journalist)

Hello! I want to get a feedback on the article and some suggestions to improve it. If you think that no improvements are required then please help me by Approving the article. It has all references and is properly linked to other Wiki pages. SinghPurnima72 (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC) SinghPurnima72 (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse editors are not draft reviewers. Asking for a review here does not get you a review. Draft:Shamsher Singh (journalist) was submitted 13 days ago. As clearly stated at the top of the review template, reviewing may take six weeks or more. David notMD (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

While waiting, the section Early life needs references, as does his being with Asian Age. David notMD (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambig and See Also policy

Are there any specific policies regarding disambiguation page links in see also sections? I couldn’t find any at WP:MOS. Firestarforever (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine why you'd ever want to link to a disambiguation page in a "See also" section. But I suppose there might be a reason. Maproom (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Firestarforever: MOS:SEEALSO actually prohibits disambiguation page links in the see also section. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 14:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

My History before I established a User page

Hi There. I had been contributing for several years as franburke2 before recently setting up a User page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Franburke2 but none of my prior edits are recorded - can they be added or have they disappeared (they used to be visible)? Thanks. Franburke2 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Franburke2: I can see your previous edits at Special:Contributions/Franburke2. Can you not? Deor (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Franburke2: I can also see them. TheAwesome Hwyh 16:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Franburke2: Might this just be a misunderstanding? Your prior edits are called "contributions", and may be viewed per the link provided by Deor. Perhaps you were looking at your user page, and clicked on "History" from there. That would display only those edits made to the user page. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that Traveling Man may be correct. If you want to see your contributions, just click on "contributions" at the very top of any page when you're logged in. Deor (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all - @Deor:, @TheAwesomeHwyh:, @Traveling Man:. They're clear as day now! Franburke2 (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Agege Kingdom was founded by Olabua Ohunfa in 15th centuries.

Who is the founder of Agege [founder of Agege Kingdom] Atlando (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Atlando: Welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. If the Agege article doesn't give you what you're looking for, you might want to try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about editing disputes

Hi there,

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. I've been editing wikipedia for years, mostly small edits and copy edits, but I've never been involved in a dispute. I'm aware of the 3 revert rule and the general guideline to try to resolve disputes using talk pages rather than edit warring.

I guess I'm looking for some general advice on how to approach another editor who has made a large number of very poorly written and badly sourced contributions to otherwise high quality articles. Some of the additions were factually correct, new info, from good sources, but out of place or lacked context. Others were explicitly incorrect or came from random websites that could not be construed as reliable. I tried reverting and explaining my rational on the talk page, but the other editor just reverted everything back. I know many high quality articles have one or a few editors who actively patrol them. I'm not sure if I should wait for one of them to step in here, or what the next step is. Any tips?

P.S. As an example, one source cited was www.ecigarette-politics.com, which notes on its about page "I am not sympathetic to any restrictions on EV-related products of any type, except quality controls as existing for example in normal EU consumer product regulations; nor to EV businesses or groups who support any such restrictions. E-Cigarette regulations cost lives." This is very clearly an advocacy organization with an obvious slant, and as such I don't think it could ever be considered a reliable source of info (except about itself). Wallnot (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: From looking at your contributions, the articles in question appear to be Nicotine, Nicotine dependence and Cannabis (drug), and the editor in question User talk:Machinexa. You have correctly started discussions on the appropriate talk pages of those articles, and left messages on the talk page of Machinexa. If this cannot be resolved by those methods, come back to Teahouse and ask for what next steps are. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In reviewing the changes to Nicotine and Nicotine dependence by Machinexa, I came to the conclusion that many/all of the references provided in support of the text changes did not meet WP:MEDRS, so I reverted the article to a point before Machinexa's first edit. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks so much for your help with this. In the future, if another editor is not willing to try to come to a consensus via discussion on the talk page, where should I go from there? Wallnot (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wallnot. Dispute resolution should answer your question. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

