Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1046

Archive 1040

←

Archive 1044

Archive 1045

Archive 1046

Archive 1047

Archive 1048

→

Archive 1050

What types of sources am I missing?

I've tried to get an article published about the company that I work for called Mapline. It is a data analytics software for businesses, and it hasn't been featured in many places that would seem to qualify as sources for Wikipedia. So I'm not sure if I just need one or two sources for the "features" aspects of the company, or if I'm needing like ten more sources.

I don't get why it is so difficult to create a page for a legitimate business. I understand that there need to be guidelines, but I'm just hoping for some clarification as to how far away I am. Because as things stand now, it seems like Mapline needs to be featured in a number of blogs or news articles in order to have a Wikipedia page. Cjarrell11 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Featuring in blogs won't help at all, they're not reliable sources. If you can find reliable (i.e. not blogs and the like) independent (not based on press releases or on statements by or interviews with employees) two is unlikely to be enough, but ten is more than enough. There's no hard rule, but four should be enough, as long as they're all reliable, independent and have significant discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

So would pages within the company website that show things like software features and plan descriptions count as some of those sources? I've seen on a few other company pages references to their own site, and I'm wondering if that works. Or are they just using that as a way to add references that aren't needed to be published.Cjarrell11 (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've now looked at Draft:Mapline, and see that it cites three sources. The first is clearly not independent, the second has no discussion of Mapline, and the third is based on a press release. If you want to get the draft accepted as an article, please do not add any more references like those (and preferably, remove those three). When a reviewer is deciding whether to accept an article, they judge on quality not quantity; including worthless sources like those just wastes everyone's time. What counts is what people independent of the company have said about it, not what it's said about itself.

You are allowed to cite the company's own web site, but such a citation helps not at all with what appears to be your problem: citing sources that establish that the company is notable.   Maproom (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Maproom (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Cjarrell11, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not the number of sources that matters (beyond 2 or 3): it is their quality. Basically, Wikipedia is not interested - at all - in anything said by the subject of the article about themselves, whether in their own publications, or in interviews and press releases. It is also not interested in anything said about them by random people on the internet, or in passing mentions in publications. All it is interested in is places where people who have no connection with the subject, and unprompted by the subject, have chosen to write at some length about the subject, and been published in a place with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. That is the kind of source you need. Many companies (and other subjects) exist for which sources of that quality cannot be found: it is impossible to write an acceptable article on those companies, and so Wikipedia tries to avoid people wasting their time and that of others in trying to get such an article written, by applying the test of whether the subject is notable in Wikipedia's special sense of the word. If you cannot find even a couple of sources like that, then Mapline is, by definition, not notable, and No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

The reason it is so difficult to "create a page for a legitimate business" is that we are an encyclopaedia, not a business directory. "Create a page for" is not what we do: rather "Create an article about". You are probably going to have to go elsewhere to promote your company. --ColinFine (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

To add a slight distinction, while a company's own webpages can't be used to argue WP:NOTABILITY, you can use them a little for stuff like who is founder/CEO, where is HQ etc. Not for stuff like the excellence of their services. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Should an article be deleted if

Hi I am wondering if an article should be deleted if the references used, do not cite a source themselves, because there are no primary references to cite? In other words the references used are simply repeating a fictional account of the subject. Also, in the article are genealogical results that do not meet standard genealogical standards (skipping generations) which is unethical, and contains a lineage that has been proven incorrect by modern scholars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_Proof_Standard Macrorybeg (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean by "do not cite a source themselves, because there are no primary references to cite". Ruslik_Zero 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Macrorybeg:. It sounds like you're questioning whether this particular source is reliable, which is a great thing to be questioning. One of the main parts of our definition of "reliable source" is that it has a reputation for fact-checking, and you've given some valid reasons why this source might not have that kind of reputation. If content in a Wikipedia article references a source that isn't reliable, you can follow the steps here to remove the footnote and challenge the content. If at the end of this process the article has less than two reliable sources, and if you're reasonably certain that no other reliable sources exist on the topic, you can nominate the article for deletion. Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Clayquot:. Thank you, I followed the link and after reading the options, I believe that offering "another point of view" that is well referenced would be more constructive. Cordially Macrorybeg

How to do this?

What is the procedure to revert an edit? Please tell the easiest method. Alpha rows (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alpha rows. Nobody likes being reverted, so it's really important to explain why in an 'edit summary' when you do make a reversion. Whether it is reverting your own edit or someone else's, (and assuming you are not working in Mobile view) simply go to the 'View History' tab for that page. You'll see a separate row for every separate published edit, showing the name of the editor the date and time, with an 'undo' link at the end. Click that, then put in a short explanatory summary why you've reverted, and click 'Publish changes'. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Alpha rows, it's called "undo", see Help:Reverting. However, it doesn't always work, in which case see the rest of the page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: After another hour 'helping' them on my talk page it turns out this 'new user' is a sockpuppet, and has now been blocked. Sometimes WP:AGF can be stretched too far. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Alpha rows" is merely a sock, and has already been blocked by Bbb23. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Counterexample, I considered to link this teahouse history high-light on xyz. –84.46.53.93 (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

…Congrats from up to 510 IPv4s:–84.46.53.160 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I start from "AGF"; thereafter, assumption is much less important than observation or counterobservation. ¶ Anyone asked out of the blue to help with a bio article (and particularly with the article on Shamsheer Vayalil) should first skimread Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil and see whether the person asking has a similar way of asking to that used by the numerous IPs and sockpuppets of Royankitkumar. He (or possibly she) can be quite ingratiating; but in attempting to help, you'd be wasting your time. -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Do I close or delete a discussion on the Talk page?

