Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1040

Archive 1035

←

Archive 1038

Archive 1039

Archive 1040

Archive 1041

Archive 1042

→

Archive 1045

Is there any way to add a photo of a person without having to obtain their consent?

I see so many wikipedia pages about people (without photographs)... However there are plenty of photos available on sites like imdb.com and others... I have been reading Wiki photo guidelines - they are very confusing. Can somebody suggest a simple, practical and perfectly legal way to add such photos?

Natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikirapguru. I'm not sure if there's a simple and easy way to explain something that in general tends to be quite complicated, but in general Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files, Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts and probably even this file File:Licensing tutorial en.svg come kind of close. Basically, Wikipedia content is released under a license that allows pretty much anyone anywhere in the world to reuse it for pretty much any purpose (including for commercial purposes), and this applies not only to text, but also images. If you look at "small print" right above the "Publish changes" button when you make an edit, you'll see that you're agreeing to this every time you make an edit on Wikipedia. So, the content we add to or create on Wikipedia can be (with some minor restrictions) pretty much be reused by anyone anywhere for any purpose without our permission. When someone uploads one of their own photos to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, they are essentially agreeing to the same thing; they may have some options with respect to file copyright licenses, but the basic agreement they're entering is the same: they agree to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file they uploaded at anytime for any purpose. This doesn't mean they are transferring or giving up their copyright ownership over the photo to these other people; it just means that they are only making a particular version of their photo freely available for others to use as they please.

So, as long as the content we create or the photos we upload are clearly 100% our own work, there's no problem with use agreeing to release it under the types of licensing the Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons accepts; however, if we try to release content created by others or partially created by others under such a license without their explicit consent to do so, all kinds of problems can happen since we are basically trying to do something that we have to right to do.

Most of the websites where you see photos online almost certainly have their own respective policies and guidelines when it comes to the content they host. Many of them are pretty proactive in removing content that is uploaded without the permission of their original copyright holders, but may aren't and don't worry about it until someone complains. Many may also host such content based upon the concept of fair use or fair dealing for educational or other informative purposes, etc., and English Wikipedia does allow this as well in some form and in some cases as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content, but they are many Wikimedia Foundation projects like Wikimedia Commons which don't; so, often whether such a file can be uploaded and used depends on the particular policies and guidelines of the Wikimedia Foundation project in question.

Anyway, I hope I didn't confuse you even more, but basically unless you are the 100% creator of the image you want to upload and use on Wikipedia, it's best to assume that it's copyrighted and that someone other then yourself owns this copyright; so, without that person's permission to do so, you shouldn't upload the file to Wikipedia under a free license. Now, if you've got a particular image in mind and your not sure about its copyright status, you might want to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Wikirapguru and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a good question, but unfortunately most of the pictures you see online are somebody else's copyright, and there's no simple way for you to take their image without their permission and and release it here for commercial and non-commercial use. That would be stealing. So there is no 'simple' way to make them available. But there are lots of other ways which requires a bit of effort.

First you could look to see if the photographer has released their picture on the website with a special 'Creative Commons' licence that explicitly permits commercial use of that image. The absence of a copyright notiec doesn't mean you can take the image and use it here - it needs that explicit permission. If they've done so, there are ways to then upload the picture legitimately. You could make a point of taking pictures of those people yourself and then uploading them (that'd be fine); or you could contact the photographer (not the person being photographed) and ask them to upload their picture for use here. Or you could wait for the artist to die and then you'd be able to upload one image under a very special 'non-free use' basis. But all these routes are a bit complex, except for uploading images you personally have taken. I've not bothered to include links to all these special ways - but if you need further details just ask. But, again, the simple answer is 'no' there is no easy way. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

To: Nick Moyes

And how does Wikipedia ‘know’ if the person uploading the photo is the person pictured in it? I work in rap industry, and personally know a lot of rappers who have an article about them without a photo. I can tell them to upload the picture, but how will Wikipedia be able to tell if uploading is done by the author/model?

Also, I have attempted to upload some photos of now dead rappers that I personally took a while ago, and ran into the blocking feature. I overcame it but then somebody took the photo I uploaded down, claiming that I was not a photographer. (And I WAS)

Please advise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Some quick shots, folks uploading photos of themselves do not necessarily have the rights to do this, e.g., the copyright of photos taken by professional photographers. Selfies would be okay. Fair use is a dead end for living people, the enwiki theory is that it should be easy to take and publish a new photo under a free licence (CC0 a.k.a. PD, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, but not NC or ND). The consent part can be handled by {{personality rights}} on commons, i.e., stay away from kids or anybody who is no "public figure", celebrity, politician, etc. –84.46.53.228 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Wikirapguru. The person who takes a photo, not the subject of the photo, is generally considered to own the copyright on the photo absent any official copyright transfer agreement between photographer and subject which gives the subject ownership of the photo. So, if you're attending a concert and you take a photo of the band playing, then you own the copyright on that photo absent any agreement that you might have entered into with the band, its representatives, or maybe even the venue which would transfer that right to the band, etc. Now, you might run into to problems depending upon how you try to use the photo, but that's a personality rights or maybe even trademark matter that's sort of different from copyright.

Now, if you uploaded a photo you took to Wikipedia and was subsequently deleted, then it might have been because there was no way to verify your copyright ownership. While it would be great just to take everyone who claims copyright ownership over an image at their word, often a more formal timetype of verification is required. You can find out more about it at c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?, but mainly what you would need to do is send a consent email (like WP:CONSENT) to Wikimedia OTRS. This will allow an OTRS volunteer to verify that you're are really the copyright holder. This is a bit of good-faith being assumed that people emailing OTRS are really who they're claiming to be and not every email sent it is accepted as proof of copyright ownership, but the process is for the most part straightforward and deleted files subsequently verified by OTRS are restored and tagged as being "OTRS verified". If you do this, you should try to use some official (office) email address if you have one and may be asked to provide further verification by email by the OTRS volunteer processing your email. OTRS volunteers are required to sign a confidentiality agreement that they won't reveal the contents of the emails they see to anyone not approved to see them; so, you don't need to worry about personal or sensitive information being posted anywhere on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post editing by Marchjuly to change "time" to "type" (second sentence of second paragraph). -- 04:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)]

To: Marchjuly

Ok, that clarifies it for now. Thanks for taking thee time to write a thoughtful reply.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ::::Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wikirapguru: I can't add much to the helpful replies above. None of us here or at Wikimedia Commons are trying to be intentionally obstructive about photos. But the priority is always to ensure nobody's right are infringed by somoene else uploading images they don't own. So we always err on the side of caution. But may I say that it's fantastic to hear you wanting to make the effort to add pictures to articles. If only more people "in the business" appreciated the great position they are in to provide images of famous artists to Wikipedia that us ordinary mortals can't. I do have one final suggestion to make. You could create your own Flickr stream for all your photos, ensuring you set the image rights to 'free for commercial re-use'. (This can be done per stream, per album or per image.)  Any editor here could take and upload the relevant photos and upload them, linking back to the url on Flickr. One of our OTRS team would then check and confirm the validity of that licence. You'd have far less work to do, and maybe all you'd need do is drop a note and a url on the talk page of the relevant rapper's article, and someone else can have the hassle of mobilising the image. Just a thought. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Nick Moyes Thank you, Nick for help. I like Flickr idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

is there a phone number I can call to use my credit card to donate

is there a phone number I can call to donate with a credit card — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1D60:8CEB:DC5C:F750:69BD:703C (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a staffed phone bank to take donations; if you don't wish to donate using a card online, you can read this page for other ways to donate, including cryptocurrency or mailing a check. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Stub?

What does "stub" mean in the copy-editing world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTHanna3602 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

See WP:Stub. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with draft

Hello i m Ioannis, I m from Crete and I wrote an article about my homevillage in Crete, as I did in german wiki and in greek wikipedia. MY article is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Agios_Georgios_Lassithi_Crete, and I want to publish it. Plz help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioannis1981dr (talk • contribs) 09:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ioannis1981dr: Welcome to English Wikipedia, and to The Teahouse. You have submitted your draft, so all you need to do now is wait and at some point it will be reviewed. I think it is likely to be accepted - we have quite a low bar for acceptance of geographic places, and as long as it is a legally recognised village or town, it doesn't necessarily need a lot of sources proving it is otherwise notable. I don't have time to properly review it myself right now, but I will keep an eye on it and will take a look next week if no one else has got to it by then. Hug^syrup 09:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks a lot!!! Ioannis1981dr (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ioannis1981dr: Yassas! I've just tidied up your draft a bit and marked a few things that need references, such as the population statistics. Anything you cant substantiate should be left out. I suggest you add Template:Infobox settlement to your draft, ensuring you insert some coordinates so it can be mapped. (As an aside, I think I must have been to Agios Georgios many years ago when I climbed Dikti/Spathi, though my favourite mountain route on Crete is doing the 40km 2-day traverse of Psiloritis from the bus stop in Fourfouras back to the bus stop in Rethymnon!) Regards from a cold and wet UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: @Ioannis1981dr: Another editor has now added cooordinates, and I have added an Infobox and replaced some rather weak sources (like trip advisor) with properly published books, and added a hatnote to help distinguish this place name from the myriad of others of the same name in Greece. Please could I ask you to add a citation to the 1981 census figures? I could only find later figures, which didn't fully tally with your uncited figures. If you can't find a citation to add to the statement "Many people with ancestry from the village of Agios Georgios live now in Heraklion and in Hersonissos", I suggest you remove it. I am confident your article will now be reviewed and approved in due course. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Please help align the pictures

Hello everyone! I was trying to add paintings of the artist to my article but it doesn't work perfectly for me. I was looking here but I can't find how to align the pictures in the row. Can someone please help me (I'd be grateful for a link to how-to to learn for the future). Thank you in advance. --Less Unless (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Less Unless. We have a special 'gallery' command which we don't encourage to be used willy-nilly. But in this instance it seems appropriate for the three example images you want to show. So I have added it for you, and you can see what I've done by looking at this diff. There are various parameters which one can use to change image appearance, size and layout. I tried centring first, but felt the page was too short for that to work, so I left it defaulted on the left. The key thing is that the <gallery> and </gallery> commands both open and then close the selection of images. Each image goes on a separate line , with just the File:filename and caption - no other square brackets or thumb commands are needed. For more information for use next time, make a note of this link: Help:Gallery tag. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes for your help and detailed explanation. It was my fist time adding images, I'll need to catch up on that. Best, --Less Unless (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome - a pleasure to be of help. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Help - blocked on another Wikipedia

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place do ask this, but I need some help right now. My account on the Dutch Wikipedia was automatically blocked because it was caught using an open proxy – my IP is dynamic and shared with other people, so this happens sometimes.

Since this block makes me unable to log in or edit any pages there, including my own talk page, there is no way I can contact the nl-wiki admins. Could someone please copy this message to them so they can verify my IP and possibly unblock me?

In case they need to know this, my IP is 2804:14c:110:8469:a586:cf7a:cdb5:f64 - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 08:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Your chances to find an nlwiki admin in the enwiki teahouse aren't good, this should be a known issue on Meta, maybe ask on m:Project:Babylon—their idea of a Village Pump—how that's handled. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've asked over at nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg, which is their Village Pump. Maybe they can help here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The IPv6-range, the IPv6 is in, is blocked because it's a VPN. And I can't give the user a IP block excempt, because the accounts wasn't registered yet on nlwiki. This is me (mbch331) (Questions/Remarks/Complaints etc.) 18:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I used to edit under my old account User:Alumnum. But something is wrong. I cannot log in there, create a new account, or anything. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 21:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You may ask the admins a password reset and then create a SUL-account on Meta. #HTH Klaas `Z4␟` V 08:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What would that solve? --bdijkstra (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Then Munmula can login everywhere (again). Klaas `Z4␟` V 17:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

An account gets registered on a local wiki, the first time you log in. But the rules to be able to do that are the same whether you're a completely new user or an existing SUL user that doesn't exist on the local wiki. SUL only prevents others on locally registering an account that already exists on another wiki. We can make it possible for the account Alumnum to edit on nlwiki. This is me (mbch331) (Questions/Remarks/Complaints etc.) 20:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. Sadly I cannot log into that account anymore since I've lost its password recently (this is why I created another account), but even when I still used the Alumnum account, I was already having open-proxy problems in nl-wiki. This happened here in en-wiki too a couple of times (most recent example). Even if there was an exemption for my IP, it would eventually change again and the new IP could be targeted again. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 02:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As Munmula is not able to log in on the Dutch Wikipedia because his IP is locked there and the local moderator Mbch331 is not able to give an exemption as Munmula didn't make any edit yet, how about lifting the rangeblock for a short period (or forever), indicated by Munmula, so Munmula can make one or more edits and be given an exemption? RonnieV (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've allowed account creation and logged in edits from that range temporarily so you can create your local account. Someone can then give your account an ip block exempt, which should allow you to edit from that range without a problem. Afterwards the range will be closed again. Sumurai8 (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Samurai8 and all others. As the issue is now solved, this section can be archived. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 11:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Anna Barbara Speckner

Any editors have a free moment to gloss over this article: Anna Barbara Speckner translated from the German Wiki? Thanks in advance! Maineartists (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Maineartists: I tidied up a bit, and learned something new: {{Draft categories}}. I can't see the content of the BMLO source without allowing scripts, which I'm too tired to look at carefully. Does it cite the place/date of her death? (I added it as a cite for the last sentence in the Life section.) Also, DMY dates would seem more appropriate per MOS:TIES, no? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Help with checking a draft page ready for publication

Hi. I have created a draft for a proposed new page: Draft:Association of Guernsey Charities As this is the first page that I have created, please could someone take a look and let me have any advice for changes - and how I then go about getting it reviewed to be included? I have read plenty of your help pages, and tried to ensure that I have included the necessary citations. Thanks, Malcolm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolmwoodhams (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Malcolm, and welcome to the Teahouse. The main problem I see with the draft is the lack of independent sources. The question to ask is "where have people wholly unconnected with the Association or the Bailiwick, and unprompted by the Association, chosen to write at some length about the Association?" If there is no answer, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article about the Association at present because it is not notable. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article, or people associated with it, say or want to say about it: it is only interested in what independent people have published.

