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.
Hello, I'm not very good at editing articles and stuff. Does anyone have any advice about the conditions where a merge request would be advisable? I very recently (today) submitted a request to merge Adapter (computing) with Adapter, but I am not sure if this is something that should be done or whatever. Yeah, does anyone have any helps or advices?
Vedvod (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
PostScript: the template didn't work? or did I just not use it properly?
@Vedvod: You've put up the {{Merge to}} on Adapter (computing), but you forgot the {{Merge from}} on Adapter, which will give the proposal more visibility. You also should also specify a |discuss= parameter in both templates to make sure the link in the template goes to the same discussion. I've done both for you; other than that, you followed all the steps #1 and #2 at WP:MERGE, good job! It would help to give a little more reasoning as to why the two pages should be merged other than it "seems unnecessary", but if there's consensus to merge or no opposition after a while, be bold and perform the merge (steps are outlined at WP:PROMERGE). ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 06:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may post on the article talk page detailing the edit you wish to make. To increase the chances it will be seen by another editor who could potentially carry out your request, you may make it as a formal edit request(click for instructions). 331dot (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Please add follow up comments to this existing section instead of creating a new section. There should be a tab that says "edit" at the top of the talk page, if you are using the full desktop version(even on a phone). I'm not sure how to edit it with the app or mobile version(though I'm sure others here do). Personally I find using the full version easier(even on a phone). If it does not say "edit" at the top, it is possible that the talk page is protected(though this is highly unusual); we can tell you more if you let us know which page you want to edit. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes during edit disputes users make unreasonable requests for sourcing and I don't know how to best handle it. Below are examples.
Sample 1: There is a story inside a textbook. Many reliable sources confirm this story is in the textbook, it is not disputed. So I post a recent edition of the textbook in the article. A user complains there is no source that confirms the story exists in that particular edition. I am unable to find a source to confirm edition information, only sources say it is in the book generally. There is no reason given for the doubt, just a made-up theory it is not in every edition.
Sample 2: There is a boat called "Goat" owned by Mr. Hinderson of NY registered in 1855, according to state records and linked in the article about Mr. Hinderson. Other sources confirm Mr. Hinderson did own a boat of this name, it is not disputed. A user complains how do we know there is not a second Mr. Hinderson from NY with a boat called "Goat" registered in 1855? It might not be the same Hinderson, there could be two. They request a source confirming this is the person of our article, without providing evidence of another Mr. Hinderson with a boat named "Goat".
These 'disputes' hinge on WP:V which states "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." My response has been their requests are unreasonable and not credible and to basically WP:IAR. Their response is V is policy and they can dispute anything at any time. It is sort of wikilawyering, but I would like some guidance on how to deal with non-credible sourcing requests. -- GreenC04:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
GreenC I would tend to agree with you and side with you in both examples. If the other editor was repeatedly doing this pointedly and in an unreasonable manner, I would suggest to them that their constant wiki-lawyering was disruptive to the Project- and would collate diffs to evidence that disruption (probably best done off-wiki), and would report them to WP:ANI. If you have cited good sources and another editor repeatedly removes them with the excuse that "oh, you can't be sure if it's a different edition", I might regard that as a content dispute where WP:3RR applies, and you might be exempt from edit warring for reverting 'masked vandalism' - but it depends on circumstances, as always. The only way we can be sure that Mr Hinderson owned that boat is to find his grave, exhume him, bring him back to life and ask him in person. Until we have the technology to do that, we have to act in a reasonable manner in accepting proper sources, and ignore the small-minded idiots who say "oh, but what if...?" I make that comment only in response to you're hypothetical examples here, with no insight into any past disputes you might have entered in to, or any worries over any past competence in citing good sources. Reasonable challenges to sources are, just that: reasonable. Unreasonable ones are, well, you know where I'm going. Keeping discussions on an article's talk page is often the best way to ensure disputes over sources can be readily found by everyone interested in that article. For disruptive editors, keeping the conversations on their talk pages is useful to admins who might want to assess their competence or any disruptive editing they've undertaken, and whether they ask out of good faith, or are simply WP:NOTHERE. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Nick Moyes: Yes thank you Nick. There's nothing in policy about a "reasonable" challenge of a source, that I know of, it's sort of unwritten. Maybe there is an essay? In both cases there is an undercurrent of disruption in a wear them down sort of way because they were previously thwarted in other content disputes, but they would of course deny that and these are experienced editors who are not normally behavior problems. I guess RfC or ANI if it continues. -- GreenC13:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Articles
I want to know how many articles are there on WIKIPEDIA and who created them and I also wanna know how to create an article. Acdor (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Acdor, and welcome to the teahouse. There are currently 6,928,846 articles on Wikipedia. You can see who created and wrote the pages them by clicking on the tab called 'view history', where there is a list of all the past edits to a page. The oldest (last) revision is who created the page. For statistics on prolific page creators, you can see WP:MOSTARTICLES. To create a page, you may want to go through The article wizard. This will guide you through the basic steps of creating an article. Also see WP:1st for help on writing your first article. Best, Eddie891TalkWork14:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I have created my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:F.Alexsandr/sandbox and It is said that I can use it to create drafts of articles that I can later submit for review. However upon creation of sandbox I can no longer write an article there that I can submit for review. Is it intended that way, being used as a sort of a Notebook, or am I missing something? F.Alexsandr (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, F.Alexsandr, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. You can create as many sandboxes as you like, called more or less anything you like. You have User:F.Alexsandr/sandbox; you can create User:F.Alexsandr/sandbox2, or User:F.Alexsandr/Some other title. (The only thing special about the one called "sandbox" is that if you use the standard skin on the desktop, there is a link to it automatically at the top). I'm not sure what you mean about you "can no longer write an article there" - you can edit it just as you already have.
That's good advice but note that your sandbox works like any other Wikipedia page. You can save successive versions of it, each containing a draft article or any other content you wish. Then, if you look click on the "View history" tab, you'll see each version is stored with the date and time you saved ("publish changes" in Wiki-speak) it. To return to any individual earlier version of the sandbox, just click on the timestamp associated with it. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull:@ColinFine: Thank you for responce. What I mean is, if I will write an article in my sandbox, will I be able to submit it from there (If yes, how can I do it) or I will have to manually copy-paste it into an Article Wizard? F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Sandboxes are most helpful if they have {{User sandbox}} as the first line. Then you'll see there is a permanent instruction about moving from your sandbox into article review.
Incidentally, I use my sandbox nearly every day I'm active on WP but hardly ever save my work there (you can take a look at my edit history "here".). Instead, I just use "Show preview" to see how my article-building is getting on and in particular I have the Citation button active (see WP:Citation expander) so that I can use it to generate the full references for some source where I only have the ISBN or the DOI. If I do this in a separate browser tab from the page I intend to place the citation on, I can play around with the new text I propose to add to an article and preview that independently of the perhaps much larger full article itself. Then I copy-paste into the article I'm editing. I'd recommend getting some practise editing existing articles before you rush to build a new one. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
/* Very Cool People */ info about the band musicians
Could anybody help me and check my article about the Latvian band Very Cool People https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Very_Cool_People
and give me comment on improvement. Why isn't the musical notability criteria is satisfied? I guess I have met all the criteria. Help me, please! Thank you in advance.
Aiga Liva (talk) Hey! Thank you for the question, in my opinion, they meet 5 notable criteria:
4.Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4] - They are one of the most active Latvian concert bands also outside the country. They have represented Latvia in several international important events that I have mentioned also in the article
6.Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for the musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
Aiga Liva If that's the case, then you need independent reliable sources with significant coverage that demonstrate that. The draft currently just lists the year-to-year things the band did, and the sources(while I cannot read Latvian) don't seem to show the notability that you are asserting. Even if the band technically meets the criteria for notability, they still need to have the coverage in the sources. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Gaharnomo3, to use a template, you type the name of the template between nested curly braces like this: {{TemplateName}}. You can find any template's description and usage instructions at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TemplateName. For example, the template for requesting edits to a semi-protected article is at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Edit%20semi-protected and it also contains detailed instructions on how to use it. Within wikipedia, you may find the same template page linked as a bluelinked template name with the "template:" prefix, e.g. Template:Edit semi-protected, or better yet with the bluelinked template name between two curly braces just as it is used, e.g. {{Edit semi-protected}}. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️15:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
How to write an article about a website?
Hi everyone,
I'm relatively new to wikipedia editing and I wrote an article on the Human Journey Website but it got rejected. https://humanjourney.us/
Now, just to be clear, I have written several scientific papers in international journals and I know how citing sources is usually done in the academic world, but here I feel things are a bit different.
I have a list of websites that link back to the Human Journey website but the best thing I could see as a source so far was a mention in a magazine's blog. So I have several ideas, please let me know if these make sense. I could include more information about the authors of the website, who include authors with books and articles I could cite. Or I could look for web statistics and include that information about the website maybe? If not, I guess a third route would be getting an article about the website published by some source that is considered reliable and then citing that in the wikipedia article?
Another doubt I have is about the content, so say if I want to summarize the content of the website, do I really need an external citation for that? For example, if one of the guiding ideas of the website is: "Discover who we are, how we evolved, what we might become", and it has four main sections with different names which I explain, and this is taken literaly from the website itself, do I need a citation to state something which is self-evident like that? It seems to me sort of like how articles about movies summarize the plot without needing to include citations for that.
HelloItalic text there @PA Packard:. Wikipedia's inclusion standards can be found several places at Wikipedia. WP:42 is probably the most concise statement, and WP:GNG contains more details. The basic principle is that, since Wikipedia articles should only be based on the highest quality source texts, we need good source texts before an article about a subject can be created. Wikipedia needs more than just confirmation that a subject exists, it needs evidence that there is 'enough' reliable source text that exists out there that can be used as sources for writing a good encyclopedia article about the subject. Not everything in the universe that exists has existing source text written about it, if something, such as the website in question, does not have substantial independent writing about it already, it probably doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Of course, I may be wrong, and if the significant, independent, and reliable source texts do exist, you can use those to establish sufficient notability. But if the sources don't exist, we don't have anything to use to research and write an article from. I hope that helps! --Jayron3212:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
---
Hi Jayron32 and thanks for answering. I'm not sure if this is how I'm supposed to reply here. I hope you don't mind me following up on your answer, and I do realize you are simply citing wikipedia's rules and trying to explain the basic idea. I understand the ideal, but it seems to me like a lot of wikipedia pages about media and publications don't really seem to adhere to those high standards. I've been reading wikipedia for years so I've seen quite a few pages but I will name a few concrete examples for clarity. I was looking at the page for the Journal of Neuroscience for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Journal_of_Neuroscience
It basically summarises some of the key aspects of the journal's structure and content. It includes two citations, one citing itself, and the other cites a statistic about its Impact Factor. That hardly seems to me to be substantial independent writing, and I assume the situation for other scientific journals and other types of media is the same.
References:
The Journal of Neuroscience". 2013 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Thomson Reuters. 2014.
Maunsell, John (2013). "New Journal Sections". The Journal of Neuroscience. 33 (1): 1. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5529-12.2012.
I've also seen movies that only cite online movie databases, or games that cite their own advertisments and press releases, or simply a couple of online databases.
Hey, @PA Packard:, thanks for following up. I'm aware that sometimes Wikipedia is not up to the highest quality standards. All we can do as individuals is make sure our own work is held to the highest standards, and fix what we can when we find it in a poor state. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and if you (or I or anyone) finds something that does not meet the highest standards, it can always be fixed, and that can include deleting inappropriate articles as needed. Simply put, the fact that someone else has done something that does not meet Wikipedia standards does not give license to everyone to violate those standards. I appreciate that you've come here asking for the right way to do it; all I can do is advise you on that correct method. I cannot, by myself, police all of Wikipedia for every instance where someone else hasn't been as conscientious as you are. --Jayron3215:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
---
Sorry if I seemed to be too bold David notMD, I was just asking and offering some personal observations for further comment and explanations, didn't mean to take any position really. Ok, well thanks for the answers then. I guess what I was looking for would be a kind of established minimum requirements, and looking through wikipedia at other webpages for current procedure is misleading for sure. Basically, before I put more work into it, I want to have an idea if its possible for the webpage to meet the minimum requirements as is or not. Obviously it won't be the example of the best cited article, but just wanted to know whether it could be possible at all or not, if I added web statistics and if I find some data about it in a database online for example, or a review somewhere. Maybe writing a wikipedia article about a webpage of this kind is just not possible. Alternatively, I can add the section I wrote to the pre-existing wikipedia article about the institution behind the website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_Human_Knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by PA Packard (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC) PA Packard (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Adding map image created in Google Earth
Will Wikipedia accept a map image for an article that was created in Google Earth? How
How do I add a map overlay image created in Google Earth to the Wikipedia article I wrote? I have attempted to add the image, but it is not being accepted. 2nd ABG (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Google indicates that I may use a Google Earth map image provided I attribute it to them. I would like to add the map overly image to the Wikipedia article I wrote. Would you please inform me of the instructions to enter the image? When I attempt to add it, it is being rejected.
From Google: "Generally speaking, as long as you're following our Terms of Service, these guidelines, and you're attributing properly, you can use our maps and imagery. In fact, we love seeing creative applications of Google Maps, Google Earth, and Street View." https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/ But we know you're looking for more specifics to ensure you're using our maps and imagery correctly. We suggest starting with the general guidelines below as these will apply to all projects. Feel free to click directly to the section that applies to your use"2nd ABG (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
@2nd ABG:. Whilst it isn't hugely clear what you are not allowed to do on their guidelines, I'm pretty sure that you cannot take aerial photos from Google Earth/Google maps and make them available here (for non-commercial and commercial reuse). I think those permissions related to use of image within their API, and not just lifting images to add to post on Wikimedia Commons or on Wikipedia. I think that Open Street Map might be more 'up your street' if you pardon the pun, though it does not provide aerial photos. Like Wikipedia, Open Street Maps is user-generated and can be updated by any interested person with a love of mapping and (presumably) a GPS device. See Wikipedia:Maps for Wikipedia for more links to using maps. (Please don't reply by starting a totally new thread - just edit this one and reply beneath, adding in one extra colon at the start of a paragraph than the person you're replying to use - this indents it one step further in. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
These guidelines are for non-commercial use, except for the limited use cases described below. If you want to use Google Maps, Google Earth, or Street View for other commercial purposes – meaning “for sale or revenue-generating purposes” – please contact the Google Cloud Customer Team. [emphasis mine]
This is not an acceptable license for Wikimedia Commons, which only accept content that is freely licensed, including for commercial use. The primary problem is the imagery, which Google does not own, and is licensed to them by many different providers. Technically, if you can make an acceptable fair-use case, per WP:NFCC (which is very picky), that may allow you to upload it here locally (to English Wikipedia). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Question
Hello, I am a bit new here and I dont understand how WikiPedia works. I am a member of wikiHow and I understand it, but WikiPedia is harder than wikiHow (in terms of editing and structure). If i could have a bit of understanding on how this works. I'll be glad to know. Thanks. Valtries (talk) 15:46, 2 October 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.
When uploading an image for my very first time editing Wikipedia, I uploaded the wrong picture. How can I delete the image and/or upload the correct image?
Thank you greatly Wi11iams (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Wi11iams, it seems that you uploaded the image [1] to Wikimedia Commons. If the new image is similar and you would like to use the same title, you could just upload another revision with the "Upload a new version of this file" button in the "File history" section, which will override the old one. If you want to permanently delete the old one, copy and paste the following text in the box onto the top of the page: {{SD|G7}}. An administrator will delete the image soon, and you can upload the new one under a new title. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 22:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
JAMESSAN123, Hello and welcome to Teahouse. It is not clear that what kind of question you have? Teahouse is a place where new editors seek help from experienced editors. ─ The Aafī (talk) 00:50, 3 October 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.
Online article also published in print and digital magazine format - What to include in reference?
My question concerns the citation for the 2nd sentence of Prison Sex. I used {{Cite web}} to format the reference. The reference is a web page article about Tool's song, which appears on the Metal Hammer magazine website (https://www.loudersound.com/metal-hammer). On that web page the publisher notes, "Published in Metal Hammer #326", i.e., the article was published in Metal Hammer, issue number 326. Metal Hammer is available as a print and digital magazine. I wrote the reference as follows.
Wiederhorn, Jon (July 10, 2020). "The Story Behind The Song: Tool's Prison Sex". Metal Hammer Magazine (published in Metal Hammer #326). Retrieved October 3, 2020.
Based on the principle, "give the reader what they need in order to locate the cited source", I am thinking I actually do not need to include "(published in Metal Hammer #326)". But before I remove it, I wanted to see what you all recommend. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) [he/his/him]01:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Markworthen: If you have a direct link to the article on the loudersound.com website included in your citation, then it’s fine to leave out that bit of information. However, it also doesn’t hurt to have it as well. What’s important is that you give future readers enough information so that they can find the exact article, so more can't hurt. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 02:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hai, I am subramanian. I want to write a bio page for a IPS Officer (SR Jangid IPS), but unfortunely I am not able to publish it. please help, what and how I have to do Subramaniantdr (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, brand new. Very interested in 'prettying' up pages. Interested in joining the WP:GOCE and helping with the backlog of articles needing attention. Also planning to join the WPFILMS project. I have been going on the Getting Started page and am tempted to edit the random pages, but I want to make sure I start properly so I don't give someone else work to clean up after me.
I completed the Wikipedia Adventure, but I am still confused about how to remove tags from the page once editing has been completed. I am also confused about how to add a tag. Also if I am editing an article and I notice that something needs to be cited, do I get to make that call and add a 'citation needed' tag or is that for more advanced editors to decide?
Not trying to ruffle feathers! Thank you. SleepyAthena (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello @SleepyAthena:, a tag is automatically added by the servers, but it can also be added by users. If you mean marking things as requiring citation and such, a tag is created simply by adding the appropriate template, like: {{Citation needed|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}, or category. The reason that hasn't become a tag, and that a message at the top (hatnote, I believe it's called?) saying that WP:TH needs more citation hasn't been added is because it's been put in between two nowiki formatting tags. If you were to type that text into a page, it would make a note at the top that notified editors that citation was required. If you want to tag different stuff, you can add different templates and such to send different messages: this is an example of[original research?] or {{Original research|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}. Apologies if this is very confusing or something. If you also meant adding pages to categories, you do that with a [[category:mycategoryhere]] text added anywhere, though adding it to the top or bottom helps organise such things. Once again, I'm not very good at this thing, but this is my understanding of this. You may find more help at H:CATS and WP:TAGGING. Sorry,
Realised I forgot to answer the other question. @SleepyAthena:, you can tag anything you want if you feel it requires such, and, if you think a tag should be removed, ask on the talk page, and, after a consensus is reached, or after a sufficient time, proceed with removing the tag. WP:BB explains this better, sorry
As for citation needed, if one or two factual statements are lacking references, tag them. An autobot will come by later and date the cn's. But don't overload articles with cn's. There are section tags and whole-article tags. And in a better world, you would see a ref needed, find an appropriate ref, and add it. And even check existing refs to see if those are valid reliable sources. Reffing is a never-ending chore. David notMD (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia articles. Are you asking how to contact an editor? Editors have Talk pages where you can leave a message. It is not a private system. Anyone else visiting the Talk page will see it. David notMD (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Some editors use the template {{User email}} on their user page (myself included, so if you click on my name you'll see what it looks like on my own page). If so, they can be contacted externally to Wikipedia, and in confidence, using a form that appears when you invoke the link. Note that you must have a registered account on Wikipedia and its associated e-mail address will be passed to the recipient when you use that contact method. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I have created three new tables for the article, replacing five old ones. They are looking okay. But I am unhappy with column widths and text alignments. Since I made them with Visual Editors, I am having trouble fixing column widths and alignments. Can someone optimise column widths and alignments in those tables? Aditya(talk • contribs)07:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Aditya Kabir: VisualEditor is good for creating the table and inputting data, but you'll have to go to source editing mode to change the CSS styling of the table to change its appearance. The way to do so is outlined at Help:Table. It's a hefty page, so here's a little table where I've tinkered around with width and text alignment that might help:
150px wide, left
200px wide, center
250px wide
Line breaks with <br> may also help you make sure the words are going to a new line where you want. I'd suggest you play around with tables in your sandbox page until you've created a table that you like, then copy that into the article, just in case you break something. Hope this helps! ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 12:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Ganbaruby Thanks a lot. Y Here, let me pour you a cup of hot darjeeling. I have two more questions though: (1) If I understand correctly, I will have to do this individually for each column. Shall I put the codes in the header row? (2) Can I use percentage values instead of "px" values? Aditya(talk • contribs)13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
sips... @Aditya Kabir: (1) Yes, its preferable to specify widths in the header row as that's where future editors are expecting them to be. (2) Yes, percentage and em values both work as well. In fact, I just found out that Help:Table#Setting column widths says that setting pixel sizes is deprecated and percentages or em values are preferred. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 14:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
German template
Hello, could someone please tell me if it possible to turn this template {{Navigationsleiste Hanns-Eisler-Preisträger}} into English ?