A couple of years ago I put a comment on the Talk:Ship page. The issue was resolved long ago to my satisfaction and I imagine everyone else's satisfaction as well. Since the discussion on the talk page is now irrelevant to the Ship page, do I have some responsibility to delete or close the discussion? I read Wikipedia:Closing discussions and it is not clear to me if that should be done. Yanacochito (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to do anything, Yanacochito. You should never delete another editor's comments on a discussion, nor should you delete your own comments if they have been replied to. See WP:TPG. As far as archiving, for most article talk pages, it isn't needed. As a matter of fact, most article talk pages consist of the Wikiprojects banner and nothing else. The general practice is when a talk page's length gets unwieldy, someone will set up archiving. John from Idegon (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2017 is still fresh for a talk page, and I dislike archiving unchecked WayBack bot info. For a working 2005 example see Talk:List of Penthouse Pets, for a working AFC-draft 2019 example see Talk:Kim Iversen, and for a FAIL ("manual archiving" as IP) see Talk:Jimmy Dore. –84.46.53.160 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protection & edit filter statistics

Could someone please tell me how to find out the following: 1) How many (or what percentage) of articles in the English Wikipedia are under some kind of protection at the current time, e.g. how many are semi-protected, how many are under extended confirmed protection, etc.? 2) How often the spam blacklists are triggered 3) How often the edit filters stop someone from publishing an edit

Many thanks in advance, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Upvote, good questions, I often recommend "pending review" as better than "semi", if there are enough watchers (of course IPs don't get the exact watcher data, it could be abused for spamming), but I have no supporting data apart from "worked for me on Sasha Grey" (the page was even unprotected later), "won't recommend it on Emma Chamberlain" (lots of IPs armed with social media gossip insisting on their idea of TRUE TRUTH), and a MEH on Talk:List of YouTubers, where getting an answer for a {{edit semiprotected}} once ended up in "fix archived unanswered request as implicitly answered" before I unarchived it.
The fock+purn edit filter for references is rather silly (example), and a YouTube filter not allowing IPs to fix an erroneous channel= to a correct user= could be "more good than harm". Filter editors presumably watch the effect of their filters in the logs + false positive reports. WP:RS deprecated + WT:WHITELIST are also interesting, there are some "chilling effects" (example). –84.46.53.160 (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Linking to a specific list entry

I am trying to link to a specific entry on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monastic_houses_in_County_Armagh

Is there any way to link to the specific entry, or do I have to link the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaflemon (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leaflemon. You'll find more information about linking (more specifically "Wikilinking") at WP:WIKILINK, but it is possible to link directly to a section of an article. So, for example, instead of linking to List of monastic houses in County Armagh, you could link to any subsection of the article like List of monastic houses in County Armagh#Alphabetical listing of establishments. Linking to an individual entry in a particular table, however, is a bit more complicated if the entry itself doesn't have a WP:ARTICLE written about it. You are going to have to bascially create something in the table for the the specific entry (see WP:ANCHOR and WP:LINKPART) for the software to link to, i.e. you need to create a hook that it can latch on to for linking purposes. Whether this will work for you, I'm not sure but I think in theory it should. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that another user could edit the table at any point to remove the anchor, so it shouldn't be considered permanent. --Danielklein (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Lack of evidence of notability of Sri Lankan films

I have previously raised the issue of Sri Lankan film notability with Gihan Jayaweera, but he has not replied to any of the messages I posted on his talk page. He has, however, replied to me here. I am still concerned that most of the film articles Gihan has created are not notable enough, or have not been proven to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. As an example, James Bond (2005 film) (a Sri Lankan comedy) has two references, one which probably mentioned the film at the time it was linked but doesn't now, and the other which is merely a list of Sri Lankan films, so proves its existence, not its notability. The article was flagged for exactly this issue as its second edit two weeks after it was created in 2017, and has not been addressed since. The vast majority of Sri Lankan film articles have exactly the same problem. It would be better to have hundreds of notable articles on Sri Lankan topics than thousands of unnotable ones. --Danielklein (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Check out WP:PROD, it's a "no questions asked" low level proposed deletion procedure:

1. add {{PROD|reason}} at the top of the page and preview the effect, it will holler and ask for a subst:PROD substitution. Your edit summary has to mention "deletion" for clarity. The reason can be "multiple issues incl. NN since 2017" or similar, short, no essay.
2. save + read the output, there's a suggestion (= template) how to inform the main contributor(s) on their user talk pages, copy it to your clipboard.
3. check the edit history, determine the main contributor(s), and paste the suggested PROD info on their user talk pages from your clipboard.

Before you do this check the edit history + talk page for obvious indications of an older PROD or AFD, after an old PROD or AFD a new PROD is invalid, and the magic to block this does not always work. After you did this everybody is free to contest the PROD (= remove it) with or without reason. Or endorse it (= add an Old PROD info + endorsement on the talk page). Or ignore it until the PROD reaches its timeout, and an admin either deletes the page or finds a bug in the PROD (old AFD etc.) –84.46.53.160 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Npov

I'm a relatively new Wikipedia editor, and have decided to help Wikipedia by trying to deal with vandalism, whilst doing this i stumble across these two edits: 1 2 I feel that these two edits might have an Npov issue and would like some help with managing it All hail Armok (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for catching that blatant COI series of edits, All hail Armok. I reverted them and warned the editor in question.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that, once you have enough edits and enough time on Wikipedia, which you do, All hail Armok, you can be bold and do what I did.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

need suggestion to create reference

i want to create reference on Systrip for the sentence "It had been used to analyze various real biological data." i would like to refer from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361690/#!po=0.268817. after reading Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference and Help:Referencing for beginners, i am undecided. there are many authors in reference hyperlink and there seems to no exact date. what is the simplest way to create or provide articles with excellent reference examples. Leela52452 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: If you click on the "Additional article information" link, it goes to the citation details of the article. Using the editor citation toolbar, choose "Cite journal" in the dropdown, enter the PMID (22629572) in the PMID field, and click on the search button beside the field. It then populates many of the fields, which you should verify are correct. It sets the Pages field to the complete range of pages of the article, which is 270-80 (incorrectly using a hyphen instead of an endash). Find the page in the article that verifies the statement, put it in the Page field, and remove the 270-80 from the Pages field. Add the PMC id (3361690, without the "PMC" in front) to the PMC field and the URL ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361690 ) to the URL field. If the page is 270, this is the result:

<ref name="PMC-3361690">{{cite journal |last1=Copeland |first1=WB |last2=Bartley |first2=BA |last3=Chandran |first3=D |last4=Galdzicki |first4=M |last5=Kim |first5=KH |last6=Sleight |first6=SC |last7=Maranas |first7=CD |last8=Sauro |first8=HM |title=Computational tools for metabolic engineering |journal=Metabolic engineering |date=May 2012 |volume=14 |issue=3 |page=270 |doi=10.1016/j.ymben.2012.03.001 |pmid=22629572 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3361690/ |accessdate=24 January 2020 |pmc=3361690}}</ref>

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

+1, found no missing |authorlinkn=… ignoring Bryan Bartley as unrelated (and cursing silly middle initials by the WASP.) You can use |quote=It had been used to analyze various real biological data in {{cite journal}} if desired. This source suggests how they like to be cited, and the Medicine WikiProject would be upset if you cite unreliable sources. –84.46.53.160 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to see the pages that send the most traffic to another article?

