Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1027

Archive 1020

←

Archive 1025

Archive 1026

Archive 1027

Archive 1028

Archive 1029

Archive 1030

User page looks clapped

How do I make my user page align properly? Seemplez | Chat 09:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming you want all your userboxes above each other, on the left? The problem is that userboxes are kinda floaty and sometimes do weird things. A possible solution is to add {{-}} after each UBX. I've taken the liberty of trying it out in my sandbox, is that what you want? Feel free to copy that code back to your own user page. rchard2scout (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rchard2scout: Thank you so much! I'll use that tip in future, hope you enjoy your barnstar!

Article about IMAG GmbH

Hi, I would like to translate the article about IMAG GmbH in the German Wikipedia into English. However, my draft has been declined, saying that it didn't have enough content for an own article. Do you have any tipps what to do? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muc user 2 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The general answer is to discuss it with the declining reviewer (in this case Robert McClenon) on their user talk page. But I would have declined it for a different reason: the failure to establish that the subject is notable. Specifically, there is not one single substantial independent reference: five of them appear to be published by IMAG, and no. 5 doesn't mention IMAG.

People sometimes assume that an article which is in one Wikipedia will automatically be accepted (in translation) in another; but this is not the case. First, different Wikipedias are independent programmes, which have different rules and criteria. Secondly, there are many articles in Enwiki which would not be accepted if they were submitted now, as our standards have risen over the years; and I presume that the same may be true of other Wikipedias.

If you haven't already read Translation, I recommend it; but my personal advice is to treat it as creating a new article, but drawing on the original for some of the content. Another point (which you can also find mentioned on that page) is that while Wikipedia's licensing arrangements allow material to be freely copied and reused for any purpose, the one required step is to attribute the source. Copying within Wikipedia, or translating from one to another, is an example of just such reuse, and must be attributed. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to ping you, Muc user 2, or indeed to welcome you to the Teahouse. Sorry! --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything that ColinFine wrote just above, Muc user 2. Creating a new article, even one based on a translation of an article from a different Wikipedia project, is one of the harder tasks an editor can face. Below are some steps which, when followed, often lead to sucess. They are aimed more at creation from nothing, but most of them will still apply. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of businesses. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the subject company is a subsidiary of Messe München, and we already have an article on Messe München. If you have additional information about the subsidiary, you can add it to the article on the parent company. When to create separate spinout articles about subsidiaries of companies, or branches, or colleges within a university, or offices within a government agency, is usually a matter of common sense rather than following a well-defined set of guidelines. As mentioned above, your draft has seven references, but 5 of them are IMAG's own, and corporate notability is based on what third parties say about a company, not what the company says about itself. Also, are you working for either IMAG or Messe? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just checked de:IMAG and I do think there's content and sources we can work with. De.wiki has a very different culture and en.wiki can be a shock for people who move between the two; it's much more normal to source articles about companies to their own publications on de.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. A cursory search at Google revealed notable sources. Now, with respect to the tip Muc user 2 is soliciting, here is my take: You might consider including negative issues this company was involved in such as the pro-Iran exhibitions it organized as well as its ties to Russian figures. These are just some of the areas that have been covered by sources. Good luck! Darwin Naz (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Article about OnBuy

HI There - I'm very new to Wiki and only used it to update a couple of pages that I had knowledge in. I have lost a lot of faith in Wikipedia because I believe that some rouge editors are taking commercial incentives to close business pages. I previously was involved in updating the page OnBuy which was deleted because it was deemend not notable. How can I get this page restored? OnBuy is one of the fastest growing marketplaces in the UK and is very notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UKBizMan (talk • contribs) 08:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the invasion of Wikipedia by Rouge administrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

UKBizMan, You probably can't get that page restored. I just looked at some of the deleted versions of that page, and they seemed quite promotional in tone to me. I didn't verify the references used to check notability. If you seriously want to create a new page on this topic, I would advise that you follow the steps listed in the section just above. Do please note that "Notability" is used in a special way on Wikipedia. It does not mean "well known". Instead it means that a topic has been written about by multiple, Independent, published reliable sources, each of which covered the topic in some depth. There can be debates about what sources are reliable, and what is enough depth. But major newspapers and magazines are usualy reliable for this purpose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I realise that I was mostly copying things from press releases and not really detaching the promotional tone. It was may first go and I tried a few times. Seems my attempts to do my first page have backfired as now I have just been accused of being paid by said company. I think I'll give up! Some things are just not as easy as they seem. Now I feel bad that the company has no page at all and yet I feel they have done such a great job. I'm going to close my Wikipedia account - thank you for your message.

A) You can't "close" your Wikipedia account, but you can tag it as WP:RETIRED. B) you currently have two drafts submitted for review Draft:Tenzing and Draft:OnBuy. In my opinion, both likely to be declined, but if you don't stay, you will never know. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I sit, corrected. An admin took notice of your request and deleted your User name/account. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: You were right the first time. It isn't possible to delete an account. All the admin did was to delete the user's user page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would also suggest that starting your discussion with an unlikely accusatory conspiracy theory is no way to get help from your fellow volunteer editors. If you feel your subject is notable, make your case the way the various policies you've been show say you should, and tens of thousands of users have done millions of times. Find appropriate sources and cite them. Remove the promotional tone (that you acknowledge). That's really all there is to it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking for specifics

Hi and thanks in advance for your help, I'm looking for specifics on the problems with this submission so I can correct it asap:

User:Ajobryan/sandbox

As you can see I'm new at this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajobryan (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In the feedback message on your draft, and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to more detailed advice on the points raised in the review. I have also put a welcome message on your user talk page with further links for advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ajobryan and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the draft about Sally Helgesen in User:Ajobryan/sandbox, I note that the cited sources are:

1. Her personal web site's home page;
2. Her linkedin page;
3. A page from her publisher about one of her books;
4. A page from her personal web site;
5. Another page from her personal web site;
6. Yet Another page from her personal web site;
7. A page with bios from a conference where she spoke. Such bios are usually provided by the speaker;
8. A page which shows that she is a member of a large organization, but says nothign else about her; and
9. A page with a bio from a professional speaker's provider, in effect advertising her services

None of these are independent, published, reliable sources that discuss her in depth. Indeed none are independent. All are from her eor bisniss affiliates, or are just reproducing content from her. Several independent reliable sources that discuss her in some depth are needed for a valid article. Without such sources, nothing can be done. That is a very specific issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hey I'm fairly new here, I was wondering how I can change the items in my Watchlist I haven't watched yet to be in bold? This is possible in the Dutch Wikipedia, but I can't seem to figure it out here. Help would be appreciated. Cheers! Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Gadgets tab in Preferences: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, finally found it. Thanks Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Article for deletion oops

I made an oopsie doing an article for deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Akintayo Is this something that'll be caught and fixed by people who patrol AfD? Sorry, and thank you in advance for your help. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DiamondRemley39, and welcome to the Teahouse. What were you trying to do on that page, please? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DES, I was trying to follow the instructions for listing an article for deletion. I think I copied and pasted the wrong thing on the wrong page. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed by Ymblanter. shoy (reactions) 17:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The AFD looks okay now. The article looks like promo,but that is what AFD is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Question on Notability

There was an Earthquake in Lilbourn, Missouri a few weeks ago. About 8% of the town reported feeling this earthquake. (National Earthquake Center) I feel as if that is notable enough to be added into the history of the town. Anyone agree? I added the earthquake and it was removed 2 weeks later by Cristiano Tomás with the reason being: "not notable". Please give me feedback and advice on this. -Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking notability is relavant to the question of whether a topic should have its own articel, not to what should go in an existing article about a notable topic. That said, not every event that happens in a place belongs in a Wikipedia article about the place. If the quyake wqas felt but did not damagfe, that might not be relevant enough to include. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Earthquakes are very common. There are about 100,000 earthquakes every year that can be felt without instrumentation, so if only 8% of the population felt something and no damage was caused it sounds as though it would not be worthy of inclusion in the article unless the event was covered by multiple reliable news sources, in which case you should cite those sources.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I posted an article over an earthquake in California. 65,000+ people have reported it and the national Earthquake Center issues a tsunami warning. It was deleted for not being notable enough. HOW is an earthquake effecting Thousands near San Francisco not notable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Elijahandskip Your draft was not deleted; it was declined. It still exists. Please review the notability criteria to learn more about what makes a subject notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought I put declined not deleted. My next question is since it cannot have its own page, should the earthquake since the origin of the earthquake was in Pleasant Hill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Elijahandskip If you have a source for the earthquake, you might be able to include it at List of earthquakes in 2019. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are so many earthquakes in California, felt by so many people, we seem to only create articles for the serious (~ mag 6+) damage-causing event clusters, like the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes. All the others go in the list articles, since there is rarely much to say about them other than they happened. We have a baseball farm team called the Quakes. There have been six mag 2.5+, including one 4.5, in the last 24 hours in CA/NV.[1] —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hacker help

My name is Scottie Charlton and for the past 6 months I have had someone on my emails, phones, Facebook, google hangouts, etc... I can’t get rid of this person, they have destroyed over 16 cell phones, numerous google accounts, 2facebook accounts, several social media accounts. It seems like every time I join something they follow right behind me and destroy it. My cell phones have overlays, plugins, root pa app, and several other apps I can not delete. The person rewrites every cell phone I get so when I go to a page it’s not the page I thought it would be.ive tried switching cell providers, phone numbers, and google accounts, nothing works. They are still on my phone. Like I said over 16 cell phones destroyed. Can I please get some help from someone, I’ve contacted local police, google, yahoo, etc.. no one has a answer. Lost.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott charlton2171 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't really something Wikipedia can provide assistance with. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Scott charlton2171 This isn't really what this page or Wikipedia is for, but I would say it seems extremely unlikely that someone would continually hack and reprogram your cell phones and continually "destroy" your social media accounts. All cell phones have apps that cannot be removed, this is not a defect or hacking of your phone. It sounds to me that you might need to sit down with a representative of your cell phone provider and have them educate you on the use of your phone. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to add a fact that bears relation to an already mentioned fact in the established article (see subject line above). I am a witness to this fact and would like to include it in the Wikipedia article about CIRCUS MAXIMUS (The Wind, etc. etc.)

“In contrast to the two “Christmas Concerts” performed by CIRCUS MAXIMUS during December of 1967 the performance by CM in the same month at New York’s CAFÉ WHA? was outstanding. They were the featured band that night. Opening bands on that bill were THE HELLO PEOPLE (Phillips International recording artists) and DREAMLAND CHOO CHOO who were making their NYC debut that night. Circus Maximus were well received and performed at least one encore."

Hello I am trying to add this historical fact to the existing copy on the band, CIRCUS MAXIMUS (with Bob Bruno and Jerry Jeff Walker, et al), as it bears relation to prior existing comments. I was there as an avid NYC music club goer of that era. I was witness to that gig and what happened there that night. I am both a musician and a retired professor of philosophy and ethics at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, CT. It seems someone deleted my short but salient comment requesting "citation". This brings me to my question: How does one verify something that happened over 50 years ago and may not be a matter of public record or no longer is able to be a matter of documentation but none the less did occur? If we deem to discourage events that for all intent and purpose are likely and feasible just because they may not be a matter of public record we also discourage little known but informative facts that may "breathe life" into these historical documents. In my blurb above I give acceptance to the previous copy regarding Circus Maximus' "less than well received" "Christmas Concerts" but I offer a contrasting report of a juxtaposed gig at the Cafe Wha?. Is this so incredulous?

thank you, Rocktoids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocktoids (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rocktoids, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that Wikipedia does not accept unpublished first-person accounts as reliable sources, from anyone. If an event is not a matter of public record, Wikipedia cannot report on it. If newspapers at the tiem, or reliable books or articles at some later time reported this event, we might include it if it seemed relevant to our article -- not every event in the hispoty of the world, or even of a particular band, is relevant. If you wrote up your first-person account of the event, and managed to get it published by a reliable source -- not on a personal web page or in a blog or on a fansite -- then that write up could be cited as a source. Otherwise, it simply is not a usable source for Wikipedia, and without a source, the fact may be challanged and removed from the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

See our verifibility policy for details. See also the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

oh, and please sign your posts on discussion pages (not in articles) with four tildes(~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature, with a timestamp. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Circus Maximus (American band). — I dunno about you but I have occasionally found that I misremember things that happened to me less than 52 years ago. —Tamfang (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title of a wikipedia article page.