Hello, Recently I have done some edits on few pages with valid source but it get remove by a person with biased views. I don't know why he is reverting my edits with his own perspective and biased views because I am very familiar with the topics .So please warn him to follow the Wikipedia policy and not to mention his own opinion in the article. Eroberar (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Puzzled, because E's Talk page has a note from Theroadislong about a contribution being reverted for not being NPOV, yet as Cordless noted, E's Contributions shows only the Teahouse query. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
My apologies I seem to have muddied the waters by adding a standard welcome message for someone "whose initial efforts are unsourced" Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm talking about about my edits in hindi Wikipedia and there is a person who is continuously reverting my edits with his own perspective and he is not an administrator,So I request to warn him to not to remove my edits. If there is any problem in my edits let the administrator do it not himEroberar (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
These edits ([3],[4], and [5]) link to the content of a private phone call (of a former French minister). Making public such a private phone call is illegal in France, and, in any case must be considered as a copyvio. I have reverted the two first edits (this is not the only reason of my reverts). I have not found in WP page whether such a link addition must be rev-deleted. If they should, please do it. The last edit is a post in a talk page. It is easy to rev-delete it, as, up to now, nobody answered it. Also, the IP user that authored the post is clearly a sockpuppet of the editor of the two first edits, and probably also of the subject of the article who has a long history of sockpuppetry, mainly in French Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brancojuan/Archive and Juan Branco#Self-promotion on Wikipedia). So, there is no problem to delete this post. D.Lazard (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Priyanjali singh, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's their own talk page then yes that's fine, and is usually seen as an indication that they've read the messages. Regards, Zindor (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I have done a translation of a page in Spanish using SDL Trados Studio 2019 software and would like to submit it. I had a look at the Translating into English page but would like some help as I find it a bit confusing. The translation has saved with the original format and is saved as a Chrome HTML document.
Ken Tony Peter, Have you uploaded the image through WP:FUW or at the Commons. If not, then you need to upload the image first (taking care of its copyright related issues and licenses) and then you may add it in any article. See WP:UPIMAGE to see how to add images in any article. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Jaredroach. I believe I take a pretty intolerant view of bad language and aggressive behaviour towards other editors on Wikipedia, but I do not find that anything other than blunt, plain speaking when arguing a point. ColinFine is a long-standing Host here, and I think if he felt there was ever anything inappropriate in what RexxS said, he would tell him directly. A balance has to be struck between forceful argument on the one hand and harassment/abuse/aggression/obscenity on the other. This was nowhere near the latter and just robust discussion. That said, if you do ever encounter one editor directly abusing another editor - or both abusively exchanging insults - you can, if you feel so minded warn one or both of them using a standard template, although I've found simply going to the editor(s) talk page(s) and directly expressing disappointment that one person has felt the need to abuse another is itself a sensible way to raise an issue. Were it to continue, then reporting one or both editors (with WP:DIFFS) to WP:ANI might be appropriate. It is important that we work to maintain and enhance standards of editor interaction - especially where minority groups are concerned - so your concern is appreciated, if perhaps misplaced on this occasion.. See WP:HARASS for more information. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Jaredroach, I also agree with Nick Moyes, that's great advice for you to follow. Earlier i left a gentle note on the UTP of the admin in question, but I give my opinion more freely than would be advisable. I'd just add that on some occasions it's sensible to give an established editor some time to come back and correct themselves, without any intervention. It does happen and it's great when it does. Zindor (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
To address the copyright issue, I included the following: "Published in 1885. All US works published before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf"
I received a notice as follows: "The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
If this is not legally possible:
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
PDPublic domainfalsefalse
(to release all rights),
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/CC-BY-SA-4.0Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0truetrue
This template should only be used on file pages.
(to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those."
How do I add a Public Domain tag that will satisfy the requirement? Does that mean adding "Public Domain" as the only content in a line of text?
I am a new user.
I wish to start a new article about an Israeli poet named "Shlomo Laufer"
I understand that there is something wrong with the way i posted my references.
The user "TheAafi" have declined my submission.
This article is merely a translation for the standing article about the same person in Wikipedia Hebrew.
I added a link to that article.
Since the person at hand have published his work in Hebrew newspapers and journals, together with the fact that he has no affiliation with the Academia, i don't have any English peer reviewed work to show for his behalf.
His Hebrew Wikipedia article has many references and external links, to serve for the credibility of his work.
What should i do differently in the references?
Can i use Word referencing tool and convert the file for use into Wikipedia?
Akarniel, Dear friend, you need to add inline citations which help to verify whether each statement is rightly verifiable or not. Citing Wikipedia articles is not fine. See WP:REFB as I suggested while declining the submission, and then fix the citations in the draft and click "resubmit" and it would be reviewed again by any AfC reviewer. Regards. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Be aware that each language Wiki has its own criteria for what qualifies as notability.It is possible that Shlomo Laufer does not meet the standard for English Wikipedia even though an article exists in Hebrew. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I added Intext citations: How can I get someone to look at the edited site?
Well, I could; but if I did then I'd add some other template about how independent sources are needed. Moreover, the page worries me. I see who she is and what she has done; what I don't see is what impact it has had -- and it's a reliably sourced description of impact that a biographical article needs in order to demonstrate notability. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
If an image isn't already in either Wikimedia Commons or English-language Wikipedia, then if it's either in the public domain (with its legal meaning, which doesn't correspond to what various dictionaries say) or copyleft via one of the licenses that Wikimedia Commons recognizes, upload it to Wikimedia Commons; if on the other hand you want to use it by a claim of "fair use", check in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to see if this really applies, and if it does, then upload it to English-language Wikipedia. Once the picture is at either Wikimedia Commons or English-language Wikipedia, then please see Help:Pictures. -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
how to deal with false accusations in deletion suggestion page?
I understand that repetitive comments are not useful; but the third strike through does not make sense to me.
In my view it seems like it is acceptable to make false accusations of socket puppetry and to repeat the suggestion for deletion as Berrely appears to have done, but I can not counteract false accusations by commenting? Is it because it was labeled **Keep** and I should have labeled it **comment**? Can I comment on the false accusation? And Eddie891 says I should focus on content and not contributors...well, I am. I commenting on content of the deletion suggestions. I guess Eddie891 means focus on the content of the wiki page itself? Source-of-inspiration (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Source-of-inspiration:, As, Eddie891 noted here that they Struck and un-bolded four duplicate !votes. You should remember that in AfDs we only vote once and if we change our opinion, we struck our earlier vote by adding <s> and </s> at the start and end of our earlier vote. You are right that, these got struck because they were labelled as "Keep" while they should've been labelled as "Comment". ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Source-of-inspiration:, 2605:E000:D40F:7000:25E1:D526:4931:569C You may do so, but I would suggest to leave them as they are now because the comment hasn't been strucked and is rightly there. I would advice you to read the COAL essay, which I regard as one of most helpful essays over here. Once you vote you an AfD, just leave the room. That's it until you think it is necessary to enter the room again. You can look my similar "insisting behavior" here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
That AfD is a mess, and it's entirely the fault of "keep" !voters who want to argue after having WP:GNG and WP:RS explained to them. If I cared more, I would !vote "delete" just to spite the people making a mess of that page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I know it is meant for editors, but sometimes I see really hardworking IPs who for some reason do not create an account. Are we allowed to give barnstars to IPs? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello HalfdanRagnarsson. IPs are editors so there is nothing wrong with giving them barnstars. Also, barnstars are entirely unofficial, so you can give one to your puppy or your next door neighbor who has never edited Wikipedia if you want. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Monwiki1001. There is nothing you can do to hasten our team of volunteers, except perhaps ensure that their job is made easier. Some articles get reviewed very quickly, but with a 3,500+ backlog, others can take 2 months or more. To be frank, when revewiers encounter promotional, non-encyclopaedic waffle like "After deepening his knowledge and now having gained a vast array of experience in the music industry, it was only natural for the culmination of his own label." or "Having cemented himself firmly in the scene, Soul Button maintains focus on the continuous growth and development of his labels as well as his own personal career" they're liable either to move on to something easier, or simply glance at the sources and reject it on the basis of failing to meet our notability criteria (see WP:NMUSIC), and lack of any independent, in-depth sources. So, you should look at our notability criteria for musicians and assess whether or not Soul Button meets them. Your task is to ensure sources show that he does. Work on that and perhaps then cut out the waffle - that way you might stand a chance of speeding things up. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Nothing. However, if you do nothing, it's going to fail, and for two reasons. First, it's almost completely unsourced. Secondly, it doesn't resemble an encyclopedia article; it's instead like a publicity release. Random quote: Christian’s passion and love for electronic music started when he first listened to Kraftwerk. Growing up in a country [Italy] where everyone only listened to Italian pop music, Christian stayed true to his taste in music. Not just passion, not just love, but passion and love. And if everyone in Italy (tens of millions of them) only listened to Italian pop music, then -- choosing a name at random: Luigi Nono -- is Nono's work "pop music", or is this website merely addressing readers of Italian outside Italy, or what? Therefore: (i) remove all the hyperbole, (ii) back up with reliable, independent sources everything that can be backed up, (iii) remove the rest, (iv) be patient. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi been trying to create an artist profile for a friend in the industry, am new to wikipedia create page but not new to wikipedia(used resources from here over 10 years ago for my college project). I was able to follow some step and used the visual to create the profile/bio, however, after a while i gotten notifications that is flagging it down, that content are paid. My friend is willing to pay for it, if that is what it entails. would love to know how i can go about this and so he can have his profile of wikipedia like other Nigerian celebrities. Many thanks in anticipation. Smilejorge (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Smilejorge Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, I will inform you that Wikipedia does not have a single "profile". That is a social media term. Wikipedia has articles. Second, payment to the editor is not required for a Wikipedia article to exist, and if your friend does not pay you, then you don't need to declare as a paid editor, although you would need to declare a conflict of interest. If your friend intends to pay you, then the paid declaration is correct.
Your draft was deleted as promotional- and I agree that it was. That combined with your use of the term "profile" suggests to me that you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not social media to merely tell about a person. This is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of (in this case) a notable actress or notable creative professional. Not everyone in a given field merits a Wikipedia article. It depends on the coverage in independent sources completely unaffiliated with the subject. In essence, you need to forget everything you know about this person and only write based on the content of independent sources, and do so without embellishing language(such as "However, her first love was actually singing, which later paved way for her acting career. ") Please read Your First Article for more information. You may find using Articles for Creation helpful if you can do as I have described. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hiwilms:, I guess we do not have any procedural guidelines about this? Once I gave same warning to someone and they happily removed it from their talk page saying that they're highly contributing to the encyclopedia and continued using no edit summaries. WP:FIES doesn't say anything such either. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hiwilms. Ideally, every edit should have an edit summary that explains why it was made, but the reality is that many don’t. Sometimes it might be obvious as to why an edit was made, but other times it won’t. Not providing an edit summary might be the kind of thing that is brought up as part of a broader discussion about an editor when there are other more serious problems with there edits, but I don’t think your going to have much success at a place like WP:ANI if that’s the only problem. If you come across edits that you think are clearly problems per some Wikipedia policy and guideline and you can fix them, then feel free to be WP:BOLD and do so; just make sure you leave an edit summary explaining why. If you’re not sure, then you can ask for clarification about the edit on the concerned article’s talk page and see what others think. Whether the editor who made the edit decides to participate in any such discussion is up to them, but they won’t be able to ignore a WP:CONSENSUS established by such a discussion.Editors aren’t required to respond to posts you leave on their user talk pages; of course, it’s often helpful when they do, but they’re not obligated to do so. If, however, they’re “notified” about something, choosing not to respond doesn’t mean they’re not responsible for their edits. If you find they keeping repeating the same problems over and over again, you can seek input from an administrator, either by posting on an administrator’s user talk page or at one of the administrator noticeboards. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
While there is no designated place to report someone for this, as shown by above responses, there are user warnings for it. They are: {{subst:Uw-editsummary}} (for newer users) and {{subst:Summary2}}. When you put these on a user talkpage, remember to take the parts out of it in the source code that says "nowiki." Ghinga7 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hiwilms: I can see your point about the "chronic" lack of edit summaries by Sea29. Of their 7,300+ contributions, c.94% have no edit summary (check here), and I see that over the years this has been raised with them on half a dozen occasions. As an administrator, I do find this a little concerning, though they do now seem to be editing in good faith. However, I don't think you were at all fair in leaving your latest request for them to use edit summaries and then coming here just 11 minutes later to complain they have not responded. It is respectful to give people a bit more time than that! I was pleased to see that they did attempt to improve the use of edit summaries after being rather firmly reminded by another editor last May, though their performance has rather dropped off again since, which is a shame. Edit summaries really are helpful - both for other editors and for oneself when trying to differentiate between past edits. You know, they may not even be aware that it is possible to change their Preferences here so that they are prompted whenever they forget to include one. Nobody seems to have ever told them that. (I have this option ticked, and I find it really useful.) I will, however, keep an eye on their edits and their talk page and see if things improve in the future, before perhaps giving them a slightly firmer reminder, as it's clear a number of other editors have found the lack of summaries quite irritating. Let's hope things improve. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
In fact I'm not sure this person has ever posted to a talk page anywhere, including their own? There are a few talks that show a single edit, but a spot check showed they were automatically generated because the editor moved the page. The edit summaries they've provided are idiomatic, so I don't think it's a communications difficulty. I've provided explanation at their talk both of why people keep harping on edit summaries and how to switch on the prompt (which I keep turned on, too, and find quite useful in keeping me in the habit). —valereee (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
New page for existing wikidata item
I would like to create a wikipedia page for St Paul's Church Cambridge.
Ideally I'd like to be able to pull facts from wikidata, for an infobox, but I'm unsure how to do that in a draft page. I have seen example markup like: {{Wikidata Infobox}} which seems to use the wikidata item associated with a page. How could I do that in a draft page, which I don't think would have a wikidata item associated with it.
As you will see from Template:Wikidata Infobox, that is for categories, rather than articles. There are templates for various types of articles, listed at Category:Infobox templates using Wikidata, but I can't see anything immediately obvious for churches, or even for buildings in general. Many editors here in enwiki are reluctant to rely very much on Wikidata. One reason is because of its fundamental problems in being limited to one-to-one mapping whereas the structures vary from one language to another hence the mapping isn't one-to-one. Another reason is that the information in Wikidata is not within the control of enwiki editors. Other editors may have different views. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@AndyGordon: The alternative is to look at Template:Infobox church for the standard infobox used in mainspace. Then copy/paste the parameters into your draft article and start filling them out from Wikidata or elsewhere. I took a look at a few existing articles on smaller UK churches to get a feel for the sorts of things normally included. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@AndyGordon: If thisGrade II listed church is your topic, you can find some information (date of construction, etc.) on the Historic England page I've linked useful for filling in parameters of {{Infobox church}}. If you can access a copy, the Pevsner volume cited there under "SOURCES" might also be useful. For the geographic coodinates, you can use {{coord|52.1976|0.1294|type:landmark_region:GB|display=inline,title}}. Deor (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Michael, Deor: thank you for your help! I will try to track down that Pevsner volume.
The page is now accepted. Fantastic. How do I link it to the Wikidata item mentioned above? Maybe I add a link to the enwiki page from Wikidata? AndyGordon (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ghxstee, and welcome to the Teahouse. You de-orphan any kind of article the same way: by inserting links to that article from other suitable articles. See orphan, --ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Ghxstee, if you let us know which article in particular you are trying to de-orphan, we can give you a step-by-step example if you're having trouble understanding the instructions. —valereee (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I did not find any of these instructions helpful. Thank you. The article is 2 Hours Love. ‘Found it in the category.
Ghxstee Normally, one goes to the article and checks, for example, its director/stars/production company etc to see if any of them have WP articles of their own. Then you could, if appropriate, go to those articles and add a link back to the orphaned article, stating for example that the director had directed that one. In the specific case of 2 Hours Love I had difficulty finding existing articles but presumably a link from Telugu cinema would be OK? There may be others that occur to you. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Ghxstee, so what I did was this: 1. See how many of the actors have an article. 2. Make a wikilink to those articles. 3. Go to the actor's article. 4. Make a link back to the film's article. That's how you de-orphan, and that's how you find the related articles -- by seeing what in the is mentioned in the article might have an article of its own, then (if appropriate) linking the two articles from both directions. I found two of the actors had an article; you can look at my edits at both articles to see what I did for the first one. See if you can do the same thing for the second actor's name in the film article. —valereee (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
How to reference the same citation without adding it twice to a page?
Hello! Me again, I'm wondering if there's a way for me to add a reference multiple times to an article without creating a duplicate entry in the reference list, as that seems like it would create clutter. Mariaramgon (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Mariaramgon, That's easy. You just need to name the reference when you use at first place, like <ref name="xyz">reference details</ref>. At the next place, you will need to add <ref name="xyz"/> and this way one citation will be used at two places. Have a look at Yasin Mazhar Siddiqi where I have used a similar citation at seven places. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
i want my contribution towards the society should be recognized and if possible if anyone wants to see my work he can find me in Wikipedia. how to improve my article pls suggest Sanjeevsharma1967 (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Until society does recognize your contribution, and writes it up in reliable, independent publications, Wikipedia won't recognize it. Please read WP:V. -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia frowns on attempts at autobiography but does not forbid. See WP:AUTO. That said, your draft at User:Sanjeevsharma1967/sandbox was Rejected for multiple reasons: you had no evidence that you meet Wikipedia's concept of notability - per Hoary's note that other people have not published stuff about you - you provided no references, no attempt to abide by the format for biographies of living people... David notMD (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
331dot this is the coach of the Niagara River Lions of the CEBL
(edit conflict)@YBTrece: in theory yes. Howewer, since you didn't say which basketball coach you want to cover in the new article, I am unable to tell this from a practice site of view. Please be advised that creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia. If you are sure you want to do this, follow this guide to create it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
YBTrece Pings do not work unless you sign your posts with ~~~~. So you want to write about yourself; that is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and also because we are more interested in what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. If you meet the definition of a notable basketball figure, someone will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. To succeed in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people have great difficulty doing that. Even if you succeeded, once the article was created, you could no longer edit it directly and you would be limited to edit requests. You could not lock it to the text you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. Any information, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. See WP:PROUD for more information as to why an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
On Wikimedia Common, it is : EugeneZelenko who refused the files in question. Via my request, I would like among other things:
1. Modify the name of this page that I made because his name that I wanted to put was Jonathan Kubben and not: "User: Gigiman80 / sandbox"
2. Prove and re-add the photos on Wimedia Common which were refused because I hold the rights by various contracts made with the authors in question.