I am a bit concerned by your statement that this is the first page that you have created, since the messages on your talk page indicate that you previously attempted to create the same article in 2015. --ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up the draft a bit, but concur that the majority (all?) of the references are not independent. David notMD (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Old account

I made an account on wikipedia 7 years agoo that I have forgotten the password to, and I can't reset that password because it seems that I haven't linked the account to any email. How would I go about getting the account back? 2601:249:902:B0A0:F053:D17:710B:6338 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. What is the username of your account? The only way to recover an account is if the account has email enabled. If there is no email enabled, then it is not possible to regain access to the account. Interstellarity (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Simple answer – with no email linked, you can't. The best you can do is to create a new account (with a different name), and mention on that account's User or Talk page that you previously edited as the first account: since your periods of using each account will not overlap, no question of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry should arise. If you don't care about retaining credit for what you did under the first account, you don't even need to mention it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.211.222 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

How long does it take to see my page on internet after I publish it...

How long does it take to see my page on internet after I publish it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domtaino (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Domtaino. Please see my response to the earlier question #The Joy Machine. Please also note that you User page is for sharing information about you as a Wikipedia editor and will never get indexed by search enginges. --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Domtaino: It does look as though you are thinking about using your userpage to write about yourself as if it were an encyclopaedia page. I'm afraid we dont permit that, so please dont be tempted. However your sandbox is there and can be used to draft articles about notable topics. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Оплата работы редактора википедии

Оплачивается ли работа редактора википедии ? Если да то каким образом происходит оплата работы редактора википедии? Каков алгоритм оплаты работы редактора википедии? Ильинских Сергей 19:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.85.48.131 (talk)

This is the English Wikipedia, please ask questions in English. Это английская википедия. Пожалуйста, задавайте вопросы на английском языке. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, we are volunteers––unfortunately, no one is paid to simply edit Wikipedia. Мы работаем волонтиром, к сожалению никто не зарабатывает деньги._signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Elijah Mccoy

when you search for Elijah Mccoy in Google, the box that pops up with summary details has "Known for: Inventions, particularly His Vibrator". Not sure who added that but it is not correct. It should say "automatic lubricator".

I cannot figure out a way to change that section. Can anyone help?

It was a piece of vandalism in Wikipedia three days ago, fixed within a few seconds. Google will reindex the article again at some point, but Wikipedia has no control over that, or way of knowing how long it will take. --ColinFine (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I see the vandalism as having taken place in November, but answer is the same, expectation is that in time Google will revise its description, as it draws on the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You're right, David notMD: my mistake. ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This type of thing is a well known problem with Google's Knowledge Graph. There is a feedback link in the lower right corner of the panel that allows readers to report specific problems to Google. I have done so in this case, and others should as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Notable issues

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

This is my draft, it was un accepted by the reviewer. I didn't understand why is the section (About plays) is not notable. I was referenced by articles reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manar Wehbe (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Last edit said the following "10:21, 21 December 2019‎ MurielMary talk contribs‎ 18,179 bytes +182‎ Declining submission: Suggest the sections on the plays are removed and this article is published as a biography only. If the plays are notable in themselves, could create an article for each play. (AFCH 0.9.1) undo" Not sure on logic itself or notability etc. may just need a tidy up, link to other wikis, and categorizing differently? Hope this may help

121.99.108.78 (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Th answer is that the article is meant to be about a notable person, not their works, whereas you have branched off and went into great depth about each play what they wrote. You can read more about that issue at Wikipedia:Coatrack articles, and hopefully understand why that amount of content is not needed. It's equivalent to an article about an author who published 50 books having a massive article about the plotline and writing history of each of those books in an article about them. A balance needs to be struck, and unfortunately you went slightly too far the wrong way in your enthusiasm. But enthusiasm is a great attribute! I do hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

hello! I understand this, but the director is nothing without their plays..should I do sub articles for the plays? I have the full articles and reviews about them, and they are quite notable in my country. Why cant we combine them in one article? and If I deleted that section(about plays) and submitted it only biography is it easy to write another 6 articles for the plays? or should I just summarize the about plays section and write a short synopsis for each? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manar Wehbe (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest one thing at a time, and only including a couple of sentences about each play. Focus on what reliable sources have written about the playwrite. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Citing a source where the original video is missing but is backed up on youtube

I have a source I want to cite for a page here, and there is an original article on the news website, but the website's video player is broken and doesn't have the original video anymore. The news site also uploaded the video to youtube to their official youtube channel and it IS still located there. How would I properly cite this source, as the youtube article doesn't have all of the information like the article author, and the article doesn't have the video (which is where all of the content is)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliotWL (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi EliotWL. Sources cited in article have to be reliable, but they don't necessarily have to be available online. As long as they were published and are (reasonably) accessible, they can still be used as a source. Not being available online doesn't make a source any less reliable, but it might make it a bit harder to verify; however, as long as it can be verified (even for a fee), then it might be OK to use. Be prepared though to explain how the source is reliable and how it's being used in proper context when queried, particularly if the content it's used to support is controversial and possibly contradicted by other sources. One thing about YouTube and other similar sites to be careful of is whether the content uploaded to it could be in violation of someone's copyright; so, before you go link to any YouTube videos, please read WP:COPYLINK, WP:ELNEVER and WP:YOUTUBE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

​Linking directly to the YouTube video is fine even if you found the author somewhere else. But if you want to link both to the article and the video, you could write something like: <ref>{{cite web|url=news.com|title=News}}. Video available [https://youtube.com/12345 via YouTube].</ref> – Thjarkur (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi thanks to both of you Marchjuly, and Þjarkur. I can verify that the youtube video was uploaded by the original news source directly to their official youtube so copywrite infringement isn't an issue there at least. Anyways thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by EliotWL (talk • contribs) 02:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Inline citation

I need help please with an inline citation to include a quotation to support an COI edit request.

I understand how to include a quotation inside of a template citation. For example, template citations:

I do not understand how to include a quotation inside of a named reference so that the text is available but does not show up in the body of the text. For example, named reference:<ref name="Oille-1983" />|quote=Like any museum everywhere, this was to display the middle links, the connections between person, place and time...

References

I hope this makes sense. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

​If you have already defined the full citation somewhere else, you can write <ref>Oille, 1983, p. 32: "Like any museum everywhere.."</ref>.
An alternative but lesser used solution is a nested reference: {{refn|"Like any museum everywhere.."<ref name="Oille-1983" />}}
Added formatting to your post to make the last part of your question more obvious
– Thjarkur (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

​ Thank you!! :) LorriBrown (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

What are Portals and why are editors requesting moves one at a time when the general "move all Portals" failed consensus?

My view is a portal is an entry point, to a subject or area of interest, they are also an entry point for potentially new editors or registered users to engage, so should cater towards them almost exclusively.

The above should dictate that no internal wiki move request, WP redirects etc. are present, they should look clean and be immediately engaging.

Unfortunately, many of the pages prefixed with Wikipedia, Contents and Portal are loaded with internal notices, are bland, are long-winded and not engaging at all.

While there is much work to resolve the engagement issues itself, a well defined process and a detailed expectation of what we would like to see on each section of name space could help focus and provide a consistent approach and further drive users and improvements.

So, the question remains, Why, specifically, are a few editors requesting moves one at a time? and to what end?

Thoughts

121.99.108.78 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC) aka USER:The Original Filfi

IOW, too many portals are messy, lack maintenance, can be abused, and cause conflicts. Some are perfectly nice. Check out Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals for a current conflict. –84.46.53.208 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Welcome back, IP editor! That's a difficult question to answer because there are many different perspectives on the matter, so I can only give my own perspective in an attempt to answer you. Others, I know, would not agree with me, and I confess to not having kept up with recent development. There are, however, a small number of editors who seem to have taken a strong and active dislike to Portals, believing them to be outdated and not having sufficient numbers of pageviews to justify their existence here (I would note this is never a factor we consider when it comes to Articles for Deletion).

About 2 years ago there was an RFC proposal to delete all Portals. At first, that proposal wasn't even advertised on the Portal pages themselves until someone undertook to inform everyone. After a lengthy discussion, that proposal was closed with a decision to retain them, and a desire to see Portals revitalised. A handful of editors undertook to address the concerns of the community and try to reinvigorate them. Unfortunately, one particular editor (who's activities I initially admired) went far too far and made it possible for anyone to create new portals on almost any new topic in a couple of mouse-clicks. Sadly they did just that, and made numerous pointless new portals, perhaps as a reaction against those who had argued to delete them all in the first place. The portal nay-sayers jumped on this and (I think) the creating editor was topic-banned from making new portals and many of the new Portals they created were deleted; I think that was probably fair. The nay-sayers then appeared to continued their quest to delete portals, and so a period of attrition has set in with a wide range of potentially quite useful Portals being put up for deletion, one at a time. E.g. Portal:Earthquakes (where even its original creator was in favour of deletion). Walls of words appeared to anyone arguing on one side or the other and, I suspect, some people feel rather demoralised by how this has worked out, and have stayed out of these lengthy and sometimes heated discussions. Rather like a game of Jenga, the nay-sayers seem set to inevitably manage to undermine the whole Portal structure until we all think the best thing to do is to knock it down and sweep them all away. They would counter by highlighting that everyone is welcome to monitor WP:MFD and put forward their opinions on each deletion proposal.

Personally, I would find the gradual erosion of Portals to be a great shame and a huge loss, and a goood example of the damage that an overzealous or deletionist approach can have in restricting information dissemination. Portals have always been poorly advertised within articles, yet they could do far more by offering a bright 'shop window' into a topic; more than any number of blue wikilinks in a wordy article, or a simple Category or two at the bottom of the page, can provide. As long as their content is good, and not too out-dated, they don't need to be constantly edited. After all, not all articles get that kid of attention, either, yet we don't go all out to delete them. They could certainly have been better linked from every 'See also' section within relevant articles; to me, the number of views is wholly irrelevant - it's the quality and breadth of content that is important. And I suspect this may well become a lost opportunity which few will grieve over.

I will end by explaining that I have spent nearly 35 years of my life working in the museums profession, where education and communication with an audience takes place at a wide variety of levels and in a variety of ways (permanent exhibitions, temporary displays, books, guided walks, enquiries, talks and lectures etc). Some are incredibly well attended, whilst others are less so. If we only try to engage an audience in one or two ways we limit how we get our message across. I've seen people's lives utterly changed by the tiniest spark of knowledge that fell on them in the most unusual of ways and, to me, Portals are a cost effective, yet low-traffic means of communication across a broad topic that I would hate to see us throw away, whether en masse or piecemeal. I believe there are now discussions going on about drafting proposals for wider discussion about what Portal criteria should now be, and I suspect the nay-sayers might succeed in persuading the pro-portalistas that only the broadest, highest level topics should have Portals, whereas it's actually about breadth of coverage that seems most relevant to any sort of 'topic-taster'.  Bear in mind this is just my view, and I've not been deeply involved in these discussions at all. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes, although I would be somewhat reticent to read your reply for a subject you were involved in unless I had a spare weekend or two, oh wait I do at the moment, so back on topic, great reply, I think you summed up past and present approaches and shall we say the Portal Police activities and motivations. Is there a way we can publicize this and get their input and hopefully agreement and have high-level portals, e.g. top level only, so that there would only be around 10-12 live portals that sparkle which have no wiki internal items etc., and they contain invites to join us, randomised featured content from each area and an engaging look and feel that entices new users and editors to participate by any of the click, edit or join options?121.99.108.78 (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The Joy Machine

Hello,

My band is The Joy Machine. We are an American band originating from Champaign, IL. We would like to inquire about how to get our band listed on Wikipedia? We have performed multiple times publicly and believe it would be an honor to be a foot note at his point on Wikipedia.

Please let us know our next steps on getting listed on Wikipedia at your earliest convenience.

Best Regards,

Francis Wassom

(Redacted) www.thejoymachine.band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfranciswossom (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cfranciswossom, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is not a directory or social media, which has "listings". It is an encyclopaedia, which has neutral, referenced articles about notable subjects (by Wikipedia's definition, not yours). If your band gets written about by people wholly unconnected with you, and those writings get published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers; or if you band meets the criteria in NMUSIC; then somebody could write an article about you. It will not be your article, it will not say what you want it to say, and it will be mostly based on what those independent people have published about you; and you will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly.