What is WP:merds? I m not understandiing it

WP:merds says something related to medicine shouldn't be included. I don't know what. Can someone show with exampe how merd.applies? Machinexa (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machinexa (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Machinexa: Welcome to the Teahouse! I see some of your recent edits to the Nicotine article were reverted by David notMD, who stated that the references do not meet WP:MEDRS. As part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the best place to start the discussion would be the article talk page: Talk:Nicotine. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Machinexa MEDRS is short for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). It specifies the required source quali8ty for medical information in Wikipedia articles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

For example, I reverted your additions to the cannabis article because the text you added was supported by refs that were in vitro work, animal studies or individual human trials. David notMD (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

GOT IT ARCHIVE THIS David notMD _{DESiegel Contribs} 20:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC) GoingBatty

Furries

Hi,im a furry,im just curious if furries are allowed to edit Wikipedia... •-• i know this is a stupid queston...*inches away* Outcastcat (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Outcastcat: Welcome to Wikipedia. We don't care what your hobbies are. Anyone may edit Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are sharing a keyboard, remember to vacuum loose hairs when you are done. And perhaps visit Furry fandom. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Links in blue 2

Please the Wikipedia administrators should find something to do about this issue of links in blue that are supposed to be in red. It's affecting editing, if not for others but for me.

Thanks Josedimaria237 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Josedimaria237 You have already asked about this, and received an answer at the #Links in blue section above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, being a Wikipedia administrator (i) has nothing to do with technical issues and (ii) is unpaid. So Wikipedia administrators have at least two reasons for being under no obligation to do anything at all.

If you want to write yet more about this, then please do so here, not in yet another new thread. -- Hoary (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sup y’all just got an account wanna edit but have no clue about referencing??

Loco j Mazaray (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Then read Help:Referencing for beginners. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Loco j Mazaray: ... or WP:ERB. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Creation of Table

Hi fellow Wikipedians,

For creating a table, is there any alternative to html format, like copy & paste ?? Thanks in advance. ANUPAM DUTTA 05:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamdutta73 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Anupamdutta73 Welcome to Teahouse, i suggest copy paste formats from other articles can help us in learning. For example using this code

{| class="wikitable" |- style="background:#cfc; text-align:center;" |'''Serial''' |'''Name''' |'''Age''' |'''Residence''' |'''Notes''' |- |Serial 1 |Name 1 |Age 1 |Residence 1 |Notes 1 |}

Creates

Serial	Name	Age	Residence	Notes
Serial 1	Name 1	Age 1	Residence 1	Notes 1

For more you can visit MOS:TABLE . In the above code you can replace things of head in """ commas and Content with your thing. Further, you can expand it by replacing the |} with |-. But don't forget to end it with |}. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 06:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Anupamdutta73 If your table is not very complicated, VisualEditor will create one for you. Simply go to Insert > Table and a basic table will be inserted. The table can be customized with the "Properties" button beneath it. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 14:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

TheChunky, I strongly support the use of visual editor. I create a number of tables, and that's usually what I use. S Philbrick (Talk) 22:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Well, it is also good. But I am mobile user, so I found the code way is easiest way. ☺️ And I use codes. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 00:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

TheChunky, If it works, great. I can't imagine doing tables on a mobile. Whatever works for you, but I know may editors eschew VE because it had some problems early on, so I wanted to make sure editors know that VE works well for basic tables. S Philbrick (Talk) 00:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: Please see Help:Table for a better standard example (with correct header markup, etc.). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: Please also see User talk:Anupamdutta73#Signatures. Your signature makes people do extra work to figure out how to WP:PING you because it does not show your actual username, nor does it link to your user or user talk page, a requirement of WP:CUSTOMSIG. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How to see who made an edit

Is there a way to see who made a certain edit to a page? I know I can scroll through the edit history, but there are 1000s of edits. Just wondering if there’s a way to see who added it quickly without doing a lot of scrolling. Thanks! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: I've never tried it, but I understand that Wikiblame tool will show this. See WP:WIKIBLAME for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much RudolfRed! Just a quick follow up: the article tells me to go to View History, but I can’t seem to find view history. If you (or someone) could point me in the right direction, that would be great. Once again, thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: “View history” is at the top right of the page beside the edit button. It’s where you check the edit history of the page. It is not present on the mobile version of Wikipedia. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 03:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you for your help Ganbaruby Say hi!. I’m so glad that Wikipedia has a place where users can get help quickly to improve their editing skills. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How would you add a monthly page to a dynamic list?