@Gigiman80:, sandboxe is an userspace area where an editor starts an article that they would later on move to the mainspace. In the sandbox area, they can improve their start-up article. I've fixed few things there but I see this isn't yet ready for mainspace, or simply to get the "Jonathan Kubben" title. You need to improve it with reliable, independent and third party sources having significant coverage about the subject. Once you are done with this, you can either submit it via AfC to get it reviewed from experienced users. You may create it directly then in the mainspace but that's something I would not advise you as of now. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Captpricee, if I'm understanding you correctly, you place your cursor in the article text (just after the assertion or sentence you want to support), go up to the edit bar and click on "cite", select "automatic", and a form opens up that you paste the URL or doi or ISBN into, click insert, and the software does the rest and creates the footnote in the references section. Is that what you were asking? —valereee (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
ValereeeThat's helpful, although I understand that. Typically when a citation is made, it is denoted with a number. But I've seen a couple that had letters with them. How are those made?Captpricee (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiEditor-choosing which to use by clicking the pencil icon
So strange. I wanted to edit an error in the entry for "Better Things" (the TV series). I hit Edit, and Wikipedia said "So you want to try the VisualEditor?" and showed me what it was. I love it! Then it said, "Do you want to sign in?" I hadn't realized I wasn't signed in. So I signed in. And now I can't figure out how to turn on VisualEditor. (!?) I've gone to Preferences. I've gone to Beta. I can't find how to turn it on. Please help. Chandlerburr (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Chandlerburr. Please go to Wikipedia:Visual Editor, and you will see "Enable Visual Editor" in the the light blue box at the top. If you click that, you will see exactly how your preferences should be configured. You need to uncheck the box "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". Please be aware that Visual Editor is not fully functional, and still has some bugs. Cullen328Let's discuss it20:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Chandlerburr: In addition: on the tool bar, quite some way to the right of the Help and Cite buttons, you'll see a dark, angled pencil icon. (It's further right than shown here) Clicking that allows you to switch between WP:Source Editor and WP:Visual Editor]] and back again at any time. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Inuit culture - wikipedia
My comment is that there is nothing on what the Inuit do for fun or sport or other everyday activity such as washing the blood of their clothing, cleaning the body, swimming - do they swim for fun? Bathroom habits? Games? What other foods do they eat besides fish and animals. I'm talking about the traditional Inuit culture, not the current situation.
This is my first foray into Wikipedia, so I hope I am posting this question in the right place!
Thank you.Info43hog (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Info43hog (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Info43hog Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If information is missing from an article, it means that either there are no independent reliable sources with that information, or there is but no one has added it yet. You may wish to express your concerns on the relevant article's talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Magicalabhilash Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is "published" in that it is live to those who know where to look for it, but it is not "published" in that it is not yet formally part of the encyclopedia. To do so, you must submit it for a review; I will shortly add the appropriate information so you can do so- but if you were to submit it now, it would likely be rejected quickly, as you have few independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content and show how she meets the special Wikipedia definition of either a notable cricket player. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Notification that and article was successful submitted?
I have written and submitted my first article using the article wizard. When at the end of the wizard, I added "submit" (with the brackets and subst:submit) at the beginning of the article and then clicked "publish". However I never re=eived a notification that it was successful submitted. I am guessing that it is in the public drafting area, but how can I be sure? And if so, how, and how long will it take to find out if the article is successful? Desmond123x (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Desmond113x Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "Publish changes" should be understood to mean simply "save changes", it does not actually submit your draft for review. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to do so. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to submit our article several times using the methods spelled out in these videos. The "move" tab appears to be missing, so I have gone through the "article wizard" and hit "publish". (with subst:submit on top)
What do I do next to submit my draft for review?
I have submitted Draft:Brit Bunkley draft of your behalf this time. The next time you can simply put {{subst:submit}} on the draft and hit the publish button. If you copy it from here, please copy it as it appears when viewing the page. Reviewing is a slow process, it may take a few weeks or more, but if you are lucky you will hear back a lot earlier. Note that the move button will appear earlier or later on itself when you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, though I strongely recommend using the review process, at least until you get the hang of the things. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much! (I thought that I put {{subst:submit}} in the submission, but I may have put it in the wrong place or spelled it incorrectly. And I put it in a later edit after hitting the publish button.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Desmond123x|Desmond123x Desmond123x (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)]] (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure if this is the correct place to submit a question of this nature, but I could not think of a better. If there is a court which judges this sort of thing besides the talk pages, please enlighten me.
Anyway! I unfortunately do not have leisure to improve it right now, but I wished to call attention to the fact that the Ingrid Bergman article is unusually terrible. It is indulgently long, wildly ungrammatical, and at times reliant on a single source for not insignificant portions of the article (viz. the Rossellini affair section.) As of this writing the third body paragraph runs like so:
Ingrid was her father's favorite photographic subject. He made her dressed up in his coat, hat and glasses. He dreamed his daughter might become an opera singer. She got her singing lessons when she was about 8 years old. Ingrid did not like it very much. At this time she was getting piano lessons too, where she always played in front of Justus. He sent her to the Palmgrenska Samskolan, the most prestigious girls' school in Stockholm. Ingrid was not really a good student, but her father doted on her so much. One day, Ingrid asked her father for one krona of weekly pocket money. Justus fished out a handful of money from his pocket and gave to Ingrid. 'There, take as much as you want. Here, take it.' Ingrid would say 'no, no, no, that's too much. You musn't do that, you musn't spoil me. I should just have one krona a week.' Justus replied 'Oh, don't be silly, money is just there to be spent. Take it.' Ingrid relented but not before saying, 'Here, look I'll take two krona. Put the rest away.
I fully agree with you. I have just written this on the article's talk page; anyone is welcome to comment there: you of course included. Meanwhile, thank you for bringing this up here. -- Hoary (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Charanjeetsinghvirk Regarding images, your account must be four days old and have 10 edits or more to be able to upload images to Wikipedia, though you can upload certain images to Commons; please see WP:UPIMAGE for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Article declined
Hey,
I have tried to upload information on a Wikipedia page called " Malgre Tout Media". It got declined because of not enough reliable resources but afterwards, I added one more link from 3rd party sources. Now, it still shows as being declined so I'm wondering why it's still not approved.
I think that given the amount of content, there is enough reliable sources.
But if not, how much more should I add?
Also, I have seen a lot of other Wikipedia pages that have less sources and references but are still published.
@Adelina Maria Stana: It's not the quantity of the sources that matters, but the quality. The sources you have offered are not independentreliable sources with significant coverage, showing how the magazine meets the Wikipedia definition of notable web content. All articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject; please see Your First Article for more information.
I see that this digital magazine is the only topic you have edited about. If you have some association with it, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you could be required to make.
Please feel free to point out these other similar articles that could also be problematic, we could use the help. As noted, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
BLP notice on wrong page
Hello, Mulayam Singh Yadav died yesterday. I changed that "blp source" template with "more citation needed" template, but still when I go to edit source, I see the BLP notice. How to change this? Is there any template for that? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs)10:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Lightbluerain. You probably can't and shouldn't change that. It's called an WP:EDITNOTICE and most likely an administrator or someone with the appropriate WP:USERRIGHT will need to remove it. However, you should be aware that WP:BLP sometimes still applies to articles about persons who have recently died (see WP:BDP for more). My guess is that the notice will be eventually removed at some point so I'm not sure you need to worry about it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, all! Very happy to be part of this wonderful community. My question is about autoconfirmation. Per the guidelines I've read (4 days and 10 edits), I should be autoconfirmed at this stage. Is this something for which I would receive a notification of some sort, or is it more of a quiet change to the account?
Hello!
Quick question....Is quoting an author or a book allowed? I just wanted to ask.
Also, can anyone see my sandbox, like other people, or is it just me who can see it?
Thanks so much, DaniHart08(Talk). 13:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
To be more clear, Wikipedia is not social media. Articles are about people who are notable. Your not-submitted draft does not contain any information that you meet those standards. If you submit it, it will be rejected. I recommend you abandon it. David notMD (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
In addition, you have created article-imitating content about yourself on your User page. This is not allowed. Content on a User page is supposed to be about your intentions and activities as a Wikipedia editor. Please delete it before an administrator does. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Writing and table Seperation
I'm currently adding to the Super Mario Bros. 35 article, in the reception heading. There was a table of info already there, but it needed description, which I started doing. Whatever I write, instead of the table staying in the top right, it moves to the bottom of whatever is written. How can I keep the writing where it is but keep the table in the top right where it should be? Le Panini (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Acid Of Carbon: Sorry for reverting your edit, but on the face of it, it looked a lot like vandalism as it introduced multiple errors. There is no option for NOT marking a revert using rollback function as minor. older ≠ wiser15:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Acid Of Carbon: You have far, far more important things to worry about than whether another editor should or should not have marked a revert of your rather daft edit to that DAB page as 'minor'. You are about to get blocked unless you respond immediately to serious questions being asked by Maxim on your talk page about your behaviour and your competence here. Go and address those matters first, my friend! (And whilst I'm here, please don't waste time reporting old, single test edits at WP:AIV, as you did here. As someone who believed themselves competent enough to stand at an RfA, you should have known better. Or are you just trolling us?). Nick Moyes (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I need helping hands
I wanna create a company's page here on Wikipedia...
Fist the brand I wanna write about is a fast rising brand and has existed before the creation of the brands website (according to my little research) but I will be needing other people to join in the page creation, how do I do that?
Also, how do I really create a company page that would be approved cuz I have seen a lot of time for company pages they often use words that looks like promotion, so how do I avoid all those?
Because it's coming from a neutral voice...
Lastly how do I get images that are not copyrighted?
Dremo24, first, please make sure that your company is notable, and read WP:PCD and WP:COI before starting your article. Second, you must upload an image, see WP:UPI to learn how to do this. Let me know if you have any more questions. Happy editing! Heart(talk)15:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Dremo24 (I'm afraid HeartGlow30797 forgot to say that to you!) They also forgot to point you to these Notability Guidelines for Companies which usually require at least three, in-depth and completely independent sources to have written about that company or business before we accept an article about it. So many people waste time trying to promote their favourite business when it stands no chance of getting over that high bar. I hope that helps. You might wish to read this page about creating your first article here. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
New section
I am teaching a university class and I want my students to build a tutorial on the use
of a certain open-source software. Is Wikipedia an appropriate place for this type
of knowledge? I look forward to your advice.
Regards,
Juan Lorenzo
Juanlorenzo (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
No, it is not!!! The guidance for education programs helps teachers enroll students in supervised efforts to improve articles. It is not a place to create a tutorial article on how to use a specific software program. There is a possibility that the software program itself may be notable (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) to warrant creation of an article, but that should not contain how-to-use content. David notMD (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Just pinging Juanlorenzo to make sure they see this updated advice from David. I'll also just add that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place if you view it as somewhere to put an article about using certain types of open source software. See WP:NOTMANUAL for the rationale. However, Wikipedia might contain articles about certain notable software programmes and, as such, might be a good starting point for anyone wanting to find citations that link to published information about them. But we would neither want to host nor link to student-built tutorials. It sounds like an excellent project - but just not one for this encyclopaedia. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification. I have had students build Wiki projects in the past of a more general nature. But I have not had them build tutorials before and so I was in doubt as to we should proceed in this direction. I can see that I must find another avenue to publish the tutorials. Thanks again for your quick advice. Juanlorenzo
hur raderar jag mitt konto how do I delete my account
@HeartGlow30797: That is not a helpful answer to give to a user with just one prior edit to their name. You really should have checked first! Whilst WP:REVDEL might be the place to point Cimz666666 if they want any personal information deleted in that edit, the actual answer is that we don't delete accounts. Just stop using it and forget the password. Talk page or userpage blanking is acceptable, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Harassment by admin
Just created an account yesterday after several years away from Wikipedia. Wake up this morning to find that an admin has deleted both my user page and a user box that I created for myself. WTF? LarsJohnson93 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
LarsJohnson93, I did not see the request on your contribs page. Do you have a second account, our admins are careful in deletion of pages and all of Wikipedia. Wait for deleting user to respond to your message on their talk page. Heart(talk)17:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This was a User page deletion followed by an indefinite block (see LarsJohnson93 Talk page). It was not a WP:U1 deletion, so not clear why Praxidicae thought so, but issue is moot. David notMD (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I am a new editor and still learning the ropes with editing and creating new articles. I recently started a new article on the Kim Loo Sisters, a group of Asian American Sisters who performed in vaudeville circuits and Broadway from the 1930s through the 1940s. I am using a book that have compiled interviews from the sisters and am unsure of whether I should write down all details in the parenthetical in-line citations or if I should use "Ibid" for repeating the author name and publication date.
"Ibid" doesn't fit very well for Wikipedia since the text could be moved around later. If you're using the VisualEditor you can just copy-and-paste a citation to other locations, that will share the same citation and it will only appear as one at the bottom of the article. You can also write your own short footnotes on the form "Leslie (2020), p. 23–29" if you want to point out specific pages, you just go to Cite > Manual > Basic form to write it in. – Thjarkur(talk)19:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Zmdrecidoro: Just to add: to reuse a reference, you give the reference a name, then on subsequent uses you 'call it up' by that name, without having to re-enter all the details again. See WP:REFNAME for a full explanation. You can then use the {{rp}} template to add specific page numbers immediately afterwards, like this:
^ abWillmot, A.; Moyes, N. (2015). The Flora of Derbyshire. Pisces Publications. ISBN978-1-874357-65-0.
Notability of a rejected article vs other existing articles
The article I wrote about Ardmaleish boatbuilding company the last shipyard to the Scottish island of Bute was rejected for ( not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia ) by Salimfadhley who lives in London in England and is of Arab descent, has rejected my article on part of Scottish shipbuilding history I find this very offensive I wish for a ethically Scottish person to review my article some who should under stand the importance of shipbuilding in Scottish history , I was say this again I find this very offensive that my article was rejected for ( not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia ) by some I believe who does not understand Scottish history .
thank you your time.
when there are other article about other shipyards that have not been rejected
here are 25 article on other British shipyards that were not rejected for being ( not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia )
Hello there, Greenock1998, as you will find here, the fact that other flawed articles exist does not excuse a flawed article being accepted. It is likely that the rejection of the article has nothing to do with the nationality and heritage of the person who rejected it. Additionally, as you may find here, just because someone may be biased doesn't mean that they definitely have a conflict of interests. If you have a problem with the notability of other articles, it may be advisable to bring this up on the talk page of other articles and propose them for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. Also, your search was solely of British shipyards, ignoring the other shipyards that would indicate a lack of bias in adding articles about shipyards. I hope this explains this properly, but it probably doesn't because I'm bad at this stuff, sorry
"[T]he importance of shipbuilding in Scottish history" is not the issue. The demonstrable significance of the Ardmaleish boatbuilding company is. Demonstrable via the attention paid to it in independent, reliable publications. Your Draft:Ardmaleish boatbuilding company (2) doesn't cite a single book, magazine or newspaper, and Salimfadhley can see this just as clearly as could somebody who's "ethnically Scots". As long as they abide by Wikipedia's policies, a Londoner (or a Mexican) may write about Scotland and a Scots person (or a Finn) may write about London. There's no ethnicity bar in Wikipedia (though white male speakers of English as a first language are overrepresented). -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I am a U.S. citizen who has never been to a shipyard. I would also reject your draft. None of what you provide in support is formated as references, and simple information confirming that ships were built contributes nothing to notability. If there is not published content ABOUT Ardmaleish this will never be article-worthy. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
First, your draft has not been submitted to Articles for creation (as Heart noted, WP:AfC). Second, if submitted, very likely it will be Declined, if not outright Rejected and Speedy Deleted. None of the refs are about Young Spit. Instead, all they do is confirm that he has released songs. The draft uses promotional language. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for criteria for articles. Third, given that your User name is a composite of two of YS's songs, I am guessing you are either him or connected to him, so WP:COI and/or WP:PAID might apply, ditto WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Last, User names cannot be names of companies, so you are likely to be blocked from any more editing unless you do a name change. David notMD (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
the correct way to Contact wikipedia administrator
You don't need to bother administrators if your goal is to improve articles. Almost all article have a "talk" page which is where you can talk about ways to improve that article. People have their favorite articles on "watch lists" so they will notice when you put a note on an article's "talk" page. Administrators deal with boring tasks such as keeping internet trolls at bay, deleting pages which don't belong, and enforcing rules when necessary. The rest of us - and administrators too if they have time - get to do the fun work of improving articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
“Confetti” (Little Mix album)
Would anyone like to help me create an article for Little Mix’s new album Confetti? There is both an Instagram post and a tweet revealing the album’s release date, that could be used as citations. It would probably be a stub article, since there isn’t a lot of information and the track list hasn’t been revealed yet, but it would be nice to at least get an article going.
@Crazychickennthang: Please see WP:CRYSTAL. We don't like to guess at things that haven't happened yet, at least not in any detail, based on pre-release information (even if it's "official"). You can always start working on it in your sandbox so you'll be ready when it is released. Keep in mind that others may be interested in that artist, too, and may also want to create the articles, so you might want to discuss it on the artist's article talk page (Talk:Little Mix). (Please also take note of MOS:CURLY.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]—23:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I need help from an admin/someone who knows how to help
I know I've made a post here before, but I think I'm gonna need some real help now, I've been debating on the interracial marriage wiki and its clear to me that someone is here to abuse report, but I'm not sure what to do because I also suspect them of sock puppeting, but I might be wrong and I might just have to take it to a Dispute Resolution, I don't wanna do something thats going to get me into trouble because I love editing wiki and I'm so glad I'm part of this community which I have trust in, I just want some help on this situation because I think its way over my head -- Toby Mitches (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I've been wanting to ask this even if it's very simple, but I just wanted to ask it here anyway for those who want to respond and enlighten me. Why are there other pages that are semi-protected? Is it limited to most editors? And how does an article garner a notice "semi-protected"? Much thanks. Bekkadn (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Bekkadn (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm working on a draft article about someone who originally went by one name and now officially goes by a different name (not a stage name, but a legal name change along with a gender change). I am trying to cite an award he won several years ago, but he won the award under the old name. In the prose where I discuss the win, do I need to say something about how he won the award under the name [name 1]? Because clicking to the citation, his current name is of course not listed, so it looks like I'm incorrect. Does that make sense? Is there a standard for how I should go about this? Apathyash (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@TheAafi:, thank you for your response. My concern is that the individual is openly trans and the old name is considered a “dead name”. Members of the trans community often find it very offensive and upsetting to be referred to by the old name. I know this isn’t really a concern for an encyclopedia. So, I am wondering if there is a compromise I can find. For example, could I explain the name discrepancy on the talk page and avoid using it on the main? Apathyash (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I want to know what is reliable sources from where we can add reliable sources if two reliable sources of different types or meaning which one is accepted Adsmohali (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello WhiteFalcon1. Any text added recently to Wikipedia is freely licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0. You can copy that to another place on the encyclopedia, as long as you attribute the source. The easiest way is to say "copied from (specific page)" in your edit summary. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Political manipulation on Wikipedia regarding acts of self-immolation in Poland after 2010
Condensing for brevity
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[1]
Wikipedia article: "Siwiec's death foreshadowed the much better known self-immolation of Jan Palach in Prague four months later. Siwiec was the first person from Central and Eastern Europe to self-immolate in protest of the invasion,[1][2] and one of three in Polish history (the other being Walenty Badylak and Piotr Szczęsny)."
There is no link to the article on Walenty Badylak, which favors the reader to click through to Piotr Szczęsny. And it misses out the self-immolation of Andrzej Zydek on 23 September 2011, in protest against the government of Donald Tusk. And the self-immolation of Andrzej Filipiak on 12 June 2013, in protest against the government of Donald Tusk and high unemployment. Again, in front of Prime Minister Donald Tusk's office. Both of these acts of self-immolation were covered very superficially by the Polish media, which at that time was even more in favor of the party of Donald Tusk than it is now. Namely: all three major TV channels were in the hands of strong Tusk supporters, as were all the major daily newspapers and most weekly magazines.
Andrzej Zydek, who unlike Piotr Szczęsny, was not being treated for mental illness, set fire to himself in front of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk's office in 2011 as a protest against corruption in the tax offices and the judiciary. It turned out later that Andrzej Zydek's allegations were correct, allegations for which he lost his job as a tax officer. In fact, matters were far worse than Andrzej Zydek believed: In addition to the VAT gap ballooning from 8 to eventually 30%, Donald Tusk was accused by independent public prosecutors of okaying the illegal importation into Poland of $25 billion worth of tariff-free oil by the Russian mafia, openly in road tankers. And there was a property scam in Warsaw directly linked to Tusk's party and crooked judges worth $1 billion. Andrzej Zydek survived, as Tusk's bodyguards extinguished the flames in time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_Szcz%C4%99sny
I looked up self-immolation protests in Poland and found a disturbing inaccuracy in this article, which cannot be corrected. "Following Szczęsny’s death, the government media declared him mentally unstable." It then links to an article laden with propaganda. The related quote from the linked article in the Chicago Tribune is: "Following Szczesny’s death, the government-controlled media declared him mentally unstable but struggled to find evidence of a disease that could have urged him to take his life. Yet the disease that ravaged Szczesny is very much on the outside of his body."
The government does not control the media in Poland. At that time (and at present) the vast majority of the media is bitterly opposed to the government. The author of the article Monika Nalepa would surely know this, as she worked for the part of the media most bitterly opposed to the government! I suggest this sentence and link be removed. Moreover, it doesn't fit in with what appears two sentences later in the Wiki article: "He was not involved in any political action of the Polish opposition and had suffered from depression for the last eight years of his life."