I had created a page on "Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Fast Passenger". Now, I want to change the page title to "Sealdah-Sitamarhi Express", keeping its original contents intact. How can i do so??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.15.242.63 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I moved the page to the new title for you. If you register, and gain autoconfirmed status, you'll be able to use the move tool to move pages. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Info I post and edit is true and interesting on wiki

Info I make or edit is true , and not false like uk Christmas number ones is pre Christmas actually as there announced on radio before Christmas Day mainly and never count the first day sales of Christmas the 25th December even broadcast on Christmas Day on radio which has only happen just a few and rare is up to Christmas Eve only and physical singles in uk I edit and that one keep removed is true from official chart pages like Louisa forever young got #1 on physical in uk for a few weeks and not registered which is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Town3bay (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Town3bay and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to be engaged in an edit war at List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones. Please read WP:BRD, and discuss your changes on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 18:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources under subscription

Hello Teahouse! I'm writing an article about the painter Ursula McCannell and I found a great reference - The Times UK but the text is under subscription only. Can I still use it and if so how? (i don't have a subscription) Thank you in advance --Less Unless (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:PAYWALL; there is no requirement that a source be easy or free to obtain, or that it be online at all. It needs to only be publicly accessible. However, you will need to read the source to make sure it says what you think it says. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: You can go to WP:RX and ask for someone with access to look it up for you. RudolfRed (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

331dot,RudolfRed Thank you for the information, I'll read the policy and will definitely use the exchange/request project!Less Unless (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Less Unless. You could, of course, pay the Times to gain access. You could go to a library that has a subscription and read a physical copy. Source in Wikipedia do not need a url or to be available online. Or you might be able mto find another edsitor who has access and would be willing to provide you with a copy. As it happens, i have a digital subscription to the Times of London, specifically for Wikipedia editing, and am willing to provide such article to other editors, within reason, by email. See my user page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that if you use citation templates, there is a parameter to indicate that an online source is behind a paywall. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} Thank you! I've read your user page, but I haven't found the guidelines on how to ask you for help. I'm sorry, I'm new here and sometimes I don't quite understand what to do. If you can help me with this one article, I'll be grateful. Please tell me what should I do. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to help you. i will access the times site and download the article text if I can. If I can do so, i will email it to you -- I see you have 'email this user active. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless It may take a little time, i will let you know when i have sent it or been unable to find it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} Thank you very much! No rush at all, when you have time.

PS - got it! Thank you! so fast! Less Unless (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Two usernames

Hello

Guess I have created two usernames with two devices. Seems I have created second username with a typo error of the first.

Is that concern?

Thanks

Abandon one and only use the other, and you will be fine. RudolfRed (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Nomintr. Pick one username to use in the future, and abandon use of the other account. You may wish to leave a note on the other account's user page explaining the error and referring people to your current account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

My article got declined

Is there anywhere I can find a draft of my article that got declined so that I can edit out the issues and resubmit? I cannot find this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuszczo (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Shuszczo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but since the draft was deleted as a copyright infringement, it cannot be restored. I would note that it appears to me that you are attempting to write about yourself; this is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the more specific definition of a notable person). Because of this, Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. In my experience, most people cannot do that. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How should I easily access a user's contributions page?

When I warn someone who vandalized a page using Twinkle, I often want to go from the talk page to the user's contributions page to see if they have done any other vandalism. How can I do this without having to edit the URL? Is there a button that I can click that I'm missing? Merlin04 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Merlin04, Bienvenido a la casa de te. On the left pane, on a user talk page, there is a link called User contributions that you can click on that will take you directly to that page. Interstellarity (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Such links also appear in the page history. —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How to improve declined draft to help get it approved?

Our page Draft:Talent Africa has been declined. Although the reviewer was kind enough to direct me to this page to ask experienced editors to please lend me a hand in improving my draft to get it republished for review and hopefully approved. We do believe the page is worthy of an article as it's about existing content with adequate proof like any other television show on Wikipedia. Could someone kindly advise how we can improve our draft to make it better and more likely to be approved. It would be highly appreciated. Creatorsforum (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Creatorsforum, Bienvenido a la casa de te. Although I can't quite help you with your question, I would like to point out that accounts are only to be used by a single individual. The reason why I'm pointing this out is because you use the first person plural when referring to yourselves. Please make sure that you read this for more info on this. Interstellarity (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Creatorsforum Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy, as you have some mandatory declarations to make, one of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I've also posted information about your username on your user talk page. You will also need to select a single individual to exclusively operate this account(you use "we").

As noted by those who looked at your draft, it is very poorly sourced and promotional in nature. Wikipedia is interested only in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Independent reliable sources does not include press releases, routine announcements, staff interviews, the production's website, or any other primary source. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others say. In order for you to be successful in writing about your program, you need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on independent sources that have chosen on their own to give significant coverage about your program. This is usually difficult for people in your position to do.

Please understand that not every television program merits an article on Wikipedia; it depends on the sources- and most of those other articles were written by independent editors who took note of a subject and chose to write about it. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Creatorsforum. Of the 5 cited sources currently in the draft, three are from the TalantAfric production itself, and one seems to be based on a press release, leaving exactly one independent source. This is not nearly enough to support an article or establish notability.

Beyond that, the draft is written in a rather promotional manner. Such phrases as on this amazing platform called TALENT AFRICA, massive 6 Day Event, comes to a star-struck conclusion, take home the big prizes, and take home the big prizes are not the language of an encyclopedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A good, citable source.

Are informational YouTube videos (or video media in general) sources that I am able to cite? If so, what must I include? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J4keFr0mStatef (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, J4keFr0mStatef and welcome to the teahouse. For YouTube in particular, that depends. YouTube isn't really a single source it is more like a publisher, or even a library. It includes videos created by many different people and entities. Most are not reliable sources. Some are, for example, some are officially released by various news organizations, and are just as reliable as if they were on those organizations' own web sites. The question is really, who created any given Youtube video? Is that person or entity reliable? A subsidiary question is, was the video posted by, or with the permission of, the creator or copyright holder. Wikipedia does not normally link to copyright infringing pages, so videos posted without proper permission should not be used as sources.

As to video in general, this is like asking if sources in print can be cited. Yes if they are published and reliable. The template {{Cite AV media}} can be used to cite such sources. The time when the relevant content occures more or less corresponds to the pag eor page range for a book citation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@J4keFr0mStatef: It is more of a burden on readers and editors to verify video/audio sources because they are not searchable, and have to be consumed in real time, so take longer to review. The text version of a video that takes twenty minutes to watch can be searched in seconds and read/skimmed in just a few minutes. That can have various undesirable effects, since many are concerned with getting the most value out of the amount of time they contribute to the project. If there is an online, text source for what you are citing, please do try to use that. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Making my own Wikipedia page

How can I make my own Wikipedia page guys please tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilburger20 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lilburger20 and welcome to the Teahouse. That depends on what you mean by my own Wikipedia page. If you mean a user page to identify you asa a wikipedia editor, see WP:USER for a list of dos and don'ts, but you can put any of a wide variety of things on such a page. (look at some pages of experienced editors for suggestions.) If you mean creating an article abiut some topic, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Notability, and Your First Article creating a new article is one of the harder tasks here, and it is best to start by working on existing articles for a while first.

However, if you mean an article about yourself, I advise that you drop the idea. See our guideline on autobiography and Our guideline on conflict of interest for some of the reasons why. Autobiographical writing is strongly discouraged. See also all the links above about new articles in general.

Again welcome, and I hope you find some editing task which is both enjoyable and productive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Page

Hello there I am a new user and I was wondering how hard it would be to create a Wikipedia page. How long would this take, would I have to be a registered scholar with proof of having a degree in a particular area — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlejuice Porter (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Beetlejuice Porter: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to contribute. You can read WP:YFA about how to create an article and create a draft for review. No proof of credentials required, because you will be citing reliable, published sources. Creating a new article is not an easy task for new users. I suggest you start by working to improve existing articles instead, to gain some Wikipedia experience first. RudolfRed (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating new articles is not the only way to contribute. Mostly I like to improve the language and organization of what others have written. (A few times, that meant making a new article to consolidate material that was repeated in existing articles, so that those other articles could tighten their focus.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

---

After doing a number of substantive edits on some articles by others, this week during a institutional-based editathon under the Arts + Feminism umbrella I created my first original page on a legal case in my area of knowledge. The case is not "controversial" per se & I attempted to summarize the cases from each level of court and stitch the content together. I had some immediate and surprising edits from a level 3 editor with 16 mos listed. The initial editing was confusing as the unnamed level 3 added links out to phrases like "grade 9" "grade 10" and "high school" and changed a subheading that I used-- although my original heading was used in another legal article stub. There seemed to be no clear rationale for these edits that I could find.

I was trying to make a deadline for our event dashboard, & was aware the piece needed further polishing. Despite being based on the publicly available primary court documents, the level 3 flagged the article to have insufficient references: there were only 3 named cases at varying levels of the court system and all three were included and referenced--though my links to citation were in progress. I asked the admin to hold off on additional edits for about a day until I could polish what I posted--and they eventually did so. Some concurrent editing with the level 3 continued to a point. As a new page creator & not being knowledgeable about how to navigate concurrent editing--I ended up loosing large sections of my revisions while attempting to improve the content. I undid those initial edits by the level 3. The level 3 shared the style guide/manual on my Talk page & after reviewing it, I went back in to complete additional edits--all in less than 24 hrs. To cope, I began posting edits in small bits vs. larger chunks so as not to loose any more work. I wasn't sure where to post my confusion over what was happening & posted a bit on my Talk page. I checked the level 3's user page and while there were various contribs around editing, there was no related content attached to legal cases or related topics to the page theme/content that I could find.

Not sure about the process to be expected when creating a new page after racking up some initial editing experience at my current level. When I reviewed my situation with some more experienced Wikipedia editors and the admin hosting our institutional event, they had not had/heard of a similar experience. The level 3 indicated they would return the next day to edit further. Just wanted to share my experience as an editor with a bit of experience editing attempting to create a new page for the first time. My institutional co-editors have had different experiences--most more positive.

jhengstler(talk) 16:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Article was moved to "Draft" status now--and the unnamed level 3 editor listed a number of stylistic edits & wordiness. OK. I get that. But also stated that there were "no independent sources" when the actual court cases were cited, linked and referenced. Not sure why that comnent would be added. Apparently can't undo those edits... jhengstler(talk) 18:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

jhengstler the article was moved to Draft by Theroadislong, who is a quite experienced editor. That is listed in the page history, the person who did the move is not 'unnamed". I am not sure what you mean by a "level 3" editor. Wikipedia does not have formal "levels" of editor for most purpose. True, we do have auto-confirmed users and extended-confirmed users, and some tasks are limited to one or the other. And we do have some special permissions, such as rollbacker, page mover, NPP reviewer, account creator, and admin. These allow a user access to special software functions. But none of these gives extra weight in ordinary editing, and many very experienced editors who have none of those permissions.

As to Draft:R v Cole (2011), I would have said that there were no secondary sources. The actual court opinions and other court papers are primary sources, and as you will see if you follow that link, can only be used with care. What we really need is reliable secondary sources that analyze the case, comment on it, and indicate a view of what it means and what is consequences will be. We here are not (mostly) legal experts, and even if soem of us are, to draw those kinds of conclusions without a secondary source would be original research which is not permitted here. (In many fields most primary sources are also not independant and so the terms get a bit confused sometimes.)

Have a look at some other articles on significant court cases, such as New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (I am not as knowledgeable about cases from Canada, but similar principles should apply). Note the kinds of sources used in that article. Some sources other than the actual court documents would be very helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Submitting for artist

I am a branding consultant for a media agency and am trying to create a wiki page for an artist. She has a very strong digital footprint to warrant a wiki entry and it will also allow us to build the base towards social media verification platforms. She has over a million authentic followers and recognized on youtube as well.How do I submit a draft for consideration? I am unsure of the parameters around Wiki membership and the level of information I can submit for consideration, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all,GiaKay81 as a "branding consultant" you must promptly disclose your affiliations in accordance with WP:PAID. This is absolutely required, failure to do so can lead to your begin blocked from editing permenantly.