I've been using https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews which shows how many times an article has been accessed, but I'd also like to know which pages are directing the most traffic to these articles. Is there a tool that shows this? --Danielklein (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Danielklein. The short answer is no. I understand where you're coming from, and it would be fabulous to have a Google Analytics-style way of understanding traffic flow and visitor depth, TOS etc. But I'm not aware of any such functionality on the (just over) 6,000,000 articles we have here. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Nick Moyes. Is it possible somehow to order "What links here" by number of article views? That would be a proxy for the information I'm looking for. --Danielklein (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Danielklein, it would be feasible, but I don't know of any special page on Wikipedia which would achieve this. There may or may not be a tool for it yet, but it could certainly be created if there is not. Are you looking to do one article at a time? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 03:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, yes, I'm just interested in a particular article at the moment which has thousands of articles linking to it (many-to-one). If there is an API (or two) that can get the referring articles, then query them for views, that would do the trick! --Danielklein (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The next step, then, would be to put a proposal/request together. I would guess that Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests would be the best place to do that. I used to love playing around behind the scenes with Google Analytics for the webpages I had built, and your proxy suggestion would be of some interest to me, too. Perhaps you woukd be so kind as to report back if you have any success? Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 I-League

2019–20 I-League#Scoring there is a problem in this section. i dont know how to describe it. check it by visual editing, and then click on this section. every section after this is getting selected.  :) S A H A  18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi

)SAHA. It's going to be kinda hard for someone here at the Teahouse to help you if you're not really able to describe the problem you're having. Are you only having problems when you try to edit the page using the "Visual editor" (VE) or are you having the same problems when you use the "Source editor" (SE)? I don't use the VE so I don't really know anything about how it works, but I'm able to open the editing window for the "Scoring" section using the SE without any problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: it is working well with SE. but, when you are using VE, and clicking the scoring section, all the sections below it are getting selected (they are getting blue coloured, just like anything gets blue when u select it). if u press delete, everything is getting deleted.  :) S A H A  08:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried to use the VE on another article or using another device? For example, try checking VE on similarly formatted 2018–19 I-League and then checking it on some differently formatted random article. If you have the same problem on the 2018-19 article but not on the random article, then there might be something perculiar to the way the those two I-League articles are formatted that's causing the problem. One other possibility is that the 2019-20 article is protected, and perhaps that's not working well with the VE. Finally, one other thing might be to try to check is the same problem happens when you use a different device. If you still can sort things out after all that, this might be a good thing to bring up at WP:VPT since there may be some techinical issue that's causing the problem. Sometimes in the past when I've a tech problem, it turned out to be already something others were aware of (i.e. a "known" bug) that just hasn't been fixed yet or can't be fixed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: thanks, i have corrected it.  :) S A H A  12:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how to sign a post

Hello,

I am new and I understood that I need to sign my contributions in talk pages. However, I have some difficulties to do so. I tried to use the sign button but this is the result:--Panais24 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Could you tell me what am I doing wrong? Thank you, --Panais24 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it looked like it worked on this page. It might be due to the fact that I was previously trying to use it in: code|nowiki--Panais24 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)--12:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Panais24 (talk)/nowiki with {{}} around it and <> around the nowiki

--Panais24 (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Panais24. I think our posts just crossed. I left you a note just now, both on the Chamonix talk page and on your own, too. It looks like you've cracked it. Just type the squiggly keyboard 'tilde' character button four times. It adds your username, date and time, and is terribly useful for knowing who said what. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're wondering why your username is red, it's because you've not yet created a userpage. Ity'll go blue once you do. You can use it to say a little about yourself and your interests in editing Wikipedia. It can be just a few words, or a more detailed explanation of your editing aspirations and relevant experience. It's up to you. See WP:USERPAGE for more details, if you wish. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)  

How to change user name

How do I change username? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasbeat (talk • contribs) 10:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Kasbeat Hello. You may visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to make a request. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kasbeat: I'm not really sure why 331dot made that suggestion to you. Apart from your deleted userpage and this one single edit above, you've not made any other edits to Wikipedia at all with this account. It would be far, far simpler for you just to create a completely new account, and simply throw away or forget the password for this current one. Providing you only ever edit from the new account from now on, you'd be fine. It's really not worth the administration involved to change someone's name when they've not actually used the account. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)  

Nick Moyes The user asked a question, and I provided an answer. The question was straightforward enough that I didn't think it necessary to investigate the matter. I welcome additional information from anyone, though. Thanks 331dot (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dilshad (entrepreneur)

@Robert McClenon: I'll just copy-paste my message that I had sent to Robert who had declined my draft here.

Hey Robert! I had submitted the Dilshad draft for review. Thanks for reviewing it. I hope it isn't wrong if I "argue" for my "case" :D I had earlier made this article which was passed by Frayae. I believe the Dilshad one matches that one's "quality". Also, Largoplazo had commented on the Dilshad draft that "It's definitely better, nice". That was what made me confident enough that it would pass the review. How do you think I can improve it till it becomes eligible for an article? Your suggestions would be a great help. Cheers!

If someone would give me suggestions on improving the draft or take a second look at it would be pretty sweet :D Thanks! — JosephJames 11:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Robert's decline. All six references appear to be rehashes of press release type content. Dilshad may go on to have a notable career, but this is WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

But the person in question received 2 awards from 2 different sources/companies, right? What about that? — JosephJames 14:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Those two refs are press release content for obscure awards. Still TOO SOON. David notMD (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

How to create a page?

I want to create a page for a well known guy, so where can I create it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustedformsONLY (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@TrustedformsONLY: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. Go to WP:YFA to learn about what is needed for an article, and then you can use the wizard there to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You have started a draft Draft:Obada Adnan but it has not yet been submitted to Articles for Creation (AfC). Wikipedia has specific criteria for determining notability of musicians. See Wikipedia:Notability (music). David notMD (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

TrustedformsONLY, you have been told that "IMDb, Pinterest and Soundcloud are not reliable sources." Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes, and the world is not going to be told about Obada Adnan here on Wikipedia until he achieves WP:Notability. You need to rely on social media for free promotion until then.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating new page

Hello. I am interested in creating a page for the Honorable Carla Madison, deceased Denver City Councilwoman. Among other accolades, in answer to a citizen's request, the Denver City Council voted unanimously to name a Regional Recreation Center in her honor. There is a great deal about her in local newspapers but there are still questions about her achievements and why she was deserving of this honor.