I received a notification (or alert) that one of my articles has been tagged for speedy deletion. The instruction leads me to find a button called "Contest this speedy deletion" in the tag which I cannot find. No clickable buttons with this content, can I get some help please? Freshclover (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Freshclover Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that someone else removed the speedy deletion notice from the article; you no longer need to contest it. If the article has a red speedy deletion notice at the top, the Contest button will be within it, or you may also just post on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It's messed up right now, but if you click edit you can see the coding.
When I preview the article, it shows the old table, and my new source isn't in there. Am I adding the new piece in improperly? Sorry if I worded this question weird. Le Panini (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried a whole bunch of tweaks and the imore rating and ref always shows up in edit mode, but invisible in the article. My only guess is that there is a program that turns MC, JVX, Nlife and SN in edit mode into the names of the rating systems in the table, but imore is not in the program. David notMD (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
I wish to create another article, but I am not sure if I use the sandbox it won't delete the previous page created by me. Kindly suggest.Thanks 51moont (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@51moont:Hello! You can always create another article without deleting what's in your sandbox. Type in WP:FIRST in the search bar, and an article will explain how to do it all. Le Panini (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, for reference, click on your username (which is currently red) and it will allow you to create a user page, for a bio and a personal talk page.
Hi, I am Peter Schaeffer (Redacted) and would like to edit a Wikipedia article. However, it appears that the article is protected. What do I need to do to edit the article?
Thank you
Peter Schaeffer Pschaeffer (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Whatever article it is, it will have an associated "Talk" page. Please say there what should be changed (and how), added, or removed. Please specify a reliable, independent, published reference for this if appropriate. -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! The problem with your article is not technicalities of creating citations but because it does not use reliable sources. A company website is not a good source for an article on that company. Wikipedia wants third-party sources who have discussed the company extensively to show that it is notable. See WP:COMPANY. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I declined the draft some 12 days ago for not having any reliable sources and today Theroadislong left a beautiful AfC comment there. this is just blatant advertising. Jjevtic123, you need to have a look at WP:42 at least. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello IP, welcome to the Teahouse - home of helpful tips on Wikipedia editing. Do you have need of editing assistance? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Question on sidebars
I somewhere read in a policy/guideline that usually there is no need to add a sidebar if there is an infobox in an article. I have tried to search a lot but couldn't find that page. Can anyone give me the link? And am I correct in my understanding about sidebars guideline? Thanks. Zayeem(talk)17:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
There's no need to add a sidebar in general, but I don't recall specific advice against having both an infobox and a sidebar. You might be interested in this recent discussion about just dropping sidebars. – Thjarkur(talk)18:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kmzayeem: It sounds to me like it's just discussing where to put it, not whether to use it at all. They serve totally different purposes, and I don't see a reason (other than a general dislike of them, which some editors have) not to use both if they're applicable. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
AlanM1, Yes, as I understand it, sidebars shouldn't be added to the lead section of an article when there is an infobox. What prompted me to open this discussion are some short-sized articles with multiple sidebars, causing a substantial layout error. I'm also not really averse to sidebars in general; I've created few of them myself. --Zayeem(talk)17:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Winningest NFL coaches list incorrect.
I was looking at the list of all time winningest NFL coaches and noticed it has Paul Brown with 166 wins at 16th overall. He actually has 213 wins and is 6th. 2 wins above Andy Reid. But I didnt want to edit because its in that table and wasnt sure if it would sort it properly. Or just show Paul Brown at 16th with 213 wins.
@Dilltopia: The Wikipedia list does not include AAFC wins, and your source does, so that is likely the difference. You can start a discussion on the article's talk page if there is some other error. RudolfRed (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Helllo, Dremo24. I am afraid I am unclear what you are asking. Could you explain exactly what you mean, or link to the page containing the spam report? Thank you, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the link below
Two users spammed it & it's a notable music website in my country but has a spam report from unprofessional editing, why?
Hello, IP editor. You inserted a description of his old team in the middle of the description of his financial arrangements with his new team. That is out of place and does not improve the article. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please Help with CourseNetworking Page
Hello, I have been working on a page called CourseNetworking, it is a local Indianapolis educational company, very similar to Schoology, D2L, ClassDojo, and Edmodo, which ALL have Wikipedia articles published. I do not understand what the issue with CourseNetworking and why this company would not be able to be published on Wiki. I kept getting deleted for advertising and promotion, which is confusing when I am getting all my information from external searches. Can you please give me tips on how to get this article published, I have been working on it for months. Very much appreciate your time. XxCNxxCL (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC) XxCNxxCL (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Content on your Talk page explains that CourseNetworking was moved from main space to draft because of inadequate referencing. You moved it back to main space rather than wait for a reviewer, and it was Speedy deleted. The next day you created it as a draft and it was SD'd. The day after that you created it as an article and it was SD'd. Always, reason was being advertising/promotional. The fact that other articles exist is not a valid argument - perhaps those should be AfD'd (nominated for deletion) instead. David notMD (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@XxCNxxCL: Welcome to Wikipedia. Creating an article is not easy. I suggest you focus on working on improving existing articles to gain Wikipedia experience, and then return to creating a new article. There is also WP:YFA which will guide you through the steps of creating an article. If you are affiliated with the company you need to declare WP:COI and WP:PAID. RudolfRed (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
A few days ago I was rather surprised that I found my article on another Wiki: https://wikitia.com/wiki/David_Dobie, even though it has not been reviewed, and not as a draft.
@Bojustme: once something is submitted on Wikipedia, the licensing allows other sites to cut and paste but they are supposed to provide attribution. Not all do. Wikipedia has no control over reuse. Indeed there are many articles that are submitted and rejected that show up on other mirror sites. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)16:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikitia is a separate website, not connected with Wikipedia. To learn about it, try reading https://wikitia.com/wiki/Wikitia:About . Their page does give attribution saying where they had copied it from, so they are complying with the licence under which you released your contribution to Wikipedia. David Biddulph (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, Wikitia have added a {{Infobox person}} to your article. You could copy that back into your draft, which would be an improvement and make it more likely to be accepted. For what it's worth, I'd be happy to accept the draft for Wikipedia but I'm not confident to do that, owing to my relative inexperience of these things. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bojustme: It certainly looks to be a worthy article. I'm glad that you attributed the translated contents to this Dutch page, but I really think it would be nice if you could now try to find sources that are in English, rather than just copy them straight across - especially, Cornelius Ryan's book, 'A Bridge Too Far'. There are quite a few wikilinks worth adding, and you can even link to them on Dutch pages if they aren't present yet on en-wiki by using the {{illm}} inter-language link template. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bojustme: I don't know about it in this particular case, but often I see that especially the larger websites will have versions of their content in multiple languages, making it fairly easy to go to them, click on the selector to change to English, verify it's the same content, and then copy/paste the new English URL into the article here (and set |language=en in the citation parameters). It's not required, but it sure helps English-only (or primarily English) readers. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—19:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Parameters and tables
Hey all, Le Panini here.
This is going off of my previous question. I know about the parameters now, and I found another review that is a parameter, being Destructoid, and I'm trying to add it to the Super Mario Bros. 35 article reviews table. So I know it'll work, I just don't know how to get it to work. Can somebody help? Le Panini (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It's kind of cryptic, but you have to look at Module:Video game reviews/data that David linked above and find the row for the parameter in which you are interested (by scannng manually or using the browser's find function), which contains rows of pairs (one for each possible parameter): an opening brace, a description in double quotes (usually a pipelink), a comma, then the actual name of the parameter you want (in single-quotes), followed by a closing brace and a comma. E.g., your desired parameter is described by:
Hello, Plytixcommunication, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is that you probably don't, especially if the business is Plytix and you work for them. If the business meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then somebody will eventually create an article about it; but ideally nobody associated with the company should be involved in that. If it is created and accepted, it will not belong to the company, it will not necessarily say what the company wants it to say, and employees and associates of the company will be limited to suggesting changes on the article's talk page.
If given that, you still wish to try the difficult process of creating an acceptable article, here are the first steps:
Abandon your account and create a new one with a name which does not imply that it might be used by multiple people, or on behalf of a company. (Something like "PatatPlytix" would be acceptable)
If you are in any way employed or paid to do this, you must make the declarations explained in Paid editing. Also read about editing with a Conflict of interest.
Read Help:Your first article to see how to go about it. This will involve you finding at least three places where people who have no connection with the company, and have not been prompted or fed information by the company, have chosen to publish enough material about the company in reliable sources to provide the basis for an article. You will then need to forget everything you know about the company, and write an article based solely on those independent sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Has the 3RR rule been broken here?
Hi there! An editor appears to be targeting some of the articles I've worked on, and I'm trying to get my bearings on what's okay and what is not okay. To start with can you advise me if the 3RR rule has been broken?
On 21 September 2020, between 21:07 and 22:06, one editor made eight reversions to the article on Andrew Hastie (politician), removing about 100,000 bytes of information, which you can see here. At the time I kind of accepted it and started working through the material on the talk page. But I'm starting to realise that, under wiki guidelines, that perhaps I shouldn't have quietly accepted it at all. That the "three-revert rule" means "an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period."
Should I have reported this? Should I now? Should I offer a warning?
The Little Platoon, when you make an accusation against another editor, it's polite to notify them. I'll notify Onetwothreeip now. I see the deletions are explained in rather thorough edit summaries, and I'm inclined to agree that they were warranted. In any case, I don't see the 3RR rule as relevant, any more than it would be if they had deleted all the material in one edit rather than eight. What you should do now is discuss the deletions at the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, 8 consecutive edits count as one revert, even if all of them should revert previous edits, per WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. In addition, you are misreading the article history slightly: as can be seen here, one editor made a series of edits, not all of them reverts (and in each case explaining their edit) between 21:07 on 21 September and 22:06 on 22 September (UTC). You did the right thing by opening a discussion on the article talk page. Regards, --bonadeacontributionstalk11:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey, The Little Platoon, also realize that just because you see the same editor working on two articles you also are interested in doesn't mean they're 'targetting' you or your edits. It's much more likely they just have interests similar to your own. If you can find a way to work with each other, you may have found someone you can collaborate enjoyably with on future work, which can be one of the best parts about editing Wikipedia. —valereee (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@The Little Platoon: you say that you are a lowly staffer receiving a salary in Australian politics. Although I can't tell from those details, I see that you have also said ". If I announced that I was working for a particular person at the top of the page, then people in parliament would work out who I am, and all the anonymity would be undone". It looks as though you may have a choice, forsake anonymity and declare, or stay out of Australian politics. Doug Wellertalk12:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I will express a different opinion. For years, I was a paid consultant to dietary supplement companies while editing Wikipedia articles about dietary supplement ingredients. Since retired. I said as much on my User page, adding that none of my clients ever requested that I edit Wikipedia, nor were any aware that I was doing that. If I was concerned that I might have an unconscious bias rather than a true NPOV on a particular article, I declared as much on the article's Talk page. That said, given that you and other editor(s) are expressing contending opinions on what belongs in Aussie-themed articles, perhaps consider starting discussions on those editor(s) Talk pages before the article itself. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The Little Platoon I'd agree with DavidnotMD. As long as you mention on your user page that you've got a potential COI in Aussie politics, and you can draft a list that includes not only your boss but anyone your boss is a big supporter or detractor of. That'll protect your anonymity but reassure the community. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
My thanks to you @Valereee:@Doug Weller:@David notMD:@Maproom:for your time. I came to see if the 3RR rule had been broken and the consensus is it hasn't. I also note everybody's thoughts on anonymity and disclosure. Roughly, I'm being given the same thoughts that I was given when I outlined my situation on the COI page a couple of months ago: to declare a connection with the subjects (which I do on my talk page and on the talk page of the relevant subject). So, I will continue to do that. I note the suggestion that perhaps I should abandon writing about the topic which I love and enjoy, and I must say that leaves me feeling pretty sad. The Little Platoon (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The Little Platoon, I feel like as long as you declare, you should be able to edit in the areas of your primary interest. You can't change the fact that since you aren't comfortable declaring exactly who you are employed by, other editors may tend to consider you a paid editor at any article. You might consider just not editing boldly except for things no one would ever object to -- unambiguous corrections -- and instead discussing any actual content changes first. That'll go a long way to gaining community trust, even in your situation. —valereee (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bonadea: thanks for your clear explanation. And {ping|Valereee}} I actually enjoy editing with others collaboratively! We'll see what happens on the article talk page over the next few days. I'm hoping there will some genuine to and fro which, I think, always happens for a real consensus to form. We'll see.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Robert Ashley Fairbairn
Robert Ashley Fairbairn was one of 4 breeders who bought Sir Galahad the race horse and brought him to America. You spell his name Fairburn. Throughout all your articles on William Woodward Sr and on Sir Gallahad you spell his name wrong...He was my great-grandfather ...please correct. Thank you
To edit semiprotected pages you must become autoconfirmed, which means your account is 4 days old and you have made 10 edits. For you, this means doing 4 more edits and waiting 3 days or so (occasionally there is some lag in updating your user rights). Giraffermunch07:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Be aware that semi-protected articles tend to have editors who are avid watchers of every change. As a new editor, you are likely to be reverted for making a change that has already been proposed and rejected in the past. I recommend you first look at the article's Talk pages to see past discussions. David notMD (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Eroberar, consensus can change when new evidence is brought forward. So, if you have it, you can either make an edit request as advised or start a simple discussion on the talk page and see what others think of your new sources. If others agree, they may make the edit for you. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️05:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello The Supermind, welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your edit that didn't work[6], it seems that the article you want to copy from uses WP:Templates that the Slovak Wikipedia has but not this one. I do not know if it will be as simple as just importing those templates here to make it work, or if you have to create similar templates yourself or bring in the actual text manually. Let's see if Paine Ellsworth or Sdkb have an idea, or advice. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️05:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know the answer, but very much wish I did. So I keep it brief here. I put a longer answer saying the same thing at the "WikiProject Intertranswiki" page. I suspect that's the only answer you'll get there - not too much wiki-footfall there these days - but would be delighted to be proved wrong on that.
You moved this from draft to main space, but in my opinion none of the references establish his notability. Most are name-mentions: picked for team, scored hat trick, scored goal. Perhaps someone with knowledge of sports notability can comment. David notMD (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I have an unpublished document by someone who has researched information by using a public archive. Is it ok to use the Archive as a Primary Source reference, even though the archive catalogue doesn't mention the subject of the page, and similarly, is it ok to use websites as a reference, even if they don't mention the detail?
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.
Dear Sir, Due to lack of knowledge I had used content and reference of few websites in my draft Draft:Tyler Adkison.
Post getting the comments from a reviewer. I have tried to fix the problem in my knowledge. And resubmitted Draft for review.
Can you please guide me how can I remove the speedy deletion event against this article page.
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.
Why is it taking too long for articles to get reviewed ?
WikiSantashines There is a limited number of editors that review articles, and they are volunteers who do what they can when they can. They are also reviewed in no particular order; you will need to continue to be patient. You are welcome to do other work in the encyclopedia while you wait. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Where did you get your "3 months" from? You first created your draft on 2 August, so just over 2 months ago, and it was reviewed and declined the following day. You resubmitted it for further review on 4 September, so it had been waiting just over 1 month, not 3. It has been reviewed again today, and declined for a second time. David Biddulph (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Question
I am so confused, I tried to upload a image and use the non free logo template that I filled out for File:Borden Dairy Logo.png and it automatically created a speedy delete template stating that fair use is not used on Wikicomons. My question is where can I upload a image and use a none free image template so that I can use this logo on Wikipedia. BigRed606 (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
(ec) @BigRed606: That is correct – fair use is not allowed on Commons. Images for which you want to make a fair use argument (see WP:NFCC, which is necessarily very picky, and must be followed exactly) for use in a specific English Wikipedia article are to be uploaded directly to English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—23:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Kind of I tried upload the Borden dairy yellow cow logo on Wikicomons and used the Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates, but it automatically created a speedy delete template and said i could not use fair use on Wikicomons BigRed606 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
You don't say what sort of things you like / have expertise in, although your page mentions librarianship. A good way to proceed is to join a Project in an area that interests you. See WP:WikiProject_Council/Directory for a list. If you click through to a few, you'll be able to join a narrower community of editors working in an area that appeals to you and they'll always have a "to-do" list. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted draft: SHARON OKPAMEN
Hi,
My article was recently deleted for been too promotional... however i have edited in accordance with the wikipedia guide lines. my question is ..Can i create same article again?
thanks (talk) I said i have re-written the article in accordance with NPOV. I was article if i could create a new article with same title as the deleted ? Smilejorge (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Good day house please help look up this re-write and let me know if all NPOV criteria has been met, and if not please help edit where needed.
Many thanks
SHARON OKPAMEN
Proposed language
Sharon Okpamen is a Nigerian actress, singer and movie producer. She hails from Abudu, Edo State. Sharon was born February 16, 1989. She attended Mary Milek Nursery and Primary School and University Preparation Secondary School (UPSS), Benin, Edo State. She studied English at National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN). Sharon started acting in Asaba, Delta State in 2010. She was introduced to acting by Nollywood star John Okafor, popularly known as Mr. Ibu. She starred in her first movie ‘Touch Not My Own’.
Sharon started her movie production company in 2015 as “Sharonny Production Enterprise”. Aside acting and filmmaking, Sharon is a beauty and fashion entrepreneur. She is also the CEO of Sharonny Glamour World. She has produced and featured in several other Nigerian movies. Some of the movies she has produced and featured include The Great Servant, Touch Not My Own, Take A Fall, Eshikito, Enibokun Nollose, Ovbieze Odehiomwan, Olighi, Night Hustlers, Ighosusu, Uvbi Nollose, Efosa, The Housewife, Avbakaosa Omomebo.
Sharon ranks among the new category of Nigerian actors cum producers who are making a difference with their craft and worth at the moment. Following her emergence in the entertainment industry some ten years ago, through the assistance of comic actor, Mr. Ibu, thrusts on her some form of responsibility to impact positively on her environment. She released most of her flicks on the stable of her outfit, Sharonny Production.
In 2018, she started making music with soundtracks on her movies in a 2019 single titled “Ukpo Vbe Gba”. Most of her movies shot mainly in her hometown and presented in her Bini dialect. With just a pair of award to her credit, Sharon says, the recognition has made her understand that her career as an actor and a singer is highly respected. So far, she has got Best Producer of The Year and Best Actress in a Lead Role. Her latest movie, Night Hustlers, was released straight to her YouTube channel sharonokpamentv in July 11, 2020. Her family live in Europe, a place she first visited when she was just an eight year-old. Her hobbies include travelling and cooking. And her favourite colour is red.
No, not all NPOV criteria have been met. Your draft was rejected, not declined. What rejection means is: Stop. So please stop. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
What is the difference between creating a new article and simply moving it from draft to main space?
Hello, I'd be grateful for any help, as I may have misunderstood the new article approval process.
It was my understanding that a new article has to be approved by the Wikipedia community - but it seems that, just by moving an article from draft space, I've kind of stumbled into publishing it to the main space, without having to send it off for approval. It certainly looks published anyway!
Oiona Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is now formally part of the encyclopedia, but I would urge you to move it back to Draft space and run it through the Articles for Creation process. Unless you have a great deal of experience in article creation, you will save yourself a lot of grief if you do that. If you directly create an article in the main encyclopedia, it is assumed by other editors that you know what you are doing, and if they do see an issue with the article, they will treat it more harshly than they would if you left it as a draft and asked for a review.