Secondly, a 'digital footprint" does not equate to a Wikipedia article for an articel to exist, the subject must be notable. This means that there must be multiple independant published reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. The number of followers, fans, or views an artist may have is irrelevant. Nor is Wikipedia in the least intersted in allowing you to build the base towards social media verification platforms. Any article must be able to demonstrate notability, as Wikipedia uses that term, or it will be promptly deleted. See earlier questions here at the Teahouse for ways in which articles may be created and what articles must at a minimum include. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC) @GiaKay81: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I am an intern- hence the lack of knowledge so not paid yet but in the future! I would like to be able to understand how this is done so to contribute info accurately as well. My first project is this undertaking so I am a student if you will but long term goals is to understand the framework of how things are done here. I have done research and gathered all the content around this person; I just am not familiar with the step by step process so that was the guidance I was hoping for. Thank you for all the details. Definitely doing this on the up and up and appreciate the educative opportunity you're giving me with adding more details to this process and experience. Ultimately the submission will be reviewed for the purposes of all wikipedia guidelines but I was being transparent as a newcomer of how the nature of what brought me to the forum. I will review the earlier questions per your suggestion as well. Apologies for the background information. I was being transparent but have no intentions of misrepresenting anyone or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi GiaKay81. Two things: (1) please sign your talk page posts as explained in Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts, and (2) "paid editing" doesn't always mean receiving monetary payment, it could mean other things as explained WP:PAID#Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation". I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some information on conflict of interest editing as well as Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for some more things about Wikipedia that you or the artist you want to create an article about may not know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the links! I'm learning! Will review and have already seen some previus posts now for help in understanding the guidelines even more. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GiaKay81. Basically, trying to use Wikipedia to promote anybody or anything is a fundamental mismatch with Wikipedia's aims and purposes, and you are likely to have a difficult and frustrating time doing it. And if you succeed in creating an article, it could still backfire on your client. I urge you to put your promotional efforts somewhere else - and, if you are inspired by helping us create a neutral repository of knowledge, contribute to Wikipedia on other topics. --ColinFine (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You are still not signing. Type four of ~ at the end of your comments. I agree WP:PAID still applies to your situation. What the artist says about herself (website, social media, interviews, Youtube, etc.) does not count as Wikipedia's idea of reliable sources for referencing. Same for press releases by the media agency. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@GiaKay81: What you are apparently (by your statements) here for is not compatible with Wikipedia's purpose. Please do read and understand WP:NOT. Wikipedia is simply not the place to promote someone's "brand" or make them appear higher in searches. Articles are written here because the subject is notable enough to have been written about by multiple, independent, high-quality sources. Then, an unprompted and unrelated Wikipedia editor takes on the task of assembling the sources and distilling them into an article, for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. There are lots of social media, promotional, and blog sites out there you can use to promote your clients – Wikipedia is simply not one of them. If your employers, clients, or others have suggested otherwise, they do both you and Wikipedia a dis-service. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but thank you for understanding. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What do we do

What do you do here at Teahouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TextTitan (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

TextTitan Hello and welcome. The Teahouse is a place for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It sure looks like a question to me —Tamfang (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How to edit a template?

There is a discussion over at Portal talk:Australia regarding the Transclude random excerpt template. This template will make updating and maintaining portals much easier, but currently the only way to figure out which articles have been transcluded is to edit the page, and there needs to be a way to view all of the articles that have been transcluded without needing to edit the source. The best way to do this? Edit the template. I know Lua is needed, but I'm not sure where to go to make this improvement to the template, and so even though I consider myself an experienced editor, I figured this would be the best place to ask for help. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Try Template talk:Transclude random excerpt (which is a redirect to Module talk:Excerpt) or WP:VPT. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

IWG plc updating page for accuracy and completeness

Hello!

I am updating the IWG plc Wikipedia page as part of my ongoing work with the company. I'm suggesting edits through the IWG:Talk to remove dead links, add recent information and improve the overall structure of the page.

A template message has appeared at the top of the page, which is indeed accurate and says: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (October 2019)

The reason why I've dropped by the Teahouse for support is that it is unclear to me what a "cleanup" means. I would need some clear examples where the IWG plc Wikipedia page appears to not have a neutral point of view. Would anyone be able to support by taking a look at the page and offering some guidance? I will then remove or revise any content that does not appear to be from a neutral PoV.

Thank you in advance. --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi KatherineBusby2019. Since you've also asked about this at Talk:IWG_plc, I leave it up to someone who has perhaps been working on cleaning up the article to clarify, but here's some general comments on some other COI related stuff.

1. Please make sure you properly follow WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. There are various ways to do so, but pay particular attention to the part of that section which states :

   You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. If you advertise paid editing through any external website, you must provide links on your user-page to all such accounts.

2. When you make an edit request, it's best to use Template:Request edit as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests. This will add the article to category of other pending edit requests and make it easier for others to first know you requesting an edit and next to try and help you.
3. Please don't try and request a complete re-write of an article all at once. It's best to keep requests simple and to the point. All Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERs and this includes those answering edit requests. If your request is too dense or attempts to change too much at once, the chance of it being passed over and left for someone else to deal with greatly increases. Expecting someone to read through a wall of text to find out what has been changed is really expecting a lot. It's much better to simply say "Change A to B" or "Add this to Section A", etc. See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for a little more on this.
4. Please don't format your requests as if you were directly adding the content to the article yourself. The Wikipedia software has no idea that you're posting a request so it will format on the article's talk page as if it were different sections on the page. This is another reason why it's better to requests bits and pieces at a time because your request will be disjointed and might be mistaken for different unsigned random posts made by others when it's really all part of your same request. If you want to add a new section to the article, then simply say how you think the section should be named and then what content should go in it; you don't really need to format it as it will look in the article. As long as you explain things in your request, the person answering the request can format things accordingly if they approve the request and add the content to the article. For citations, on the other hand, it can make things easier when they are properly formatted, but it's not necessary to do so. As long as you provide the relevant link or other information per WP:CITEHOW, things should be OK. If you're going to format your citations, however, make sure you follow WP:CITEVAR in doing so. It also helps to add Template:Reflist-talk to your request so that any formatted citations don't get displayed at the bottom of the talk page by default.

Regarding dead links, they are simply removed because they are dead as explained in WP:DEADREF or WP:ELDEAD. In many cases, archived versions of a dead link can be found and the citation maintained. Simply put, dead links still may have value as a source and only are gotten rid when they are inappropriate for some other reason.

Finally, just so you don't think I'm a sour puss, I do commend you on trying to adhere to relevant COI/Paid editing policies and guidelines. There are many COI/PAID editors who don't make the effort that you're making, and it's so much easier to try and help those who do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Marchjuly. Thanks a lot for your support. I'll follow the guidelines you've shared and request further bite-sized changes today. KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Dormskirk, who has shown recent interest in the article. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am comfortable that the article currently does present a neutral view, but given that it has been edited by an editor with a close connection to the company, other editors may take a different view. One editor previously labelled it with an "advert" tag. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk This is appreciated, thank you. Although I am an editor at the company, my aim is to make the page complete and accurate. KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vipula Wanigasekera

Dear Teahouse

Editing has been done for the page. Please assist by stating any further action needed

Pasan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipula wanigasekara (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Before you put any more work into improving the article, have you evidence that Vipula Wanigasekera is notable, in the sense in Wikipedia uses that word? I've checked the first few references, and found nothing there to establish his notability. If you believe that there are references there to independent sources that discuss him (rather than based on statements by him, or mere mentions of him), which are they? Maproom (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vipula Wanigasekera has been declined twice. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vipula wanigasekara. In addition to the comments you received about the draft, you also should read Wikipedia:Username policy because your choice of username may also be a problem. Wikipedia does allow individuals to use their real names as their usernames as explained in WP:REALNAME, but you shouldn't be using "Vipula wanigasekara" as yours if your name is not really "Vipula Wanigasekera". Many new editors mistakenly assume that in order to create an article about a specific person, they should create an account with the same name. It's a common mistake that can be fixed by simply requesting a username change as explained at Wikipedia:Changing username.

Now, if by chance your real name is "Vipula wanigasekara", but you're not the same person you're trying to create an article about and you still want to create such an article, you might want to still consider changing your username so as to avoid any unnecessary confusion. Sometimes such accounts are still soft blocked as precaution against damaging impersonation.

Finally, if your real name is "Vipula wanigasekara" and you are trying to create an article about yourself, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing because you might be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Nigerian Chieftaincy

Hello.

I just wrote my first Wikipedia article and I've uploaded it, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to alter the title to read "Nigerian Chieftaincy" and not "User: O.ominirabluejack/@Nigerian Chieftaincy". I would very much appreciate it if you could tell me how to do that or if you could do it for me. Thanks in advance.

Also, my article still needs to be worked on quite a bit outside of that. I've added a reference, and I will add more momentarily, but I'd very much like it if somebody out there was interested in co-editing with me. Shared credit for the final product is on the table. Any takers?

Yours sincerely,

O.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack.

O.ominirabluejack Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You've edited a subpage of your userpage, which is why the title appears that way. It needs to be moved into the main encyclopedia to formally be a part of it, but it is not ready yet, as it only has one source. It's fine to work on it where it is and doesn't need to be moved until it is ready. Articles need multiple independent reliable sources to support their content. When you have made improvements, you can submit the draft for review using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no "credit" for creating articles, and very definitely, there is never a "final product". With few exceptions, all articles can be edited by all editors.

Ah, I see... Well, thank you for the clarification. I suppose that what I should have said is that I'm open to collaboration in the development stage. No credit given or offered... Got it.

331dot, thank you very much. I'm still bumbling my way along here, and it's a comfort to know that I'm doing so in my own little corner that's well out of everybody else's way.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

Hello, O.ominirabluejack. I made a small edit to your draft, formatting the one reference you have inserted. There is quite a bit of information already in the draft, but no sources are listed. Where did the information come from? It all needs to be sourced. I am willing to help, within limits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel.

That's awfully kind of you. I'd love for you to help. The truth is that I'm kind of playing by ear here.

As to the information, it's largely my own. It is indirectly derived from a variety of sources, however... The pre-colonial stuff owes much to The History of the Yorubas by Prince Samuel Johnson, for example. I'm reading it now, and I heartily recommend it. Examples of Nigerian kings and chiefs not being succeeded by their own sons would include King Adeyinka Oyekan (who was succeeded by King Rilwan Akiolu) and Chief M.K.O. Abiola (who was succeeded by Chief Gani Adams). Furthermore, examples of Nigerian slaves becoming kings or chiefs include King Jaja of Opobo and Chief Oshodi Tapa.

The colonial stuff draws inspiration from everything from the Punitive Expedition and the Banishment of King Jaja to the Abeokuta Women's Revolt. There would probably be a great deal of websites to cite here.

Lastly, the post-colonial stuff comes from my knowledge of the biographies of Dr. Azikiwe, Chief Awolowo and Sir Ahmadu. Finding corroboration for my assertions concerning them should be easy enough: just about everybody in Nigeria knows that Sir Ahmadu was a Sokoto chief (Sardauna of Sokoto), Dr. Azikiwe a hereditary chief of Onitsha (Owelle of Onitsha), and Chief Awolowo the holder of the non-hereditary paramount chieftaincy of the Yoruba people (Asiwaju of Yorubaland).

The references to Chief Obasanjo and Alhaji Yaradua have been substantiated by the BBC article that you so kindly formatted.

And that's just about it. The list of titleholders links to other Wikipedia articles. As for the opening paragraph, its second sentence can be inferred from the fact that the chieftaincy has been a part of communities that are at least a millennium old. Nevertheless, I'll personally attempt to find a reference for it that will satisfy my Wiki brethren. If I'm unable to do so, I'll edit it accordingly.

Thanks again for the help. It's greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

O.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack.

O.ominirabluejack That may be a bit of a problem. You see, information derived from unsourced personal knowledge, or "I can't recall where I learned that" is not suitable for a Wikipedia articel unless a reliable source can be found and cited, as per WP:V (except for obvious things, as per Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). But It is a problem that can be handled. I will defer further comment to th4e talk page of the draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

An edit to the wiki page: 27 ClUB

Hello, I recently discovered someone who should be included in the 27 CLUB. They will be an extremely integral member! The page seems to be locked or I can't find the edit button?

Please let me know how to proceed.