You might find it more rewarding to put your energies into promoting your band in places where promotion is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Also asked and answered at the help desk. Eagleash (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thoughtful response. It is very nice of you and very helpful for a budding artist. Thank you very much and please let me know how I might send said objectively written article for consideration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfranciswossom (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow the guidance at Help:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cfranciswossom: Joy Machine was created and deleted twice (in 2008 and 2014) because the article failed to establish that the band is notable according to WP:NBAND. I don't know if this is the same band, but before you spend the time to write a complete article about yourself (and it will take time, especially for someone who hasn't written a Wikipedia article before, as it's one of the hardest things to do here), be sure that you have the several, required, independent, reliable sources to establish that you are notable. Without those, the article cannot be accepted. Also note that you have a conflict of interest, and are strongly discouraged from writing an article about your band. If you choose to, however, you must comply with WP:PAID. Please click the blue links to read the specifics of these policies. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Username Change

Hello, I need help changing my name. Thanks in advance for any help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystery Bros (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mystery Bros: The easiest way to change your username is to put a request in at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple. Just make sure you read our username policy before selecting a username and putting a request in. Interstellarity (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mystery Bros: I would respectfully differ from Interstellarity in that it is probably easier to use Special:GlobalRenameRequest to have your username changed, as you only need to fill out the form. It does require providing an email address; if you don't wish to do that, or there is something unusual about your request, you should use the method Interstellarity suggests. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Draft Page improving references

Hello - I do not understand why my page cannot be published - it is very short bio and has all the necessary details. I made changes as requested previously in the teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFeldspar (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi FFeldspar. It looks like Draft:Colin Grubb (if that's draft your referring to) is still awaiting an AfC review; so, although it hasn't been approved, it also hasn't been declined. There tends to be lots of drafts awaiting review and only so many AfC reviewers doing the reviewing; so, you might just have to wait a bit longer. The AfC template on the draft's page currently says that more than 3,700 drafts awaiting review and that it could take up to four months to review them all. I'm not sure where your draft is currently in the queue of those awaiting review, but perhaps you won't have to wait too much longer. You can still work on the draft why your waiting for it to be reviewed and you might want to take a look at WP:SURNAME and WP:PUFF as well as WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPNAMES for some possible issues that I noticed about the draft after a quick look at it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, FFeldspar. If I was reviewing Draft:Colin Grubb right now, I would not accept it. The draft completely lacks references to significant coverage of Grubb in independent reliable sources. Independent sources are mandatory to establish notability, and links to the websites of the show business projects that Grubb has been involved with are of no value in establishing notability. Have you studied Your first article? If not, I recommend it highly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not actually a queue - reviewers pick what they want to review from the list in no particular order (although collectively, they try to not let any get too old). While waiting, you might consider creating sections. David notMD (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Declined 20 December for weak referencing. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

British and American English

Hello Teahouse hosts. I am working on New Albion and attempting a GA designation. The reviewer noted that the dates are in British English so I tagged the Talk page with that notation. However, while I am rather familiar with both American (best) and British (good) language nuances, I am uncertain if there are changes necessary to make this purely British. So, I would like one from Britain to peruse the article. How do I go about finding such an editor? Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: I am happy to give it a skim read for American English that needs changing, if that's what you're asking for? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: I've also had a quick read through, and made a few changes to British English except inside one quotation, which I didn't like to touch, though I suspect it will need changing. There were a few oddly worded sentences, especially this: Drake had friendly interactions with the Coast Miwok explored the surrounding land by foot, ..." Finally, there was an Archaeological District mentioned. I this seemed to wrongly use British English spelling in its name as it is must be an American body, surely? Please check and correct. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hu Nhu: I also just noticed that there is inconsistency of spelling in this article. I find 13 examples of Drakes Bay, and 11 of Drake's Bay. I assume there should be a match (without the apostrophe) with the preferred spelling used on the Drakes Bay page? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and Willbb234: Hello to both of you. I am most grateful for your kind attention. I have corrected and addressed the troublesome apostrophe matter, and you may read about it on the New Albion talk page. I was able to check the apostrophe within the two authors' quotes and found that the Wikipedia editor had correctly used them. Archaeological District is spelled the same in the article as it is in the accompanying photo of the National Historic Landmark plaque, so the spelling must be correct. I read the American and British English spelling differences and talk page HERE and even so found uncertainties.

If you would like to further advise or further edit New Albion, I would greatly appreciate it. And perhaps most importantly, which version of English do you believe should be used? I am beginning to think it is American as most recent attention to the subject seems to be American. Most kind regards. Hu Nhu (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hu Nhu. When in doubt, you should probably follow MOS:ENGVAR and defer to the variety used by the first major contributor. It seems like MOS:TIES/MOS:DATETIES could be argued both ways in this case; so maybe ENGVAR and MOS:DATEVAR, and in general MOS:RETAIN should be followed here. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The spelling "archaeology" (and its derivatives) is quite common in American English. I found several articles online (including some from the National Park Service) using either or BOTH spellings. The plaque pictured in the article uses "Archaeological", so I'd say that is as close to official and definitive as we can get. --Khajidha (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As an example, I took Archaeological Field Methods as a course at East Carolina University. Their current catalog includes that course, 3 others with "Archaeological" in the titles, and 16 more with "Archaeology" in their names. And several others with those spellings in their course descriptions.--Khajidha (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

COI Editing possible issue

I'd appreciate if someone neutral can check out Talk:Society of the Cincinnati#COI Editing question to ensure a possible COI edit question involving Train of Knowledge and Marlan Drive; both relatively new users I believe, is being handled in the correct fashion. I wish to stand back from this myself but wish a neutral with good COI understanding to review the situation. I will not be watching the Teahouse unless ping'ed. and at least have the current intention not to rejoin the discussion but merely observe and take on board any learnpoints (it is not impossible for me to re-engage but I ideally wish not to). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

new to editing - want to learn more

hi! I am new to editing and want to learn more. How does one decide what article to work on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarasota6 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Sarasota6:. I recommend that you pick something that interests you such as sports, geography, arts, and science to fix typos on and add references to unsourced claims. Check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for ways to help out. Interstellarity (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sarasota6: Also, the content at User:Sarasota6/sandbox/user profile of Sarasota6 that you submitted to AfC is not really appropriate for an article in mainspace. It would be acceptable on your user page User:Sarasota6 though, which is probably what you intended. I suggest you copy it there (without the {{AFC submission}}) and then blank that sandbox page. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Different question?

because some images of singles and albums in English Wikipedia do not appear in related searches but in the article itself where the single is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David lima'h (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi David lima'h. It's not clear what you're asking about which means it's going to be kind of hard for a Teahouse host to help you. If you can clarify your post or re-word it in the form of a question, then it would be easier for someone to tyr and help you. In addition, if you do post here again, please try to remember to sign your talk page posts. If you're not sure how to do that please look at Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Shah Niamatullah

Hi, an user found a problem on that page. Then, I have tried to correct it. Is it OK now? Thanks in advance.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@S. M. Nazmus Shakib: Yes, it looks better now. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 09:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Still close paraphrasing, though. It looks like some words and phrases have been changed or moved around, which is not enough to remove that issue. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Is it OK now?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

thank you all for the help! I have determined a page I would to update but not sure how to start (dont want to mess up anything) .

If I try to edit the page with the edit button would that be a bad idea or should I somehow start in the sandbox and try to add my edit that way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarasota6 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If a relatively simple edit, edit directly in article. Be sure to compose an Edit summary (space at bottom) to describe what you did. It's hard to "break' an article, as if you are in error, an editor can revert your changes. No penalty for editing in good faith (although vandalism will get you warnings, and if repeated, being blocked). If you want to do something more extensive, consider copying a section of the article into your Sandbox, work on it there, then click Publish (which really means Save). This allows you to see what you have done. If satisfied, then copy from Sandbox and paste into the article. "Bold/Revert/Discuss" refers to practice of being Bold about edits, and if then Reverted, go to Talk page of the article to Discuss the conflict. P.S. Type four of ~ at end of your Talk comments to 'sign' what you wrote. David notMD (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sarasota6: I would also make use of the Preview button, which will show you what the article (or section) will look like with your changes applied. You can then make any necessary changes, previewing again, etc. until it looks right. Please remember that any significant additions or changes in facts must either be to correct an already-cited source or must include a new citation that can be used to verify the content added. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Victor Makalala Profile

I submitted a request for a profile creation for a player named Victor Makalala but I really do not know why they keep rejecting my submission despite the necessary proof submitted.

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/victor-makalala/profil/spieler/730124

He joined Warri Wolves following the start of the season in Nigeria Professional Football League

https://www.today.ng/sport/football/makalala-joined-warri-wolves-257188

He was a former player of Rivers United.

https://kelvianomedia.blogspot.com/2018/01/npfl-am-ready-to-work-for-rivers-united.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makalala02 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Makalala02. As you have been told repeatedly, Wikipedia does not host profiles. Not one. It hosts encyclopaedia articles, which are based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, The three sources you mention above are 1) a mere listing; 2) a statement by Makalala; 3) somebody's blog. None of this does anything at all to establish that Makalala currently meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Please have a look at the essay WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

Furthermore, since from your user name, you appear to be Victor Makalala, or somebody closely associated with him, please also read about why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

definition - massing

Massing should be in the dictionary as a verb for the process of finding the mass of an object. I would not allow my students to say they were weighing and object when using a pan balance to find the object's mass. Just as weight and mass are two very different descriptions of a given body, so the process of finding the mass of an object should be defined differently than the process of finding the weight of an object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan S Harger (talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia. The verb "to mass" with your meaning of ascertaining a mass by comparing masses on a pan balance is not in general use and does not appear in Wikipedia nor in the big Oxford Dictionary. You are, of course, welcome to teach your students new meaning for old words, and I fully appreciate the point you are making to distinguish mass from weight. Dbfirs 19:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this usage hasn't made it into the Oxford Dictionary, as it was in use twenty-odd years ago when I was a student. --Khajidha (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If you can find some published examples of this use, Khajidha, and you could submit them to the OED, and add it to wiktionary yourself. But if you can't, then I would take it as a local usage which does not (so far) belong in a dictionary. I couldn't find any examples of it among 4239 instances of "massing" in the iWeb corpus - but I've only scanned a few dozen of them, I admit. --ColinFine (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Isaac Asimov essay "The Man Who Massed The Earth". http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?117086 But even that was more of an argument for adoption of the usage. I know I had instructors use it, but I have no idea if it was or is used in any texts. --Khajidha (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Pedantry alert: actually, most scales in current use counterbalance the Earth's graviational pull on the object with an electromagnet or a torsion spring, so they are "weighting" rather than "massing" devices. The results are given in mass units but would not match the object's mass if the operation was done (say) on the Moon without recalibration. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

How to link a new article to other articles

I have created some articles but they're often tagged ORPHAN because they are not linked to other similar articles.

How do I find other similar articles to the new article during creation?

And how do I link new articles to other articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgideens (talk • contribs) 06:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Akgideens. You can find out more about this in WP:DE-ORPHAN, but basically what you'll be looking to do is add at least one WP:WIKILINK which leads to the "orphaned article" to another related article. Sometimes this can be fairly easy to do, but other times it can be tricky. What you'll need to do is make sure there is a contextual and encyclopedic reason for adding a link to another article because if you just add a link to some random article or an article where the connection isn't very strong or is not supported by sources, then it's likely going to be removed by another editor which will make the target article an orphan again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm also going to add that after looking at some of the articles you created, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, MOS:HEAD and MOS:SECTIONCAPS because just at first glance you seem to be making a number of formatting errors that are things you can easily fix yourself. You might also want to consider emailing your WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS to verify your copyright ownership of File:David Idris Zacharias in 2019.jpg to make sure it's not mistakenly tagged for deletion per WP:F11. If the file's licensing is verified, it can be moved to Wikimedia Commons to make it easier to use by other Wikimedia Foundation projects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Akgideens has now been blocked indefinitely. Maproom (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually the account was only blocked for a week. Generally, sockpuppet accounts are only the ones indefinitely blocked right away, but master accounts may only be blocked for a specific period of time depending upon the discretion of the blocking administrator. If you're reading this Akgideens, please don't create any other accounts to try and respond here or make any other edits to Wikipedia. If you do that, not only will those accounts likely end up being blocked, but it will become that much harder to get your main account unblocked. Instead follow the instructions given in Wikipedia:Appealing a block and focus on what you need to do to get your account unblocked. You can always go back to editing articles, etc. with that account once it's unblocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The user page shows an indef CU block template, put there at 2019-12-14T09:00:29Z by JJMC89, but they don't appear to be blocked. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The block was from 12 December for a week, so has now expired. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

How to get approved a draft

I have a draft submitted for review, but I can not get it published and I am sure it accomplish with all the parameters and reliability sources--Kubanische (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kubanische and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to disappoint you, but the draft will never be approved in its present form, no matter how much canvassing you do. There is not a single WP:Reliable source provided in which the band is discussed independently. You need to read WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:NBAND. It might just be WP:Too soon for an article. Most bands just never qualify for articles. Dbfirs 22:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, Kubanische, your draft contains very subjective, promotional material such as "Portraying an exotic sonority where the intensity of the most passionate Rock together with the happiness and contagious groove of the Caribbean, these cuban musicians show that they don´t believe in established slogans, they don´t believe on fatal walls, so they project themselves to the world as the reference for the cuban metal music." Which independent published source has described their sonority as "exotic"? Which independent source has talked about "the intensity of the most passionate Rock"? Phrases like this do not belong anywhere in Wikipedia, unless they are directly quoted from a reliable published source wholly independent of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There;s no point in submitting for review if you haven't read and understood WP:Referencing for beginners. I suggest that you delete the current content, find the references first, then base a new article on your summary of independent references. Dbfirs 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Two different questions

1st question: How can I use the same source as a reference twice if I am using separate pages from a book?