Hello, I want to add to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States; the list is organized into monthly lists, i.e. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, May 2020 how would I go about adding a month to the dynamic list? Like a page for January or a page for July? Do I just create a page with that name format and the dynamic list will automatically know it's there? Eric.c.zhang (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eric.c.zhang, and welcome to the Teahouse. No there is nothing automatic here. Indeed the list isn't really "dynamic" in any meaningful sense. It is just split up into sub-lists by month. To add a new month, one would ahve to create the new list article, and then edit the table in the overall list to add a link to the new page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: Specifically, you would add a cell to Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States#Lists of killings, but I'll note that the table is already complete back through 2009, and then back through the 19th century at List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States prior to 2009. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

There's also a matching navbox at {{Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States}}. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: Those tables do actually use automation in templates to detect articles for some years. If you make an article and it doesn't show up after purging the list then come back with a link to the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Article Thumbnail in Search Results

How can I add or change the photo thumbnail of an article that appears next to its short description in places such as search results in the mobile app? Idell (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Idell: Welcome to the Teahouse! Could you please give an example of an article whose thumbnail you would like to change? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

GoingBatty, Jinnah (film)! Idell (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Idell: I see that Jinnah (film) has had an image in the infobox for over a year, but the iOS mobile app doesn't show a thumbnail in the search results. I tried posting a question on your behalf on #wikimedia-mobile ^connect but received no response. You could try one of the other contact methods mentioned at Help:Mobile access. GoingBatty (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Could someone else here help me with this? Idell (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Idell: I don't know how the mobile apps work but it appears you have never edited with them so maybe you just mean the mobile version of the website. It uses mw:Extension:PageImages#Image choice to automatically choose the image. It's possible that non-free images like most film posters will be omitted in search suggestions. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: I understand the difference between the mobile app and the mobile website. I just prefer to use the mobile or the desktop version of the website for editing. Jinnah_(film)?action=info does show the film poster as the Page Image. Idell (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Idell: Yes, it's the page image but it's not marked as a free image by the extension. Compare page_image in [12] and page_image_free in [13]. Some features which use the page image may only allow free images but I don't know the details. File:Jinnah movie poster.jpg is non-free so it has a different license which limits allowed use. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:IAR

If somebody uses IAR as an excuse for vandalism, do administrators also use that as an excuse for the block? 83.9.194.6 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, you have asked this in a couple of other places, and had a response. Please don't post the same question at multiple boards at the same time. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 08:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I create a wiki if I know the owner of the website?

If I know the owner of the website that wants the wiki entry, and a member of the NewsTalkers website, am I allowed to create the wiki entry for them?TiBUchon (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) TiBUchon (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

TiBUchon, You are required to declare Conflict of Interest as per WP:COI and WP:PAID (if you are paid to do create an article) as per Wikipedia terms.