Best,

Berzorker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzorker (talk • contribs) 06:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Berzorker Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you note, the page is protected from editing by new and unregistered users, due to continuous violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Any edits to that page need to be well sourced to independent reliable sources. If you have a source for your proposed change, you should make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: 27 Club —Tamfang (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Want to ask why my page was deleted from Wikipedia Louis Whyte Jonah (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Louis Whyte Jonah

Your user page was deleted because, as it says on your talk page, "the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals". A user page is intended for you to write about your activities on Wikipedia –what you have done here, what you intend to do here, your views on what editing needs to be done and how it should be done, etc. Maproom (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Louis Whyte Jonah (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As noted on your user talk page, you edited your user page, which is not article space. It is a place for you to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is not a place to write an article about yourself. For that matter, writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about article subjects, not in what the subject wants to say about itself. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources have chosen to say about you. The vast majority of people cannot do that.

If you just want to do something like post your resume or tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

writing an artical

Hey, I am new here as a Wikipedia editor I just sign up so how should I start or write my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsaraswat (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Samsaraswat Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for wanting to contribute. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. New users who dive right in without a good understanding of the process often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as work they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I want you to have a good experience here and not have bad feelings. Because of this, I would strongly advise you to first build up some experience and Wikipedia knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in articles. Many users start small by making edits to correct spelling at first, then gradually move up to more substantive edits and finally article creation. New users that do that are much more successful. It's also good to use the new user tutorial.

However, if you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should definitely read Your First Article, in addition to using the tutorial. You can then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. In this way, you will get feedback before it is in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to Sita page

Recently, multiple IPs and users (including a reentry blocked sock) have been removing sourced content, to push a certain WP :POV on Sita page. The recently blocked sock seems to reappear and edit again using IP address and also new users making their first edit and so on. The blocked sock had also used uncivilized language in edit summary. What should I do? Can anyone please help. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You could request page protection, which can be done at WP:RFPP. However, this is much simpler in the case of unambiguous vandalism. If all of the IP addresses and/or new users are unambiguously block-evading socks then it should be straightforward to have them blocked and it may be that an admin will also be willing to apply protection if it is frequent and ongoing. Otherwise, given that it appears to be essentially a content dispute, you may first need to get a clear consensus that the POV being added on the page should not be added, and you can then point to this consensus when requesting page protection. Regarding the uncivilised language, this can be reported at WP:ANI but unless it is especially egregious or frequent, it may not result in any immediate action other than a warning. Hug^syrup 08:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Help regarding a music-related article

Hello guys, can someone help me make this page verifiable and let me know if it's good enough? > Draft:TNO_(DJs) Reneeshdonga (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Reneeshdonga: - I'm afraid it's not good enough, as it's been declined and you haven't made any changes to it since then. There is guidance in the notice at the top about how to make it verifiable: essentially you need to find high quality sources: independent, in reliable publications, that discuss the subject in depth. Many musicians, especially young ones who only released their first recording two years ago, simply will not have enough material written about them to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, so it may well be that there is nothing you can do right now to make that article notable. You may simply have to wait until more reliable publications have written about TNO. Hug^syrup 14:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Biographic article was declined for insufficient references.

Hello everyone! An article I've written was recently declined and the message I got referred me to here, if I have any questions about how to fix things. For some context: I'm to write an article here on wikipedia about my professor of roman law. (I'm her assistant.) I've already successfully done so in german, my native language. I translated the article to english myself, as I'm bilingual, not really changing anything. The article was pending for a while and I just saw now that it was declined for the reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I take this to mean that the article lacks independet sources on the subjectmatter. I admit, the only reference in the article is a reference to a book she co-published. However I don't believe there are any other references I could add, since she doesn't have a biography written about her. I linked her info-pages from the universities she works in under "Weblinks". Perhaps I should move those to "References"? I'm not sure how I could change the article so it fits the criteria better. The exact same version in german was accepted rather quickly, which surprises me even more. I also worked on a chinese version with some colleagues from China and I know they had some issues at first as well but those seme to have been cleared. Any help or suggestion is very welcome. I don't know if anyone here can read the articles, but just in case you can: Her name is Iole Fargnoli. You should find at least the chinese and german articles about her. Thank you for your time. VonWerdt (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)VonWerdt — Preceding unsigned comment added by VonWerdt (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC) VonWerdt (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)VonWerdt

Courtesy: draft is at Draft:Iole Fargnoli. And to VonWerdt, please 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@VonWerdt:. Welcome to The Teahouse. You've raised a few different points so I'm going to quickly address them in bullets - sorry if this comes off as brusque, I'm just trying to be clear.

• If you are writing about someone who you work for/with, you have a WP:COI. Please ensure you have read the guidelines on editing with a COI.
• If the only reference in the article is a book that she co-published, then this is not sufficient. It is a primary source, and is not independent, so it is essentially worthless as a reference.
• Should you move the info-pages to references? No - information pages on university websites etc are primary sources as well as not being independent, so are not suitable references. I suggest reading our guidance on reliable sources to help you understand the kind of sources you need to add.
• How you need to change the article is that you need to find, and add, several independent, reliable sources that discuss your professor in detail. If such sources do not exist then I am afraid she simply isn't ready for an article at this time.
• The fact that the article was accepted on Chinese and German wikipedias is not really relevant as they are different entities and have different standards. Although honestly I'm surprised and a bit shocked that those Wikipedias accepted an article with only the author's own book as a reference. Do those articles have more references? If you have high quality references in Chinese or German then you can add them here as references don't have to be in English.

I hope this helps. Hug^syrup 14:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

submission

Hi, I created an article on the musician Danny Briottet a long time ago, but it doesn't appear to have been published. I made some changes as suggested but still not published. I based the format of my subbmission on those on comparable musicians such as Alex Patterson and Andrew Weatherall, so I don't really see why there should be a problem. I am disappointed as I would like to contribute more to wikipedia. Could someone please let me know if and when my work will be published? Thank you, Gene — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene.java (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gene.java and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a blue button at the top of your sandbox article for you to resubmit the draft, but don't do it yet because the article is not ready. You need to read WP:Referencing for beginners and convert all your references to in-line, showing which statement each supports. Dbfirs 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gene.java, the draft at User:Gene.java/sandbox has not been submitted to Articles for Creation for review. To do this, there is a "Submit your draft for review!" button at the bottom of the template at the top of the page. This will place the draft into the queue for reviewing, then moving to the encyclopedia.

At the moment, I would recomend changing the references to use <ref> tags - see Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources for how to do this. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gene.java , I can help you with the reference formatting. just tell me if you need help.Less Unless (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Resubmitted Article (Draft): Shuaibu Isa Lau

Hello, please I just wanted to know the status of my resubmitted draft (article). Here's the link; Draft:Shuaibu_Isa_Lau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshswacide (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Moshswacide, your submission is in the queue to be reviewed. As the queue currently stands at around 3,500 articles, and reviewers don't review in any particuar order, it can be several months for an article to be reviewed. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can list of notable authors be added to publishers page on Wikipedia?

Dear Teahouse representatives,

I wanted to ask about the case where I have a COI. As a person with COI I was strongly adviced not to edit the page directly (even if I state the COI), but to use the Talk page.

The issue is - the info I try to discuss on talk page is ignored. Here is an example: The only thing we want to is to have the same rights to add the same info as the others. In this case, we wanted to ad list of notable authors, just as other pages have added, please see an example here: Alfred A. Knopf

Can you please advice what can we can do in cases when administrators are ignoring questions asked on the Talk page whether or not to add the list of notable authors? Have we missed some restrictions that deny an option to ad list of notable authors on the page? If that is the case does it mean such info should be removed from other pages as well?

Best regards, FYI 2020 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi FYI 2020 and welcome to the Teahouse. I cannot find the requested edits that you are referring to. This is your only edit to Wikipedia using the above user name. Do you have another account? In general, names should be added only if they already have a Wikipedia article, then the name can be linked. Please let us know some examples where editors have ignored your request. It is not only administrators, but any independent editor who can make the changes for you. Who are the "we" that you refer to above? Dbfirs 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: I am sorry for the confusion. I haven't made yet any edits yet. I am speaking about this article: Talk:OmniScriptum , please scroll till the end - the last request made by VarisGrin is to have any explanation on why we cannot add the list of notable authors. Are there any guidelines we (me, and VarisGrin) are missing? Any edits we try to do are seen as promotional. Is there anything we can do that improves the page? Any suggestions will be appreciated. Thank you.FYI 2020 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing draft

Hi, How do I retrieve a draft that I did on my sandbox? I click submit the ML6484 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)draft for review and this morning I could not retrieve it nor find it. It is for my group project and I do not have another version or copy of it anywhere else. I am getting frustrated because it means I would have to start all over again.

Hi ML6484 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox has only ever had a couple of edits on October 7th, but is your draft at User:ML6484/citing sources? Dbfirs 14:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I used my group's sandbox draft section. On my page, our instructor assigned our group the article for review and editing. Under the members' usernames, there is a sandbox draft that I clicked last night and did my draft and clicked submit the draft for review. It is under Gaffneybrenna9/Ulcerativecolitis.ML6484 (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That's odd. I cannot find that page or even that user. Perhaps someone else can find it for you. Dbfirs 14:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ML6484, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your contributions to Wikipedia can be found at Special:Contributions/ML6484. You do not have any deleted contributions. Your personal sandbox is at User:ML6484/sandbox, but there is not much in it. The only edits to it were by you, and are shown here. I don't see any edits by you to a group sandbox page. There is no page like "Gaffneybrenna9/Ulcerativecolitis" that I can find. Is it possible that you had an edit conflict on the group page and the save never completed? I don't see any links to a group sandbox on the course page, which is at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/DeSales University/Advanced Pathophysiology (Fall 2019) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The group's user is gaffneybrennan9/Ulcerativecolitis. I did it on the group sandbox draft section last night and I clicked submit draft for review.ML6484 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ML6484, the only user page is at User:Gaffneybrennan9/citing sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you guide me as to where should I do my draft for our group project in Ulcerative colitis? I tried applying what I have learned from our online training and I am not able to work it on my own. I have more than 5 articles at hand. I just don't want to lose my draft and start all over again. I even looked up on my browser history last night but it leads me nowhere.ML6484 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@ML6484: There is a User:Gaffneybrennan9 with 'n' before '9'. Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/DeSales University/Advanced Pathophysiology (Fall 2019) says you, Gaffneybrennan9 and two others were "assigned" the article Ulcerative colitis. You are also listed in a box at top of Talk:Ulcerative colitis. All saved edits by the four users are at Special:Contributions/ML6484, Special:Contributions/Gaffneybrennan9, Special:Contributions/Vsiemion, Special:Contributions/Tdownie53. None of you have saved an edit in the last week, apart from your edits today. I don't know whether your course has special expectations about where to make a draft. A common place is the Sandbox link at top of any page. For you it is User:ML6484/sandbox. The three others can edit their own sandbox or your group can agree on one of the four sandboxes for shared work. You can edit the sandbox of other users but should usually only do it with their permission. Click Contributions at the top right of any page to see your saved edits. If you tried to save but don't see it there then it wasn't saved. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ML6484, I suggest you try again at User:Gaffneybrennan9/Ulcerativecolitis. Be sure to click the Publish changes button twice to save. Try some test edits in User:ML6484/sandbox first to be comfortable that things are saving properly. In any case putting in a bit at a time and saving between small edits is often a good way to work. Good luck. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I just did try to retype on my sandbox and my draft is posted. I did the same thing last night, the in question missing draft, although I don't think I click publish twice or maybe none at all.ML6484 (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Published work removed.

I have recently made an article based on the overcomplification of the common nursery rhyme 'Johny Johny Yes Papa', and posted it on the 'internet memes' section of the rhymes page, as I have seen many memes based on the overcomplification of the same. It was there for one week before being removed, and I removed no notification for it except an invite link for the teahouse, and i'm currently using it to clarify my doubt. Thanks in advance! Drapal — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrapalDragon (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DrapalDragon, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think Orenburg1 was wrong to call your edit to Johny Johny Yes Papa "vandalism", as it appears to have been in good faith - though your edits to Nae Nae clearly were vandalism. Orenburg1 was right to remove the edit because it was unreferenced: Wikipedia is not interested in what you (or I, or any other random person on the Internet) thinks or knows: it is only interested in what has already been written about in reliable published sources. Moreover, your claim that this is a derivative of the meme is original research, and also not allowed in Wikipedia. Finally, if it is an original work, as you say, it certainly does not belong. This is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of random thoughts.

Another point: reapplying an edit which another editor has reverted is called edit warring and is regarded as disruptive. Please don't do it again: see BRD for how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

And another point: your draft Draft:Jonathan( The fancy version of the rhyme) consists of a poem you wrote - an overcomplification of 'Johny, Johny Yes Papa'. It will never be accepted as an article. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How to do superscripts

I wish to provide a superscript to a date - in this case something like 1653 with a superscript 4.