I can see several reasons why the text your wrote is problematic; it only tells about the organization and what it does; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organization have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The sources you have offered seem to be press-release type sources, announcements of routine business, or brief mentions, which do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I've been editing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roam_(Musician) for a few months now, improving upon the version that was previously rejected & I think it should be ready for another review and quite possibly inclusion, HOWEVER before then I need to know which is the better format for the discography: what I have there already or do I have to put everything in a table of some sort? Does it even really matter? Tiddlewinker (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Adsmohali: The Normal Editor (better known as Source Editor) is the powerful editing tool preferred by most experienced users. It writes using a very simple set of instructions for bold, underline, italics etc called 'wiki-markup'. Visual Editor is a cut down version, more WYSIWYG in appearance, often preferred by newer users. You don't need to write using that simple 'wiki markup', but there are some things that are much harder to do with it. But writing content and adding references can be done easily with either editing tool. You can switch between editors whilst editing an article, simply by clicking the dark sloping pencil icon on the right side of the editing toolbar. You are using Source Editor here on this page, and we tend to answer questions based on that being the tool of choice unless someone tells us otherwise. You will find a lot of your newcomer questions answered by working trough some of our Help pages. Help:Introduction should help you with this one. I suggest you take our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. If you complete it all you can collect 15 separate competency badges along the way. Best of luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Adsmohali, “Normal editing” is subjective as it depends on the preference of an editor. However I think you are asking what the difference between 'Visual' & 'Source' editing is, Visual editing, is an easy way of editing whereby you are able to see in 'real time' how the output of your edit would look like once you save your edit whereas in 'Source editing' which is 'normal editing' for me, is a more complex form of editing because you’d be editing the 'Source' & this requires an editor to understand Wiki coding to a satisfactory level. Furthermore you seem to be testing your edits on mainspace, please do not do that again and you might want to cut down on using emoji's as they may make you look like you are not serious or just trolling. Thanks for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Goldbach conjecture
on 6 th October,2020 I wrote my conjecture, which I think,can be a generalization of the G.C.. But a person deleted it .Now I only request Wikipedia to prevent my post in the cancellation box ,so that no-one can steel and deliver it with their name ,because it was invented by me. Debdoot guha (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Debdoot guha. Wikipedia does not permit the publication of 'Original Research', so you will need an alternative platform on which to publish your thoughts, ideas, conjectures or theories, sorry. This edit was certainly not in keeping with our encyclopaedia format! I would however point out that whenever anyone publishes and text here, the terms of service show that they are releasing it for free use or re-use by absolutely anyone, albeit with attribution. So perhaps that wasn't a good idea after all. See WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTWEBHOST for more on these limitations. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Simis333. I assume you are referring to List of European countries by average wage? You are welcome to update the contents, but remember to ensure that the sources and url's cited also link to reliable pages which includes that updated information. It's easy to update a table and forget to check whether the source links still point to the right place. Should you feel that other editors might take issue with your updates and sources, you could always discuss this first on the relevant article's talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
My friend's IP address and my friend's account are all blocked. His IP address is (redacted) and his name is Ben Preston OHLA. Someone please unlock your account and help my friend's IP address. If something goes wrong, my friend has corrected it and is looking forward to their forgiveness. He asked me to help. He's naive, so everyone including Deepfriedokra will let him go and forgive him for once. 222.109.223.177 (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I know him very well. He never did anything wrong or anything bad. He told me that he did so for a reason. He told you already but you don't understand so I had to ask for my help because I was close to him since I was a child and I consider him like a real brother. He already knows his fault, so please if you still have some conscience, Deepfriedokra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.109.223.177 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
222.109.223.177: Please do not copy someone's signature formatting and place it at the end of your own comments, and then not sign your comment yourself. It makes it look like the comment came from that other person, not you. The correct way to mention another user is {{U|Username}}. I've corrected the instances above. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—14:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
My sources is reliable other person dont accepted my reliable sources to what i can do
I want to know if my source is reliable but other person's who is senior editor but not administrator dont accept my source what i should do.
If two persons have different but reliable sources both have different views and opinions on same article's how i can improve the article's one person say my source is correct other say mine is correct Adsmohali (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Adsmohali: Please take more care when posting your questions - you seem to have deleted another user's question - that is not helpful to anyone. I have now reinstated it. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Adsmohali: This is a hypothetical question, right? I can't see anything in your contributions which suggest you've come up against another editor with very different views. It doesn't matter whether the person is new, an experienced editor, or an administrator - everyone here has the right to contribute content, based on Reliable Sources. Where someone removes cited content that you have added, the best action is to discuss their concerns. Often, this is best done on the article talk page, or you can discuss it on the reverting editor's own talk page. The choice is yours. The former often alerts other interested editors, which can be helpful. Avoid edit warring (see this shortcut: WP:3RR) because it just causes disruption and can get both editors blocked for a while. We work by consensus (agreement) here, so discussion of sources and their reliability is important. If nobody can agree, you can take the issue to this discussion noticeboard for others to comment on. Depending on the topic and the sources, it can sometimes be appropriate for an article to give two alternative viewpoints to an issue. a good example might be land disputes between two nations where different sources publish different views as to that claim. Not to worry about the accident earlier. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.). Regards, 15:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Nick Moyes (talk)
It was mostly unreferenced, the few refs being to her own speeches and company pages, and the text is just pure self-promotion. Selected highlights include Her husband, Dr. K.C. G. Verghese was a pioneer visionary, who established one of the first hugely popular vocational training institute... She is ably assisted and supported by her two Sons (Engineers) and her daughter (Doctor and Ophthalmologist) and successfully balancing both professional and personal life... Her focus has been to impart quality education and has taken the unique initiative to globalize education and established links with universities across the globe... a unique career whereby, she has touched thousands of children's lives... thousands of students have been equipped with vocational skills and encouraged self-employment and small business development. She is empowering many women... She has been a philanthropist contributing for many community, church and social service initiatives., but the rest is equally self-serving "I'm wonderful" stuff. It's the same as David Biddulph linked, with a few self-refs. If it reappears in anything like a similar form again, given the COI warning, I'll indef the account. Jimfbleak - talk to me?08:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm a newbie, and I've recently been reading around Wikipedia's documentation and essays. They have left me with one question though - how does one start or find an edit war?
Welcome to the Teahouse Ajpoundz. You posted here as an IP, but I'm guessing I'm pinging your account correctly as the article creator. You only added part of the necessary template to the page, which rather messed it up. I've removed that and simply added: {{WikiProject Pornography |class= |importance= }} which should, in the next 48 hours or so, add it to this assessment section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. I've filled in the fields as 'Start' class and 'Low' importance. (See Wikipedia:Content assessment for more details on how articles are assessed here.)
Blue Weta It appears that your edits were restored. If this happens to you in the future, the correct thing to do is discuss your concerns with the other editor on the article talk page, or with them directly on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, IP editor. This is the Teahouse - a place for helping new users actually edit articles. We don't answer general knowledge questions here. I think you should either try a browser search on your own, or, if you aren't confident in your abilities using a search engine, you could ask the folks over at WP:REFDESK, who might help you. Try and make your question as clear as possible, though - it does look a bit confusing to me. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Rename article
Hi,
I've added a much enlarged introductory section to my article Draft:Direction Finding by Amplitude Comparison, as advised by Wiki editors and now wish to resubmit it. However I'd first like to change its title to "Microwave direction finding by amplitude comparison" to distinguish it more from an existing article. How do I do that, or will the editor do it anyway, if my article is accepted? D1ofBerks (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
D1ofBerks Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you resubmit your draft and it is accepted, the reviewer can rename the draft. You could leave a note on the draft's talk page noting what the title should be. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Can I change the name of a draft article?
Good day, Teahouse folk. I have just submitted an article for review. It is about someone named Stuart Harris. But after I clicked the Submit button, I realised that Wikipedia already has articles on other people with that name, including a public servant, an author and a priest. My Stuart Harris was an architect.
So is it possible for me to change the title of my draft to something like "Stuart Harris (architect)"? And, if so, how do I go about it?
Thanks in advance for your help. This is all my fault. I should have checked for duplicates. After all, it's not such an unusual name. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
hi there I am not a history writer of something like that
I am having some information regarding some influential members of sikh empire which is not available on internet Griffinjunior (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Griffinjunior and welcome to the Teahouse. Editors do not have to be experts; but they do have to follow Wikipedia's policies such as verifiability. If you have a reliable published source for the information you want to add to an article, please go to the article's talk page, and make a suggestion for adding the information, with a reference to the source. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I drafted an page about a company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AX_Semantics, and is declined because of missing significant coverage. I would have guessed that the reference on a Forbes Article (#7) and including in one of 5 vendors in Gartners Market Guide for NLG would qualify enough. - any specific hints on what to look out for more? Arachnoprobe (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Arachnoprobe, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Forbes article is based on information from the company and is therefore not independent, and makes no contribution to meeting the criteria for notability. Your use of the phrase "company page" suggests that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Your draft is not of a "company page", but of "Wikipedia's article about a company". A Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of its subject, is not owned by its subject, is not controlled by its subject, is preferably not written by its subject, and should be almost entirely based on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it. What the subject has said, done, or published is not very relevant, except where independent sources have talked about that. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
StoveTeam International page still has Maintenance Template Message
Hello!
I made the changes requested in the Maintenance Template Alert Box on the StoveTeam International page, but I am unable to remove the Maintenance template because I have a conflict of interest. Could someone remove the box for me? Thank you! Forestresener (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey there,
I need help with creating a wikipedia page. I have tried to publish it but it got declined.
I have saved the code. Maybe I wrote too much?
I would be super happy if anybody could have a look at the page I have created to let me know what I did wrong...
Hello, MarcelfromLondon. I'm afraid that the "help" I am going to give you is: don't write about yourself in Wikipedia. It's not forbidden, but it is very difficult for most people to forget absolutely everything they know about themselves and their lives, and write based only on what people who they don't know have published about them. But that is the only way to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. If you have three or four places where people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish significant coverage about you, in reliable sources, then it is possible you might interest an editor enough to collaborate with you. But unless you have such sources, that will be a waste of time for both you and them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Spotify1451 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review by another editor. However, if you were to do so right now, it would almost certainly be declined, as it has no independent reliable sources to support its content and show how the film meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable film. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Please see Your First Article for more information. Please do not be discouraged; successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at Marton Mere for info and it’s location. Someone has obviously edited the website at the beginning and the wording is offensive. Please review it and if you have a way of stopping this person from editing web pages in future, I hope you will. There’s no knowing how much other damage he could be doing. We all use Wikipedia so much nowadays, it would be a shame that someone, who may only be doing this in jest, could be doing a lot of untold harm. Here is the web page:
Sand Crane Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you viewed the article after a vandal edited it; the vandalism has been removed. Vandals may be reported to WP:AIV; if vandalism is a habitual problem for the article, page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 7 October 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, so happy to finally familiarize myself with the community. I have edited several articles on Wikipedia, but it is my first time trying to publish one. I have fully disclosed on my page that this time around I'm getting paid to do so. A person who originally attempted to publish the article has been rejected on several occasion and now I cannot resubmit the edited article for consideration. Could you please give me guidance as to how to jump start the process again. I am happy to learn any recommendations and I am opened to criticism.
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.
Some Help?
Intro
Hi. I had created a draft and it got turned down three times. Well, I gave up on the third try and because it's 6 months now, I can't edit it anymore. I have a question.
@Lucky7Chromebook: See WP:REFUND for options to access the draft. You can attempt to rewrite it, but unless you can address the issues that resulted in it being declined, it is likely to just be declined again. If the issue was a lack of sources demonstrating notability and you cannot find such sources after looking, then the topic is not notable and there is nothing you can do to create the page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I have hard doing road junctions. When I do add to road junctions list or add to it, the list messes up and it looks like vandalism. I would some help. Cwater1 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying that you have trouble with tables? If so, yes, table syntax is complex and mistakes are easy to make. I can't think of any short cut for avoidance of mistakes. Why not write your suggested changes to the content of a table to the talk page of the relevant article? (Specify your sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cwater1: To avoid that issue, you should always 'Preview' your changes to check things work OK. Better still, it's worth copying the table code to your sandbox and experimenting with edits to it there. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Can I do a 'quick search' from a list to see if wiki pages already exist?
Hello - I'm creating a page about someone from C19th who had connections with lots of institutions. I've created a table with a list of about 40 institutions and want to add links to the relevant Wiki page if there is one. Is there any way I can do a quick search to flag up which have wiki pages and which don't, or do I have to search for each page individually in the wiki search engine? Ruthhenrietta (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
You could just link them and see if the links are blue or red. NB the 19th century was big on grandly/vaguely named institutions, and it wasn't rare for a single name to be shared by two institutions (usually at different times). So you should check that the bluelinked title is about the institution that you have in mind, not merely a namesake. -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ruthhenrietta: Another little tip is to switch to the Visual Editor, highlight the institution name you want to wikilink to, and then click the chain symbol in the editor's Tools bar to add a wikilink. This rather cleverly then gives you a dropdown of potentially matching names for you to select from. Sometimes it's easy to see which is the right one to choose, but you can always 'right-click' the name to open that link in a new page to check. Hope this helps, too. Nick Moyes (talk)
Thanks Nick Moyes - much quicker! Many, it turns out, don't have pages - what's best - to have them as red 'page does not exist' or just leave as normal text... or decide which I think ought to have a page? Ruthhenrietta (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ruthhenrietta: That's a really interesting question. It sort of comes down to judgement. Looking at your work in progress, I'd say that nobody would want to see a page full of red links like that - it makes them think someone is over-plugging these institutions. But if you genuinely feel a few of them both ought to have pages and especially if you think you, yourself, might get around to making that page some day, then do put it as red. "But if in doubt, don't add 'owt!" Another person can always add that link later. So, for example, I am fairly confident the Colston Society would now be a notable page and highly relevant in the wake of the Bristol incident, and of great interest to some people, especially it's recent vote to disband itself. But I suspect the Prudent Man's Friend Society might take a lot longer to get written about, were it ever to meet our notability criteria, so I'd not bother to wikilink that right now, myself.
Oh, BTW: another Top Teahouse Tip for you: If you go to your Preferences page (link at very top of every page) and then to Gadgets Tab, you can select Display links to disambiguation pages in orange - this is really useful for showing if you've accidentally linked to one of pages in error (not that you have done that in your sandbox at present). I can, however, see there are lots of REDIRECTS - these show up as green hyperlinks to me. But, I can't for the life of me remember right now how I set that one up. Someone is sure to remind us, though. Hope you're still enjoying the learning curve! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Question
Dear Teahouse,
I was working on correcting, adding and editing the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valensia
It's a page about the artist Valensia. I am the artist Valensia. How do I correct errors and add content without it being deleted?
I am aware all has to be verified and must have a source. Is there a way to work in draft mode? It takes time to link all stories to all sources.
DanbelinskyUser:Guillermo Sulbaran added HUGE amounts of unreferenced content to Valensia, you added modest amounts more, and then Jonesey95 reverted everything back to before the GS deluge. Turnbull's comment is that as the article is about you, you are recommended to first state on your User page that you intend to edit an article about you, and then, instead of editing the article directly, use the article's Talk pages to suggest specific edits. Hopefully, a non-connected editor will review your proposed changes and implement them, or not. By the way, do you know Sulbaran? It was very odd that Sulbaran's first ever edit, on 5 October, was this massive and misguided addition to the article. David notMD (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers. Yes, Sulbaran works for me and I asked him to correct and update the page, since there's a lot of inaccurate info on it. I also noticed I cannot upload pics of myself, of which I own the copyright, probably because they've been on the internet for many years. But I got the same problem with uploading to YouTube: I'll get a copyright claim for my own material. I will ask Sulbaran to look into it. However, I see references to interviews I did which aren't too accurate as a source in the first place. I'm not into editing pages at all, I do worry about having this fan-made page online with so much errors and not knowing whether accurate information will be viewed as inaccurate. It's not that big of a deal but it would be nice to have it accurate. There's plenty of info which is pre-internet or quotes which aren't documented. For example, there's an entire Armenian hotel chain using my name and logo: the source is the hotel chain itself, of which I can't upload a picture because it's not mine, which makes the entire story a bit funny. But I guess all will have a source if I do a couple of interviews. Anyway thank you for your help and assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbelinsky (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 October 2020
(UTC)
Hello, Danbelinsky. Wikipedia is keen on getting its articles accurate according to independent reliably-published sources. Information which has not been published does not belong in a Wikipedia article, period. Information which has only been published coming from the subject of the article (which includes anything in interviews or press releases, as well as their own publications) can be used only in limited cases: see WP:PRIMARY. On the other hand, sources do not have to be online: as long as they have been published by a reputable publisher, so that a reader can in principle get hold of them (eg through a library), that is fine.
As David said, you and your employees and associates should limit your involvement with that article to making edit requests on the article's talk page.
And concerning images: you are welcome to use any image to which you hold the copyright, provided you explicitly license it in a way that anybody may alter or reuse it, for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute the source. Most artists, understandably, are not willing to do this; but if you wish to, see donating copyright materials for how. --ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine, thank you for your kind explanation. That's perfectly alright, virtually everything has been published either in books or online and my employees and associates were asking me to provide them with all the sources. I myself went to have a look and started to clean the page up, thinking I'd have a day or even two days to add all the sources (there are quite a few). I just didn't expect it to be deleted that quickly. I noticed I couldn't upload my own copyrighted pictures which are known and used all over the internet. I don't mind donating, I don't even care about people attributing the source. I would care about donating and losing my copyright to Wikipedia, like I do care, to some extend, that the information about me, put on Wikipedia by some obsessed fans, is as accurate and complete as possible. I just wished there was a bit more time to actually complete it. It's funny however, how an Armenian hotel chain took my name and logo and I run into copyright issues and source issues: there's humor in there, somewhere. My sincere apologies to have bothered you with this, I can promise you my intentions were to have an as accurate Wikipedia page as possible, that's all. Thank you for your help, suggestions and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbelinsky (talk • contribs) 22:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, Danbelinsky. Nothing has been permanently deleted: all the material you added is still there in the article's History: you can go to the relevant version in the history and copy it. But as explained above, you shouldn't add it back into the article directly, but should instead post suggestions, as specific as possible, on the talk page Talk:Valensia, including citations to the sources.
If you are truly not bothered about what people do with the images, you could declare wherever you have published them either that you have put them in the public domain, or that you have chosen to license them with CC-BY-SA; or you can upload them directly to Commons using the Upload wizard, claiming them as your own work, and agreeing to license them in the way Commons requires. --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi ColinFine, thanks again for your kind support. It's good to hear the material added is in the history. No, I never have been bothered about what people do with my images with the excepting of me losing the right to use my own material. Personally I view the option for anyone to freely say anything about me, using a source which only I can determine is accurate or not (I was there), a bit strange but no problem. I have instructed my people to gather all sources and only edit in what is clearly supported by a reliable source. (which I understand is the only way to avoid nonsense to be included). When ready I suppose they will test with a segment with a proper source and see whether it gets deleted or not. If not, good. If deleted, I'll recommend them not to spend too much time on it. From what I have seen here, browsing through the Teahouse comments, it's a pretty daunting task for both editor and controlling volunteer. It was an interesting look behind the scenes, though. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbelinsky (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Quisqualis just told me my trolling is not allowed here
Quisqualis just told me my trolling is not allowed here on my talk page, what I do? I never even trolled or even talked to this "Quisqualis". Is there an option to make them not talk to me on my talk page or something? Toad62 (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I suspect Quisqualis was suspicious when you post on other people's talk pages and say that you don't know what the 'lead' of an article means (diff) and that you're new here, and yet your user page says you've had two previous accounts here, and by your 3rd edit you've added userboxes and categories to it. That would tend to make make me a little suspicious too. You can ask people not to engage with you, but people may still leave friendly warnings or notices if they have concerns over your editing style. Because you appear to be underage, Caleb, you might wish to take note of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors for your own safety. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC) (@Toad62: oops fixing ping. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC))
Abuse by a privileged editor
In the last couple of days, I spent much time improving a page. I discovered today that a privileged editor, a New York librarian, has reversed wholesale all of my work and has used his apparent status to prevent an undo. Having already spent much time, I am not now willing to manually restore my work (and besides, another editor has made two good small edits that should not be disturbed) and am sufficiently upset to want to learn exactly how this kind of behavior is enabled and tolerated at Wikipedia. Does anyone know? 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:39DC:3F51:6B41:C9BF (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
This Teahouse post is the only edit from your IP address, so it is impossible to comment as we can't know which article you are referring to, or what the reason was for reverting your edits. What is the article title in question? --bonadeacontributionstalk17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I have never edited the article mentioned below; I have never edited anything by the ip editor above,; there are at least 10 other active librarians in NYC who edit WP, many with advanced permissions. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
--Thank you, Bonadea, but I would like to focus on the principle of a person with special privileges at Wikipedia making such a devastating move against any contributor.
--Well, 331dot, I am not in a dispute with the person. I can't compete with someone who has access to tools unknown to me. I thought we were all on the same level at Wikipedia. The person has opted not to challenge any part of my work but to simply remove it all, in one action. That's not right. I want to know how it is possible.