1)I can not find what constitutes a valid entry. 2)Do I need to start an account and edit existing articles before I can submit an article for publication, or can I focus solely on the article I would submit?

Paul Weiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4500:1FF6:95A0:711A:4822:DCD9 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject that meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability.

You don't need an account to create an article, though unregistered users are unable to directly create articles- they must create and submit a draft using Articles for Creation. New accounts must have at least 10 edits and be four days(or more) old in order to directly create an article- though we usually advise that's its a good idea for most users to use Articles for Creation regardless of if they have an account or not. This is because successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, and it's good to get feedback on your work as you go, as opposed to once it is formally in the encyclopedia

An article about a person is valid if it can be shown with independent reliable sources that the person meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. I'm not certain if a city council member would qualify, but they might if there is extensive coverage of the person. It would be nice if some was outside of the local area of the person, but if the coverage is extensive enough, that might not matter. I would suggest that you read Your First Article to learn more about the process. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will research Articles for Creation, Definition of Notable Person and Your First Article. Should She not qualify as a Notable Person, then would the building named after her be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4500:1FF6:95A0:711A:4822:DCD9 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a strong possibility, especially if it is a public facility(as it seems to be). 331dot (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, that would depend on the number and quality of the independent published sources about the building. --ColinFine (talk)

Incorrect alerts on Wikipedia page Faith Comes By Hearing

Hello,

I wrote a message to an editor who had messaged me weeks ago, but haven't heard back, so I'm hoping to find some assistance here. There are some very old alerts at the top of the Wikipedia page for our nonprofit, and I need to know what we need to do to have them taken down, please? Faith Comes By Hearing

I joined Faith Comes By Hearing in communications a couple of months ago, and noticed the Wikipedia page has at the top "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments.."(dated Sept 2017) and "this article reads like a press release or a news article or is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism." (dated Nov. 2016). Both alerts are incorrect and shed a negative light on our international organization. Both alerts were posted before I came along, and I'm not sure what else to do to have them removed.

We simply need to update some of the facts and figures - our numbers have grown, some programs aren't in use now, new ones have been introduced. I added some updates in November, and included sourced content. It looks like some of the updates were kept, but I don't see the outside sources listed and there is still outdated information on the page- along with the negative alerts.

I did read the Wikipedia guidelines, but if someone associated with the organization can't update the information so it's correct, what is the procedure? Can someone help?

For example, here are some listings/articles that were NOT produced by us- the first is our public listing on Charity Navigator:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6394

Here's an Oct. 24th article published by Crossway: 2019 https://www.crossway.org/articles/gospel-centered-partnership-faith-comes-by-hearing/

Here's one published by the National Christian Foundation - authored by Mart Green (of Hobby Lobby). https://www.ncfgiving.com/stories/b-is-for-a-bible-for-every-people-group/?utm_campaign=saturday7&utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=03_b_is_for_a_bible

Thank you for your assistance! Deana Day (ThefiveWs (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC))

ThefiveWs Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, I must ask you to review and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy. The latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement, and applies whether or not you are paid in money or anything tangible(such as being an unpaid intern or volunteer).

As you have a conflict of interest, you should request any changes you feel are needed on the article talk page(Talk:Faith Comes By Hearing) as a formal edit request.(click for instructions) 331dot (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Enzo Camporeale, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

Hello, I read your message about article Enzo Camporeale. Thank you for letter. In 2015, I made this page. If it is not difficult for you to explain what mistakes there are. Thanks, Regards MadamButerfly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadamButerfly (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi MadamButerfly. The main problem with Enzo Camporeale is that there aren't really any citations to reliable sources being provided which show (1) that Camporeale is Wikipedia notable per WP:BIO or WP:COMPOSER for a Wikipedia article to be written about him or (2) allows the content in the article to be properly verified as explained in WP:BLPSOURCES. There are lots of details about him in the article and most likely it's all true; however, none of it can be verified. There are other formatting and tone issues with the article as well, but the main things is the lack of citations to reliable sources. If the article ends up being nominated or tagged for deletion it will because of the lack of proper sourcing. Can you find an sources (even non-English ones) which provide significant coverage of Camporeale that goes beyond casual mentions, concert listings, and other "trivial" types of coverage? If you can do that, then the article could possibly be cleaned up written to reflect what's in those sources. If not, then it might just be a case of being WP:TOOSOON for an article to be written about Camporeale. A poorly written/formatted article about a Wikipedia notable person can generally be cleaned up per WP:PRESERVE, but the greatest writing in the world is not really going to save an article about a non-Wikipedia notable subject from being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you that you answered fast!

I understood. Thanks for explanation.

I will have to turn to him to provide some material to make it visible and dignified.

As far as I know this year he had 2 interviews on Italian television and the interview was placed by a television channel on the Youtube. But more detailed and accurate information I will have to get directly from the composer.

Regards MadamButerfly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MadamButerfly (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again MadamButterfly. You should look for relible sources which are independent of Camporeale or anyone/anything connected to him. Wikipedia is actually more interested, so to speak, in what others have written about him then what he has said or written about himself. Any source too closely connected to Camporeale (e.g. a personal website, a business office that repreents him, his agent, etc.) is going to be considered a primary source which is going to have to be used very carefully as explained in WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPSPS, WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUB. It's better to look for articles, books, etc. written about Camporeale published in reliable sources which are written by persons completely unconnected to Camporeale. Any interviews that Camporeale may have given are also going to be considered a primary source (see WP:INTERVIEW) and may only be able to be cited for certain types of content. Primary sources cannot be used to establish Wikipedia notability, so if there are no secondary sources giving him the type of significant coverage needed to meet one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then it's going to be harder to keep the article about him from being deleted. In addition, if you yourself are connected to Camporeale either personally or professionally in anything more than a casual way, then you probably should carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particulary WP:COISELF and WP:FCOI, because this connection may mean that you should try and avoid creating or adding any more content about Camporeale to Wikipedia.