Attempting to look this up does not get me anywhereCatchsinger (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Catchsinger, welcome back to the Teahouse! You can do superscripts using the following code: <sup>...</sup>. So for your example, you would type 1653<sup>4</sup> into the editing area, which will look like 1653⁴ when it's saved. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Catchsinger: I don't know why you want a superscript to a date but the most common reason is to make a reference. If that is your goal then the code is completely different. See Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you writkeeper: I should have experimented. Primehunter, no, I have the hang of references, but RISM has a system of referring to musical works which requires things just like 1653⁴ . THanks to both anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catchsinger (talk • contribs) 18:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New to this

Hello all! I think I'm going to start doing Wikipedia as a part-time hobby now, trying to help out this community here and there. I don't trust myself to start full lists or articles quite yet, so any tips where I should start? I've been looking at cleanup opportunities and feel like that might be a starting point. I might be wrong though, so it's why I'm asking. Thanks in advance! Thaonepuppyguy (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Thaonepuppyguy and welcome! I'm also quite new but I started in clean up projects and it was helpful to me. I also added info to the subjects I'm familiar with thus learning the editing basics. I would recommend you the Wikipedia Adventure - that was a good intro. Less Unless (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

For fourteen years I've done little around here other than cleanup – polishing the language and organization of what others have written. Often I can do it without knowing anything of the subject! —Tamfang (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

can you pls tell that

how should i can write about my website oyetechy and what are the most common and necessary points that i should remember while writing about this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millersara (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Millersara, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want to create a WP-article about your blog, don't. More at WP:Conflict of interest. If you want to use your blog a source in WP-articles, don't. More at WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Can others help you edit before an article is published?

Title is the question. I am writing an article over the Philippine earthquake earlier today. I got enough a sharp paragraph down to get the page submitted so it would be out there while new reports of casualties and damage came in. It wasn’t declined, however, I was told to expand it more before it can be an article. Is there a way I can have a draft where others can help me edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Please sign your posts with 4 tildes. Also, anyone can help. One thing about Wikipedia is collaboration. I’ll see what I can do to help. ;-). LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 19:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

One more thing, I saw a message someone left you on your talk page, and they say not every earthquake is notable. You need to make sure there is significant news about the earthquake that you are writing about. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 19:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

One further thing, Elijahandskip. Wikipedia is not a news source, There is no deadline, and rushing to get an article written quickly will almost certainly result in a poorer article than taking the time. In the case of a very recent event, there is also a problem that nobody has a clue which features of the event will turn out to be the important and memorable ones; so an article created in a hurry is likely to contain a lot of matters than over time will be seen as unimportant (or even wrong), and it may miss entirely some matters which in the long term become important aspects of the event. Wikipedia is for the future more than for now. For a Wiki that covers unfolding events, see Wikinews. --ColinFine (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Official product images for phone

Recently an editor added an image for an article I created, the Samsung Galaxy M30s, which appear from the official product images as can be seen here and here and here. So, what is the copyright policy as it goes to official product images? The commons file states that the editor created the file. Is this a COI or how should I handle this? Taewangkorea (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging editor @RhythmWiki: in good faith Taewangkorea (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have downloaded the two images (front and back side of M30s) from here where it was published as fair use. But then I merged two images into one. Therefore I thought the copyright issue goes to me. RhythmWiki (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

So I was seeking others' thoughts on whether this is OK for use in an article as I am not sure. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@RhythmWiki and Taewangkorea: The page at https://www.samsung.com/in/microsite/galaxy-m/m30s/ does not provide any release or license, and the entire image is being used. This is a bit doubtful for fair use, but it might be acceptable. But to count as fair use the source must be clearly acknowledged. The merged images may not have enough originality for the editor to have any copyright at all, but at best it is a derivative work of the images downloaded from the Samsung site. As such, they are under the same copyright protection as the original images, and if a fair use claim is to be made, cannot be uploaded to commons and must have the source and fair use rationale properly documented. The image is tagged for speedy deletion at commons, and in my view properly so, although I am not a commons admin. I would delete this image from any and all Wikipedia articles promptly. Note that anyone who has access to this model of phone may take an original photo, which could be released freely and uploaded to commons. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above assessment, and have proposed another upload by RhythmWiki for deletion as a blatant copyright violation. It is not accceptable to take another organisation's images and give away their rights to use it.Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I think Note that anyone who has access to this model of phone may take an original photo, which could be released freely and uploaded to commons. shouldn't be assumed to be automatic in that the design of the phone (i.e. it's appearance) may still be under copyright protection. While in some cases, the object being photographed may be considered utilitarian in shape, the artwork, labeling, etc. appearing on the object (e.g. the label on a bottle of beer) may still be protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@RhythmWiki: You should read c:Commons:Licensing because copyright doesn't transfer to you in this case. Finding photos online and downloading them to your computer is not a transfer of copyright. It's possible that you could use these photos to create a WP:Derivative work (also see c:Commons:Derivative works), but the original copyright of the photos you downloaded is still retained by the original copyright holder. So, in this case, there may be three copyrights in play: one for each of the original photos you downloaded and possibly one for your combination of them. The first two are for sure, but it seems highly unlikely that simply combining two copyrighted photos as you did would be considered sufficiently creative enough to generate a "new" copyright because basically all you did was reproduce someone else's work. It would be really no different in taking two pages from a book, placing them side by side, and then making a photo copy of them. However, even if by chance what you did was considered a derivative work eligible for it's own copyright, you still cannot upload such files to Commons without the permission of the original copyright holder of each element you used to make your derivative. My suggestion to you would be to tag this file and any other similar files you uploaded to Commons for speedy deletion using the template c:Template:SD as explained in c:Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 so that they will be deleted by a Commons administrator. You can do this as long as the file is not more than seven days old; older files need to be tagged with c:Template:Copyvio, c:Template:Dw no source since or be nominated for deletion via c:Commons:Deletion review. Any files of this nature are considered to be copyright violations, and can be tagged as such. For future reference, Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content as explained in c:Commons:Fair use. It only accepts files which are 100% freely licensed or within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for the advice. That is what I thought. I have also removed the image from an article in the Bengali Wikipedia. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Certain copyrighted images can be uploaded and used locally on English Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content; each use of such an image, however, needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Generally, English Wikipedia does allow copyrighted images of products (e.g. a smartphone) to be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes at the top of articles about such products, but only as long as a freely licensed equivalent image cannot be found or created to serve essentially the same purpose. So, even though Commons can't keep the files discussed in this thread, it may be possible to re-upload them for local use on English Wikipedia as non-free content. There are many Wikipedias, however, besides English Wikipedia and not all of them allow non-free content to be used. Please check meta:Non-free content to determine whether Bengali Wikipedia does permit such content to be uploaded and used locally on it. If you don't find any information for Bengali Wikipedia on that page, you're going to need to ask for help on Bengali Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Taewangkorea, do you own this phone, or know someone who does? You can take your own photo of this phone, upload it to Commons, and then include your photo in the article. Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not necessarily the case and would depend upon on the type of picture and whether what is being photographed is subject to its own separate copyright protection. As I stated above, the shape of the phone is utilitarian enough but there may be copyrightable elements that appear on the phone or it's screen which need to be taken into account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Are my edits immediately available to Wikipedia readers?

I've been editing Wikipedia for a while. To be honest, it's mainly because I like making/editing the summaries for movies and books. (The reason for why I created my account in the first place was because I often found them disappointing and wanted to edit them.) When I publish a change, it immediately goes through. Does it actually go through, though, or can I just see it on my account? I'd be annoyed if all this time I thought I was helping people understand plotlines and instead it was just silly me being overly pedantic for no reason. (Well, it probably is anyway, but at least I'd feel better about it.)

Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandySaysRawr (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@CandySaysRawr: Yes, your edits are immediately visible. When you were not autoconfirmed, a measure to protect against unwanted accounts, it was a little bit different - some articles you may have edited, such as Carl Sagan, have no protection and acted the same for you as they do now. Others, say, December 25, have a special protection called pending changes protection, which means that new and unregistered editors' edits save, but special users (such as myself) must read the changes and approve them before they are visible. However, now you are autoconfirmed, so this does not affect you. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! - candy — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandySaysRawr (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How to request help improve an article.

I created a draft page so that I could draft improvements to and article that I should not be editing directly because of a conflict of interest. However, I would like to suggest improvements and then request that other editors consider making the changes. The original iteration of this article had a lot more content but because it was poorly written a fair amount of the content was removed before it could be accepted. I would like to offer some changes such as, adding some headings which only make sense if there is some addition content. I wanted to create a private space to work on this. The page I created to do this task is LorriBrown/Draft_page has been tagged for deletion by User talk:SD0001. Can you enlighten me as to how best to go about doing this? Thank you in advance for your consideration! LorriBrown (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LorriBrown, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has not been deleted, but has been moved to a more suitable place, in your user space: User:LorriBrown/Draft page, where you can continue to work on it. When you are ready, you can suggest edits on the talk page Talk:Kent Tate, and explicitly link to your draft page. My personal advice would be not to work on the whole page, but to do it a section at a time. See Talk:Bradford Playhouse#Recent events in the Playhouse's history. for how I rewrote one section with a COI. --ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine Nice!! Thank you for the example. LorriBrown (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: once you have drafted the changes you would like to make, then you can request to have the changes reviewed and implemented by making an edit request. To get to grips with edit requests, my advice would be to read Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Best wishes, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating articles for recording gaming results

Hello esteemed Wikipedia users!

Brand new user here, and I'm going to be totally up front and honest about the reason for my being here.

I am an eSports racer for F1 2019 on Xbox. I had, perhaps naively, intended to create a Wikipedia page replicating the information available on Formula One but for the league I race in instead.

Having read your policies and the like, it is clear to me that it was a very bad idea.

To this end, does anyone have any recommendations for a similar (preferably free) platform I could use for this purpose?

I eagerly await your advice. --A Ric Ton1ght (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC) (call me Adrian).

A Ric Ton1ght, This is not something that we help with. We help new editors learn the ropes necessary to be successful contributors. Try asking on Quora. Interstellarity (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This page lists alternatives to Wikipedia that may permit what you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Name Change on Product

Can someone help me change the name of this plane to eFlyer 4 rather than Sun Flyer 4? Article: Bye Aerospace Sun Flyer 4

I work for Bye Aerospace and we renamed the plane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.83.126 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the page. However, you state that you work for that company. This means you have a conflict of interest with that company. You must disclose this on your user page. Please avoid editing the article directly and make edit requests on the talk page of the article using the {{request edit}} template. I have posted on your talk page with more info on your COI. Interstellarity (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What user page? —Tamfang (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you become a editor/admin

Good evening Wikipedia! I'm wondering how do you become an editor, or administrator in Wikipedia? Gumshoe97 (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gumshoe97: Welcome to Wikipedia. Every user, including you, is an editor. Becoming an administrator requires a history of being a good editor with a strong track record on Wikipedia with knowledge of the various policies. Administrators have only a few additional tools not available to everyone else, and it is mostly so they can clean up messes. See WP:ADMIN. RudolfRed (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Gumshoe97 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Badges

I've heard there were badges in Wikipedia. How can I earn those? Porygon-Z (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. You have already earned some badges already on WP:TWA. Keep doing it and you will earn all 15 of them. Interstellarity (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I earn them. Like what do I have to do to get them? Porygon-Z (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Porygon-Z474, Complete all the missions. I see you got some already on your user page. Use these missions to learn the basics on editing Wikipedia. Once you complete each mission, you will earn a badge that will be placed on your user page when your done. Does that help? Interstellarity (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat. What are the missions? Porygon-Z (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

When you launch WP:TWA, follow through with the prompts, after you do that, there will be a list of missions at the bottom of the screen, click on one of them to learn something from it. After you complete the mission, you will earn a badge. Does that help? Interstellarity (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think so, Ill come back if I have more questions. Porygon-Z (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait I can't view pictures what do i do? Porygon-Z (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I am going to head to sleep now. I might help you tomorrow. Someone else will look into it for you if I'm offline. Interstellarity (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok well i'll see you around Porygon-Z (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC):

@Porygon-Z474: I'm not quite sure how to help you with your question above. I will ask another editor to answer it for you. Interstellarity (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

OK Well that's good Because I'm kinda not understanding this at all. Porygon-Z (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• I was asked to come here, but I'm afraid I know little of badges. Sorry. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

social studies for jss3 nigerian students . topic: population

what is population,population census ,meaning,importance and problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Soberekon (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.
Welcome to the Teahouse. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here not to do others' homework, but merely to aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems.
Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. You can search Wikipedia or search the Web.
If you need help with a specific part of your homework, the Reference desk can help you grasp the concept. Do not ask knowledge questions here, just those about using Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Questions about adding a bibliography to an article.