2nd question: Do all new articles need an etymology if the name of the article is not an English word?Prana1111 (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Prana1111. The answer to your first question is fairly easy and there are a couple of ways to do such a thing. One such way would be to be link directly to the page you're citing if possible and treat each citation as a separate page; there's a bit of redundancy here in that your technically citing the same source, but linking to the specific page will make it easier for the reader to actually find the specific content in the source being cited. If that seems a little confusing or it's too hard or even possible to link to a specific page, then you can use Template:Rp or a short-foot note for the source depending upon the citation style currently being used in the article and your preference. The "Rp" template is fairly straightforward in that you simply add another template after the citation for the source being cited to indicate the page you're citing. Short-footnotes are a bit more complex to format, but it's a style is often used in publications, etc. so many find it easier for the reader to follow.

As for your other questions, that's not so easy to answer and what to do might depend upon Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization. Wikipedia isn't really Wikitionary, so often all that's need is a brief sentence clarifying the meaning of the word in it's native language and how it's pronounced without going into too much detail about it's etymology since that's not really what the article should be about. What's more important, in my opinion, is to try and write an encyclopedic article as opposed to a dictionary entry and if an bit more about the origin of the term helps you do that and can be supported by citations to reliable sources, then it's probably OK to do. If, on the other hand, the entire article is turns out to be pretty much an etymology, with no other real encyclopedic content, then perhaps that's not really the right direction to be moving in and you may run into problems per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. You can, if you want, try looking at articles where the title is a non-English word (for example Vrykolakas) for reference and see what's being done in them. Perhaps you'll see some things that would work well in the article you're trying to create. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Prana1111: I think Help:References and page numbers can help with your first question. It shows a couple different ways that people do this. You can choose whichever one you like best, as long as you stay consistent within the same article. If it's helpful to see examples in a full articles, you can compare the citations in Marion du Faouët and Ōyama Sutematsu, which use two different approaches.

As to your second question, I'm not sure what you mean by an etymology. The answer is probably no, it's not required, since all that's really required for a basic stub article is a very simple mention of why the subject is notable (and then articles can grow from stubs over time), but depending on what you mean by "etymology" it might be valuable to the article to include, and perhaps we can help you determine how to do it. Can you link an example of a page where you have seen one? Or, can you say more about the article you have in mind? ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 08:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Prana1111: See also U.S. Route 6 in Nevada#Major intersections for some extensive use of the {{Rp}} template. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Oulfis: For the 2nd question it is an article I would like to create in the future. I still need to do more research on the topic and search for good sources, so I have not started the page yet, but to give you some details it is the name of a mythological city in Buddhism called Ketumati.Prana1111 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Pages for planet vs star

I asked this at WikiProject Astronomy, but it is perhaps more of a general Wikipedia question. Is there any general convention on creating pages for a planet versus one for the parent star? I'm going through and adding in information from the IAU NameExoWorlds campaign to the relevant stars/planets, and have come across a number of instances where there is a page for the planet but not for the star, e.g. HAT-P-14b and HAT-P-14 or HD 206610b and HD 206610. Where there is a page for the star but not the planet I've added the names for both on the star page (e.g. HD 131496, and where there is already a page for both I've put the information on both pages (e.g. HD 49674 and HD 49674b), but it seems slightly odd to be putting the information on just the planet page. On the other hand the pages for the planets are themselves very short and creating yet another very short page for the star seems like creating unnecessary clutter. My inclination would be to create a page for the star and move the planet information over, turning the planet page into a re-direct (I would also be inclined to merge HD 49674 and HD 49674b), but I wanted to see if there is any convention already in place. Physdragon (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Physdragon: Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. This page might help: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects). Interstellarity (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that page was of some help. Physdragon (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Request support to format the Champions Box/Table in INRC

Have edited the page and added the 2019 champion here under CHAMPIONS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Rally_Championship

But the format of the table has gone haywire, wondering if I can get help to get it formatted. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Maproom (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a specific area to create draft articles in?

I have found a bunch of football related articles at the requests for creation board that I would like to take a shot at creating. I've seen mentions of draft space being used to start creating new articles but I've no idea how to get there (if that makes sense). LampGenie01 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LampGenie01 You will find some useful guidance here Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello LampGenie01,

You can start an draft by placing Draft:the name of the draft into the search bar.

It will then give a link to Create the page "Draft:name" on this wiki!, at the top of the results. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

LampGenie01, I'd also advise to do it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation and then WP:Article Wizard.

The way I suggested to do does work, but just gives you a blank draft, whilst the linked page automatically adds templates etc. that can be useful if you haven't created a lot of articles before. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Again, thanks for your help. Hopefully my first article will be a success. LampGenie01 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Need some mentorship on football logo upload +info whether I may do it

Hello! I'm editing this club now and there's no logo. I've looked here, but it's not there either. I wondered if I could upload it, but I have no clue if I may (copyright is not my thing) and if so how. Can someone help me with that? Please throw some links at me, I'll study. Thank you in advance. --Less Unless (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Less Unless,

Thankfully logos are one of the few copyrighted things that we can use here.

Upload the image to Wikipedia, rather than to Commons, by using the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. When it asks for copyright status, select This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use, and fill in the boxes; they're fairly self explanatory.

If you wish to read the full policy, it's at Wikipedia:Logos.

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, ~~ OxonAlex. Happy Holidays! Less Unless (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

General Robert Manners was, apparently, godfather to the illigitimate child of General Charles Asgill - by Manners' mistress

This is almost certainly not the right day to be asking a question here...but perhaps it can languish until people have finished their seasonal celebrations?

I have been told that Robert Manners was godfather to the illegitimate son of Sir Charles Asgill (=Charles Childs). The latter was born to Asgill and Mary Ann Mansel in 1816. Manners and Mary Ann had 6 children together and Asgill and Mary Ann just the one. I have always imagined that Manners would not have been very happy regarding the 1816 birth of Charles Childs. However, had he agreed to be godfather, that assumption may not be right. Incidentally, in his will, Charles Asgill left his black mare and saddle to the youngest living child of General Manners (=Herbert Mansel). Asgill left nothing to his own child though. Could anyone help me find the truth of whether, or not, Manners was the godfather of Charles Childs? I've searched Google but nothing comes up. Where should I look to find this godfather record? Any help gratefully received. Arbil44 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arbil44: the day is not a problem (this is an international and multi-cultural community), but the Teahouse is intended for questions about editing Wikipedia. The Reference desk is a better place for general information questions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No sources

Hello, I have a question. If an article does not cite any sources, how has it not been deleted yet? Especially if the article has been up for more than five or six years? I don't want to tag any articles that have no sources for deletion if there is some reason why we should keep them. Aspenkiddo (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a fundamental problem, as you have implied. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You can start discussing on the talk page of the article and add some tags to it if you want. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Some old articles may have been retained because the subject seemed notable but no-one has bothered to find the required refs. Ideally, you could find appropriate references and add them to bring the article up to modern standards. Dbfirs 14:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, under our verifibility policy, an article does not have to cite sources, Aspenkiddo, provided that sources can be found if any editor demands them. With more recently created articles, editors tend to make such a demand right away. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits not saved - HELP!

I made edits to a Wikipedia page with proper citations and coding. I thought I was logged into my account, but when I went to publish my content NOTHING SAVED. I haven't tried to re-submit or re-edit because I am not sure if Wikipedia can get those initial edits on the back-end. Anyone have an issue with this? Will I have to go in and insert the edits all over again? Any answers would help! Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northstrategic (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Your edit is listed at Special:Contributions/Northstrategic, accessible through the "Contributions" link in the top right-hand corner of any page. Subsequent changes after your edit can be seen in the article history. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked?

WHY WAS I BLOCKED?! WHAT DID I EDIT THAT WAS WRONG?! I DON'T GET WHY THIS I'M BEING ATTACKED FOR NOTHING! WHAT PAGE DID I EDIT THAT CAUSED THIS? PLEASE, SOMEONE TELL ME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentmacefe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Vincentmacefe, You were blocked for adding unsourced content to articles. Looking through your edits that added content to articles, you were adding information without a source to support it.

In order to keep the information in the encyclopedia verifiable, we need references to support said information. You should read either Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 or Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 for details of how to do this.

Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

48 hour block, should already be over. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vincentmacefe You were blocked for 48 hours for persistent addition of unsourced content. For example you added unsourced content here [1]. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vincentmacefe: Please don't SHOUT. I was going to ask if you had seen the messages on your talk page, but since you posted this a couple hours after the block expired, I'll assume you're here because you did see the block message there.

It's important to understand that you are not being attacked. Blocks (especially short ones, as this was) are sometimes necessary to get the attention of an editor to the fact that their colleagues here are having trouble with some of that editor's contributions. Now that we have your attention, please have a careful look at the edits that are mentioned in those talk page messages, and the explanations and links to policies related to them.

For example, your last edit here added the sentence As of now, it has been implied that the band is no longer making music. (without a source). If you have to write "implied", that's a clue that it is not something that belongs here. It says that you (the editor) are drawing a conclusion about ("inferring") something based on some source that you did not even cite for the reader to verify, which may or may not be correct. That's not even close to the requirement of verifiability (please click on and read those blue links).

Additionally, you continue to mark such changes as "minor edits", which they are not, since they are adding potentially disputable content. The only edits that should be marked minor are clear, basic, undisputable changes, like spelling errors, typos, punctuation errors, etc. (per WP:MINOR).

Please take careful note of talk page messages in the future, and of the requirements above if you would like to contribute and help Wikipedia. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Permission

Hi.

So, i had an idea for an article and i wanted to know if it was a good idea or not. It's called Donald Trump and fast food. It would essiently be about trump's history with fast food chains like mcdonalds and dominoes. I only ask because there are already a plethora of trump related pages, but i thought that this might be worth documenting.

thanks. Bill cage (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bill cage and welcome to the Teahouse. The question is, would such a topic be notable and encyclopedic?

• First of all, have multiple independent published reliable sources discussed it in some detail? if not, there should not be an article.
• Secondly, would it fall afoul of any of the points at what Wikipedia is not? On a quick review, this might go against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. But that is a judgement call.
• Note also that US Politics are a particularly contentious area, and are subject to Discretionary sanctions. So be extra careful to conform to policy in such issues.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

i found 6 news articles about trump and mcdonalds. so perhaps, i could rework to Donald trump and mcdonalds?Bill cage (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bill cage: As a rule, I steer far clear of politics (a subject with far more heat than light), so I can't say what passes for acceptable article topics. However, to me, it seems that high-profile people have every aspect of their life scrutinized and written about, even in sources normally considered reliable. I'd not be surprised to see articles in WaPo or Fox News about the President's relation to fast food and pretty much anything else. They have eyeballs to attract, advertising to sell, and profits to make, just like any other business. I just think that, for this reason, notability should have some extra filtering when it comes to high-profile people like this. I don't know what that might be, but that's what I think is necessary to stop the descent of the project into just another mindless content aggregator. Now, a sentence or two about personal habits, adding some "color", would not be out of place in a bio, but a whole article about it seems over the top. I'm sure it's been discussed at WP:WikiProject Politics or somewhere like that. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

T'was The Night Before Wikimas

Saint Jimbo arrives to help a pair of sleepy editors.

'Twas the night before Wikimas, when all through the Teahouse
Not an editor was stirring, not even a mouse.

The references had been inserted by users with care,
In hopes that St. Jimbo soon would be there.

Most editors were nestled all snug by their beds,
While visions of new articles danced in their heads.
When out from a keyboard there arose such a clatter
I sprang to my screen to see what was the matter.
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
but a question on sources and how to use them well here . . .

read on . . .

More rapid than eagles these questioners came, And the hosts from the Teahouse welcomed each one by name. Reindeer #1 to #3: em Dasher; Images and Actrial Reindeer #4 to #6: Patrolled; Users and IPs "Now, em Dasher! Now, Images! Now, Actrial! Now, Patrolled! On, Users! On, IPs! On, Young and on, Old! To the top of each article, be it long, short or tall, Now, type away, type away, type away all!" As dry words that before an old dictionary fly, when they meet with a synonym, mount to the sky, So, onto these articles the edits they flew, With a sleigh full of facts, and citations, too. Facial composite of man wanted for questioning in connection with digital break-ins on Christmas eve. And then in a twinkling, I saw on the page Our wiki-creator: a man of great age. As I checked it on Commons and was turning around, Down my router St. Jimbo came in with a bound. Almost 6 million articles he had flung on his back, And he looked like most users with the editing knack. His eyes – how they twinkled! slightly square – but how merry! Too much editing, folks, had turned his nose red like a cherry! His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow, And the beard on his chin was as white as the snow. St. Jimbo: "Happy Editing to all, and to all users a good night!" A wink of his eye and a twist of his head Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his editing, And filled bare urls; did sourcing and crediting And confirming notability with a tap on his nose, And pressing "Publish changes", back up my modem he rose. He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle, And away they all flew, leaving me to my epistle. But I heard him exclaim, 'ere he drove out of sight, "Happy Editing to all, and to all users a good night!" With grudging acknowledgement to Clement C. Moore, 1823.