Finally, some other general things. You don't need to start a new discussion thread each time you want to add a comment to an already ongoing discussion; you can just add your comment to end of the other discussion. Moreover, you should always WP:SIGN your talk page comments in Wikipedia style because it makes it easier for others to see who posted what and when. If you're not sure how to do this, please look at WP:TILDE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I understood. In 2015, when I created his page, his biography was relevant at that time and it was placed here. I tried to contact him yesterday and today via phone. My messages were read. I did not see a response to my questions, in the letter I stressed that these questions are important and need to be answered quickly. I didn 't get any answers from the composer.

Therefore, I agree to your correct decision to delete this page. Excuse me, if I only responded yesterday (I see the letter about correction was earlier than this year) to your request because I went to the profile this year, the last time was a few years ago. Thanks for the adjustments and quick connection. Regards MadamButerfly (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone has deleted LittleGhostBoo/Story

It said that the page was not to be deleted because it was kept for humorous reference, but it has been fully deleted. Is that allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroe Of Time (talk • contribs) 08:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

LittleGhostBoo/Story never existed, please wikilink the lost subpage here, this should be shown as red link. –84.46.53.160 (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Heroe Of Time. Any article can be deleted for the reasons explained in Wikipedia:Deletion if it's deemed to be about a subject which is not considered to meet any of Wikipedia's various notability guidelines or is otherwise deemed to have too many serious problems to be fixed. There are various methods of deletion, but it's hard to know which one was applied here without knowing the actual name of the article which was deleted. Can you provide a link to the article for reference to make it easier for a Teahouse host to try and figure out what happened?. Just as a general reference, articles whose only encyclopedic value is that they might be a "humorous reference" are unlikely to be kept per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Such an article may go unnoticed for years, but being around for a long time is not a justification in and of itself for keeping the article as explained in WP:LONGTIME. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A ha. I think I found what you're referring to. Are you asking about User:Littleghostboo/Story? That was a user page not an article, which means it's subject to a different policy altogether. User pages need to comply with Wikipedia:User pages and those which don't can be deleted. This particular user page was deleted per speedy deletion criterion U5 which is generally done when the content on user page falls under Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?. I'm not an administrator so I can't see the page anymore, but most likely the content was a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST.

Why are you concerned about the deletion of another account's user page? Just asking out of curiosity. Sometimes content that's deemed not suitable for a Wikipedia user page can be retrieved so that it can be posted on some other website more suitable for hosting such content. If that's what you'd like to do, try asking the administrator who deleted the page to send you the content by email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly for some minor cleanup (e.g. change "no" to "know" and replace a period with a question mark). -- 22:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)]

Well, I was concerned because that story has been around for years and has evolved into a gigantic story that was one of the most amazing articles I’d ever seen on Wikipedia. Some of the things there were really well written. Also, being a 10 year old article, it was quite nostalgic. Anyway, I will ask the Admin and see the link. Thanks for answering. Heroe Of Time (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it violated WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia cuts a small amount of slack to editors who are active and constructive; but this editor hasn't really added much to articles in a decade, and you describe the story as "gigantic". -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It was I who deleted it, for just the reasons Hoary gives. I've now – with considerable reluctance, I'll admit – restored it following a request on my talk-page. I've no objection if someone chooses to undo that; otherwise I suppose MfD would be the next step. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Littleghostboo/Story (2nd nomination). Dorsetonian (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Getting the right tone.

Hello Teahouse. I'm trying and failing to get the encyclopedia tone right. I'll be honest, using Wikipedia every day made me think I could do it okay, and I was wrong! This is my current attempt at a Wiki entry. I've taken out rogue adjectives and any of the fluffy talk I'd put in my novels. What am I looking at here? Thanks everyone!

Supajam is a UK media and education company. It produces television shows and has a school providing training in the music industry.

Supajam.com Supajam.com launched in 2008 and ran competitions to send unsigned bands to play festivals. Partnered with Vince Power, they worked with Benacassim, Hop Farm and others[1]. Supajam worked with Sony to create a music competition for bands, Breakout Brasil[2][3], for Brazilian television. It ran for two seasons.

In 2015 Supajam arranged for Frank Turner to play the 'Save the 12 Bar' campaign in London,[4][5], and during the London Olympics Supajam worked with Oakley, providing music for the ‘Safe House’ and Closing Party for the USA Olympic Team.

SEMM: SupaJam Education in Music and Media SupaJam Education in Music and Media was founded in 2013 to providing training for young people alongside the mainstream school system. They run schools at two full-time locations[6][7][8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldalene (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Goldalene, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you are trying to decorate your house before you've built the foundations, or even surveyed the site. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the company says or wants to say about itself (whether directly, or in interviews or press releases). It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to say about the company, that has been published in reliable places. Your current references are probably all reliable, apart from iMDB (which is never accepted as a reliable source because it is user editable); but none of them are independent of the company. I know that the message GeneralPoxter used mentions the tone of the writing first, and that is important; but unless you find suitable references, you will be unable to establish that Supajam is notable (in the special way that Wikipedia uses that word), and your work will be wasted when the article is deleted. Once you have some independent references, then you can avoid reading like an ad by basing it on what those sources say, not on what Supajam wants to say. --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:ColinFine, I hadn't realised I need to start looking at newspapers that way, but going back I really see your point. Actually feels very applicable to real life! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldalene (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What to do with inconsistent reviewer comments

I originally submitted an article, Draft:Aid Worker Security Database in the spring of 2019. It was denied on June 19 due to copyright content from the website www.aidworkersecurity.org. I redid the article assuring nothing was copied from the website and resubmitted. The next draft was denied by WorldBruce on October 23 requesting more third party sources, see the comments here: Comment: The subject-specific guideline that applies is WP:NWEB. The draft's lead says that according to The New York Times, the database "is widely regarded as an authoritative reference for aid organisations and governments in assessing trends in security threats." Reliable sources frequently cite the database in its subject area, so I think the NYT is right. But my reading of WP:WEBCRIT is that web notability is not demonstrated by the database being cited frequently (unlike the guidelines for academics and for newspapers, magazines, and academic journals). Instead, the database itself needs to be the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial works.