I would like to add a bibliography to an article but first would like to find out the best way to go about doing that. I get confused as to which style to use for the entries (i.e., MLA, APA or Chicago etc.), what should or should not be included, and whether or not there should be a citation to accompany the entries. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, LorriBrown (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: Check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Publications_(Works,_Bibliography). Interstellarity (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

what is the criteria for addition to the Wikipedia "List of Transgender People"

i was the founder of the Deaf Club and i am, the last west coast punk rock impresario and most importantly (to me) a trans person. i eschew celebrity, but in this decade and at seventy three, its important to be visible to your readership as a public trans person. how can i be added to the list? thxs in advance. daphne hanrahan

also, Bambi Lake isn't on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.240.85 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

For anyone to be included on a list of people, they must be notable and have their own article. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 01:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

{ping|{My Little Pony|71.149.240.85|71.149.240.85}}I am not so sure about that. What you are referring to is BLUE linked names to people who have articles. However without creating an internal link, if a person has significant coverage, which can be cited,then I believe they can be mentioned, just not linked, e.g. Bambi Lake(citation 1, 2) provided these are significant coverages and not just twitter handles, mentions, blogs and the like. There are well known, borderline famous, people who just haven't yet arrived at the point where they have significant mentions in reliable sources, yet nether the less they are notable, at leastlocally.Oldperson (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The most basic common selection criteria is that the person already have an existing Wikipedia article written about them. This is often why reference is made to WP:WTAF when discussing such lists; however, in some cases depending on the nature of the list, it is also sometimes acceptable to add entries for for individuals without existing articles, but for who it's reasonable to expect that a Wikipedia article can be written. In the latter case, a citation is almost always going to be necessary to demonstrate has received significant coverage to be Wikipedia notable. It kind of depends upon the type of list and the consensus agreed to upon the list's talk page, but the important thing is to ensure that the list is a list of "Wikipedia notable individuals" and not just a place for WP:Namechecking. Nobody has a right to have their name added to such a list, and disagreements need to be resolved through WP:DR just like any other content dispute. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It is essential that the person self-identity as transgender in a published reliable source, which must be cited as a reference, either in a biography of the person, or in the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Referencing a book and picture.

Hello can you please reference this book please. The book:

Title: Gunning for Greatness Author: Mesut Özil ISBN: 978-1-473-64995-8 LlewynYiming (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi LlewynYiming. I'm not sure what you mean by reference this book. Do you want to know how to format a citation for the book and then add it to an article? If that's the case, please take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners. You also seem to be working on Draft:Gunning For Greatness. Do you want some advice on how to create a Wikipedia article? In that case, please take a look at Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, how do you add a picture to a Wikipedia page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LlewynYiming (talk • contribs) 07:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends upon what type of picture you want to add and which page you want to add it too, but you can find out some general information in Wikipedia:Image use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@LlewynYiming: Also, when I want to do something I don't know how to do, the easiest thing to do is to find a similar thing and see how it was done there. There are many thousands of articles on books – find one and edit it to see the source of the article and find what you need (taking care to just exit the page, not hit the Publish changes button). There is also extensive help available in the Help and Wikipedia namespaces, e.g. this search for "image". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@LlewynYiming: I made an MLA citation using Citation Machine.

Thank You so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LlewynYiming (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

My article on Freshman Interest Groups

First I want to thank Angus Woof for his review. He made two points, one that the term Freshman Interest Groups is a neologism. I don't know how to demonstrate that it isn't since it has been in use for about 30 years and is a common program name at dozens of universities across the country, as well as the subject of numerous articles in research journals in the area of higher education.

My second question has to do with making the tone more encyclopedic. I'm not sure how to do that. I guess I thought I was being objective, but is there a difference between objective and encyclopedic? I would love to have someone explain that to me. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KToke69 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

KToke69 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. See this text for more information; you would need many more independent reliable sources to show that this term is in common use and discuss the term itself, not merely use it. If there is not wide discussion of the term, as the page I linked to states "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." 331dot (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there are plenty. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Help correct the table

Hi! I was adding the technical stuff missing on the page Zaragoza but after my edit it's a mess, although it seemed I did everything correctly. Please can someone help change that and explain me what I did wrong for the future. Thank you! --Less Unless (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I seem to have fixed the problem, by adding a newline after each staff member. I've no idea why this worked. Maproom (talk) 10:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, i was shocked when I saw it). --Less Unless (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The templates add table code which must be at the start of a line. The template-produced table end |} was displayed in the Álex Sosa cell in [2] instead of ending the table so the rest of the article became part of the table. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter thank you!Less Unless (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

how to change page name

Hi - I work for a museum in Wales UK. We need to change the title at the top of our page to include the new Welsh name for the museum. I have managed to edit the rest of the page to include the Welsh version of our new name but cannot edit the title. How can I do this? Can you help? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.165.125 (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title of an article requires a page move, which you can request at Requested Moves. You may also want to discuss it with other editors on the article talk page; Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names as article titles. (see WP:COMMONNAME)

As a museum employee, you will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies; the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory for paid editors. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The article name has been changed by another editor. If you intend to have any more edits to this article you should register an account and then declare on your User page that you have a PAID relation to the topic. That means that you should propose changes on the Talk page (change X to Y, or add Y) so that a not-connected editor can evaluate and either implement the changes or not. David notMD (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Made an edit with reliable sources but it was rejected

Hello,

I made an edit on a popular African musician page citing reliable sources. It was removed because the moderator believed that I didn't provide a reliable source. However, these reliable sources aren't from new media houses, they are very much POPULAR here in Africa. The confusing fact is, most of the approved references on the current musician page is from same media houses I cited. Why was mine not approved? e.g. There is a wiki article about "Musician A" referencing Forbes and was approved. A news broke out days ago about the "musician A" and Forbes picked it, the musician confirmed it on twitter and IG and I added it on wiki. So what could be wrong?

Another confusing thing here is the moderator wrote to me ". . . If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. . ." but when I went to his/her talk page to talk, I saw this " . . . If you came here because I reverted your unsourced change, cite your references in the article you edited; there is no use bringing them here. I turned off most notifications in my preferences, and therefore can't see pings, sorry."

Could it be that the moderator is not very much aware of these references? In fact, one of the references I cited is from a media house that has a wikipedia page. I took 1 week to carefully read what is accepted and what not on Wikipedia. I’m interested in writing articles about popular entrepreneurs within the African region and could see that most of these popular entrepreneurs aren’t well covered despite the fact that they’re popular here. Writersmagic (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Writersmagic: This first edit did fail to cite a reliable source. That was what the message was about.

The other edit, when you did cite the source, was undone as being promotional. Wikipedia doesn't say things like "heartthrob." The message you received was not about that but about the first edit.

Also, the more serious problem is that you copied text directly from the cited sources. Never do that. Summarize and paraphrase, never copy.

You might want to check out this guide I wrote that covers a variety of issues new users tend to face. It includes a section on how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted, as well as a section on finding sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

How to cite something from the internet archive

I want to reference a book that's on the internet archive (https://archive.org/details/hussitewars00lt/page/n23). Do I have to have a special kind of citation, or can I just cite it as I would cite any other book?

Thanks!

-Aven13 —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aven13: Just cite it as any other book! All that would be different is you can use the URL parameter of the citation template to link to the link you placed here. Sam Walton (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Aven13: Here's a handy online tool that I use frequently to generate MLA-style citations. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is Livefist a reliable source

Can I cite Livefist Defence in Wikipedia? It is primarily written by senior journalist Shiv Aroor of India Today, who can be credited with getting hold of the first footage of K4 SLBM... I am asking this since a user repeatedly reverted my edits in which I cited Livefist a few months ago(probably because I was a very new user back then)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• The question you ask, about the reliability of a particular source, would be better asked at WP:RSN. From a quick search it's neither obviously bonkers nor a newspaper of record but I know little about the subject.

The question you implied is whether that revert was justified. I think it is. The edit summary was incorrect in saying "not RS" because the sentence is attributed to Arun Prakash, so an interview with that person is a reliable primary source for what the person said (as long as it is published somewhere where quotes are not fabricated). However, the ref text did not match what the article said. Compare the ref: And the final thought; would a brand new nuclear war-head required to face the rigours of an underwater launch, not require a “hot” test to prove its design? is a hypothetical ("if we got a new nuke we would have to test it in real conditions"); vs the Wikipedia text was (...) has said that a “brand new nuclear war-head” has been created for INS Arihant and her sister ships, which is designed to “face the rigours of an underwater launch” which is not hypothetical ("we got a new nuke ready for those conditions"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: I am surprised about how you could read my mind. The title of that article was "Arihant in perspective". If the Admiral mentions a "brand new warhead", he obviously meant it for Arihant.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: But I agree. This is Wikipedia and we have to be careful about WP:OR.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Also WP:SYNTH. The source looks like it might be reliable, given that it is cited in other sources, but at least one of those was an article written by Aroor himself. I don't know the relationships between the various Indian media outlets, so it's hard to tell how much of it is independent of him (i.e. to see if other RSs regard him as reliable). Some of the headlines are more inflammatory in language than U.S. defense commentary sites, but that may not be unusual in India. Definitely discuss it at RSN, as it seems like a useful source if reliable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Help required

Me and my team wrote and Article on one of our local Internet Celebrity User:Ishaqahmedwriter/sandbox

Wikipedia nominated it to be deleted as it promotes someone or a brand . However this was a neutral article. Kindly help me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishaqahmedwriter (talk • contribs) 15:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

And....the Sandbox has been blanked by an Administrator. I had a glimpse of it before it vanished and agree that it was promotional and not adequately referenced. Much of the content had no references. Social media, blogs, facebook, etc. are not considered reliable sources for referencing. Numbers of followers does not convey notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. It may just be WP:TOOSOON for this person to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. David notMD (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

First Submission Questions

My first submission to Wikipedia was on September 15, 2019. It was rejected same day for lack of internal citations. Re-submitted with internal citations, and nothing but total silence for 4 weeks. Is this a good sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMGMUNSON (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I imagine that reviewers have left your resubmission aside because the referencing is thoroughly confused. You have one set of citations from the text of the article, but then another set of disjointed "references" after the reflist. If this second set are not being used to support the article text, perhaps you intended to remove them? You can continue to improve the draft while you wait for it to be reviewed. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that input. AMGMUNSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMGMUNSON (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@AMGMUNSON: also, drafts are reviewed in no particular order so it may take more than 2 months before it is reviewed. There is currently a backlog of over 3,400 submissions right now. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Question on talk pages

Hi, how to structure a statement on a talk page?--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bubblesorg: To create a new statement on a talk page you use two equal signs (== TITLE ==) to create a title, then below that you write your things. Taewangkorea (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I know that, but how do you make a remark properly --Bubblesorg (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Disingenuous behavior. Bubblesorg has been a member for over a year, has made 500+ edits, including many on Talk pages, chided for copyright infringement, and blocked for a while for sockpuppetry. If there is a specific question, ask it, but do not waste peoples' time with vague statements. David notMD (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I was asked by another editor to ask such questions, I guess you dont get what Im trying to ask, and thats Understadable. Also I have changed since then, thats why im asking right now. I will ask another time once I have got my thoughts organized --Bubblesorg (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You ought to read WP:Talk page guidelines. One of the things for which you were criticised on your own user talk page was the indentation. I have corrected your message to use one more colon than the message to which you were replying. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

okay thank you--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Auto-confirmed tag

How can I get an auto-confirmed tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokulh97 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for an account to be autoconfirmed are at WP:autoconfirmed. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gokulh97: Basically says you have to have an account at least 4 days old and 10 edits. You have more than 10 edits so in a few days you will be autoconfirmed. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What justifies removing the autobiographical tag?

I worked on a page with this tag, and I don't know if it is an autobiography--seems like legit description — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excitedfish (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link Gabriel Filippelli. Problematic bio to say the least. Autobiography likely created by the subject, who also went on to replace citations in Phosphorite with references to his own papers. I added a note to the Phosphorite talk page. Extra experienced eyes needed. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The tag could be removed if you were able to convince the article's editors that User:Gfilippe is not the subject of the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct article name?