Most importantly, the article needs to conform Wikipedia standards of notability as per WP:GNG, WP:WEB and should be supported by independent WP:RELIABLE sources. It should be written in neutral point of view as per WP:NPOV and should not be WP:PROMOTIONAL by any means. Your article should not violate copyright as per WP:COPYVIO. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not being paid to create the Wiki page. I am doing it as a friend. But, I was not sure if it would be a conflict if I was a friend of the owner of the forum as well as a member. I just needed to know if that would disqualify me up front or not. If not, then I will proceed with reading the Conflict of Interest and other suggested materials here on Wiki. I have been out for the past few weeks a sprained wrist. so I am playing catch up now. But, I will read the referenced material going forward. Thank you for your assistance. (smile)TiBUchon (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TiBUchon. If you are writing an article "for" anybody or anything other than Wikipedia and its readers, you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is simply not interested in whether the subject wants there to be an article about them (or, indeed, if they want there not to be an article about them). If there is an article about a subject, Wikipedia does not care what the subject wishes to appear in the article. Wikipedia is also not very interested in what the subject has said or published about themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. As said above, you are not forbidden from trying to create an article about your friend's website, but you are likely to find it hard to be neutral. --ColinFine (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

A page I created met requirements for notability in the Hungarian language Wikipedia, but not the English language edition?

I created a page for Draft:Julian Macaraeg, as one existed in the Hungarian language edition (https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Macaraeg). However, it was denied on the basis of the subject not being notable enough. This is further confusing, as there are repeated references to the subject in other articles on Wikipedia, including Philippines at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, Short track speed skating at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics, and Mixed-NOCs at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics.

A simple Google search also returns hundreds of relevant articles and pictures, along with dozens of videos. 67.186.252.184 (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of an article in hu:Wikipedia is not a reason for inclusion in en:Wikipedia, just as exclusion or deletion from hu:Wikipedia is not a reason for exclusion or deletion from en:Wikipedia. Barkeep49 states that the sources you have provided "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Are you saying that Barkeep49 is mistaken? -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I have been mistaken before so I could be here. But I don't think I am. Youth Olympian speedskaters need to pass GNG and those type of sources were not present in the draft. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

IP editor: Note that your article draft was declined, not rejected (worse), based on the information presented. The subject could well be notable – it's just that the respondents above did not see that demonstrated by the sources cited. This happens often with both new drafts and those translated from other wikis, as our notability and source requirements are among the most strict of the various language wikis. I would suggest that you try to locate better sources (see the various links in the respondents' posts). Ironically, having hundreds of Google hits actually makes the task harder, and makes it less likely for others to want to wade through all the junk (wiki FORKs and mirrors, image farms, social media, etc.) for you to find the appropriate sources. Best of luck. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Ezwdygoutkcgjvkuf. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand better now, is the requirement for resubmission to provide additional reliable secondary sources?

If the name of a local file conflicts with a file on Commons, how do I choose the file on Commons in wikitext?

commons:File:Kubrador.jpg conflicts with File:Kubrador.jpg.

It is just my luck to find such ridiculous edge cases!! Ugh. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 12:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Answer I gave on IRC, in case anyone else stumbles across this (Nick fixed this particular case by moving the en-wiki version):

I say this with relatively low confidence, but I don't think that's possible. The foreign files API works by choosing from local, if it exists, then going down the hierarchy of foreign repos and choosing the first where the file exists

I don't think it's possible to manually select which foreign repo to use. If that's indeed the case, probably best solution would be to rename the Wikipedia version to something else, and do a AWB replace of all usages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, it's not possible to display the Commons file here when a local file of the same name exists. commons:Commons:File renaming does not allow renaming the Commons file due to a name clash but it's allowed on uploader request. Psiĥedelisto uploaded it today and could have requested a rename but it's moot now when the local file has been moved to File:Kubrador (film poster).jpg. It only had one use and no incoming links so it was easy to fix. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Two writers, one publication?

Hi,

I am currently gathering my sources for an article I hope to write for Wikipedia, I have several other sources, however I have noticed that two writers who write for the same publication (the publication is already seen as a reliable source by Wikipedia- other articles use the publication as a source) have published articles on the subject of the article, does Wikipedia see this as ok? I just don't want my article to be shut down due to this one thing. BekoGloben (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I find this all quite confusing. What is the subject of the article you hope to write? What is the name of the publication you refer to? What are the two articles you mention? If you want to write an article on Mayomyzon pieckoensis, and two people have already written about it in the Journal of Ichthyology, there should be no problem at all. But the lack of details in your question makes me suspect that it's more complicated than that. Maproom (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, BekoGloben. You can cite multiple articles from the same publication and from different writers at that publication, that is not a problem. However, I cannot guarantee that the article you want to write would be accepted.