This is the Teahouse, where we provide help in editing Wikipedia. We don't discuss general cases here. If you give us the specifica, then we might be able to help. Incidentally, your edits are almost certainly not lost: they will still be there in the article's history. --ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a competition, we are all editors here to work on improving this project. If your edits were removed or otherwise challenged, you should discuss the matter with the other editor on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
--How do you "discuss" such an action, one that is not about any part of the work?
Well, as we don't know anything about the context of the "action" it is impossible for us to give any input except what you have already been given. If this is in fact about Treemonisha, there was a discussion at the article's talk page, Talk:Treemonisha, which went on for a a couple of days; three editors agreed that the best thing would be to revert a lot of edits even though some of them may have been constructive, for reasons that are explained in that discussion. If that was the article you mean, feel free to go to the talk page and participate in that discussion. If it is about some other article, you have two alternatives, if you want to understand what the reasons were for that revert: post to that article's talk page and ask about it there, or post on the user talk page of the editor in question. --bonadeacontributionstalk18:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
--I don't use the Talk feature. Never have, in 12 years of Wikipedia editing. Usually editors just make the specific corrections they feel necessary. That works for me, without a whole background thing going on. Many of us just don't have time, you know? We would rather put the effort into the actual page improvements. And usually there is no need to "discuss" because the material advances organically.
--Here in the Teahouse I am still left without a grasp of how someone can go in and wipe out countless hours of constructive work in one fell swoop without raising a single specific concern, and apply special tools to enforce their action. It is abhorrent. It should not be permitted. I take ColinFine's point above that the work is not "lost," but I have no idea what to do next. No contributor can be expected to argue from a point of ZERO, with everything undone, as if he has to win every point one by one, just because another person has opted to do one massive revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:39DC:3F51:6B41:C9BF (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, we can't really say any more (with any accuracy at least) without knowing more about the situation you are referencing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and while some things can be done without communication with others, being willing to communicate is a necessity. Most decisions here are made by consensus after editors discuss issues with each other. As you've been told, you should begin a discussion on the talk page- which isn't a mere "feature" but an integral part of this project- in which you detail your concerns and request more information from the other editor involved. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Over a three day period you made about 45 edits to Treemonisha (all of which can be recovered from View history). Several editors with an interest in this article discussed your changes on the Talk page of the article and agreed that one of them should revert to the draft before you started. Part of the discussion was that some of your changes were probably valid, but others not, and so intertwined that the decision was to roll all back. At one of the IP addresses your work was posted from, an invite was left on Talk to join a discussion on the article's Talk page. So yes, either withdraw from the fray, or else post one change at a time, slowly, while making a case for the changes on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
--I wanted to identify, 331dot, how it is possible for an editor to use such hidden tools against any contributor. That is why I used the word "privileged" up top. Yes, the page in question is Treemonisha. It is time for bed here now. Need to rest before Pence v Harris! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:39DC:3F51:6B41:C9BF (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The user who ended up reverting the IP edits on Treemonisha (which, again, was done after two days' worth of discussions between three different editors who all agreed that it was the reasonable thing to do) has no "hidden tools" at their disposal. They made a regular revert back to an earlier version of the article, with an explanation in the edit summary and an invitation to the article talk page. Pretty much a textbook case of how such as situation should be handled, from what I can see. --bonadeacontributionstalk19:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm the editor who did the revert. This entire discussion belongs on the talk page, not at the Teahouse. As mentioned above, this decision was discussed on the talk page: Talk:Treemonisha#Substantial_edits. I even said that I would not revert unless others agreed - and they did, even more strongly than I felt. We all felt that your edits added no information and was more an attempt at WP:OWN. If you can not take the time to register and participate in discussions, then only you are to blame for not engaging with others. - kosboot (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I also support kosboot's comments; as I was the first to bring my concerns to the Help Desk regarding the use of the tool: Twinkle. Even at that stage, the edits were quite extensive and questionable. I brought the discussion to the Talk Page (where it belonged); but having known for quite some time that it is impossible to tag / invite an unregistered IP address user to a discussion, I thought it best to proceed with WP protocol. The discussion was engaged and consensus was agreed upon. I stand by my comments on the Talk Page; and will continue the discussion there if necessary. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
2003: While registering an account is not required, doing so makes communication easier. Note that over time your IP number changes, so difficult for editors to Talk to you directly. My impression is that Kosboot and the others have the best interests of the article in mind. Engaging with other editors should result in some of your changes being accepted. David notMD (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
hello please am trying to put up an article on Wikipedia so i was told this "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." so how do i resolve the issues so it can be approved and not deleted Mr.Right Gmcfr (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Mr.Right Gmcfr Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you done as the advice you were given suggests? Reading the links you were provided will explain what you need to do. In order to merit an article, this company must receive significant coverage(not press releases, interviews, brief mentions, or routine announcements) in independent reliable sources showing how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The draft as it is now just tells about the company and what it does; that is insufficient to establish notability.
Hi, I would like some help with The Cremator. I apparently violated some copyrights? I would like help detecting what specifically I violated and then fixing that and reverting everything else that is considered okay. Can someone help me with this?--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I submitted an article on the artist William Heaslip and I have no idea if I did it correctly. It was submitted July 28. Have I failed to do something I should have? Please help! Thanks!
S. Fiegel Safiegel (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Your draft was submitted and is pending. As this is a volunteer project, you need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe that William Heaslip is notable and that we ought to have a Wikipedia article about him. Here is a link to a book entirely devoted to the work of two aviation artists including Heaslip. His work is in the collections of major museums. However, the current draft fails to show that Heaslip is notable, because the referencing is so poor. The four references in the draft are what appear to be an unpublished registration card, unpublished archives of an organization, an unverifiable museum exhibition from 80+ years ago, and an unpublished letter from 1939. Those references do not establish that the topic is notable. But a Google search indicates that it is. Safiegel, please read and study Your first article. You need to identify the very best reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this artist. You can easily do far better than your four mediocre sources. Neutrally summarize the best of those reliable sources, and you will have an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The unnamed man who appears in Jesus's cave in Mark?
Mr. 123453334, there are a variety of (often subjective) considerations that are made about whether a topic should have a stand-alone article or be merged into a broader topic. One very important consideration is whether the topic passes the general notability guideline. If you can find sufficient sources for this unnamed man and think he warrants coverage separate from the Gospel of Mark page, feel free to write the page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk05:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Mr. 123453334. Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for more details, but generally arguing that an article should exist simply because a another similar article exists is not always a good approach to take because it's sometimes the case that the other article shouldn't exist. So, any article you create about this subject will have a better chance of surviving a deletion nomination if you can establish that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability on its own merits. Perhaps a good place to ask about this would be at Talk:Gospel of Mark or even at one of the Wikiprojects listed at the top of that talk page because those are places where you're likely going to find people familiar with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello GoodNickBB. Your first reference does not mention Kin Lane, and your last reference is a press release, which is not acceptable. An acceptable Wikipedia biography will summarize entirely independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Kin Lane as a person. Passing mentions and sources affiliated with the person do not establish notability. So, ask yourself, which sources meet that high standard? If they do not exist, then it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia biography. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I've removed the last sentence (which was added yesterday). The first reference includes "Kin Lane" - `World-renowned experts from industry and academia, including David Berlind (Chief Editor of Programmable Web), Mehdi Medjaoui (Co-founder of the APIDays conferences), Kin Lane (the "API evangelist") and Mark Boyd (API and Platform strategist) delivered keynote speeches`. Both European Commission and the US Supreme court recognize him as the expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodNickBB (talk • contribs) 07:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Your contribution history suggests that you like to add references. Perhaps it's better for you to have more practice in improving and augmenting articles before you try creating them. Cyc is an example of an article with plenty of unreferenced material. (Randomly chosen example, after removing markup: The US Government reacted to the Fifth Generation threat by passing the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984, which for the first time allowed US companies to "collude" on long-term high-risk high-payoff research, and MCC and Sematech sprang up to take advantage of that ten-year opportunity. MCC's first President and CEO was Bobby Ray Inman, former NSA Director and Central Intelligence Agency deputy director.). The article on Cyc might also be improved by augmentation: I'm not qualified to judge. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I have added "(2)" to your subheading: it's confusing when a subheading is duplicated within a single page. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I got a message yesterday that I have completed ten edits but I am still unable to edit semi protected pages.So I have to know why this is happening Eroberar (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I try to edit some semi protected pages but it doesn't work and I didn't get any error message but I get informed throw notification that I completed ten editsEroberar (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering whether "post-compromise security" is in fact a notable topic for an article?
I saw it in the cryptography requested article section but wasn't sure that it would actually be considered notable. If it could, I might try to create the page. I just wouldn't want to create the article only to find it's not notable.
I'm not sure how to find secondary sources on a topic like this (so my lack of finding them doesn't necessarily indicate that they don't exist). I did find quite a few primary sources on the topic through a Google Scholar search so I don't think it's really an obscure topic and I'm sure there would be people interested in it.
IllQuill, it's hard for me to give you a firm yes/no answer, since I'm not an expert in cryptology. As with most articles, its notability will be determined by the general notability guideline; the existence of scholarly literature about the subject is certainly a good sign. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography, although you may not receive a response since it's not the most active WikiProject. You could also leave a message for SimonEast, who added the request, but he hasn't been around in a few months. One thing to note is that cryptology articles are not scrutinized for notability quite as intensely as biography/company articles, since there's not a flood of people trying to add them. Overall, you'll need to use your best judgement, but even if it's not ultimately found notable, I'd guess the content would likely be moved to a related page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Please address all of Marchjuly's questions. I deleted a lot of CV-type content from the draft that has no place in a Wikipedia article, What is missing are references ABOUT Moghaddam, as the majority of references are to stuff he has written. Google search results are not valid references. David notMD (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there an option to semi protect your talk page?
Is it possible to restrict any people from posting your user page? I'm asking that so I don't have to worry about trolls saying random posts that mean nothing on my talk page. Is this possible? Toad62 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Toad62: User talk pages are not usually protected absent a habitual problem with vandalism or harassment from multiple people. It won't be protected as a preventative measure. There are times where others must contact you by policy, and others also need to be able to ask you questions if needed. You are free to remove almost all content from your own user talk page that you don't want there(there's a few rare exceptions), and harassment and vandalism can be reported to the proper forums. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Your comments are inappropriate and violate guidelines and policies for the use of Wikipedia talk pages. Talk pages are not a general forum for you to discuss and share your personal viewpoints about issues. They are a place to discuss the article and improvements to it. If you have specific suggestions about how the article can be improved, and specific sources to support those suggestions, please feel free to post. Ranting about Hillary Clinton with an accusatory, possibly-libelous section headline will simply be removed or hidden. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I provided a factually accurate statement about the conduct (misconduct) of Hillary Clinton. My factually accurate statement was supported by FactCheck.org. It is also supported by comparable material appearing in the Washington Post and the report of a Congressional Committee. You should know that the truth is perfect defense against accusations of libel. My Talk page contribution included a link to FactCheck.org page. You don't have to like the truth, but denying it is rather poor conduct. Peter Schaeffer Pschaeffer (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages aren't places for you to discuss what you think is or is not the truth. If you don't have a specific and actionable change to the article to suggest, you need to move on to some other topic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
It is demonstrably not true that you have "never... deleted anyone else's contributions".[7][8][9] Further, you have been edit-warring with several other editors in order to retain an unsourced defamatory remark about a living person. This is a breach of one of Wikipedia's core principles, and if you continue acting in this way you are likely to find yourself blocked from further participation here. RolandR (talk)11:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Brian Bevan
On two occasions I have corrected mistakes on Brian Bevan's Wikipedia page, namely his date of birth and the spelling of his middle name.
On the second occasion I was very careful to give a precise source - but still my edit was undone and the incorrect information is back on the Wikipedia page.
Brian Bevan, a huge figure in the sport of rugby league, was born on 24 June 1924 (not January) and his middle name was Eyrl (not Earl).
How can I make sure the correct information appears?
I am happy to chat with whoever is undoing my good work, by phone, email or through Wikipedia.
I just want the right facts to be available.
Gary Slater Garyslater61 (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Garyslatee61 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You should discuss the matter on the article talk page. It may help you if you provide a more complete citation; see WP:CITE for information on making citations. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Garyslater61: I'm afraid the cause of your edit being reverted is, as 331dot says, a lack of a proper citation. This edit would have been seen by another edit as unacceptable and reverted. It really is terribly easy to add a full and proper citations to any website, book, periodical or news outlet. But. like anything, it takes a while to learn the simple tricks. Just use the 'Cite' button in the editing toolbar, and then click on the 'look up' function or magnifying glass icon to auto-insert much of the details. You just then need to check and add or correct anything not right. My advice is to add references using WP:Source Editor - it's much better than Visual Editor - especially if you want to add extra fields like a second author, though the choice is yours. There's helpful guidance and videos at WP:REFBEGIN, or on my own page at WP:ERB. Hope this helps you improve your editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nick Moyes. Thanks for your reply. I have again corrected the two mistakes on the Brian Bevan page taking great care over the source. I think the problem may stem from the rugbyleagueproject source which has the wrong date of birth. I have emailed them directly and am waiting for a reply. Thanks again for your help. Gary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyslater61 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Garyslater61: You're welcome. We had a bit of an edit conflict, as I'd written what follows before seeing your reply above. Whilst not perfect, your reference is better now. But a really good, well-constructed inline citation to his middle name and birth date that you should have used, and which would have stood no chance of being reverted, would be like this[1] or, better still, this.[2]
Interestingly, I noticed afterwards that the Australian Dictionary of Biography reference was already in the article, so that could have been cited again to support your changes. To reuse an existing citation, see WP:REFNAME. Just remember, nobody ever reverts you out of spite - but they can't read your mind either. So we do the best we can and reverse changes that seem unlikely. In this case you were quite right, but hadn't given the other editors enough to go on to Verify what you added. Better luck next time! I hope you find this extra bit helpful. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
^Carr, Andy. "Bevan, Brian Eyrl (1924–1991)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Retrieved 8 October 2020.
New laws of thermodynamics.
Hi, I can create new laws of physics using the concept of duality, this means I would have to edit your page on the laws of thermodynamics.
The new laws are:-
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (Shannon) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics.
The conservation of duality (energy) -- the 5th law of thermodynamics.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Energy is duality, duality is energy.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
If you want me to add these new laws then I will need some help on how to use Wikipedia? Hyperduality (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
In declining the draft:Luminar Technologies Synoman Barris said in part that it relied on primary soures and did not show significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources.
In noting my use of primary sources, was Synoman Barris referring to the use of the US Patent and Trade Office to document Luminar's patents? If so, I would argue the fact that an 8-year old company has been assigned over 80 patents related to LiDAR technology goes a log way towards establishing WP.GNG. Other than USPTO and Google Patents, I know of no other way to document these.
Luminar Technologies has had significant coverage in national publications for its work on LiDAR technology in self-driving vehicles. Much of the company's foundation and early history is covered in George Gilder's book Life After Google, which I have cited.
Magazine feature articles that were cited came from Forbes, The Verge, VentureBeat and Fast Company.
Cited news organizations covering Luminar include Wired, CNBC and Market Watch.
Cited industry tech/trade publications covering Luminar include MIT Technology Review, IEEE Spectrum, Car and Driver, Automotive News and Optics.org.
Finally, Synoman Barris questioned whether I was being paid to create this page, and if so, to disclose. I did declare via WP.PAID on the talk page when this was initially posted. This, and the fact that the page was declined only 4 minutes after it was posted leads me to question how carefully this submission was reviewed.
I am happy to continue working on the Luminar page to improve it, but feel that reliable secondary sources have been used in the creation of this page, and the citing of patents supports the case for notability.
One of the author's books has recently been republished under a new title. Stone Mothers is now We Know You Know[1]
How do I include that in the bibliography, to reflect both titles? I've already included a note in the 'Novels' section to explain it. Apologies if this is included in an FAQ post but I couldn't find anything.
Hi Kantel6. My suggestion would be to add a new level underneath Stone Mothers in the "Bibliography", as follows:
Stone Mothers (April 2019)
Republished as We Know You Know (date here)
Alternatively, you can have the older book underneath the newer one saying "Originally published as..." depending on which one is more notable. Hope that helps. Isabelle🔔14:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Szilard, and welcome to the Teahouse. The content of AVN might be reliable in a literal since, but it looks to be an insider magazine/news outlet, and thus isn't regarded as an independent reliable source of in-depth, unbiased information (see WP:RS). The days are long gone when Wikipedia regarded porn film actors and actresses differently from other entertainers. The criteria for notability are laid out in WP:ENT and, I suspect, insider awards such as 'tightest twat' or 'best lesbian sex scene' in a non-notable film are rather equivalent to McDonald's 'employee of the month' awards, and don't count for much here. If the person has been written about in detail and in depth by non-insider magazines and promotional websites, then they might be considered under our WP:NBIO criteria. Please read through these shortcuts links in detail to understand Wikipedia's perspective on 'Notability', and how to meet it. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Allmynasa, and welcome to the Teahouse. While GeometryDashFan12's answer is accurate, I think it is misleading. Unless you are a very experienced Wikipedia editor, I would advise you not to try to create an article in this way, but rather to use the articles for creation mechanism to create a draft. I would also go further, and say that creqating a new article is one of the hardest tasks in editing Wikipedia, and editors who try to create a draft without having at least a few weeks' experience of improving existing articles often have a very frustrating time, and sometimes waste their effort trying to write a draft about a subject that is never going to be accepted, because it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
When I write an edit summary in the visual editor, a dropdown appears showing my edit summary history. This does not happen in the source editor. I would like to know if there is way to get rid of the dropdown showing my edit summary history. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
For some reason, when I go to the edit history of anything there will be these numbers that are green and have a plus sign in front of the number, red with a negative sign in front of the number, and one that is just grey and the number is always 0. What do these mean? Toad62 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Toad62: these numbers indicate the difference of the revision and the previous one in bytes. Red numbers mean bytes have been removed, green numbers meen they have been added, and a grey zero indicates that both versions have the same size. Please be aware that one character is not nessesarely one byte, certain characters like special characters and emojis may take up to 4 bytes. Victor Schmidt (talk)
Template for TCMDb title and TCMDb name needs updating
Turner Classic Movies (tcm.com) has recently changed its website to a new system and now all of the existing external links in Wikipedia articles using the TCMDb title and TCMDb name templates opens a page on their website that says "Oh no! It appears the page you were looking for doesn't exist anymore or might have been moved." Could anyone out there fix these templates for use in future edits, and if it's possible, do a batch update of existing ones? Lee Leander (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Request for independent re-creation of current Wikipedia page for Larry D. Thomas
I have had a Wikipedia page for many years (under the name of Larry D. Thomas). This morning, I noticed on my page that a box was added indicating that my page has multiple issues. Would it be possible for my page to be independently re-created to absolve the issues noted?
73.98.126.125, Hello. That would be a conflict of interest case and you should avoid editing the article about you. On the Wikipedia, articles lacking certain things are tagged with curation/maintenance tags. Once the issues are addressed by editors, they remove the related tags. The article has been tagged with three different issues, a GNG fail, lack of inline citations and perhaps a COI tag, that it is edited by someone close to the subject. The third thing may be discussed on the articles talk page. However, the first two issues need to be addressed with addition of inline citations from independentreliable sources having significant coverage about the subject. If an article remains failing this criteria, it may likely be deleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
In case if the article subject is notable (article is not deleted though it may be AfD'd by any editor until there isn't any source which verifies the notability), the unreferenced content is removed or some editors try to add references. Depending on the nature and interest of editors. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, TheAafi, Mr Thomas did not suggest that he would do anything to the page, but asked if it could be re-created - I take that to mean that he is asking if somebody else would do that. Mr Thomas: the problem is that everybody here is a volunteer, and works on what interests them. Furthermore, if you look at the deletion discussion, you'll see that one editor has looked for sources that would let you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and failed to find any. The only way you can save the article (which, by the way, is not your article: it is Wikipedia's article about you) is by finding two or three places where people who have no connection with you, and have not been projmpted or given information by you or your associates, have chosen to publish significant coverage about you, in reliable sources. If you find such sources, you may contribute to that deletion discussion: you'll presumably give a "keep", and then be transparent about the fact that you are the subject, and give bibliographic information (and links if they are online) to the places where you have been independently written about.