If there were one or two more references of the quality of the NY Times piece, I'd say this is clearly something we should accept into mainspace. As it is, however, I have my doubts that it would survive WP:AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I added a significant amount of sources and resubmitted. On January 17 it was denied again by Robert McClenon for a completely different reason not previously mentioned; it is two similar to the article 'Attacks on humanitarian workers'. This is inaccurate because the Draft:Aid Worker Security Database article simply explains the role and parameters of the database not the actual act of attacking a humanitarian worker. By this logic any IHL (International Humanitarian Law) pages or the page 'civilian casualties' would be a split of the ACLED Database wiki page. The Aid Worker Security Database has been a pillar of data on humanitarian workers used by the UN for a decade and should have its own page as RoySmith stated above. I would appreciate any assistance in rectifying this misunderstanding with reviewer Robert McClenon. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumOutcomes (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith. I have noticed the seeming inconsistency you describe. It appears to result from the fact that a reviewer need only cite one glaring shortcoming of an article in order to deny it. Each reviewer has a different perspective on the shortcoming they find most prominent. Once you have corrected that deficiency, the next editor finds another shortcoming still remaining to be addressed, and so on. Due to time constraints on reviewers, you only receive feedback on one "fatal problem" at a time. I'm pretty sure this makes Wikipedia look unfriendly to new article submitters, and perhaps the language of the rejection template can be altered so as not to suggest that an article has one deficiency only, to avoid a nasty surprise to earnest article creators.

Rather than trying to score a "home run" with a stand-alone article, it might be more practical for you to add a section on the database to the article Attacks on humanitarian workers. --Quisqualis (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• • Pinging the OP, HumOutcomes. John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

User:HumOutcomes - I am willing to take another look at Draft:Aid Worker Security Database with respect to whether the database is notable in itself. Other editors have persuaded me that the approach I was using was too restrictive. That does not mean that I will accept it, but that I will review it again.

User:Quisqualis - I agree that the key question is whether the information in this draft should be added to the existing article or accepted as a separate article. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:RoySmith - Thank you for your comments on the reliability of sources, and I agree that if more than one reliable source gives significant independent coverage to the database, the draft should be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon - Thank you very much for agreeing to take another look. Some additional examples that may help you see my dilemma are ACLED and Insecurity Insight, which are both very similar databases that have their own wiki pages, and were not asked to combine with existing explanations of the general topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HumOutcomes (talk • contribs) 13:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

HumOutcomes, You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially the first two points. The people (like myself) who are reviewing your article are here because we want to build an encyclopedia. You are here because you want to promote your project. When you start from the premise that Wikipedia is a tool you can use to promote something, everything goes in the wrong direction from there. The fact that some other article may exist has zero bearing on the review of your article.

I see you wrote something about your COI on your user talk page, but for all that you wrote, you still never managed to make a simple statement that explains your conflict of interest. It's really very simple. My interest in being here is to write an encyclopedia. The project's interest is also to write an encyclopedia. Thus, my interests and the project's interests are aligned. Your interest is to promote the AWSD. That's in conflict with the wikipedia project's interest. The whole point of the COI declaration is to explain how your interest in being here differs from the project's interests. I assume it is something along the lines of, "I am an employee of ...", or, "I am the founder of ...", or "I am the owner of ...", or "I have been paid by ... to write this article", or something along those lines. You'll also want to read the Wikimedia Terms of Use, especially the section headed, Paid contributions without disclosure. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification RoySmith, I explain on that page I did have an unrelated research relationship with the larger consulting group that deals with the database, the database itself does not employ any people. My interest in having this article included is also to better wikipedia as an encyclopedia; and to be honest I was surprised the AWSD had not already been added as it is used as a source by so many organisations, universities and people. User:HumOutcomes

The Issue of Drafts and Redirects

There is an issue involved here that applies to review of drafts in general, and is being discussed at the AFC talk page, but might as well also be discussed here, because it is an exchange of ideas (and not an attempt to formalize anything that should be discussed in one place). There are approximately 70 drafts pending in Articles for Creation where the draft title already exists in article space. There are several reasons for such a duplication. The most straightforward is that the draft and the article are about the same topic. That isn't the issue here, because then the draft can be redirected to the article. However, sometimes the redirect is about a topic that is covered in passing in another article. The article may be about a film, and there may be a redirect from the name of one of the actors to the film article. The article may be about a band, and there may be a redirect from the title of an album to the discography of the band. The article may be about an album, and there may be a redirect from the title of a song to the track listing of the album. The general question in most of these cases is whether to spinout the draft, and accept the draft as a separate article. A procedural issue is whether discussion of the spinout should be at the talk page of the existing article.

It has been pointed out that I may have sometimes been too strict in my reviews of drafts that would spin out a separate article from an existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: As you recommended I post my issues at the Teahouse, after citing WP:SPINOUT, I shouldn't be surprised to run across this in reviewing other Teahouse entries. You say "sometimes been too strict" and cite entries about this very issue of WP:SPINOUT on the AFC talk page.

It seems you may be over-using WP:SPINOUT as a blanket whereupon cursory review, something might be related or partially covered, thus new users should first edit and discuss on talk pages for spin-out, before receipt of WP:SPINOUT.

Note: We can all read and edit Wikipedia. We can also read documentation and cite things like... WP:BITE, WP:NEWBIES, WP:NOOB, WP:DBN. For example, along the way I found:

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

PhanChavez (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What is pseudoscience?

New to Wiki editing here...with some questions. Only yesterday I edited the page "Myofascial Release". This has been an academic and professional interest of mine for over 2 decades. For those of you who don't know what it is, myofascial release is a type of manual therapy applied to manage pain. The editor removed my changes because he/she said my "edits took the article far away from a neutral portrayal of the mainstream viewpoint on that topic - namely, that it is pseudoscience and does not work." That might have been a valid argument 30 years ago. But today a third of all licensed US medical practitioners use the technique daily. In fact, the anecdotal support is enormous, with it being a main topic at the 6th international congress on fascia. No, it does not have hundreds of validated clinical studies behind it, although there are many reliable and credible ones. The general consensus of the scientific community is that the basis of myofascial release for pain relief has some scientific support, albeit not overwhelming. But most will concede the fact that it IS used in a third of clinical practices. So with relatively widespread use, and about a dozen good quality clinical studies in pain relief, it's actually scientifically more valid than treating a stiff neck with massage to relieve pain. I guess that makes neck massage pseudoscience too? So at what point does "pseudoscience" become "science": when a certain percentage of practitioners use it? Or after a certain number of publications, like somewhere between 12 and 200? -MZDr.Zannakis (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Dr.Zannakis, What's your source for that metric? "used in a third of clinical practices" needs some serious sources to prove it moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, "third of all licensed US medical practitioners" is not the same thing as "used in a third of clinical practices", at least to my understanding. Perhaps you can clarify the types of practices you are including (in addition, of course, to a reliable source or two for this seemingly extraordinary claim). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article in question is Myofascial release. David notMD (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Medicine and health-related articles require references that comply with a special set of rules to be considered reliable sources. See WP:MEDRS. Stating that practitioners use it, that there is anecdotal support, and for that matter, citing individual clinical trials, is not accepted. You added lots of content with no references and the editor was correct to revert all of it. You wrote "The general consensus of the scientific community is that the basis of myofascial release for pain relief has some scientific support..." Are there systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses to support this statement? You are welcome to try again, but verifiability in the form of high quality references is an absolute requirement. David notMD (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Need help