That another article uses the publication does not necessarily mean that it is considered generally reliable. An editor of that article may have misjudged the reliability of the source. Also, a source can be reliable for some statements and not for others - for example, you could cite someone's personal website in support of the statement "[name of the person] thinks [an opinion of the person]", but you cannot cite their personal website to support the statement "[name of the person] has won twenty highly reputable awards".

Before writing a new article, it is a good idea to do some work on existing articles first. That way, you will learn what is good in an article. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new article

I was an executive and co-architect of a company that I would like to write about. There are many online articles and quotes I can use as reference material to support the article but much of it is personal knowledge. Is this a feasible idea and if so what are the ruled about what I can and cannot say? thank you 2600:1003:B103:1AD3:B1E0:6AD3:E3B8:609 (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It's even harder when you are associated with the subject, as you are. You have what we call a conflict of interest.(please review that or this plain language version). In short that means you should avoid directly editing about the company, but you may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article for review by an independent editor. However, personal knowledge is not acceptable for article content, as all content must be verifiable to a published, independent reliable source. Any draft about the company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about the company, demonstrating how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Not every company merits an article, even within the same field. It depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

One thing that makes it so difficult is that you will need to forget everything you know about the company, and write only what you find in the the independent reliably-published sources even if you know that what the sources say is wrong. Unpublished personal knowledge is never acceptable in Wikipedia, even from the people most closely involved in the subject, because a reader has no way of verifying it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Flat white

TopForm5090 (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi TopForm5090 and welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question? Hillelfrei ^talk 16:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, TopForm5090. If you have a question about why this edit you made was reverted, it's because you deleted all the actual references, and just replaced them with numbers which, unfortunately, is not how things work here. An editor left you a message to say they'd reverted you, and asking you not to try doing that again. You might like to read a page called Help:Referencing for beginners before you try working with references. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I've just received a message advising me that my edit to the "Flat White" (as in coffee) Wikipedia entry has been deleted on the grounds that "it is not constructive". The edits I made can be easily verified (simply watch the relevant film scene) and clearly refute the previous entries which suggest the term 'flat white' had its origins in Australia or New Zealand in the mid 1980s. Please explain why you believe my entry is not constructive. TopForm5090 (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@TopForm5090: See my reply above - I fear we had an overlap of publishing our posts, so you might not have read it. I would add that if you feel you have Reliable Sources which tell a different story from those already in an article, you might, as a novice here, wish to first discuss them on the article's talk page whether or not to insert them for balance. We would advise against rushing in all 'gung-ho' and removing existing content and replacing it with badly formatted new material. Don't worry about the notice - it's a standard formality when we revert something that hasn't actually improved an article, and new editors often encounter them at the start of their editing journey. Understanding and acting upon them, or directly asking the reverting editor why they reverted you, is an accepted way of engagement here, and a great way to learn how to edit the encyclopaedia most effectively. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi I would like to get more information about editing

Leroy Lil Boosie (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Leroy Lil Boosie: See Help:Introduction. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Correcting hear say

Hello, I have tried to correct some content about a brand. A criticism has been added about a brand by one person and it is saying this is the thought process of the industry without any links to support this (as there are none) I corrected the information with accurate information and have been told it was not allowed... any help is welcome. How do I dispute?

Thank you in advance OPMUK (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@OPMUK: I agree that that should have been removed, and I have deleted it again. But your edits went too far (almost like an ad... do you have a conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed?) rationalizing the change in production without providing a citation. Nothing should go in the article without a citation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi OPMUK - the article on the whole seems to be undergoing some back-and-forth about the current quality of the products sold by the existing brand. Your job, as a Wikipedia editor, is to describe the brand in a wholly neutral fashion - no matter what your personal thoughts regarding the brand's quality might be, or what you otherwise anecdotally know to be true.