But I'm afraid that if even you cannot find such sources, then you do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about you will be accepted, whoever writes it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Paid Question
Hi all,
I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I am still familiarizing myself with the interface. I have disclosed that I am being paid to edit an article, however, since it was rejected due to my new boss not disclosing her identity, I am having trouble submitting for revision. It says that the article will no longer be considered? How should I jump start the submission process again?
I will restate the question. Draft:Scott Dadich was rejected (not declined). There isn't (to the best of my knowledge) a standard procedure for what a submitter can do after a draft is rejected, other than leave it alone and work on something else. At least the Original Poster is asking the question politely and is now trying to edit in accordance with our rules. (We won't go into past errors.) Would it, for instance, be appropriate to G7 the rejected draft and start a new one, possibly with a comment saying that it replaces the rejected draft?
I have many times advised the author of a rejected draft to discuss before trying to resubmit, but this may be the first time that there has been a civil question of how to resubmit a rejected draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Note that this user took up the effort to create this article after her boss who created the draft failed to create it; the OP said the other user was the article subjects PR person so I blocked them as a UPE. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there's a passable article buried in the poor formatting. The existing sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability. I may take a shot at it next week if nobody else wants to. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)21:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
A citation was added to Cognitive psychology by a wikiedu student yesterday. Comparing the book text to the article revealed large sections of identical (cut and paste) content. My first assumption was plagiarism by a WP editor, but upon further investigation of the publisher ED-TECH Press, it seemed possible that the plagiarism runs the other way. All of the large selection of books on the site give an impression of being fake, from the cover images to the author's names, which include no academic affiliations. WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The publisher seems to exist, they're registered at a real address, at least. But the book doesn't seem to have gone through any kind of editorial process, with a typo in literally the first sentence. I'd assume this is some kind of predatory publisher that publishes anything sent their way. Additionally, I don't see any information about "Sabian Fleming" online outside of references to this book. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The "real address" shown on google maps is a commercial street in the UK that is likely just a mail drop. The companieshousedata page linked above says "There are 33 companies at this address". The question is, should the apparent plagiarism simple be ignored, the citation deleted? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is copied by a publication, it makes little sense to cite such a publication as a source for any Wikipedia article, does it? Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, so the citation ought to be deleted.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Vineet Bhatia Article Help Writing
I need help from a volunteer to help tweak this article on Vineet Bhatia so that it can be read with an impartial tone. Ronbhat24 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
This is maybe a two-part post. First, it is a request that other experienced editors look at it and see if they agree with my decline. Second, it is a request that other experienced editors look at film notability guidelines and see whether I am misreading the guidelines, whether other enthusiastic editors who follow movie news are misreading the guidelines, and whether the guidelines should be clarified.
I declined the draft because it is about an unreleased movie that has begun principal photography and has not been released. The author appears to be saying that it qualifies for an article because it has begun principal photography.
My reading of the guideline is that a film that is still in production is notable if there has been something notable about the production itself, such as that the Chicago Tribune reported that several blocks in downtown Chicago were closed to vehicular traffic for filming of the car chase scene, or that Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the producer fired the supporting actress and reworked the scenes. My reading of the draft is that a reliable source says that production started.
My follow-up question is whether the guideline on future films should be rearranged somewhat. The first paragraph says that films are not notable until principal photography begins. The third paragraph then says that films that are in production are only notable if the production itself is notable. This may cause editors to think that the start of production is more important than it is, when what is usually important is theatrical release.
I have worked on this article - Gary Vaynerchuk - where the notice at the top of the page said that it needed improvement by removing promotional content. I have removed a lot of promotional content but have kept the essence of the article the same. It would be great if someone can please review it and see if that notice was addressed and the issue was fixed. Thanks! 24.39.110.82 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Have reworded a little bit more and removed the tag. Could be changed even more though, there's still some sort of a promotional essence to the article, but there's no longer any directly promotional content that I could see. – Thjarkur(talk)22:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
"First known as a wine critic who expanded his family's wine business, Vaynerchuk is now more known for his work in digital marketing and social media as the chairman of New York-based communications company VaynerX, and as CEO of VaynerX subsidiary VaynerMedia." The links, which are currently red, are mine. If what he's best known for is running two companies, I'd expect that en:WP would have articles about these; as long as it doesn't, I wonder about his notability; as long as I wonder about the notability of a living person (particularly a living businessperson) who has an article in en:WP, I wonder about promotionalism. (Of course, saying this may prompt the creation of another article that might seem promotional.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Subject of image for taxobox
Close up of a close relative - Grammonota gigas
I noticed the wiki page for Grammonota texana does not have an image for the taxobox. I happen to have an image of a specimen that I took and was planning to upload it to Commons/add it to the taxobox.
The image is of a preserved specimen and does not show the entire body, only a side view of the carapace. I figured this was the best image to use as the shape of the modified carapace in this genus, from a lateral view, is diagnostic in terms of its ID.
Is there any issue with using an image of part of a creature's body, provided it emphasizes a helpful morphological feature, such as in this case? Teal Reverie (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Teal Reverie, and welcome to the Teahouse. The three key issues are that:
a) your taxon identification is definitely correct ( a misidentified image is worse than no image, and there are virtually no checks on species ID on Wikimedia Commons (a major weakness in my view))
b) Your image is encyclopaedic and potentially useful. It definitely does not have to be of the entire body. See this image by way of an acceptable one.
c) The image was taken by you (i.e. that you own the copyright and thus the right to release it to Commons)
Whilst Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not an ID guide, I see absolutely no reason for you not to contribute your specimen photo(s), and thank you for asking here. It's nice to see an article that Qbugbot made being enhanced with a photo. Do pop back if you need further help with the upload or embedding process. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the guidance. I suppose it was a rather elementary question, but I wanted to be sure that it was okay. To address your points:
a) I identified the specimen using available literature, so I'm certain it's correct. I definitely agree that misidentified images that make it into the public domain are problematic.
b) That's exactly the kind of image I was referring to/interested in using. That clears things up nicely.
c) Yes, I took the image in question.
I've gotten the hang of how to upload images to here and Commons in one fell swoop, so I should be good. I'll get in touch if I do run into any setbacks though. Thanks again! Teal Reverie (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Teal Reverie: Great stuff. Glad this cleared up any concerns. I rarely see it done here, but if the Genus is a critical one, and liable to future re-working, you description on Commons could benefit from you stating the work used to ID it. I'm sure that if I uploaded photos of uk spider taxa keyed out from my ancient 3-volume copy of Lockett, Milledge & Merrett (and Linyphiids all look the same to me!), someone would probably shoot down my IDs as no longer valid under current systematic thinking. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind dropping the references I used for the ID into the description. It's a great suggestion so I'll be doing so from here on out.
One quick question about images again: if I'm using an image created previously and cropping it for upload, the creation date should be that of the cropped image, not the original, correct? Teal Reverie (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Teal Reverie: To be honest, I would go for the original image creation date, not a date when you subsequently edited it. For example, an old image I might have taken of the New York city skyline photo showing the Twin Towers would cause confusion if I cropped and dated it 2020. So stick with the original date, in my view. (To notify another editor, make sure you include their user name and that you sign your post in one and the same edit (more advice in WP:PING). I nearly missed this follow up question. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Greetings!
Long time reader, new member. I had an auto-pay set up to support the site monthly (go team!). But one day I clicked edit on whatever it was I was reading, just to see what would happen, and saw that I had been banned from editing?! I think I was even labeled? Idk. It's been some time ago by now, and I really didn't think to lean into it, never even looked around for where to inquire. Just cancelled my auto-pay & kept it moving, until the donate notice popped up today & jogged my memory.
I have no idea if this is the right place to ask, but I'm just curious about it. I don't submit anything here or wish to, but I did see a discrepancy that one time and was moved to see about a correction when I noticed the ban. Guess I must've felt a way since I canceled the donation, but I didn't see the logic in sending money each month to a place where I couldn't even get a notice or inquiry about whatever infraction I committed.
Greetings, IP user. Please note that, as an IP, you are not a "member" and are not using any Wikipedia account. If you do have a Wikipedia account, it would help us to help you with your problem if you were to mention the user name of the account so we may review your editing history. Thanks and stay safe--Quisqualis (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Were you banned while using a different IP, or were you logged into an account? I ask because the ip you are using is not currently blocked or banned. I don't think we can help you unless we know that. Ghinga7 (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The most likely explanation is that your internet service provider rotates IP addresses between users (see DHCP) and as a consequence you ended up with the address that someone else had used previously to vandalize or cause other mischief. If you create an account, you will not be subject to IP bans, so we strongly recommend it if you intend to be editing. TigraanClick here to contact me08:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
uploading an image?
How do I upload an image for an article's poster? The image at the top of the page? I put it in the area it said to but when I clicked to upload nothing showed up. Mr. 123453334 (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mr. 123453334, the image parameter is the name of the file on Wikipedia (of Commons) not the url of the file on the internet. You have to upload the file as described in WP:Files before you can use it. —teb728tc06:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First, please be aware that There are two steps in adding an image to an article: (1) Upload the image to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons (freely licensed files only, not suitable for most files found on the internet) . (2) Add the image to the Article, like showing on the right. Check the source code of this setion to see how its done. An example image The first step is the step that is more error-prone, because it requires at least a basic understanding of the copyright rules regarding images, which are quite complex. Therefore, I recommend that you use the File Upload Wizard for step 1. If you are unsure about something in the wizard, please ask again with all Information you already have about the image. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mr. 123453334: If your photo was of a promotional poster for the film The Junk Shop, I suspect this could only be uploaded to Wikipedia and there and only there under a WP:FAIRUSE licence. Wikimedia Commons does not accept any images under a fair use licence, so it would have to be a direct upload to English Wikipedia. I did intend to look for your failed edit but, because you have hardly ever used EDITSUMMARIES with your edits (80% failure rate), I wasn't willing to wade through each and every one of them to check for you. Please remember to use edit summaries every time in future - it helps both you and everyone else. (You can change your Preferences to prompt you if you forget - something I wish English Wikipedia we had activated by default). Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, just noticed this while reading the Teahouse Archives (Mobile Version). All is as usual until you reach question (#141 If you're counting) "why an old page which was active for some years in subject to deletion?" it appears like the last topic on the page. But when you expand it a lot of other topics appear, with headlines and all, but they act "as one", you cant expand/hide them individually. (In desktop mode it seems to be normal). So what's amiss here? Something to do with the mysterious "sidebar" in question_141? Maresa63 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, are there any bots in the wiki system, that like to revert pages. I am trying to edit the Yamaha FZ6R wiki page, and actually fill it with solid information instead of a re-direct to something else that has zero information. Every time I do it, someone or something reverts it back to the Re-Direct page. What can I do here. RideThe6 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: , yes I understand what you are saying but all this info and specs are from the Yamaha FZ6R operators manual. I own two of these motorcycles and can say that the information is accurate. Why would I go through such a lengthy process to fill out false information. If the senior editor is such an expert, ask him to show me any information on the re-direct page for the FZ6R. The current links and data for this motorcycle is completely inadequate. I was hoping to change that. But I guess not. I thought this was a place for information. Well right now I see none, other than my edits. If it sources I need, then just say we need sources and not completely revert the article. I will upload sources, if it suits your highness.
@Nick Moyes: Sources were uploaded, and still not good enuf. I don't know what else is required. The moderator that revoked it has not responded, so I will just do nothing. (RideThe6 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC));
@RideThe6: Thank you for adding that source. I suspect the issue is that, because this is an encyclopaedia, not a spec sheet, we also need to see content based on sources that have written in detail about that model. Detailed reviews in motoring literature would be ideal if that particular model is notable in its own right. I'm sorry you're finding this frustrating, but 'notability' is the key issue here. By way of example, in the computer world there are innumerable series of devices (eg. HP Envy) within that there are many sub-ranges like the HP Envy 17, then within each sub-range there are many individual models - literally hundreds of them. We would not expect a separate page on the HP ENVY 17-cg0002na, the HP ENVY 17-BW0005na, the HP ENVY 17-cg0511sa, the HP ENVY 17-bw0999na and so on. Now, I know nothing about motorbikes, but I suspect the issue is roughly the same here, with too many individual models not being uniquely notable in their own right. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC).
@Nick Moyes:So now the manual that I uploaded as a reference has been deleted. Guys this is seriously frustrating. Although I understand what you are saying nick about computers, this is not a computer. This is a motorcycle where everything in about specs, and images. It is unique to the page that it is being redirected to. Why does that Yamaha YZF-R6 have it's own page with specs ? And also the Yamaha FZ6? Go ahead take a look. All I'm trying to do here is do the same with this Yamaha FZ6R. There are no sub models. This is the model. People are always saying they can't find information on this bike. And now I know why. At this point I might just give up because this seems a futile exercise, while every other bike model has it's own page. (RideThe6 (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC));
Owning a article
If we were the legitimate owner of information, we have the ability to create an account with our legal name then send the necessary documentations to confirm that, we are the legitimate owner of information, and that we know it best, so if Wikipedia approves, no one else is able to make changes to the information we put out. Does this policy or rule exist? Nakhonmuengin (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Nakhonmuengin. Wikipedia policy is the opposite of that: Almost anyone can edit almost any article, but the subject is strongly discouraged from editing an article of of which it is the subject. And only an individual may have an account. —teb728tc03:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned, accounts are created by individuals, not organizations. IBM cannot be a User name, although something along the lines of "Nakhonmuengin at IBM" is OK. And to cite information, it must be in the public domain, i.e., published. Adding unpublished information to an article would be reverted. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Seeking help to add content to my Wikipedia page
Dear Wikipedia volunteers. I have a Wikipedia page and it is incomplete. I know that I am not allowed to edit/delete or add content on my own, so seek a Wikipedia volunteer to do this for me please. Previously CaptainEek, a volunteer, helped me insert a photograph of myself to my page, but he is now too busy. Now I would like to include more facts about my career that are verifiable with newspaper articles and online news stories (I can supply links to these). I'd be grateful if someone can step forward. Thank you. (Please note that I was blocked in the past because I unknowingly used my website address as my username here. I have since been unblocked and changed my username, request is pending)Wwwedgoldcouk (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Wwwedgoldcouk (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
HeartGlow30797,Thank you very much for your reply. I am new to making contact with volunteers on Wikipedia and have a great deal of trouble to navigate the different pages. Please can you give me an extremely simple description of exactly I need to go to, in order do what you suggested. For example, you wrote "Please do {{edit request}} on the page's talk page!" - on which page's talk page? The Teahouse talk page or my talk page? Please give me a step by step guide of where I have to go to, in order to ask for help. Thank you.Wwwedgoldcouk (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Wwwegoldcouk All WP articles also have a talkpage. So, you would place the edit request on the article’s talkpage, not your current Wwwgoldcouk user talkpage. Two curly brackets, then the words edit request, followed by two curly brackets. Just a note...people tend to get a bit bothered by certain wording, here. So, if WP has an article about you, please don’t refer to it as “your page” or “your article”. Otherwise, you will be informed that the article “belongs” to Wikipedia...which is true, of course, but there’s no need for you to offend, now that you know! Hope this helps, and good luck.Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!09:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Wwwedgoldcouk, and welcome from me too. I think it would have been more helpful if HeartGlow30797 had directed you to the information page WP:Edit requests rather than to the template. That tells you what you need to do. Incidentally, thank you for following our policies: it might help avoid misunderstandings in the future if you get into the habit of saying "Wikipedia's article about me" rather than "my Wikipedia page". --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello,ColinFine, Thank you for trying to help. I have had a look at the link you sent but I still don't understand what I have to do. For people who aren't very tech minded, how can they go about getting help to edit their page? I do NOT have the confidence to write for help anywhere other than here. I have been to the "Wikipedia's article about me" page and clicked on 'Edit source' but I am worried anything I write will show up on the main Wikipedia article page about me. It has actually taken me one month to get this far, to figuring out how to contact anybody, after getting unblocked. I'd like to get my "Wikipedia's article about me" edited soon and am worried it will take another month. For regular users I appreciate this might only take minutes, but, on my own, I cannot find the correct place to request help with an edit. Is there anyway you can give me an exact link or a screengrab of where I have to go to write my request please.Wwwedgoldcouk (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I can see how this may be confusing you. The advice you have been given here has pointed to Talk:Ed Gold, which I think is actually you (a British photographer) and to Talk:Edward Gold (an American pianist). Please make sure you use the correct link! I am an uninvolved editor here who usually writes chemistry articles but I'm happy to try to help you improve the Ed Gold article and will now keep a lookout for your suggestions on its Talk page. Under NO circumstances should you edit the article yourself: stick to its Talk Page. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
At Talk:Ed Gold, start a new section (top menu). Give the section a title, for example Proposed content changes. In the place for content, be specific, as in proposing new content with the wording you want and the references in support. Editors here at Teahouse are aware of you interest in wanting to suggest content changes, and have volunteered to look at what you propose and then either implement or give reasons why not. Be sure to mention that EddieLeVisco is your newly approved User name, and that you are the subject of the article. David notMD (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Moving a Draft to Main Space
I have seen a lot of videos and looked into many articles as well, but I am unable to find a proper way of taking my draft to the main space. Can you please help me. I have already sent the draft for a review, but it seems like everytime its being dropped. Nehanair86 (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps if you could look at my page and let me know if I am missing something - Draft:Mmmmm
Nehanair86 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot directly create articles until you are autoconfirmed- meaning that your account has at least 10 edits and is at least four days old; you meet the former criteria but not the latter. However, even once the four days are up, it is strongly advised that- unless you have great experience in article creation- that you use the review process and allow it to play out. The draft will be treated better under a review than it would be if you moved it immediately to article space, should problems be found. In the case of an upcoming film, you will need to show that it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable upcoming film. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
For inexperienced editors, the risk of moving a draft to mainspace without going through Wikipedia:Articles for creation is that a flawed article may be proposed for Speedy deletion if seen as too promotional, or nominated for deletion. You properly submitted your draft to AfC and it was Declined, with reasons given by the reviewer. If these can be addressed, do so and resubmit. David notMD (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Journal citation tools
Hi there. I have access to STOR, which is a good source (I think) of scholarly citations. JSTOR has a nifty "cite this item" button, which, when you press it for a given article, generates citations in MLA, Chicago, and APA styles. I see some wiki entries about a discontinues cite jstor tool. Are there are tools that make it simply pasting an entire citation into an article rather than cutting and pasting from one source into the journal template fields? Thanks. Nigetastic (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Team. I have created by my own knowledge an article Senzo Mazingiza, but it was tagged for speedy deletion. the topic is notable its just i don't know how to rewrite it in proper so that it could fit for Wikipedia article. You may use some reliable sources from Google and other source. I hope that i will get the help. THANKS 4realtz (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt mobil: Thank you for instructions it has helped me with something i didn't know. I have read carefully WP:NPERSON as u instructed and i have come to realize my article fits for WP:SPORTSPERSON due to that i am providing the following sources[2] , [3] , [4] that would help to improve the establishments of the article . The more i use Wiki the more i keep on learning new things and Love it more more. 4realtz (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, 4realtz. I don't think any of those three contribute to meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability, because none of them are independent: they all derive from interviews or press releases. Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said about the subject by the subject themselves, or by their associates or employers, however this is published. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
okay ColinFine i understand you, so can you advice me what to do, or can someone google the person and help us to improve the article? or the article is not supposed to remain in wiki? if its yes, then its fine then let it be deleted because that was my first article to create apart from edits, so may be my experience is not better for now. 4realtz (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
So long as you don't sign out, yep! If you stay logged in, and look up another Wikipedia, you should be logged in! (This also has a weird consequence that you can sometimes get welcome messages from Wikipedias you've never edited - just this week I got one from the Bengali Wikipedia, which I have never even visited.)
Not really. If you create a userpage on Meta, the 'Wikipedia for Wikimedia projects', it will automatically become your userpage on all projects that you haven't created a userpage for. For example, on Wikimedia Commons, (which I haven't created a UPG on), my Meta-wiki userpage comes up. That said, you can create a dedicated userpage for a certain project (by clicking on the 'Create source' or 'Add local description' buttons). An example of a dedicated userpage is my English Wikipedia one, which you can find here --> Giraffermunch18:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
How should you report something to the Administrators' noticeboard?