Seasonal greetings from all at the Teahouse! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, Thank you greatly for the seasonal cheer, Good Saint Nick ;) Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

homeopathy

I am sorry I will not be donating to Wikipedia this year. Wikipedia provides false information about homeopathy which I have practiced for 32 years. I share my love of this form of medicine with the Queen of England and her family. I guess neither of us are that smart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9D7F:60A0:1072:E6A7:688F:E952 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Donations or the lack thereof have no bearing on Wikipedia content or the edits of its users. This would not be a neutral encyclopedia if withholding or making donations affected content.

Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources. If there is incorrect information in any article, we want to know what it is, and if any independent sources are available to support it. We don't necessarily have the information those that support any subject want to see, and we do not necessarily give equal weight to all points of view- it depends on the sources. See WP:FRINGE as well. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

We say what reliable sources say. In the world of medicine, reliable sources are medical journals, which are scientific and peer reviewed. We say what they say, which may or may not be supportive of homeopathy. We try very hard to present our subjects nuetrally. We do not endorse any particular form of alternative medicine, as that is not our job. If there is false information anywhere, please let us know. But beware there is a difference between false, and things you disagree with. Your donations do not affect content however. If you want to see content changed, you ought learn the policies of Wikipedia and get involved as an editor. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Help! List most-subscribed YouTubers

Hello there! I am creating an article (a list) about the most-subscribed YouTubers (in analogy to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels), excluding brands, music artists. I would like you to help with some issues: How to define a "YouTuber", I mean, which channels should be included and which ones should not, for example, enchufetv and Badabun are like sets of YouTubers or content creators; I also included "children's YouTubers" like Like Nastya. So I'd would like you to help me with the criteria of this article. I have a draft in my sandbox. Any suggestion the article's name or the article in general will be well received. Saviourofthe (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You could add your table (incl. your definition) to YouTuber after discussing the idea on Talk:YouTuber for some time. I've recently removed T-Series (company) from this article, because it's obviously no "YouTuber". John Oliver would also not fit. It's actually tricky, some YouTubers are also musicians, also journalists, also on twitch.tv, etc., I don't see how to draw a clear line.

Presumably you end up with a proper subset of List of YouTubers sorted by the combined number of subscribers, and a huge maintenance problem. I would always support DELETE in an AFD for this list, nobody needs yet another silly YouTube list, let socialblade et al. dominate this spam marketing niche, it is not encyclopedic. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I contact a user to thank them for an edit to an article?

How do I contact a user to thank them for an edit to an article?

I have his talk ID but Wikipedia isn't the most intuitive site so I keep going in circles trying to find a way to contact the user either via Talk or some other way.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Rattle (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

There are threebasic methods, Brett Rattle

• The first is to go to the article's history page, and find the edit you wish to thank the other editor for. After every edit is a set of links: (undo | thank). Click on the "thank" link, and confirm that you want to thank that editor for that edit. The editor will get ma notification of thanks. (If there were several edits, pick one. Getting multiple thanks for a series of edits can be more distracting than gratifying.)
• As another choice, you can leave the user a message on his or her user talk page. Assuming that the edit was made by a user whose username was "HelpfulUser" you could go to User talk:HelpfulUser, click "new section" (in some skins this nis just a + sign) near the top of the page, and type your message. Please indicate there what article and what edit you are thanking for.
• Thirdly, you could leave a similar talk page. If the article was "Important topic", go to Talk:Important topic and post a new section describing the edit and thankign the editor. It would be a good idea to ping the editor in that message (as I am pinging you in thyis comment). Include {{ping|HelpfulUser}} in your comment, (changing the name to the actual user name, of course). Please sign the comment with four tildes (~~~~) otherwise the ping does not work and the user is not notified. Signing later does not work, it must be in the same edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for wanting to thank another editor, Brett Rattle it encourages editors generally. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Starting a new page

I'm very new around here, so please be kind in your response.

Why can't one start a page and build it up? I was informed by wiki it could take months for my contribution to be reviewed. In that knowledge I started but not fully completed a new page only to have it rejected within hours of publishing the content.

I find that really poor form.

Am I wrong in my understanding that pages are built up over time, and they do not have to be perfect (although accurate) up front? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1180:777:3907:6A34:C6DF:9E23 (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A draft under development does not need to be complete, and you can continue to work on it. If, however, you submit it for review it will be assessed against Wikipedia's standard for mainspace articles. Have you read the advice at WP:Your first article? Was your contribution made under a different IP address, as your contribution record shows no previous edits? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If you make an article in your sandbox (top of the page) you can continue to tinker with it until you feel it meets the minimal standards of publishing here. Of course you can still work on the published article afterwards as well. --Dutchy45 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

While working in your own Sandbox or on an unsubmitted draft offers some protection against a work-in-progress article (not page) being prematurely deleted, if from the content it is obvious that what is written has no potential for becoming a Wikipedia article (solely promotional, social-media-like, on a topic that has no notability, personal musings on a topic, etc.), then a reviewer may reach in and delete it. Reference-as-you-write is a good approach. That way, even if a work-in-progress, what has been completed has references to support it. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

100% of my created pages are rejected

I've created pages for Julie Martin (an artist who worked EQUALLY with her husband, who is allowed a page -- this is just sexism in my view!) and for Alan Isler's novel 'The Prince of West End Avenue', which was a multi-award-winning book in 1994. Neither are deemed worthy of pages. I'm told I don't cite enough sources, but I don't work on these things as an academic, but was just not pleased when I was searching Wiki for both that that didn't have pages that would tell me more, so I thought I'd create them. Is there a way of drawing these pages to the attention of groups involved in adding pages of a) Women Artists (for Julie Martin) and b) Jewish writers (for THe Prince of West End Avenue), as they might be able to make the pages publishable by adding references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeleach (talk • contribs) 12:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Greeting, Eeleach. Well, when you create a page, the onus is on you to bring some sources; not all Wikipedia editors are academics, but all have to follow referencing guidelines.

I am not sure about Julia Martin; our article about Billy Klüver does seem to say they worked a lot in common but the question is whether she is notable in her own right (BK is by virtue of the awards he received in personal capacity, see WP:NARTIST). You can try your luck at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red.

For Draft:The Prince of West End Avenue I would think refs relative to the awards would be enough to pass it. (The author, Alan Isler, already has an article, which paradoxically could increase the barrier, because a stub about the piece could be merged to the article of the author). I am not sure of where to find help - maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Eeleach. The best way to demonstrate that a novel like The Prince of West End Avenue is notable is to provide references to book reviews in reliable sources. I found four additional reviews, in The Sunday Times (London), in Kirkus Review, in Publishers Weekly, and in a book called The Best Novels of the Nineties: A Reader's Guide. If you summarize content from those reviews, and provide references to them, that article should be accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Julie Martin (writer) exists, Julie Martin (swimmer) is a red link on "women in red", and Julie Martin (artist) is a red link on the Julie Martin disambiguation page. I think DAB pages should never list red links, but I didn't fix that. In theory you could add her on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Art, but in practice most "article wish lists" are hopeless. The Billy Klüver article does not (yet) support your theory, she is only mentioned in passing. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What to call a family of sorting algorithms?

I started Draft:Proportion extend sort describing a sorting algorithm published by J.-C. Chen in 2001, but in my research found that Eliezer A. Albacea had published essentially the same algorithm (with different parameters) under the name Leapfrogging samplesort in 1995. So I decided to rewrite the article with WP:DUE credit to the earlier author.

But now I need a name for the broader category. I thought I could use the name from Richard J. Cole's paper The Average Case Analysis of Partition Sorts, but he distinguishes "partition sorts" from "Chen's algorithm", and I want to discuss the category including Chen's and Albacea's algorithms.

Chen published a modified version of his algorithm called Symmetry Partition Sort, so perhaps I should just use "Partition Sort" sensu lato anyway?

Thanks for any suggestions; this issue is blocking my writing. 196.247.24.22 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I would use the name partition sort and make appropriate redirects from various plausible search terms. It seems to be the least worse option that you know of, so as long as you are open to corrections if someone comes by with a more established term, Cunningham's law applies. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Thank you, I was drifting to the same conclusion. It's the only substring which is in two of the names, even if Cole's "Partition sort" is least like the others. It'll just take some careful wording to distinguish the WP article's definition of the term from Cole's. I'm pretty darn sure there isn't a more established term, but I think Wikipedia editors all feel the same urges, so we'll see. 196.247.24.22 (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Worse, some of us recall "partition sort" from the 80s, put it together with TAOCP in a search engine, find ch. 2.3-3 in Wirth's "algorithms and data structures", and used to know that by heart before somebody invented gopher (like the www, only older.) –84.46.52.84 (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The page in my sandbox has been reviewed, and I don't want to screw this up!

I had a page deleted and salted under A7 a couple months ago. I've improved it, and yesterday I messaged the person who salted it, asking them for feedback (hoping I can bring it back from the grave). I got the notification that they reviewed it... but they didn't say anything to me. That made me anxious, haha (although I'm sure I'm overthinking it!). Do I submit it as an article now? Is there another step first? Thanks all! Perennialpoet (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Perennialpoet, and welcome to the Teahouse. As for User:Perennialpoet/sandbox, now containing a draft of an article about Ethan Mark Nestor, there are several possible issues here.

• It seems likely that this is about yourself. Please read our guideline on autobiography and why it is strongly discouraged. Even if you ar not Nestor, if you have a clsoe connection to Nestor, you have a Conflict of interst and need to read the linked guideline and carefully follow it.
• The key issue will be establishing the Notability of thsi person. If that is not established, no draft will be approved as an article. Please read the section above #Youtubers, for answers to anothr person with a simialr issue.
• Google searches are not reliable sources and should not be cited, in part because they will return different things for different readers. Sources should be specific published documents that are reliable.
• Youtube channel stats are not very reliable, and in any case are not very relevant. They should usually not be included, unless an independent reliable source has discussed them as part of a discussion of the subject.
• I am not at all sure that the TubeFilter areticel or the stady it references are reliable sources, and in any case they do not discuss Nestor in detail.
• Please be sure that any archive URLs go to currently valid pages at the archive site. otherwise the source may simply be dismissed.
• Local coverage of High-school sports achievements does not generally help to establish notability. Only sports events at the Olympic level, or at the highest national level for a given sport, are usually relvant, and regional or national coverage is normally needed.
• The European tour wight well help establish notability, but I would want to see more detailed coverage of it.
• Twitter from the subject is not an independent source, and does not help establish notability. (Another person's twitter is not usually6 considered reliable, although there are exceptions.)

In short, while I think this gets past the A7 level, I don't think notability has been clearly established. You could submit it for formal review under the Articles for Creation project, but without improvements I don't think it will be approved. I would not pass it as it now is. When you think it is ready for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft, and save (publish) changes. That will place the draft in the pool awaiting review. Note that there are over 3,700 drafts in the pool, and the delay may be several months for a review.

Good luck. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thank you! I'm not Nestor and don't know him, so that's not a problem. I'll work on the sources with your suggestions. Much appreciated. Perennialpoet (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorting Issue

Hi, I know how to change sorting in categories. In Category:English football portal birthdays I came across { at the top of the listed pages where normally there's a letter. Why is that there and how can I fix it? --Dutchy45 (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Somebody tried {{{date}}} as category sort key, that doesn't work. I've fixed April 1, please fix the rest, i.e., replace {{{date}}} by April 2, etc.

Actually sort keys are always alphabetically, and April 19 before April 2 would make no sense, so please find a better solution, e.g., 04-01, 04-02, etc. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by Dutchy45, thanks. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it, but I think the problem also was the 3 {}, instead of just 2. --Dutchy45 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

ACK, but {{date}} would be the same 10 November 2024 everywhere, and all tricks using {{#time:…}} would be also doomed as noted in ParserFunctions#Redirects. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

how do I request a deletion of a wikipedia page about me?

how do I request a deletion of a wikipedia page about me?Kent tate (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this for you talk page? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is about the page Kent Tate. Eman235/talk 03:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kent tate: This was asked and answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1039#How to request for an COI article to be deleted (click that to read). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is that page Kent Tate.Kent tate (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Is that where I make the request? Kent tate (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me where do I paste this request? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Db-a3Kent tate (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kent tate: Did you read Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1039#How to request for an COI article to be deleted that I posted above? There is no criterion for speedy deletion that would be appropriate for deletion of the page. If, after reading the references given, you still believe you can make an argument for deletion, come back here and explain it and someone can guide you through the process. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Pinging Spintendo, who has been involved. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that was the wrong template, its the "no content" template I want to send for speedy deletion. The article for Kent Tate doesn't give any context and I am clearly not an individual of note so I don't think that there should be article about me in wikipedia. I appreciate the author's efforts in making the article but clearly an argument can't be made for why it is there. Every edit or addition she has tried to make only results in the article being reduced to the point where it doesn't really say anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent tate (talk • contribs) 06:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Kent Tate is definitely not a WP:A3 candidate. Meters (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What is a WP:A3candidate? How about an A7. No indication of importance? Without any other editor taking an interest its clear that that author is unable to do anything with the article which keeps getting re-edited (reduced) by third parties. In its current state is not even an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent tate (talk • contribs) 06:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Kent tate, In Wikipedia terms, "No context" means an article with so little information that an editor can't even tell where to start doing research. he classic no-context speedy candidate is John is a very nice man who loves dogs and nothing more. With no way to find out which "John" is meant, there is nothing that an editor can do, so we delete the non-article. No content means empty. Even two sentences are enough that "no content" does not apply.