I recently added an article in Wikipedia and it was deleted by Wikipedia. This is the 2nd time happening to me. so I need some help for adding some of my information's in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehnausman (talk • contribs) 04:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nehnausman. You were trying to add highly promotional content about multi-level marketing to Wikipedia. You have been trying to use a neutral encyclopedia to publicize your business ideas. That is not allowed and if you continue on that path, I am sorry to say that you will be blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Where can I get template help?

A few weeks ago, I reported an issue with a template, welcome-anon-t, to the talk page which I felt was most likely to be watched by people capable of fixing the issue, namely Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. There haven't been any changes logged in the template's history since that day, though. What's the best way to get this looked at? Airbornemihir (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Airbornemihir. The welcoming committee probably cold not help you on this. You wold be more likely to see action by posting to WP:Village pump (technical).--Quisqualis (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Documentation fixed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Template:Welcome-anon/doc is a shared documentation page for {{Welcome-anon}}, {{Welcome-anon-t}} and {{Welcome-t-anon}}. The first has the parameter since [1]. I suggest adding it to the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Doh! That occurred to me, but I guess I was distracted by something shiny and forgot all about it . I'll fix it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed (I hope). I asked a couple of questions at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Quisqualis for pointing me to the technical village pump (although it wasn't needed this time around) and thanks PrimeHunter, AlanM1 for fixing the documentation and the underlying issue. Airbornemihir (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Tony Seba noteworthy subject?

Seba writes about and lectures on tech disruption - the convergence of solar PV, battery EVs, autonomous vehicles/transportation as a service/TaaS, the end of oil. he speaks at conferences worldwide. surprised he doesn't have Wikipedia page. don't want to waste my valuable time writing one if it's not going to be accepted. Seba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Grinbergs (talk • contribs) 05:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Doug Grinbergs. Can you find 3 examples of in-depth coverage of Seba in reliable, mainstream publications? If so, you may have an article. However, WP cares not what Mr. Seba and his minions have to say about him and his career.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I would not use the word "minions", but you will need to sift through a lot of the internet content to find quality references. Much of what I saw was his own generated content or conference programs at which he was a speaker. I suggest you model your approach on articles listed at List of futurologists. David notMD (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

How should I say the price of one version of a product will cost something between two values in a Wikipedia article?

Here's three examples of potential answers I've come up with, with prices I made up, from A-Z:

• between US$99-US$109
• from US$99-US$109
• US$99-US$109

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Childishbeat (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Childishbeat: It might help if we know what article this is for, and what source you're getting this information from. Commercial sources should be avoided, and you can't take a price from one source and a price from another to say "here's the range." Ian.thomson (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Childishbeat: Per MOS:DASH and WP:$: If you want to use the third option, use an endash as a separator and only use US$ once ("US$99–109"). For the first two options, as mentioned above, the exact choice may depend on the context, but generally, "from US$99 to $109" or "between US$99 and $109" (i.e., don't use a dash if you're going to use a preposition and use "US" only once). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Trigoni

Dear Wikipedia, when i looked at the List of tallest buildings in Finland article and looked at the Tallest proposed, approved or under construction and clicked the first one, there is nothing there. Can you please make a Wikipedia page about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jambe2020 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jambe2020, and welcome to the Teahouse. This forum is intended to help people having difficulties editing Wikipedia, rather than a place to request articles to be written from scratch. As you say, the page for List of tallest buildings in Finland has a redlink to Trigoni, meaning the page doesn't exist yet. Once there are sufficient, independent Reliable sources available, I suspect someone might rush to create one. It may simply be that it is WP:TOOSOON for that. There must be dozens of proposals for new buildings in nay major cities which never happen. see summary of the Trigoni proposal) But as I can't even see it listed on Finnish Wikipedia (see here, I suspect you might have a long wait. I might normally direct someone to our 'WP:requested articles' section, but I'm not convinced seeking this right now is a good idea. But thanks for dropping by the Teahouse with your question. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Everyone! I suffered a rejection on my first ever article on wikipedia. I was trying to create an article about my startup. Can anyone help regarding this.

The reason was mentioned as the topic is not notable enough to be included in wikipedia. But I believe its very novel business idea which has transformed into an era defining product which will shape the future of the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinmaypanda.in (talk • contribs) 11:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Chinmaypanda.in Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was one sentence, which is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. I think you might have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia and not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not press releases, staff interviews, or routine annoucements) say about a subject that meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable business. Your use of the term "startup" suggests to me that it is far too soon for your business to merit an article here. Companies must already be notable to merit a Wikipedia article, you can't use Wikipedia to spread the word about your business and make it notable. "Startups" rarely meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable business. Even once your business is noted in reliable sources, you shouldn't be the one to write about it due to your conflict of interest. The promotional language you use here ("very novel business idea") suggests to me you are far too close to your business to write about it with a neutral point of view. If your business becomes notable, an independent editor will take note of it and write about it; this is the preferred way of creating articles, being written by independent editors.

Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your company's website cannot be used as a reference for an article about your company. All of the blue Wikilinks that 331dot provided provide more reasons why this topic and you writing it are not a good idea. David notMD (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: fyi, this guy is a crosswiki spammer. Already blocked on other wikis. I have asked for a global lock at meta, they will get locked soon. You may want to block and perform nuke here too in the meantime. Masum Reza^📞 14:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100 and 331dot: I reported to UAA a few hours ago, and have now quoted the comment above there. Seems to be something of a logjam there, BTW. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia just a Right Wing Political Propaganda Site? Mike Bloomberg looks like it?