Unless it can be referenced reliably - e.g., the words have come out of someone else's mouth through a verifiable (e.g. not self-published) source - it can't be included. What Wikipedians do is gather the facts that other people have reported, and write them down, in the most basic of senses, without passing judgement. This seems simple, but editors have to be careful not to lean towards bias - which can be very difficult if one is personally involved in something.

I agree with Calliopejen1 that it did read like an ad. You included two links within your edits - one to pianolobby.co.uk and one to broughtonpianos.co.uk.

If you are an employee or otherwise professionally affiliated or associated with either, you must disclose this before you edit, and your edits will be scrutinised to a higher level than an unconnected user. Note that not declaring a conflict of interest is not the way around this - COI edits are recognisable for their bias towards a certain viewpoint, and are often reverted even if the editor hasn't declared a COI on their Talk page. I hope this helps. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

How to restore redirected page

the Dishiishe is been in Wikipedia for 1 year, it has been recenrly redirected to Darod page, the Dishiishe deserves its stay in wikipedia, users used to redirect it to Darod which is wrong as the page represents considerable somali tribe.

}} Naqx1 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Indicate how this meets WP:NORG or another notability guideline. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Citation tool

Hello is there a tool where I could feed the url of an article and have it spit out a citation in the Wikipedia format? I'm updating a list using a lot of local news articles and it would save me a lot of time not having to manually format the citations. Thanks. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Eric.c.zhang (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Eric.c.zhang, Yes there are many, but the simplest and easiest is RefToolbar. Happy editing. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I use reFill for this purpose. https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ Kaisertalk (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eric.c.zhang: Welcome to the Teahouse. When you edit any page, you'll either be using what we call our WP:Source Editor (as here at the Teahouse), or you'll have opted to use our Visual Editor. These each have an inbuilt 'Cite' button in their toolbars, and each allows you to paste in a url to a news article, Google books or other website and then get it to attempt to fill in the reference template for you. It's never perfect, so you do have to check it's put in everything, and done it correctly. I've written a little guide with a short video on how to do this using source editor. See WP:EASYREFBEGIN, and let us know how you get on. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Flat White

Hi Nick and Nieuwsgierige,

Thank you for your messages.

I can assure you that the deletion of some of the references was purely accidental (references 1-13 appeared on the edited version I printed following the initial acceptance of my edits. References 14-23 - which were accidentally deleted - have no bearing on the point I made in my edited version). And for the record, I did read the instructions prior to editing. Of course, I accept that I have obviously made a mistake in the course of my submission but I do feel that the tone of your responses leaves something to be desired. As a former Associate Lecturer at two London Universities, I regularly publish articles in journals and am familiar with the Vancouver System of references. Again, for the record, I didn't include any references in my edits, nor as I said, did I intentionally delete any. Indeed, I was careful to preserve all the original text and references which suggest that the beverage has its origins in Australia and New Zealand (which is clearly erroneous). Obviously, I'd like to try re-editing the entry as I think the correction will be of interest to some of your readers.

Best wishes TopForm5090 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You can find helpful advice here WP:REFB about correctly formatting sources. You will need to provide reliable sources for any content you add. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello TopForm5090, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Yes, it appears to me that you were indeed trying to make a constructive edit, but I am sure you understand why they could appear not so. Your referencing style did not match what was already in use in the article. Since this is a global project, we have the guidelines at WP:CITEVAR which allow for many different citation styles as long as you are the one to begin referencing a given article, while granting protections against changes away from already established style by other contributors to an article you are a latecomer to. Please read the guideline, and refer to WP:REFB, for a beginner's guide to commonly used referencing systems so you can adapt to the styles you encounter in articles you edit.