Speedy deletion is only only for the most obvious, clear-cut cases. It does not apply here. See the actual criteria.

In the case of Kent Tate there is ample context, and it looks to me on a very quick review as if there is enough coverage to demonstrate notability which would be the obvious reason to propose deletion. Deletion for such an article would need to be proposed at Articles for deletion, along with a reason, based on Wikipedia policy, why the article should be deleted, and It doesn't really say anything would not qualify. The argument for having it would be the general notability guideline and our guideline for the notability of creative people You would need to argue that neither of those applied.One neveer knows how such a discussion would go, but i9n doubtful cases an article is not deleted. If ther are specific issues abo9ut the article, those might perhsps be dealt with, if desired changes are supported by sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I just read " notability of creative people." I don't fit any of the 4 criteria. The spareness of my article is further proof of that. Based on that article I have only had one exhibition since 1988. I really don't see what benefit someone who is interested in my art practise will gain from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent tate (talk • contribs) 07:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. Kent tate (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, Kent tate I won't debate the question here. i haven't reviewed the sourecs in detail. You are free to start an AfD discussion if you choose, the instructions are at WP:AFD. Or if you find them hard to understand or to follow, I or another editor will do this on your behalf. Just write out what you want to stand as the nomination statement, giving your reasons why the article should be deleted, making your case as well as you can. You could post such a request at Talk:Kent Tate, or at WT:AFD or here.

I would want you to understand that, at least in theory, notability is a property of the person or topic, not of the article. That means, the discussion should consider not only what is in the article, but what is in sources that could properly be added to the article at some future time. (Although it is true that what is already in the article is often weighted more highly.) It is common for editors to attempt to improve an article while a deletion discussion is underway, and that may sometimes change the result. I am sorry tht you have found haaving a Wikipedia article about you to be frustrating. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The article in question (Kent Tate) is weeks shy of being one year old, has had hundred of edits by scores of editors. It went through AfC to get approved. The creating editor, who declared a conflict-of-interest, has had frustrations trying to add more content to the article, which other editors have reverted as not appropriate, but that does not mean that she - or you as the subject - have a simple path to deletion just because it is 'too short.' As mentioned above, you can file an AfD (Articles for Deletion), but I will opine that there is no way that this article will be deleted. It was decided a long time ago that you were sufficiently notable to warrant an article, and that the references were sufficient. If, as an editor, you blank the article content, there is an automated program (a "bot") that will reverse that action and send you a warning against apparent vandalism. As your career progresses, editors may decide to add more content, but for now, it is what it is. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Yes it is what is thanks to all the edits that whittled this article down to nothing. I asked a a question and I got the answers I needed so I don't think it is appropriate to debate the rationale of my request here. Kent tate (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia falsely attributes an edit to me

To be clear, I've never edited an article on Wikipedia and neither do I plan to. I did however receive a notification on here saying an edit I made has been removed for not being constructive. Clicking on it, it shows an edit of the word "Birches" in an article being changed to "Bi*ches" which is clearly something deliberate. On this page it lists the edit having been made by my IP. The location is somewhat relevant as this was an English article about an event in Sweden and I live in Sweden. My question is, is it possible for Wikipedia to have attributed this to me by mistake or should I be concerned about my IP address being used by somebody else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedUser44 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone else may have used your IP. Now you have an account anything done on the IP will not matter. Should you wish to contribute further you will be very welcome.Charles (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Most IP addresses are not exclusive to a given person, or even a given machine, ConcernedUser44. The address that is assigned to a given machine will change, in some cases at long intervals, in some cases every few minutes. Besides, unless you are editing Wikipedia witho9ut logging in to an account, no one will notice or care about vandalism or other improper edits from an IP address, and no one will be able to associate that IP address with you as a person. And as Charlesdrakew wrote above, your contributions as an editor would be welcome. Three is always much to do. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Difficulty with using the live help chat

I'm having difficulty with using the live help chat, and all I get is a spinning circle. t --MikaelaArsenault

Hi! Is this the Wikipedia IRC Channel? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: - no, thats an off-wiki sort of live chat room (accessed from here) But the questioner has already asked the identical question at the help desk, which we try to discourage as it sumply duplicates volunteer effort, and causes irritation amongst helpers. @MikaelaArsenault: what help do you seek? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Request to guide me how can I approve my article

I have created the Phemex Wikipedia page at my sandbox please let me know why it's not approved and what can I do for the approval. I believe the page is important because its about a bitcoin futures and cryptocurrency derivatives trading platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aureliojohn (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Aureliojohn Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were given some excellent advice by the reviewer at the top of your draft. You have chosen to edit in a controversial area, cryptocurrency. As noted in the draft, you should review the general sanctions for cryptocurrency editing as well as the notability guidelines for organizations. If you represent this company, you must declare that conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello,331dot. Thanks for quick reply, I have checked this is an company article kindly look into it (OKEx), What they have and What they can providing the users, as same we have right now phemex is largest cryptocurrency exchange in 2018, kindly check my draft once more and let me know.(Aureliojohn (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

I'm sorry, Aureliojohn, but any other article is completely irrelevant for this discussion. First, just because another company is similar in some ways, that does not mean it is equally notable, because notability depends almost entirely on whether people unconnected with the ocmpany have chosen to write about it, and not on what the company is, says, or does. Secondly, the fact that there is currently an article on OKEx does not necessarily mean that OKEx is notable; in fact, that article has had a message at the top for a year, questioning its notability. This means that, a year ago, somebody looked at that article and its references, and concluded that the article does not establish that OKEx is notable, and that it probably is not notable; but that person didn't have the time or the inclination to research further. And apparently nobody else has researched it since, and either found some reliable independent references and added them, or nominated the article for deletion.

At the moment, therefore, OKEx is a liabililty for Wikipedia, because it appears to be an article, but has that message at the top casting doubt on whether the article should be there. We don't want more examples of unreliable articles, so drafts such as yours are checked for whether there are reliable sources; i.e. whether the subject is notable. See the essay Other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine. I really appreciated for your time and guideline. Thank you so much.(Aureliojohn (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

Uploading Copyright Release

I just uploaded a more recent portrait of me (Randy Jirtle) to replace the one that is presently being used in Wikipedia (Randy Jirtle). I have a PDF Copyright Release letter for this photo from Portrait Innovations who took the photograph, but I don't know how to upload this document into Wikipedia. Thanks for your help with this issue. Thank you, Randy Jirtle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjirtle (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rjirtle: See WP:DONATEIMAGE. It looks like the process is to send permission by email and then upload image to Commons. RudolfRed (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rjirtle: I notice that you have been editing the Randy Jirtle article a fair amount for some time. If you are indeed the subject of that article then you have a conflict of interest. It is recommended that you read WP:COI for the full details about how to handle conflicts of interest, but two important points are that you need to declare the conflict of interest and also are strongly advised against editing the article yourself. Instead it is best practice to request that edits be made and allow other editors to make them. This can include putting in the new portrait once you get it uploaded. Physdragon (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Change Wiki Article Name

Hi,

I'm looking for help on changing a wikipedia article name for "Gary Cohn (businessman)" to only "Gary Cohn."

I've tried to redirect the page and make changes to the disambiguation landing page, but I think it requires a more experienced editor.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by July123490 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think that this particular Gary Cohn is better than any other one with this name? Ruslik_Zero 04:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello July123490 and welcome to the Teahouse. As Ruslik0 suggests, in order to do such a move you would need to be able to show that someone looking for 'Gary Cohn' would be looking for the one you are referencing over any of the other possibilities. For example, Michael Jackson takes you to the article about the famous singer, but there are literally dozens of other articles about other persons named Michael Jackson. Community discussion and consensus has resulted in the view that most people would be most likely to be looking for the singer. You would need to establish such a view for Gary Cohn, by starting a discussion on the article talk page(probably the disambiguation page's talk page). 331dot (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

(Re: Gary Cohn (businessman)) @July123490: Note that, even though it could be argued that he might currently be somewhat more likely to be searched than the other subjects, Wikipedia needs to take a longer-term view. I.e., would he still be the primary topic in ten years? As 331dot said, if you like, discuss further at Talk:Gary Cohn (disambiguation). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggested update for Wikipedia article on Wulfric Spot

Friends,

I am not a contributor to Wikipedia (I tried once, but it was a mess and somebody had to come along and clean up my entry).

Please take note that there is important new information to add to the article on Wulfric Spot. What may be his seal matrix has finally been acquired by the British Museum. See the history blog article at http://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/57398 .

I hope one of your editors will add this information to Wulfric's article.

Yours Aye,

Garth Groff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.18.28 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Garth Goff. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The right place to highlight fine detail like this is really on the article's own talk page. Because you say you're not familiar with editing here, I have taken the initiative and posted the information there for you (at Talk:Wulfric Spot). Hopefully, an editor interested in that topic can pursue the story and find a verifiable source as this does look rather like a personal blog, which we tend not to rely upon. If you do ever wish to contribute again, don't be put off by past experiences. It's never a problem to make good a well-meaning but slightly clumsy edit. And we've always got hosts here who can guide and support you. If you have a spare hour over the Christmas perios, you might like to try The Wikipedia Adventure. It's quite a fun and interactive way to get familiar with how things work. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I found and added some more info there. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help me fix Richmond City Council (Richmond, California)?

I need to fix the citations I borrowed from the articles for the city councilmembers whose articles might be deleted or who I copy pasted the intros from. Also should the history be chronological or recent to past? Can anyone help collaborate with me here? Also does anyone have access through paywalls so I can get more sourcing from the San Jose Mercury News or East Bay Times at all? Just some questions here.Ndołkah (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ndołkah, and welcome to the Teahouse. I will take a look at Richmond City Council (Richmond, California). I have a newspapers.com subscription, I don't know if it includes those papeers or not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ndołkah, I just took a quick look.st thing I noticed, there seems to be a lot of red links in the citations. Fir future reference, please do not include a link in a citation unless there is an already existing article to link to, or you plan to create the article pretty much right away. Red links in the body of an article are fine to indicate that the topic ought to ahve an article, but in the citations we are stricter. I notice that the first few citations are built manually, without citation templates. Is this consistent through teh article? Was that your intention?

You write above of having copy pasted the intros from other articles. It seems that you did not indicate exactly which articles were drawn on. Wikipedia';s license requires attribution of all contributions, and so when one copie3s text from one article to another, there must be a link so the contributions can be traced. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details. Can you please list here or on Talk:Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) the articles from which you copied text? That would help greatly.

This is a larger job than I have time for at the moment, Ndołkah, but I will get back to it later today. I hope to see the list of articles drawn on at that time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ndołkah. I meant to answer your question yesterday, but got caught up in other things. Anyway, I was also going to point out, as DESiegel that you need to be carefully in copying and pasting content you find in other articles as explained in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia's licensing does allow it's content to be freely used, it does requires that proper attribution be given; so, even though your using adding found in an existing Wikipedia article to another existing Wikipedia article, you need to make sure that your properly attribute the original source the article. You don't need to attribute the individual editors who originally added the content to the "source" article, but you do need to attribute the article and more specifically the version of the article you're getting the content from. Not doing this is technically a copyright violation in a sense that your violating the terms of Wikipedia's licensing.