Hello! I've just created an article Nabi_Tajima_(Q17686907) via clicking on a red link. It was the first article i've done this way (i submitted drafts for revisions before). My question would be - should i have removed the weird code after the name? I haven't even noticed it at first and now it's in the articles name. What does it stand for and how to get rid of it? Thank you in advance!--Less Unless (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: Note: I have requested someone to move the title for you. I will let someone else answer this question. Interstellarity (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: Q17686907 is an arbitrary database number for her at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17686907. It's called a Wikidata ID and should definitely not be in the page name at Wikipedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red apparently use a system at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Number of links and some other pages where they look up women in Wikidata and add the Wikidata ID to make a red link if there already is a redirect at the normal name. In this case Nabi Tajima is currently a redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians#Nabi Tajima. The article belongs at Nabi Tajima. See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article, but don't change this example now. If you change a redirect to an article then you will not be registered as the creator of the page but the page history will still display your edit. A redirect can be made for several reasons. One of them is that there once was an article. Here an old article [3] was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabi Tajima (2nd nomination). It was decided to redirect her to the list so your article risks the same fate. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Thank you for the elaborate explanation. I should have checked if the article had been deleted first, my bad. I also thought that articles listed as red links within the projects do not necessarily have to undergo this sort of examination, but now I understand that it doesn't apply to all of the links, in fact to none. I've gained better understanding now, thank you! Less Unless (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Best approach to requesting unblock a second time (web host block)

Hi Teahouse! So, I was caught by a web host block. Oops #1. So, I double-checked that no VPN services were running and requested an unblock. Unfortunately, I was too hasty, not realizing that IP sometimes fail to renew automatically...so I reported the same, bad IP in my unblock request. Oops #2.

Now that I seem to have the problem solved and understand what happened, I’m wondering about the admin’s comment that I should “try again 24 hrs later”. Does this mean that it’s considered poor form to add the new request until 24 hrs has passed? Or, is it okay to add the unblock template at any time, and the 24 hr delay refers to a sort of suspension time before my request would be considered?

I read through the WP:GAPB and didn't see anything directly pertinent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene Footjack (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hola Irene Footjack y bienvenidos a la casa de té. If you can edit this page, then you are not blocked, so there is no need to do anything. Interstellarity (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Gracias, Interstellarity. Quite right; there appear to be no longer any blocks on my user account. I'm pleased, though somewhat confused as to what triggered that reversal, since the admin's response declining my request is still there on my talk page, and no other messages. Will that box go away at some point? Does it matter? Should I remove it? Irene Footjack (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Picture Change

I need to replace the photo associated with the page Bye Aerospace eFlyer 2

Replace existing photo with the one in this article : https://chargedevs.com/newswire/%EF%BB%BFbye-aerospace-tests-eflyer-2-prototype-with-90-kw-siemens-motor/

Can someone update a photo on "Bye Aerospace eFlyer 2"? I work for Bye Aerospace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.83.126 (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@107.0.83.126: First, since you claim to work for the company, you need to declare your conflict of interest. It is strongly discourage to edit your company's article if you have one. Also, images must be free due to legal reasons. See Wikipedia:Copyright for more info. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You will also need to read the paid editing policy, compliance of which is mandatory. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

upload functionality fail

I want to upload a picture. But upload tool doesn't start.

Any advice? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Cybernisse (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)]] comment added by Cybernisse (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to be autoconfirmed to upload pictures, if you are and it does not work, clear your browser cache and flush DNS --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspect advert page

I clicked by chance on San Román Clinic - I think this is just a "puff" piece and needs to be deleted - especially as the only person to edit it appears to be a sock puppet - not sure what to do about it, can someone please advise me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkohen (talk • contribs) 22:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dkohen:. Ok, so what makes you think that Darthvader2 is a sockpuppet? You can report the user to WP:SPI but you will need to a) know which account you believe they are a sockpuppet of, and b) have some evidence of this.

As for the page... yes, it does look quite promotional but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted, it may just need improvement. You could add a tag to it such as {{advert}}, and raise your concerns on the article talk page. Alternatively, if you really think it should be deleted, you can follow the instructions at WP:AFD to list it there. I'm not going to make an assessment of whether I agree, because too many of the sources are in Spanish and I just don't feel qualified to determine whether they are sufficient sources or not. Hug^syrup 10:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dkohen: @Hugsyrup: Hello, thanks for the notification. This is a simple translation of the article in Spanish. San Román clinic is a prominent establishment in Alicante, with 40 years of experience, with repercussion in several European countries. I don't think the article is promotional, it simply mentions the history of the clinic and its founder and the procedures that are performed there. In addition, it cites several references that demonstrate its encyclopaedic relevance. If adjustments need to be made, I have no objection to making them. On the other hand, I'm a Wikipedia registered user since 2007. You can check my contributions here, which to date are almost 6000 creations. Most of my contributions are made on Wikipedia in Spanish, but I have already translated some articles in this English version. Darthvader2 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The accusation of sockpuppetry seems false, unless I'm missing something. But, about the page, I must say, that gallery? Why is that even there? The content itself is a bit of a "puff", but what makes the whole thing really look like an advert is that gallery. VdSV9•♫ 15:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@VdSV9: No problem, I will remove the gallery and add a link to the gallery in Commons to prevent the page from having this promotional tone. Darthvader2 (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Copy file/picture from Wiki Article

I want to copy a file from one article to another. How is it done? Article is locked if that makes any difference.. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Cybernisse (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)]] comment added by Cybernisse (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cybernisse. Images (and other files) are not held in articles: they are held separately, either in Wikipedia or (usually) in Commons. Any number of articles can include them, just picking them up by name. What I suggest is that you edit (or View Source) the article which already has the image, and find where the picture in question is included; then just copy that inclusion (which will probably be of the form [[File:name of file|options]]) into the second article. If the second article is the one that is locked, you will need to suggest this on its talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Help on choline grammar

I completely rewrote the choline article, which was recently reverted due to poor grammar. I was redirected here for help on grammar. The edit, as it is here, is probably publishable for the most part after grammar fixes. So, would somone kindly help me out and read it with care and fix it? 5-HT2AR (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 5-HT2AR, and welcoem to the Teahouse. See my comments at Talk:Choline#Recent revert .Please be ready to discuss there. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC) @5-HT2AR: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello, 5-HT2AR. Welcome to the Teahouse. Before I address your question, I must say that I admire anyone, like you, who tries to rework an article that is not in their mother tongue. As an Englishman, I am ashamed at how poor my own abilities are in speaking French, German or Spanish when on holiday (despite still being moderately proud of how I can 'get by', and not die of starvation). My only non-English contribution was this, and I still had to use Google translate to supplement my schoolboy German!

To be totally honest, your major revisions (see here) are quite difficult for me to interpret. I honestly don't feel that I, as a non-expert in that topic, could ever hope to unravel the grammar from the science (which I don't understand). So, what I would like to suggest is that you accept the reversion in 'good faith' and start again, but this time with small steps. It would make sense to change just one paragraph or section at a time, waiting a few days for other editors to react to your edits. It might be that they correct your grammar, or they might challenge factual changes. But if you allow them to enhance sentence structure and grammar, and to work with you, you can then move on to improve the next section, and so on. (Sometimes, printing out a copy of a current version of an article is a useful way to plan future improvements.) Another way is to approach this is to go to the article talk page, say hello, and express your concerns about the article content or structure, and then explain your plans for article improvement and your concerns about your language abilities, and seek a fellow editor(s) to work with you. Wikipedia is all about collaboration, so if others see your approach as well-intended, if a little rickety in English grammar, they're most likely to want to work with you. I am a firm believer in encouraging experts to contribute their skills to Wikipedia. The trick is to help them balance their enthusiasm to improve content with the needs to keep the encyclopaedia both verifiable and readable by people of all ages. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding An Additional Piece Of Information On To An Existing Wikipedia Page

How do you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropicdaisy (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Entropicdaisy. That's a pretty fundamental question, isn't it? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that 'anyone can edit'. That said, we don't allow anyone to add whatever they like. Factual statements must be linked to reliable sources by means of an inline citation to a published reference. We don't allow people just to add "stuff that they happen to know" without anyone else being provided with the links to enable them to go and verify what has been said. Thus, you just made this addition tot he article on Misotheism. That should have had a supporting citation, so, rather than revert your edit, I chose to add a tag. I hope you will go back and add a reference to support your edit. See WP:REFBEGIN or these instructions I wrote to help you add references into articles. Does this answer your question? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Formatting Help.

So I wrote and got an article created over the Dallas Tornado that happened October 21. I would like some help getting a good layout of the article (Like headers and help with in-line citations). -Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: 2019 Dallas tornado Hug^syrup 14:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: There are a few things you can do (and some you need to do):

• Inline citations: This is as simple as taking the list of references at the bottom, and pasting each one somewhere relevant within the article (after a claim that the reference supports). Copy everything from the opening <ref> to the closing </ref> of each reference, and paste it into the correct place.
• Headers and subheaders: You can create a header by using two equals signs, and a subheader by using 3. e.g. == Header ==
• You should also consider formatting the first sentence in accordance with MOS:BOLDLEAD so that the article title appears in bold in the first sentence. E.g. 'The 2019 Dallas Tornado was a tornado that struck Dallas on October 21, 2019 at Midnight'.

For what it's worth, I'm a little dubious that this article should really exist at all, as it seems to be a case of WP:NOTNEWS. However, as it was accepted by Bkissin at AFC, I guess there is no harm in it staying for a little bit and we can see whether it attracts the sort of enduring coverage required. Hug^syrup 15:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Every tornado does not merit its own article. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hugsyrup, it seemed like the tornado had achieved a certain amount of coverage that I was willing to see if it had "legs" to improve in mainspace. Elijahandskip seems to be WP:HERE for the right reasons, but seems very gung-ho about getting articles published, especially about current events. I don't want it to come across as WP:BITEY to continue declining drafts. That being said, it may be worth it for Elijahandskip to do The Wikipedia Adventure and start out small by contributing on existing articles around natural disasters (if that's what they're into). It's also important to note (as has been mentioned to the user) that Wikipedia is not a news source, so it's not always imperative for us to get the information immediately after something happens. Bkissin (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Every weather event that closes local schools does not merit its own article. I would rather this have been declined at Draft stage so that more information could be proposed before dropping it into article space. Ditto submitting drafts on minor earthquakes. Elijahandskip has a history of trying to create articles out of recent current events that will never rise to Wikipedia's criteria of notability. This should not be encouraged. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree, however the Dallas tornado seemed to have coverage past "closing local schools", with a TV station coming under fire for showing the Cowboys game instead of severe weather coverage, as well as the amount of damage. I see what you mean though David notMD. As I mentioned to Elijahandskip on my talk page, AfC shouldn't be a race to get an article published, especially when we are working with current events. Wikipedia is at its core collaborative, so we should be building quality articles together. Bkissin (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Also to merit its own article, the tornado was close to a former President's house, which is a huge deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Farmulosity Term

Hello there,

I am new here! I have a term that has become apart of my personal brand and was trademarked. I am a Lifestyle blogger. I was wondering if it was possible to get this term up on WIkipedia? It's sort of like the term "GLAMPING" except Farmulosity means a little bit farmhouse, with a whole lotta fabulosity. It's basically describing one's home style. It is being used more and more on instagram as a hashtag. I would love your feedback or help to get the term on the site. If not, I totally understand. Thanks for your help either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:ba80:bf00:8837:f1ac:4174:a7a8 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. That's a great word, but there's absolutely no way Wikipedia can be at the vanguard of promoting neologisms. We only cover concepts that are already notable, i.e. have been covered by multiple other sources. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, unregistered editor. Unless several independent published reliable sources have written about this term in soem detail, and it seems likely to become a permanent part of the language, it will not be considered notable here, and there will not be an article about it. See our guideline on neologisms and our guideline on promotional articles.