If there's something going on (example: edit warring), how should I report it? I can't seem to find anything, or maybe I'm just blind. Rafplayz001 (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Rafplayz001, hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Go to WP:AN/3RR and then scroll down to "Click here to make a new report." If you are talking more generally, then you can click "New Section" at the top of the page, right next to the "Read Edit View History" buttons. It will prompt you to fill out a header, and a body paragraph! Remember to sign your name by using ~~~~. Enter in a edit summary and click "Save Changes." Happy Editing! Heart(talk)13:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Rafplayz001, we have multiple venues for reporting specific types disruption:
Ongoing vandalism goes to WP:AIV after the users have been adequately warned
Requests for page protection (usually due disruption by a large number of users) go to WP:RFPP
Hi, Marc10212010, welcome to the Teahouse. To find an image, you can use the search box at wikimedia commons. After that, and copying the filename, follow the instructions at Help:Pictures. I've added a picture to your sandbox to show you how it can be done. Let me know if you have any further questions about this. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're referring to Draft:IPad Air (7th generation). To submit a draft for review, you can click the submit button I've added to the article. However, an unsourced article won't be accepted. I'd highly recommend just improving the already existing articles on iPads and iPad models instead of creating a new one, when your section becomes too large you can then split it off into a new article. – Thjarkur(talk)17:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
User page redirect
Hello!
I'd like to know if and how to add a redirect to my user page ("User: SeparateTitan92") from "User: SeperateTitan92".
Hola, hice un artículo en inglés y me lo borraron por el idioma. Hay manera de hacer un artículo en inglés desde un país de habla hispana? 201.246.111.124 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy translation: "Hello, I made an article in English and it was deleted because of the language. Is there a way to write an article in English from a Spanish-speaking country?"
Move to here, presuming same person, now with an account:
Hola, subí un artículo sobre un artista en inglés y me lo borraron por el idioma. Existe algún problema al escribir un artículo en inglés desde un país de habla hispana? Anamariamalave (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Articles in English are submitted to en.wikipedia.org, while articles in Spanish are submitted to es.wikipedia.org. If you are in Chile and want to write in English, then you use en.wikipedia.org. – Thjarkur(talk)17:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Lo hice desde Wikipedia en Inglés , pero al parecer me toma la ubicación y por alguna extraña razón lo detecta como si estuviese siendo editado en wikipedia español. Voy a intentar de nuevo a ver que sucede, gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anamariamalave (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
That certainly is strange and shouldn't happen. But good luck with editing, feel free to come back here to the Teahouse to ask if you have further questions :) – Thjarkur(talk)17:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@James Hagemann: Because you have 30 references in there, many in Spanish, it's probable that our team of volunteers didn't immediately jump at the hard work involved in reviewing it. I wonder: would you mind replying here and give links to the top, say, four, independent references which talk about him in detail and in depth? I'd be happy to look at those to gauge whether he is likely to be notable.
And noting that you have only ever worked on just this article in both English and Spanish Wikipedias, I do need to ask you to take a look at our page on declaring any conflict of interest you might have if you happen to know this person, and especially to invite you to declare if you have been WP:PAID to create this article? Any undeclared connection to the subject can be made known on your userpage, per our obligatory policies.) My reason for asking is that this was your very first here edit on Wikipedia, and the article structure already looked extraordinarily well-formed for a new user and quite similar to that which we see being made by knowledgeable 'first time' editors who are actually getting paid to promote content here. It is also unusual to see new editors creating Wikidata entries about the people they write about. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for the feedback. I do not have any conflict of interest in the creation of the article nor I have been paid to create it, and this is not the only article I have worked on as you mentioned. I did translate the English article of Sharan Burrow (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharan_Burrow) into Spanish Wikipedia. I wanted to do the same thing with Angelo Cardona's article but I am not allowed to translate from Wikipedia Spanish into English yet. I am just learning how is the process of translating in multiple Wikipedias as I will be interested in translating articles in the future from one Wiki to another, any suggestions? lastly, about wiki data entries, well I have just copied the code from a different article and pasted into the one I was creating and then replaced the information accordingly. --James Hagemann (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Wes sideman, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is No, for a couple of reasons. First, we don't punish editors here. People can get blocked or various other sanctions, but these are not punitive: see WP:PUNISH for more information. Secondly, that edit was a piece of vandalism 11 years ago, and was quickly reverted. There is no point in taking action over old vandalism. Thirdly, that editor has a recent warning - from today - on their User talk page, for disruptive editing. --ColinFine (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Help, I need a permalink.
I have a link that is constantly changing. I don't know how to explain it, as I am not remotely technical. This is the link that is working for me right now but this is the link that was working when I wrote the article. I think it has something to do with the "temparales" (temporary) in the title. Trying to save it to Wayback results in a 404 warning. To find the link, I searched "Ex Legisladora Alba Roballo (Homenaje)", 4 September 2018 and the correct result comes up as Diario 4183_S037DEFINITIVO - Parlamento. Can someone assist me in formatting this so that it remains a permanent link? Is there a way that it can be archived? It is a critical reference for the article. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC) SusunW (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
AlanM1 As I said above, I am not technical. I don't really understand why the link changes (in truth, nor do I want to). Are you saying that by using the archived link Thjarkur gave me there will still be the possibility that it will be given a temporary id? I thought a permanent link in way back was permanent. If that it will still be temporary, then I definitely should change it, but if it will remain accessible then why would I? I'm sorry, but this is all very confusing for me. SusunW (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
SusunW, AlanM1 was just pointing out that he figured out how to get a link to the live government website without just receiving a temporary file. The Wayback's link is however going to be much more permanent than the government's link, so including the Wayback link (or both links like Alan does here above) is good. – Thjarkur(talk)20:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I hope everything is fine.
I have one question about content on the list [List of largest empires],
I went to search more about the content of Portuguese Empire, and in the list is wrong, and they recently changed.
First of all, there is to say that Portugal controlled approximately 5.5% of Brazil, so there it is wrong
Exist one map from (1821) portrays the dimension of Brazil at the time under the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves, (Source): National Library of Portugal, Portuguese Republic, "Exhibition": http://purl.pt/ 880/3 / General Website: http://www.bnportugal.gov.pt and also see in wikimedia https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Império_Português#/media/Ficheiro:Brasil_1821_-_América_Portuguesa.jpg
there is even a book with the area (source) Society and Education in Brazil
By Robert J. Havighurst, J. Roberto Moreira
(link) https://books.google.pt/books?id=u65BLiP8qXEC&pg=PA60&dq=Portuguese+Empire+kilometers+km2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwmaLZxaDsAhWbA2MBHdzLDr8Q6AEwBXoECAYQAg%20202020 = false
I did a study by Jesse H. Ausubel and his studies are very good and supported by several people and entities. He studied not only empires, but several studies related to the humanities. "From 1989 to 1993, he served as director of studies for the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, which aimed to improve the use of scientific experience in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the US government, as well as in international organizations. Mr. Ausubel was the main organizer of the first UN World Climate Conference (Geneva, 1979), which raised the issue of global warming substantially on the scientific and political agendas. "
is also a joint project with International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Rockefeller University. they even wrote an academic manual - link: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/empires_booklet.pdf In other words, it is a project that involves, human sciences, history and statistical analysis ...
Jesse H. Ausubel besides the project being his. in addition to these various projects, including empires, he is also a scientist and the journal the The New York Times even mentioned him in some discoveries he made https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/science/26ausubel .html
he says there that the Portuguese empire reached 13.4 million km2, and sees an empire as a whole.
I also carried out another study of the famous "Zbigniew Brzezinski" that can be used in the area of the second Portuguese empire in the list (10.4million km2)
@Klotes: Welcome and thanks for wanting to make Wikipedia better. Discussions on how to improve articles should go onto that article's talk page, where interested editors can discuss it. RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I would like to know why the page Rhodesian bush war states that the conclusion was "Zimbabwean Independence" when they simply took control of an already independent state. Thats like saying France gained independence when it was invaded by Germany in WWII... its called occupation. 119.224.31.70 (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend reviewing the article's talk page at Talk:Rhodesian Bush War. If there has been prior discussion on the issue, it will be there. If there has not been prior discussion, you could raise the issue there. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Contribution of Article
I have a useful article on Contact Resistivity and Circular Transmission Line, but need to know how to contribute it to Wikipedia. Dale R Burger (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Dale R Burger, could you clarify what you mean by "have a useful article"? If it's not something you wrote yourself, copyright restrictions likely prevent you from bringing it here. If it is something you wrote yourself, please see the guidance at WP:Your first article. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Dale R Burger. I have no advanced knowledge of electrical engineering but my quick Google search showed this article I found on Google and similar sources. So, it appears to me that the topic is notable. Please be aware that Wikipedia has very different standards than academic writing. Please read Your first article. You may want to consider the optional Articles for Creation process, especially if you are not prepared to be scrupulous about following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As stated above, anything you contribute should be your own original writing in the vast majority of cases. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Links to wikipedia in other languages
I often use wikipedia while translating and notice missing links between two languages, but I had trouble finding a guide on how to edit this links (a simple link to a help page would be enough for this). I also noticed that some of the pages with a missing link are both linked to the english wikipedia (the same could be true for other languages). This doesn't always mean a new link is appropriate, but suggests this task would benefit from some kind of automation and I was wondering if there are already tools for this or what would be the best place to suggest their introduction. Thank you for any suggestion. Personuser (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The link has the info I needed, I was thinking more about links in the sidebar, which are covered earlier on the same page, but I wasn't really clear about that. Some hints about the automation part would be still helpful, but I'll read first something more about wikidata and how it works, where this topic seems to belong. Thanks.Personuser (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Personuser, yep, the links to other languages are based on what's present at Wikidata. Just scroll to the bottom of the Wikidata item and add the language code (e.g. "de" for German) and the page name. If it's already part of another Wikidata item, you may have to merge them. Note that Wikidata generally has a higher standard for how similar two things need to be to warrant merging than Wikipedia; they have to be the same entity, not just very similar entities. {{u|Sdkb}}talk04:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Merge from Draft article to Duplicate subject in article space
When we first created draft space, a cross name-space redirect wasn't allowed, but I've recently received a few requests for that, so thought something must have changed. Thanks for the input. Much appreciated. GenQuest"Talk to Me"01:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC).
GenQuest, I am too green to know the how things used to be before 2019, but, well, main to draft is still not allowed along with any other not specifically exempted at WP:R2, but draft to main is natural. All drafts accepted at AFC become redirects, for example. Best, Usedtobecool☎️05:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I recently created page for Indian Social worker Ravinder Sharma (Guruji). I did my testing in the draft and somehow after creating it as page the title has "Draft: Ravinder Sharma (Guruji)" in its page title. Please help me by telling how to remove the "Draft:" from the page title. Sachsach (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sachsach: Generally, to promote the draft to an article, there are tow options:
move the draft into article space, removing the "Draft:"-prefix. I do not recommend this option, because articles who don't comply with the rules, mainly WP:N (WP:NPERSON in this case), WP:BLP (not applicable here) or WP:SELFPUB will either be send back, or end up at WP:AFD, and I am pretty sure this is not something you want.
The second option is to submit the draft for review by a reviewer, as you seem to have done before. I have added the button for that to the draft.
If you choose option 1, please remove the code which I yust added in the first line. In future, you can create an article directly in article space by Typing the name into the search bar, and then clicking the red text in the sentence "You may create the page (article title)", Howewer, you need to be sure that if you do this, any published revision should either carry {{inuse}} or be already at an acceptable stage. Articles who fail to do that often end up as "Draft:" Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "unformatted" because all of the citatons in Cleavage (breasts)#References seem to be formatted in some way. Generally, when Wikipedia refers to citations as being "unformatted", I think it's referring to WP:BAREURL. On the other hand, even though the citations in an article are all formatted, a variety of citation styles might be being used, which is not typically a good thing due to the inconsistency it causes. In such cases, it might be a good idea to "fix" the citations so that they follow the same style, but you need to be careful of WP:CITEVAR when doing this. Maybe the thing to do would be to discuss your concerns at Talk:Cleavage (breasts) and see what others think. Unilaterally changing a citation style sometimes can be OK per WP:CS#Generally considered helpful, but it's also something that can be quite contentious. With 400 plus citations involved, it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS instead of WP:BOLD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Sorry about my choice of words. I probably should have said poorly formatted. I wouldn't worry too much about other editors objecting, as I have done more than 85% of the work there, and most of the sutpidly formatted cites are examples of my own laziness. Most of the cites added by others are nice, I need to make mine like those (possibly replacing harv refs with standard cite templates). By the way, I found two shortcuts: Magnus's makeref tool at toolforge, and Zotero (though not too sure about this one). I tried Li's refill at toolforge, but that one was useless. Aditya(talk • contribs)13:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
How to deal with grey areas for WP:RS
Hello,
Hope you're doing well. I have a question about when material from academics meets the standard for being reliable. It seems clear to me from WP:RS that peer-reviewed academic papers do qualify, whereas self-published material (even from an academic) doesn't qualify. This leaves a grey area in between though that is neither peer-reviewed nor self-published. To give three examples:
My question isn't the reliability of these particular examples, but rather how to decide if a source is acceptable where Wikipedia's guidelines aren't specific. Thanks! Gazelle55 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gazelle55: A lot of it depends on what is being cited and how. For example, you could source that somebody gave a Ted talk with the video of the Ted talk. But if they’re making controversial claims you can’t say they’re true just because he said them. You can also say so-and-so said “xyz” in a Ted talk. Again it depends on the context. TimTempleton(talk)(cont)00:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gazelle55. I wouldn't say that whereas self-published material (even from an academic) doesn't qualify is always the case per WP:SELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:CITESELF or even WP:EXPERT; "self-published" sources may be acceptable in some cases depending on WP:RSCONTEXT. As for disagreements over whether a source from an academic is reliable, that's something that sometimes can be resolved through WP:DISCUSS or and noticeboard like WP:RSN. If the academic is a well-respected peer in their field, then in some cases the things they self-publish might be considered reliable in certain contexts if properly attributed as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Can we list an entry about ourselves to establish our name within our professional field as an artist as a reference for potential audience? 158.140.192.244 (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Click on that "No" to see Wikipedia's position on attempts at autobiography. Furthermore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a deposit for resumes. David notMD (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
hello there!
I just added few information in the NASA space apps wikipage. I also have to add few information in a table but I don't know how to. Can somebody help me? Toa eolas (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Toa eolas, try using the Visual Editor instead of the source editor. Then click on a table, then click on the arrow on the left side of the table, then click "Insert below". You will then have added a new row. – Thjarkur(talk)15:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia but I was under the impression that if something has a published Wikipedia page then it is considered notable. But recently I translated an article about a movie from Arabic to English (siting the same sources as the original page) and it got rejected. I'm confused as the reasons sited was that it wasn't supported by reliable sources and didn't qualify for an article. Did I make a mistake? Is there a misunderstanding? Is there a way to request another review???
Thank you, --FH24 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)FH24 FH24 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello FH24, the English and Arabic Wikipedias are distinct projects and they each have their own rules. The only thing lacking in your article is that it only cites IMDB as a source, and since IMDB is user-generated it's not a reliable source. You just need to add some sources showing that it has received significant coverage such as in newspapers or books, often you can find in-depth reviews. You can then click the "Resubmit" button to request another review. – Thjarkur(talk)14:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
In the interests of completeness, FH24, I'll point out that your initial assumption, that if something has a published Wikipedia page then it is considered notable, is an aspiration rather than a fact. English Wikipedia has many thousands of sub-standard articles, mostly created long ago before we were so careful. Unfortunately few editors are motivated to trawl through these and improve or delete them. --ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Help please on new article.
Hello, I created an article, Draft:Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf Award - Kathleen Shannon Award that I moved to Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf Award - Kathleen Shannon (removing 'Award' from the name). Somehow I managed to replace the article with the talk page that I thought I had created for the article. Didn't mean to be careless with the move.... Could someone kindly help me restore the content and move the page correctly? Thank you, LorriBrown (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello LorriBrown, long time! I have moved the talk page back with the draft but because I am not a page mover, it has left a redirect at the article's address. Please wait for that redirect to get deleted by an administrator, and try again once the address is empty. For future reference, when you move a page in error, you can usually fix it by just moving it back, and when you create pages in error, the simplest solution is to tag it with {{db-self}} and wait for it to get deleted. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️06:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Adding international school name in the list of INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL INDIA
Hi,
I want to add my school name in the list as -
It is an international school
It is located in India, Westbengal
The above facts are true then why I can not add my school name in the list. Sampa Griffins (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
i have a cartoon by gary larson showing what looks like a indian or inca running in the desert with headphones on conected to a radio at his side,he is holding a spear,and is leaving his footprints in the sand,alongside him and his prints are what looks like hoofprints?there is no caption that i have,can anyone explain to me what this cartoon is meant to covey? 86.182.19.184 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. But, nope, sorry. For the following reasons:
a) This is a help forum about how to edit Wikipedia
b) If you don't 'get it' with the cartoon in front of you, who's going to understand and explain it to you from that description? Best post a picture and ask the Twitterati. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The wikipedia adventure
Please, i am on the wikipedia adventure now. and i tlooks faulty. I can't see any thing as I type now. It gave orders for me to add sections on a page that does not even show"New sectio"
. Please, what do I do? Nikola Tesla edit (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I created a Wikipedia page for an AV company and the title of the page is my username and I cannot change it. The company of the name is "All Pro Audio Visual"-- can somebody change it for me on this site please? Thank you so much!
Brandonbott111 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place for you as an individual to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself, in the context of your Wikipedia use. It appears that you created a draft at Draft:All Pro Audio Visual, LLC; I will shortly mark it so you can submit it for review. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I recently made some changes in East China sea. All are reverted. The changes are related to its name- East China sea is not east china sea its East East Taiwan Sea. China declaring forcefully it as ECS. Help me to bring truth in front of all.
Please don't revert my changes. JemmyKohein (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
JemmyKohein Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not "bring truth to all", as what is "true" depends on the person. Undoubtedly, the Chinese on the mainland disagree with you and think their preferred name is "true". See WP:TRUTH for more information. As noted, Wikipedia uses the name most commonly used by independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
@JemmyKohein: If you have a problem with something in an article, please first look at the article's talk page (in this case Talk:East China Sea) to see if your issue has previously been discussed (as it has, constantly, in this case). If you don't see it discussed, or want to join the existing discussion, then post to that page to get the attention of editors that are knowledgeable about and interested in that particular subject. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—23:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Different names in different sections of the article?
Looking at the article on Pamela Stephenson, she performs under that name but she also practices psychology under her married name, Connelly.
So most of the article refers to her as "Stephenson" but the section on Psychology calls her "Connelly" throughout.
I worry that it might confuse some readers that the same person is referred to by a different name in different sections, unless they read the rest of the article carefully.
Is there a recommended way to deal with such a situation? Gronk Oz (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Vote Hurricane for change, Teahouse is a help forum on the Wikipedia where experienced editors help new editors. It is a friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Then just odd coincidence that Vote Hurricane for change has put "Vote (X) for Change" on own User page and Talk page? And that 87.112.2228.24 has been blocked under suspicion of being a sock? David notMD (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Vote Hurricane for change If you are truly a new editor and you intend to contribute to Wikipedia, please delete all mention of Vote (X) and work on making valid contributions to articles. So far, you have made three edits and all have been reverted. Teahouse hosts can be helpful if you have specific questions on how to participate. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a new user and about 1 month ago I created and submitted a new article to Wikipedia. Is there some way I can check the status of my submission, including if it was properly submitted for review? I'm not 100% sure I submitted it properly, so am looking for a status indicator like "pending review" so I know I've submitted it correctly. Many thanks. EABotham (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
EABotham Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was lacking the submission template to allow you to formally submit the draft for review; I have added this to the draft, you just need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button in the box. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The draft in question is Draft:Kitsilano Pool, which is probably about a notable topic. EABotham, the current version of your draft is unlikely to be approved, because the referencing is poor. One source appears to be a blog. At least one link appears to be dead. You have no inline references, and the references now in the draft are bare URLs. Please read Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners. Improve your draft in accordance with those links, and there is a good chance your draft will be approved. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
Here, let me pour you a cup of hot darjeeling. I have two more questions though: (1) If I understand correctly, I will have to do this individually for each column. Shall I put the codes in the header row? (2) Can I use percentage values instead of "px" values? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Bekkadn (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Done, I have removed the cleanup tag, Forestresener. I see no problems that require continued use of it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC).jpg)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diffraction_with_large_object.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