In addition, the the copyright/attribution issue, there is also a contextual issue in what you're trying to do. Many of these individuals seem to have stand-alone articles written about them, and is in those articles where detailed information about them should be added. Of course, mentioning them by name in the article about the city council and perhaps any noteworthy roles they might have served as council members makes sense, but I think it's a bad idea to try and do any more than that; in other words, trying to create mini-bios about these people in city council article is not really something you should do. If you're concerned that some of the stand-alone articles about these people may end up deleted, then you can for sure try to improve the stand-alone articles in a way that might strength the case for them not being deleted, but you should not try and recreate (even partly recreate) these articles in the city council article just as a precaution in case some of the individual articles are deleted. The city council article can be split up into different sections about its history, but you should not try split it up into section where you simply just, once again, create mini articles about particular individuals who served as council members during a particular period. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

All right, so i wrote several of the articles and only copy pasted the into for most of them for others i copy pasted from the current version of the articles about the counsellors as a starting point, going forward i want to chronologically describe what the council and it's counsellors have been up to during each decade there is widespread coverage of a feud between Corky Boozé and Jovanka Beckels involving incivility and homophobia. Nat Bates had been on the council off and on since the 1970s Rosemary Corbin was the first woman mayor, Gayle McLaughlin the first green party mayor. I want to edit all that in. I will continue this on the talk page of the article and if you want or need more specifics i will give them there just ask.Ndołkah (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added my contribution on behave of Phemex's page on my Sandbox

Sir, I need one question for you, If I create Wikipedia page and the page will relate to existing page, I can able to connect link existing to my page for the reference link?(Aureliojohn (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

Hello, Aureliojohn. It is not clear what you mean by "connect link existing to my page". Your sandbox User:Aureliojohn/sandbox contains wikilinks, so you presumably do not mean that. Do you mean a "see also" link? Please clarify what you want. --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine. This is an existing wikipedia page (Cryptocurrency exchange) here's one section of Largest cryptocurrency exchanges (2018), This section have many company names included with country. Can I edit this section and add my company page name, country and wikilink? kindly find the red mark section here I can add my company name.(Aureliojohn (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

Largest cryptocurrency exchanges (2018)

Hello, Aureliojohn: if and when your draft is accepted as an article in main space, you can certainly link to it from any other article where it fits. Where the question is of adding a link to an article about a company or product, it is important to consider whether you are doing so to improve Wikipedia, or to promote that company or product; but if there is a list of companies into which this fits, it certainly makes sense to add it to the list. But you must not do that while the article is still in draft: Wikilinks from article space should not have targets in Draft or user space. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I want to add something to my answer. If the article had a "list of cryptocurrency exchanges", without any specific criteria, then if Phemex is notable (as it must be for there to be an article about it), it can be added to that list. But since the list is of "Largest cryptocurrency exchanges", that is not enough. I would say that you can add it only if a reliable source (such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph) list or describe it as one of the largest. It is not enough that it reports it own figures as being large enough to feature: claims of being the "largest" anything (or any other extreme) need independent corroboration. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine. Good to see you, Thank you for share me the wonderful guideline. If you don't mind kindly check my sandbox draft and let me know it will be accepted or I need some more changes.(Aureliojohn (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC))

Probably WP:TOOSOON, since Phemex was launched just a couple weeks ago. There's no way any statistics are meaningful at this point, and they're unlikely to be found in an independent source. @Aureliojohn: please see WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aureliojohn: Please don't place your signature in parentheses – the ~~~~ should be the very last thing in your post. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Help Editing "Achievement Table, USA"

Hello, I am updating this page for an athlete. There is an existing table that uses Achievement Table, USA Template. I am having some difficulties editing this template to reflect the current changes. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C1:8180:4840:8EA:DB1C:65A6:5DFD (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the article in question, and what would you like to update? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess from your edits that this is about Template:AchievementTable at Monique Hennagan#Achievements. The template only makes a header row. The rest of the table uses normal table syntax. See Help:Basic table markup or Help:Table for that, and ask a more specific question if you need help. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Thanks for your response. Yes I am attempting to update the table on Monique Hennagan's page. Is there an easier or simpler method to edit the existing table? When I select the visual editor, then edit, the box that appears is called Transclusion with the formatted table entered in the content area. When I add a word it doesn't appear in the table it appears as a standard word above the table. I am not educated in HTML code. I need a simpler method; I recreated the table in word but I am not sure how to convert it to HTML to appear like the existing table.

Kalani Pe'a Music Album Pages

Aloha! Creating record/album pages for music artist Kalani Pe'a. I have two albums done so far. Can you folks assist to have it moved into main space. I'm a new editor, and I kind of understand once of draft is ready I then usually request a experienced editor to help start the review process. I'm also having trouble uploading the cd cover images as well. I did already submit a contact email for the wikicommons page and have a open ticket Ticket#2019122310007179 Draft:E Walea - Also see album 2 Draft:No 'Ane'i Allanbcool (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Allanbcool. Images of CD covers should not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons because in almost all cases, they are restricted by copyright, and only freely licensed or copyright free images are allowed on Commons. Instead, the covers should be uploaded here on English Wikipedia but not for use in a draft. Cover art is only allowed in the main space in an encylopedia article about the album or contemporary book in question. Contemporary movie posters are treated the same way. Non-free images are not allowed in drafts, sandbox pages or on talk pages. Please read the policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content/Images #1.

Your two drafts are about albums that both won Grammy awards. I believe that these albums are notable on that basis, and so I am going to move your drafts to the encyclopedia. Please continue improving the articles by adding more sourced critical commentary, such as reviews in reliable sources. And you can upload the cover art. Good work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Allanbcool: I did some cleanup on the two articles. I noticed that Allan B. Cool is listed as producer. If that is you, please read WP:COI and comply with WP:PAID. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

What kind of source of information can be used for references/citation. Please let me know. Looking forward for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohitMishra001 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You will find advice at WP:Reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Steps for uploading a crest

I want to know about the steps of properly uploading a crest of a football club, in particular the copyright details and steps. The Lord of Math (Message; contribs) 15:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@數神: please see Help:Images and Wikipedia:Image policy. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: pinging alt name. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Block An User

How To Block An User Who Posting His Personal Agendas on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by KumarVenati (talk • contribs)

@KumarVenati: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Only administrators can block users. They cannot block whomever they want, whenever they want. They must comply with the blocking policy. May I know which user you are talking about and I'll take a look? Interstellarity (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

KumarVenati, I looked at the recent edits of User:Yashodhan Ganu I did not see any obvious vandalism. I did see a number of edits to the party membership of various legislative bodies in India. It is possible that some of these are incorrect, or not supported by sources, but other editors do not seem to have reverted these changes. Please identify the specific changes which, in your view constitute vandalism or other improper behavior. If possible, please indicate the sources which indicate factual errors or intentional misstatements. In future please do not request blocks or accuse editors of improper actions without citing specific edits that you can honestly say are incorrect and problematic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a question please answer it.

I'm talking to Robert McClenon and he said if you think that your draft is notable for Wikipedia article you need to confirm on the Teahouse and there are some changes required from your draft you need to fixed it. kindly review and let me know please.(Aureliojohn (talk) 18:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC))

This is about Draft:Phemex which was declined recently. To Aureliojohn - Teahouse is a place for specific questions. You were directed here if you have questions about the reasons your draft was declined. There is no 'confirm'. David notMD (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read and understand the requirements for a notable corporation, Aureliojohn, as requested on your Talk page.--2601:648:8202:BC00:6495:4B5F:3EC9:BF49 (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

David notMD,2601:648:8202:BC00:6495:4B5F:3EC9:BF49. Thank you so much.(Aureliojohn (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC))

Wikipeda Editing Fraud

How does one track all content submission ip addresses and expose the people who submitted content related to Erick the Red, Leif Erickson, Nicholas II, Alexie Nicoloviche Tsarevich Romanov and the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian Monarchy?

It is my belief that people are trying to rewrite history to hide and mislead facts by recreating fake reports, fake news articles dated to a time unrelatable, posting falsified journals in PDF format online so that they are seen first in a search... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.229.224 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Why would you need to do that? LampGenie01 (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's vandalism, then just revert it. You can see all IP contributions in the history of each article, and if the same IPs keep turning up with unhelpful edits, then warn them on their talk pages. Dbfirs 22:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see Wikimedia:Privacy policy and WP:OUTING. Information on who posted a particular edit to a Wikipedia article is not publicly available, even in those few cases when it is known to Wikipedia, except for those editors (like myself) who choose to edit under their legal names. Attempting to expose and publish such personal information is not acceptable here.

If you think that incorrect information is in any article, post on that article's talk page, if possible providing reliable sources that show the correct facts. If you have evidence of a continuing attempt to post false information you can report it to WP:AIV, but do not attempt to do so without evidence in the form of diffs. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Can I please use the picture of the link below? (Au Gov)

Dear senior users of Wikipedia,

Can I please use the picture of the link below? (it is Australia Government public article about ICBM technology)?
If it is acceptable, I would like to capture and add it to ICBM article of the wikipedia.

http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/Pathfinder/PF305-Three-Stages-of-the-Inter-Continental-Ballistic-Missile-Flight.pdf > Figure 2 - Challenges faces by anti-missile defence systems during the different ICMB flight phases. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Goodtiming8871, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see any copyright notice anywhere in that document. Therefore, I'm afraid that Wikimedia assumes it is copyright and it may not be uploaded to Commons. The only other possibility is if it met all the criteria in WP:NFCC; but I think that is unlikely (it would be up to you to demonstrate that it did). Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear, ColinFine (talk) Thank you for your kind response.

Regarding the information and link below, If I want to use it, should I ask specific licence notice from the author of the article?

Link

1) http://eprints.qut.edu.au/38364/20/CC_and_Govt_Guide_v3.2_110316_Final.pdf

2) https://creativecommons.org.au/learn/government/

(Page 33 out of total page 116) 5.8 Current licensing practices

Currently, the prevailing practice is for short copyright notices to be displayed – if at all – on

government websites.87 Government bodies sometimes endorse these short statements as

being succinct and easy for users to read. In reality, however, these statements often lack

sufficient detail or clarity for users to understand what they are permitted to do with the

material.

A survey of 130 New South Wales government websites conducted in mid-2006 found there

to be a diversity of licensing approaches and no uniform whole-of-government policy on

copyright notices.88 Eleven per cent of websites had no copyright notice at all, 8% had a basic

one and a further 8% displayed “All rights reserved” statements or stated that there was to be

“no reproduction without express permission”, requiring users to obtain written permission to

reproduce the content on the website for any purpose.89 A total of 52% of websites conveyed

“either no or few explicit permissions” other than those provided for in the Copyright Act.

90

These disparate and unclear practices do not properly facilitate Open Access to PSI.

• • • European "Public Sector Information" (EPSI) Platform Topic Report No. 13 - State of

Play: PSI Reuse in Australia

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Goodtiming8871, you would need to ask the copyright holders (who may or may not be authors of the article) to license it consistently with Wikimedia Commons' requirements. It would not be enough for them to give permission for it to be used in Wikipedia: they would have to license it under something like CC-BY-SA, which allows anybody to reuse it for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute it correctly. Furthermore, they would have to do so either publically (eg on an official website) or explicitly to Wikimedia (see donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871 and ColinFine: There's also Trove which has a "Check copyright status" button (unfortunately inconclusive in this case). Interesting resource. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick sanity check, "US gov" tends to be PD (public domain) tagged with {{PD-US-Gov}}, but AU is a very different story, cf. c:project:Copyright rules by territory/Australia#Government-produced works. You can of course reference (cite) public sources, but you cannot copy them wholesale to commons without a free licence. IANAL: –84.46.52.84 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and ColinFine:Thank you for your professional response. the site: Trove: it is interesting location for licence status. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Users in Categories

Hello, in Category:Wikipedia template management you'll see under pages, A, E, L, T and W 5 different userpages. This isn't the first time I've come across this. Untill now I've left messages on their talkpages alerting those users, but now I'm seeing a bot. Am I right in assuming userpages shouldn't be in categories or should I just leave them alone? --Dutchy45 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dutchy45, and welcome to the Teahouse. That category is for pages concerned with managing templates, but some such pages are in user space. For example, User:Ashishmaurya15697 starts: This page provides an index of templates used within Wikipedia, many of which convey messages; they are grouped into topic-specific headings. Such a page properly belongs in that category. You will need to check individually to see if a page seems to be improperly categorized. If it does, drop the user invo9lded note on his or her user talk page. If it is a bot, drop the bot-owner a note. Beyond that I would leave them alone, no major harm seems to be done by this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

And of course, there are categories intended specifically for users. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User (sub-)pages showing up in categories not designed for user (sub-)pages, e.g., files only, cats only, templates only, etc., are about the only case where I'd edit any "not me" user (sub-)page, typically adding a colon between [[ and category:…]] to disable the effect. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

​Most of these instances are sandboxes that someone forgot to remove from the categories. You can disable these categories by converting "[[Category" to "[[:Category" and writing in your edit summary "WP:DRAFTNOCAT", you don't need to inform the user in those cases. The page User:Ashishmaurya15697 was for example just a copy of WP:TM and so didn't belong in that category. User:Evad37/TFDcloser is a script for managing template discussions, and so it belongs in the category. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do this! Dutchy45 (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Thjarkur, in Category:Wikipedia directories under N there is a user. When I go in there there's no category to "[[:Category". What do you suggest I do in this case? Dutchy45 (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed.--Moxy 🍁 07:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

How do I see my published articles?

I have created page TM Malhotra, i wrote about him, but I am not able to see my page. how can i see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TM Malhotra (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@TM Malhotra: Please see your talk page. The page you created as your user page was considered clear advertising or promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please see those links and those on your talk page for more information. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello TM Malhotra. Looking at your contribution history, the only edit you have ever made using this signon is the one asking this question. Are you sure you Saved the changes, and didn't Cancel? Separately, you say you wrote about TM Malhotra - but that is your own user name. Did you intend to write about yourself? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TM Malhotra. I am an administrator and can review deleted content. You created an autobiographical page which was deleted. Among other things, you wrote "Mr. Tarun is passionate about everything and a self-driven man with enthusiasm and positivity . He is a gadget lover. When in 2007 mobile phones have boosted up the Indian market, he jumped his feet into this new gadget." I am sorry, but self promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia, and that type of content is inappropriate for an encylopedia. There are plenty of social media websites where you are welcome to promote yourself. Wikipedia is not one of those websites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitions

'Defining a term in the words of the copyright holder and acknowledging the same', does it violate the copyright policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dattatray Sankpal (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dattatray Sankpal, and welcome to the TYeahouse.That depends on the exact circumstances. If the definition is quoted from an outside source, then more is needed than acknowledging the same. One must attribute the quote in article prose, must mark it by quote mark or with <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags (or with one of the templates, such as {{quote}} that provide proper block quotes, personally I prefer the raw tag), and one must cite a reliable source inline just after the quote, that specifically says that this quote is by this person (or entity, or that is it self by the person quoted, and contains the quote.