Oh in future please WP:SIGN posts on discussion pages such as this, and article talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to a signature with a link to your user page and a timestamp. This helps make it clear who wrote/said what. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To me, it also seems unlikely that, even if it becomes part of common usage, it would warrant its own Wikipedia article. See WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Perhaps an entry at Wiktionary may be[come] appropriate. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but don't attempt an entry on Wiktionary until you can cite three usages in sources spanning at least a year. Google finds no usages for me, so the best you can do at present is to add your invented word to Wikt:Appendix:List of protologisms. Dbfirs 06:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright claim

Hi, wondered if anyone could advise as I haven't encountered this one before. This diff [4], which I encountered while patrolling Recent Changes, blanked a section, claiming that the text was copied from their website. It seems doubtful that all of the text was, as the first paragraph removed was sourced to a book. I think the second section wasn't either, but I've found that the third paragraph removed was a copyvio that was originally sourced to a website (diff [5]), and which has since (a) had the link removed as suspected spam and (b) been paraphrased. That paragraph probably still needs to go, but I'm unsure how to proceed otherwise about the other two paragraphs removed---should I take the IP's word for it that they're also copyvios of their website and leave them removed, even though I can't find evidence myself? (The IP editor says in their edit summary that they'll make a copyright claim if the edit is reverted.) YorkshireLad (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, YorkshireLad and welcome to the Teahouse

1. Don't worry about a "copyright claim" by which s/he probably means a DMCA takedown notice. That will be for WMF legal, and if they think we need to take something down as a copyvio, the will let us know.
2. However, we do want to remove any text that infringes copyright; according to our policy such content is not acceptable. But we should base that on sources, just like article content. If the3 claim is that text is copied from a web site, you can simply look at the website, or use the copyright detection tool at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/. You can also use the Internet Archive's wayback machine to check when the text on a website first appeared, and compare it to the history of the Wikipedia article to see when the text was edited in. Many times an apparent copyright issue turns out to be a web site that copied from Wikipedia, and the dates prove it. Or it is possible that the site copied from the same book we used as a source.
3. If you have clearly identified a copyright problem, please remove it, and then add {{Copyvio-revdel}} to the page to request an admin to delete (hide) the revisions with the copyright-infringing content. You can also read Wikipedia:Copyright violations and post at Wikipedia:Copyright problems if the situation is unclear.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful. I'm in UTC+1 so it's pretty late, but I'll sort that out tomorrow if someone hasn't got there first. YorkshireLad (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I must be missing something as plain as the nose on my face. The edit comment states:

I added a reference link to the section of the article but the admins removed it.

What? Did the revision in which this happened disappear? More than likely, their site copied it from Wikipedia.

My guess is that this is a malicious actor messing with us. See how we fall for it, when there are a hundred thousand other things that need fixing? If you're an admin with the power, maybe you can come down on this user with maximum possible blocking force. To heck with collateral damage, it's not my IP address! Fabrickator (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@YorkshireLad: That's just laughable! I have reverted the IP's deletion of content, with an edit summary as follows: "Reverting unjustified section blanking, based on frivolous claim of copyright. Just look at the dynamic way this article developed, and the Wayback machine history fo[r] your company's claim (nothing prior to 2012) Go claim for copyright theft if you wish, but be prepared to back it up with sound historical evidence." To check what I mean, just go to the oldest edits for the page on Fumigation and scroll forward from 2005 onwards (e.g. this et seq.). It's easy to see that those sentences evolved dynamically over time, and weren't cut and pasted en masse. Then go to the company address which Earwig's copyvio tool identifies as a possible copyvio, and which the anonymous IP is presumably associated with (see here). It's clear that archives of their website started in 2012. So even assuming a delay in archiving of a year or two, it looks like their website lifted Wikipedia content and failed to abide by our terms and conditions which demands that attribution is given. We're not quite in the realm of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, but I would expect the IP to be blocked were they to continue to edit whilst pursuing what I interpret as a wholly unjustifiable claim. I have issued the IP address with a warning. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a persuasive analysis, Nick Moyes. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@ everyone above, thanks for your help! YorkshireLad (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Private Company

How to add a list of private companies here in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.162.118 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Categories already exist at Category:Privately held companies and at Category:Privately held companies by country. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And also make sure it doesn't break WP:NOTDIRECTORY - X201 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Help me with Article renaming

Can K-5 (missile) be renamed as “Kaliningrad K-5 (missile)” so as to enable the rename of K-5 (ballistic missile) as “K-5 (missile)”.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment:This will probably involve the deletion of the “K-5 (missile)” redirect page when K-5 (missile) is renamed as “Kaliningrad K-5 (missile)”. Administrators please help. — Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The latter part of your proposal would be valid only if WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. A disambiguation page may be more applicable. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: A disambiguation is already there (K5). The Kaliningrad K-5 is an old missile which is no longer used. The K-5 (ballistic missile) is basically the Indian Trident (missile) and will receive international coverage when it is test fired a few years from now. So, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If in a few years time there is further coverage of the Indian missile, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC might apply then, but an initial search suggests that it doesn't apply now. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

AgreeFair enough. Let’s wait for a few years.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 11:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing

Could anyone point me to somewhere where there are instructions of how to add certain things into an article. I know [[ ]] links to another wiki page but not sure about adding citations, tables or headings etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snavemarc89 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Snavemarc89: You can take a look at Help:Wikitext to know about our code when editing. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 12:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Updating IWG page

Hello Teahouse dwellers!

I am currently editing IWG plc's Wikipedia page for accuracy and completeness as part of my ongoing work with the company. I have declared my status on the IWG:Talk Page and have followed Wikipedia protocols.

Right now, the IWG plc page is pretty void of information for a multinational company implanted in 120 markets!

Following protocol, I have submitted factual changes, backed up by Tier 1 media sources. These changes included paragraphs on notable, historic events and deals in the company's biggest markets, the United States and United Kingdom. However all of the changes were rejected on the grounds that the content was "marketing."

Given the events described were factual, backed up by sources and used neutral language, I am not sure why they would be considered as "promotional."

Could someone help me see clearly here?

Huge thanks to the community for your ongoing time and support. --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Your PAID status belongs on your User page. Dormskirk and other editors have been active in modifying (not completely reverting) content you added to the article. Some of the deleted content was resting in primary sources (the company's press releases, announcements of financial dealings, etc.) Of late, you have more appropriately shifted to proposing changes on the article's Talk page and leaving article changes to responding editors (mostly Dormskirk). David notMD (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, the greater part of the article is about acquiring other companies. The only content that describes what IWG does is "The company provides serviced offices, virtual offices, meeting rooms, and videoconferencing to clients on a contract basis." David notMD (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @KatherineBusby2019: For an example, one of your proposals was IWG plc is currently only global flexible workspace company with a multi-brand portfolio. It was rejected, and correctly in my opinion. There are a couple operative guidelines, the most relevant in that instance is IMO WP:UNDUE: in another context, a sentence such as "actor X is the only left-handed, A-list British actor who owns at least two rabbits" could be well-sourced but frankly nobody cares. Basically, the sentence tries to put its subject in a positive light ("it's the only one to do X!"), which goes against WP:NPOV/WP:PEACOCK, and does so with a piece of information that is too convoluted to appear even if it was neutral.

Another word on sources. It is one thing to not understand the fairly arcane Wikipedia requirements about sources; it is another to make grandiose claims of "tier 1 media sources" without understanding what is required. What I see in your requests is mostly a mix of unreliable sources (e.g. Youtube videos) and PR-washes i.e. pieces that were more or less transparently copy-pasted from a company press release (such as [6]). The only thing you could conceivably consider a "tier 1 media source" is this NYT piece but it is an interview so it fails WP:INDY.

I am assuming here that you are at liberty of choosing how to word your edit requests, but possibly some higher-up gave you some indication of what they want to see (even with specific wording they want to include or something more general "our brand should be associated with XXX"). If so, you should tell them that it is not going to happen, because no matter how hard you or your colleagues try, Wikipedia guidelines are pretty much non-negotiable. We will not obey requests from article subjects that certain sentences or facts appear or do not appear in the article about them, and attempts to force those through have the potential to backfire spectacularly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In all due respect, I have been open about my position and asked for editorial guidance. I appreciate your supplying the extra guidelines, they will help with future edits. Thanks, --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being open KatherineBusby2019, and trying to follow policies and procedures. Something I suggest you take as a basic principle is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the company says about itself (including in press releases and interviews), and none at all in how it wants to be written about. A limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may come from its own publications, but on the whole, Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company have chosen, unprompted by the company, to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine This is a fair comment, and thank you also for the advice.KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Article Approval

Hi there,

I'm trying to get help publishing this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Indian_Summer_(Record_Producer)

Can I ask for some advice on how it might be accepted? I feel I have met several criteria for inclusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles — Preceding unsigned comment added by PandaSuit2 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You have submitted it for review. When it is reviewed you will receive advice from the reviewer, As the panel on the draft says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,396 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@PandaSuit2: - Here's a tip for you, from someone who is a draft reviewer: having 78 references doesn't increase your chances of being accepted, if anything it just makes a reviewer more likely to skip over your one and look at something that won't take them quite as long to review. An article as short as yours honestly does not need 78 references. Most subjects can demonstrate basic notability with 3-5 really good references, and you might need a couple more to back up specific claims, especially in a biography, but what you have currently is just excessive and gives the impression that you are reference bombing to make the topic look more notable than it really is. Tweets are not a reliable source, nor is YouTube, nor is Discogs, or Beatport, or sxsw.com, or half a dozen of your other sources. Trim them out, and leave in only your best references that most closely match the criteria for reliable sources and you are far more likely to get your page quickly accepted. Hug^syrup 09:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph:This is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for, I will make sure to take it under advisement when editing my article. Thanks for taking the time to respond

What is your connection to Gabe Gleeson/Indian Summer? Asking because this and Lastlings appear to be the only articles you are working on. David notMD (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly support what Hugsyrup wrote above. I appreciate that you've put a lot of work into finding and citing those 78 sources, but it was wasted effort. If you're keen to get the article accepted, delete at least nine-tenths of the references, keeping only the best. Maproom (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Do look at my assessment

Hello, please check the articles Rithvik Dhanjani and Sagarika Ghatge, do look at my assessment once and whether i didn't do anything wrong. Thanks, I hope to get a answer. Imwet (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Imwet Greetings. Both should be start class. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Template with smiley.svgs and curves in it

What is that template with a smiley emoji with the saying: Hi, I´m ******! I am here to help you! ? CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any templates including the string "I am here to help you". --David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How about {{User Newbies}} or {{User Helpnewuser}} Is it one of those? - X201 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

New proposed article on volume analysis (subfield of technical analysis)

Hello, I am currently working on a wikipedia class project and I am considering writing an article on volume analysis, as it relates to finance. I've read the articles on volume-price trend, technical analysis, on-balance volume among others, and I think that wiki could benefit from condensing some of these main ideas to a single article, similar to what was done with technical analysis. In my view this new article would complement the pre-existing articles I mentioned above, and would serve as a good overview of the topic, while still having some detail in subsequent sections. Appreciate any advice, thank you Hoffmanp1 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope that your class supervisor has read the advice at WP:student assignments. You need to read the advice WP:Your first article, and if you believe that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's terms you can submit a draft for AFC review. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hoffmanp1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Usually the AfC provcess which David Biddulph mentioend is not fast enough to be finished within the timeline of a normal course. It is therefore often a good idea to make arrangements with some experienced editor to serve as a reviewer for any student-created articles which are intended to be posted into main article space within the scope of a class assignment. If there is a Wikipedia volunteer associated with your class project, that editor might be able to do this. If not, i could perhaps be of help -- I have worked as a class volunteer in the past. Such arrangements should be made with your instructor, if possible. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

undeleting article

I created

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_October_22

I have watched the process from afar and it seems really tough to get good articles with a lot of sources undeleted. Can anyone help me? Thank you Moscowdreams (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moscowdreams: It sounds as if what you want is a copy of the article by email, and both of the comments at your Deletion Review give advice in that regard: the first saying that the deleting admin thinks you already have it, and the second by pointing out that such requests can be made at Requests for Undeletion. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what your goal is or what specific help you need? Hug^syrup 08:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello! thank you hugs! very helpful information! beyond what information you gave me, I just want some assistance is how to argue the undeletion. Moscowdreams (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Help re abuse of a page

I am concerned that the page Ibrahim Dogus has been heavily edited, with substantial additions, and removal of reliably sourced and properly referenced information, by the subject of the page himself - who is seeking re-election. The page has now been locked and can no longer be edited to reinsert information that was deleted.

Surely this is a breach of Wikipedia policy? It would seem to be an abuse of the site, and be contrary to its purposes - can anyone advise?

Any advice most appreciated, thanks, ClarityRandom — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClarityRandom (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You should seek consensus on the talk page to reinstate the removed content. Ruslik_Zero 17:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)