Please note that, in the version that you saved (this), you did accidentally delete 10 references compared to the earlier version (this), while the inline citations ([1], [2], etc.) you added do not look or work like the ones already present (which are rendered, not typed that way). This was also due to the fact that you changed the citation style of the article. The messages you received on your talk page are canned messages. The one Nick Moyes left welcomes a new user to Wikipedia and gives helpful links to help get started. The second one left by Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker was a warning. Yes, it is not very nice, but those are intended in response to unhelpful edits, and since those almost always come from vandals, they are deliberately terse. The edit must have looked like vandalism to the editor, which is quite understandable. You can retry of course; do make sure you don't accidentally break anything by trying it out in your sandbox first. The link to your sandbox appears at the very top of every page on Wikipedia as long as you are logged in. Especially for edits whose purpose isn't immediately apparent, please use edit summaries so that other editors can deduce your honorable intentions even when the outcome doesn't reflect it, and be inclined to help you instead of having to conclude you may be vandalising articles. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@TopForm5090: Don't worry about it. We all make mistakes. Give it another go when you're ready. If you decide you want to stick around and contribute further, you might like think about saying a few words on your userpage about your background and/or interests in editing. You don't need to reveal your real identity or anything, but whenever we see odd edits (and yours was a bit odd, to be frank) we tend to look at someone's editing history and what they've said on their userpage to assess why they edited as they did, and whether they're genuinely here and wanting to contribute, or are simply messing around with one of our 6 million articles. You hadn't given us much to go on by the time you made that first edit, so, as it was quite natural for another editor to act as they did. These things happen. One last point - you don't need to start a new post when you follow up on a post (unless it's been archived after a couple of days inactivity) - just post at the bottom of the original thread, ideally forcing an indent by adding in one additional colon at the start of your paragraph than the one above it used. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with an article and disambiguation

Greetings,

I am trying to build out an article for Stephen Quinn, award winning CBC broadcaster. Preliminary version of the page can be seen here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Quinn_(Broadcaster)

Running into a couple of challenges:

1. Disambiguation. There is a page for the Irish football (soccer) player, with the same name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Quinn . Ideally, I would want to create a disambiguation page, and branch Stephen Quinn broadcaster from there. Thoughts on how I can do that?

2. Searches. I have added the right categories, backlinks etc. But, I am surprised that this page is not being picked up by any Search engines. I know there are a lot of other factors that would come into play here, but, I am wondering if I am doing something wrong with page meta data etc.

Thanks in advance. Kaisertalk (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Kaisertalk,

1. You can create a page Stephen Quinn (disambiguation) and add both the links Stephen Quinn (Broadcaster) and Stephen Quinn there and add {{subst:other uses|Stephen Quinn (disambiguation)}} at the top of .Stephen Quinn (Broadcaster). See disambiguation pages (help)

2. You need to wait till a 'new page reviewer' reviews or flags your page OK. It will then be indexed by search engines. Happy editing ~ Amkgp 💬 19:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

But, Kaisertalk, your article does not cite any sources which are independent of CBC, and therefore does nothing to establish that Quinn meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. It will not be allowed to remain in main space in that condition (or get indexed): I expect that somebody will shortly draftify it, so that you can work on finding the independent sources that are an essential for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, Yes you are right ~ Amkgp 💬 19:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kaisertalk: a few other points for you, too: Firstly, please use a better link for CBC, as it currently goes to a very long disambiguation page. Secondly, never say someone is a "multiple time awardee" when the source you cite only shows one obvious link to one award - and a fairly minor one at that. Thirdly, I'd probably not go down the route of having a disambiguation for these two similarly named pages. I'd just go for an {{about}} hatnote on both articles. But absolutely key is finding better sources to prove Notability. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much ColinFine, Nick Moyes - let me get working, right away. Kaisertalk (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

[1] Wilde, Damien (2020-06-10). "Nokia 5.3 review: Excellently affordable [Video]". 9to5Google. Retrieved 2020-06-21.

[1]