For example an article might include the following:

Jones, in Considerations of FooBar, wrote: "FooBar may be defined as ..."

References

See how all the elements must work together?

Beyond that, the length of the quote must not be excessive, which is a judgement call. See WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:QUOTE for more details on when quotations are appropriate. A definition is no different, except that if it is a widely used definition and the exact wording is significant, that helps make the case for fair use of the quotation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia's copyright policy is generally more restrictive than is US Copyright law (17 USC). Some things which would be held to be fair use, or otherwise not a copyright infringement, under US law are still not allowed under the policy. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

A missing article there is nothing on Brian Maccaba

The longest slander action in English legal history came to a close yesterday as the multi-millionaire Brian Maccaba lost his High Court action against a leading rabbi. In a case that had infamously been dubbed the "Indecent Proposal" action, the father of six had denied offering $1m for a friend's wife — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.191.199.221 (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you proposing there should be an article about Brian Maccaba, with the scandal and litigation being a part? Or an article about the legal case as being notable by itself? David notMD (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why this website likes messing with me

I can't find my own questions anymore! I don't get this! (user:Vincentmacefe) December 26, 2019

Hi. After your questions have been answered (and after a few days) they are archived. Here's the link to the archives of your previous questions.

• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1033#Comedy
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1036#I edited_the plot for Child's Play (2019), but it went back to normal. Why?
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1037#Playing With Fire plot needs corrected

I got these links from your talk page. When your question here at the Teahouse is archived, a bot posts a link on your talk page which links to that archive. Hope this helps. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 20:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

One way to find your questions is to look at your own userpage (User:Vincentmacefe) or talk page (User talk:Vincentmacefe) and click on "What links here" in the left column. (Wow, it works even if the page does not exist.) The resulting list may not be in any useful order; but in your case it's short. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vincentmacefe: Please try to assume good faith – nobody is "messing with you". Archiving of sections after a few days of inactivity is necessary to keep the page to a reasonable size (currently 38 sections), and allow it to load within a reasonable amount of time. There is a search box near the top of this page, under the table of contents, from which you can search all the archives. If you put your username in there, you'll get a list of all the archive pages containing it, sometimes even with links to the first section in which it is found. Note you can search for other things there, too, if you have a question about a topic that may have been answered before. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Problems when referencing

So, today i tried to add references to MicroLED and Samsung Galaxy Fold, but i noticed that when i added a reference, the wiki software would treat the reference as plain text and not as a link, like it should. I discovered this problem when i was using reFill and i noticed that reFill was not recognizing the refs that i added. Thanks in advance. It turns out that it was because my refs didn't have "https://" in them. Pancho507 (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Youtubers

Hi.

I just wanted to know, what is the creteria a youtuber has to meet for an article to be about them. How many subscribers they have, how many views they get, etc

thanks. Bill cage (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bill cage, and welcome to the Teahouse. Neither number of subscribers not number of views is relevant to whether there should be an article. Articles will only be created about notable topics. Note that Wikipedia uses the word "Notable" in a special sense. Please follow the link.

The primary standard is the general notability criterion. This requires multiple (usually at least three) independent published reliable sources that discuss the topic (in this case the person) in some detail. "Independent" means not including statements by the person, nor from the person's employer, family, or business associates, nor interviews. "Reliable" means, among other things, no blogs, no fan sites, no fora, no user-generated content such as IMDB, no personal web sites or fan sites. Newspapers, magazines, scholarly articles, and their online equivalents are usually good, but the actual determination is case-by-case. Coverage should usually be continued across a period of time, also. Please follow all these links.

Another option is our guideline on the notability of creative people, which has several sub-criteria. Please read it. Note that again reliable independent sources will be needed.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Note also, Bill cage that creating an article about a living person from a blank start is one of the harder tasks hre on Wikipedia. It is easy to get it wrong. Below are soem steps that, if followed, often lead to success in creating a valid article:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of people. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• 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. Submit the draaft when you thimnk it is ready for reviewq. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• 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} 17:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

So Bill cage, keeping in mind all of the guidelines that DESiegel brought up above, I can tell you from the perspective of an Articles for Creation reviewer that I very rarely, if ever, accept drafts about Youtubers precisely because of notability concerns. Usually these articles are written by superfans, so they are full of language that paints the person in a positive light or worse they are written by the Youtuber themself (or their PR team), and thus are overly promotional (BTW, don't forget to like and subscribe). Unless the person has wide-ranging news coverage (PewDiePie, GameGrumps, Vlogbrothers) (basically if they are famous enough that somebody's grandma might know who they are) then they probably wouldn't pass. I've been proven wrong before though. Which youtuber were you thinking of? Bkissin (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

no one in particular. i just needed felt i needed to know as i'm a youtuber myself. Bill cage (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Restoring my listing?

Naive as I was, 5 years ago, I made the mistake of adding a new credential to my own Wikipedia listing. I was appointed the first Volusia County (Florida) Poet Laureate and thought, as with other biographical listings, I could simple insert that fact as an update. My edit triggered a review of my credentials and I was deleted from Wikipedia. I am as susceptible to pangs of ego as any other author/individual. Thus, I confess to feeling bruised. Yet, I also feel that the accomplishments offered, accepted and listed at Wikipedia were worthy of inclusion. Once the review/deletion process began, it seemed nothing could save the entry. The fact that much of my life was lived prior to the internet impeded documentation of many of my credentials. The fact that it was I, myself, asking for consideration simply further discredited me. Can anything be done to reconsider my career? Might someone advise and/or offer assistance ?I am easily found online. I would ask that you reply via this Wiki portal or contact me directly. Gratefully, David B. Axelrod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelrodthepoet (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Axelrodthepoet: Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a place for "listings" or promotion. Read WP:AUTO as to why trying to write about yourself is not a good idea. RudolfRed (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Axelrodthepoet and welcome to Wikipedia. The arrticle (not listing as RudolfRed points out David B. Axelrod was deleted after the discussion preserved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David B. Axelrod. Please read it. YTou will see that it was deleted not because the poet-laureate post was added, but because taken as a whole, even with that post, the editors expressing an opinion back in August 2015 did nopt think that you were notable in the particular sense in which Wikipedia muses that term. Please look over WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR and consider if a proper article can honestly be written about you. If you like, I will undelete the article as a draft. But there will need to be additional sources clearly establishing notability before it is moved back to the main article space. If there are not, it will surely be deleted again. Also, do remember that if an article is once created and notability is established, it is permanent. Even if things are later added to the article that you do not like or want in such an articel, you will not be able to delete them or the article if they are well sourced. So what say you? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Axelrodthepoet, You might want to read #how do I request a deletion of a wikipedia page about me? above on this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My intention is not to debate but to ask for assistance. Yes, "encyclopedia." Yes, not self-promotion. Exactly that. And I am respectful of the editorial expertise of you police, produce and publish suitable ientries in the encyclopedia. Thus, yes, I would appreciate the restoration of the entry, archived but presently not publically accesible, on David B. Axelrod. I am not the person to improve, defend, prmote my own entry. I would, however, appreciate a further objective evaluation so that the facts may speak for their "notability." The old discusion consisted of increasingly negative coclusions that an adept researcher might cure. Thanks for your responses. I'm sorry I'm not adept enough to repky in a proper place or manor. I entrust you to remedy matters once the old entry is restored for edits and verification. David B. Axelrod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelrodthepoet (talk • contribs) 01:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)‎

Hi Axelrodthepoet. First some general stuff about posting comment on Wikipedia talk pages. The best way to do so is to add a new separate post below the one you're responding to or below the last post added to the thread. Trying to insert you posts/replies into comments made by others almost always creates problems with formatting and other issues. You can found a little more about how to use talk pages at Help:Talk pages. The next thing to try an remember is to always WP:SIGN your posts. There's a few ways to do this, but the easiest is typically as explained in WP:TILDE. Signing posts not only makes it easier for others to see who posted what and when, it also helps separate comments made by different editors.

As for the comments about the article David B. Axelrod, articles are usually only deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion when the community consensus is that the subject matter doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability, which appears to have been the case with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David B. Axelrod. If you disagree with the close of that discussion, you can ask that it be reviewed per Wikipedia:Deletion review. That discussion took place in 2015, and it's possible that things have changed since then so that you actually now satisfy the two notability that DES mentioned above. Many created about subjects (e.g. actors, writers) early on in their careers are deleted because it's simply WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article to be written about them, but over time things change and as they move on in their careers they accomplish things or receive significant coverage that pushes them over the Wikipedia notability threshold. If you feel that is an accurate reflection the situation, then perhaps that would be something to bring up in a deletion review and may actually lead to a "new" article being written about you. At the same time, if your primary argument is going to be that the discussion which led to the previous article's deletion was "increasingly negative" and that the "old entry" should be restored for editing and verification, then you might have some trouble convincing others. Articles are not really intended to be written by "adept researchers" any more than they are intended to be read by readers "knowledgeable/well-versed" in the subject matter. Anyone can, in principle, write a Wikipedia article and whatever personal writing/research skills they may possess are skills that may help them do that better than some, but all of the great writing/researching ability an editor has is not really go to help them if the subject they want to write about is not Wikipedia notable. In this case, the consensus of the discussion was that the subject matter failed to satisfy any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. not that the article was badly researched or written; if things have changed since 2015, then perhaps a new consensus can be established to reflect this new state of things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Axelrodthepoet: Note that it helps if sources are online, but it's not a requirement. This is particularly an issue for people whose careers are largely pre-1990, though we do have online access to a lot of older newspapers and some journals, more as time goes by. If a Draft: article is either restored or re-created, it will be helpful if you can provide pointers to sources that may demonstrate notability, whether they are online or not. Try to focus on quality and independence – a few high-quality sources, instead of a pile of passing mentions, are more likely to get someone to do the necessary legwork of verifying offline/hard-to-find sources. Some folks at WP:RX may have access to offline archives as well. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Axelrodthepoet, I have restored the text as Draft:David B. Axelrod You will need to find significantly better sources than are now present. You will need to do your best to stick to the neutral point of view There are formatting issues also, but they are minor, sources are the thing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@DES: I'm not sure that was the best thing to do and I've gone into more detail as why I feel that way on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I put some guidance comments on Axelrod's Talk page, including an example of an article about a poet. David notMD (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I undo vandalism faster?

Hello. I have been looking through recent changes in the past few days to find instances of vandalism to undo, but it seems like other editors are usually beating me to it. Then I look at their contributions and see that somehow they can undo many vandal edits within just one minute! Is there something I’m doing wrong or inefficiently? I would like to help keep the encyclopedia free of vandalism but it seems I am unfortunately slower than most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunnfum (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cunnfum. Those other user are may be using something called WP:TWINKLE or some other type of automated script that allows them to make lots of edits in a short amount of time. Anyway, all that matters is that someone is taking care of the vandalism not really who is taking care of it. Although fighting vandalism is an important thing, it's not like a video game where be the fastest or doing more than others might get you some type of bonus; moreover, there are lots of ways to help improve Wikipedia besides fighting vandalism. So, I wouldn't worry too much if others are doing it faster than you; you can always find another way to help improve articles; furthermore, sometimes it's actually better to do something slowly because it often reduces the chance of making a mistake. —- Marchjuly (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Cunnfum, I prefer to delay by several hours or even a few days, finding only those more subtle problems that users of quicker automated or semi-automated methods fail to notice. Actually, letting others handle the easy ones is pretty much a necessity for me, with five and a half thousand items on my watchlist. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cunnfum: I also agree with the above. I often monitor for vandalism quite late at night. But once I see other editors (like the fantastic Shellwood and others) making immediate reverts, I either go to bed, or start looking lower down the Recent Changes list for the stuff these folks have missed. Boy, do they miss them! I use this setting to reveal the most likely bad faith edits. I've turned off the default Page Preview function, and have enabled 'Navigation Popups' in 'Preferences'. For vandal-fighters, this is brilliant! Simply by mousing-over, you see a preview of the recent edit. So it's easy to assess the changes. If they're bad, I use Twinkle to warn or to report repeat offenders. I focus on the most likely bad faith edits, watching especially for either no edit summary, or for summaries like 'fixed typo' - especially if there is a large change in byte content. I ignore popular topics I know little about (someone else will undoubtedly fix these); I focus on my own areas of interest in sciences, geography, or topics I'm personally aware of. I also check every school or college edit, as these are often vandalised. Nobody can do everything; do what you can, and do it well! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cunnfum: Hi - just a sanity check. Are you using the undo to revert? I looked at some of your reverts and there is no edit summery and so I wondered if you are actually typing or copying the fixes by hand? In case you have not found it yet (and forgive me if I am telling you things you already know), to undo vandalism, compare the two versions in the page history and click the undo button. The reverts will be filled in automatically and you will be given an edit summary that you can leave alone. Just click undo, glance over it to make sure it looks like what you intended, click the "minor edit" check box and publish. See: [[2]] -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)