I wanted to see who Mike Bloomberg was so I looked him up- " He began his career at the securities brokerage by nepotism and created the last 2008-09 financial crisis"

Lol, you are a joke. I am literally an expert on the Financial Crisis of 2008. The Crisis was actually caused by over 30 years of lobbying of deregulations by primarily Chase and Citibank. The repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999, thru Gramm-Leach-Bliley followed by deregulations allowing fractional lending at absurd ratios in some cases of 60-1, and most likely the fact the Bankers knew even after the collapse they would not be held responsible. I could go into greater detail, but if this is a Pro Trump website you don't care about facts anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.138.91.3 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Michael Bloomberg has been repeatedly vandalized in recent days. The vandalism has been removed, and I have semi-protected the article for three days to deter further vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Usually it is said that Wikipedia has a left wing bias, not a right wing one. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I've threatened the IP who added that, 2600:100F:B02A:43DE:7477:E95:1278:D48E, some. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

Citations and wikitables

I wanna summarise the ancient things as many written in the bible, to explain alot of what they are, is it apropiate to cite using bible?

And tables, why tables on editing section different from that of other articles I've read? and what one can do to make them look like that of other articles?Se pinya (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Se pinya, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would only be OK to cite the bible (or key books of other religions) if you were using that citation as a primary source to demonstrate a statement made in that book (e.g. The Bible, The Bible and violence, The Bible and humor) where the article's purpose is to show how other reliable sources have interpreted how the bible presents that topic. What would not be acceptable if you were to try to cite the bible in order to promote your own world view on something, such as Age of the Earth or Evolution or Law or Homosexuality. You would need to remember that this is an encyclopaedia of notable topics, collating information from reliable sources. When in doubt, it is best to make a suggestion for an edit on an article talk page and see what other editors feel about it, first.

As for your second question about tables, I didn't fully understand what you were describing. Please provide a link or url to some articles to help us understand your question better. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Header text	Header text	Header text
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example

---

Teahouse/Questions
Birth name	Mokete Thabiso
Born	1993-11-22, South Africa, Qwaqwa, Free state province

You see the table with the yellow line is different from that one with the 3 columns, now my question is, how did that table with 3 columns ended up looking like that with the yellow line, because that one with the yellow line is the one used mostely on all the articles I've read.But on editing section I find only that one with 3 columns as optioned which is called wikitable Why is that one with the yellow line not included? And again, can wiki be fused with the Microsoft word so to be able to draw good tables and mergings and linings than doing it in codes?Se pinya (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Se pinya.The one with the yellow line is not called a table; it's an Infobox, which you can make after reading the article at the blue Infobox link. Different Infoboxes are intended for different types of articles, such as Speciesbox, Chembox, Infobox mineral, Infobox person etc.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

OK thanks Se pinya (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Create-a-thon

Please create more articles for 6 mil articles! There are just -908170 articles left! Add oil! 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lord of Math (talk • contribs) 08:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math:  Done. We made it to 6 million articles. Interstellarity (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And it was one of our admins who got us there! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Created a new article

I followed the guidelines and instructions given on wikipedia about creating a new article (Aishe Ghosh). Just want someone to check or approve it, if I missed something or did anything wrong. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tayi Arajakate. Since the article wasn't created via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, there is really no "formal review" process that the article is going to be subjected to; rather, improvements will tend to be made by others who happen to come across the article and notice some things which might need fixing. There are editors who belong to Wikipedia:New pages patrol who do go around checking new articles, but the nature of the review may depend upon who is doing the reviewing. Some reviewers may not be able to or want to spend lots of time on a single article; so, they just do a basic assessment for Wikipedia notability and assign a general assessment; others may choose to spend more time on an article and try and cleanup any formatting or other errors they may notice. If you'd like a more formal review, you can ask at WP:PR or at a WikiProject under whose scope the article may fall under. If you look at the page history of the article, you see that some other editors have tried to clean some things up; so, perhaps maybe they will further continue to do so or some new editors will show up to continue where they left off. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Marchjuly, thank you for the help. I just have one more question, I tried searching the name on google and it does not appear even when i add "wiki" or "wikipedia" to it, is this supposed to be normal? Tayi Arajakate (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t have any direct control so to speak over what shows up in Google search results, i.e. you can’t add some code to make an article appear on the first page of Google search results. In addition, newly created articles or low traffic articles may not show up at all at least until a certain amount of time has passed or more people start accessing them. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting Edits/AfC

In December 2019, I created a Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences to supplement Power_Five_conferences. It was initially rejected due to lack of notability (citations). I reviewed existing citations, and added several more, re-stated and re-phrased things, then re-submitted.

While waiting for review of the re-submit, User:Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse created a redirect for Group_of_Five_conferences to point to Mid-major.

During the initial drafting process, I did a bit of research here on Wikipedia, and elsewhere (off-site) in putting the draft together. I did not take notice of the term Mid-major (less notable, but valid term). The Mid-major page, though written poorly (tone/style, weasel words), has some good and valid information; some of which is also reflected in various other College Football articles.

After the second rejection, possibly or probably caused by the intermediate confusion (redirect), I've been told that I'm making a "mess" of things; I've gone to IRC to ask for help, replied in-kind following various forms of direction as discussed and outlined in various meta-information about Wikipedia standards and practices. I've read and reviewed a lot, trying to understand the best path forward.

In addition: I've taken the time to review things and try to understand the how/why behind decisions made. I've tried to figure out how to go forward.

As things stand, I've effectively given-up on even bothering to try to get Draft:Group_of_Five_conferences approved for creation.

One illegitimate thought to cross my mind: After submitting the created redirect for deletion, one thought to cross my mind was to simply hijack the redirect, dropping the Draft contents into that page? But I'm not sure how such matters would unfold. IMO: Akin to defacing a page. Versus making a mess of things (no less than the redirect created) by submitting DRN and 3O.

History be damned, I could care less about getting my draft approved, the effort hasn't been worth it after the second rejection...

First question: When someone hijacks the name/term/url for a draft article under creation, and creates a re-direct, what is the best path forward in handling such situations and circumstances???

IMO: This question is meant to help future users solve screwy problems like this.

Second question: Are there any editors or administrators willing to take the time to review matters and either (1) provide a helpful path forward, or (2) just do the necessary clean-up and close things out?

Thanks, PhanChavez (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello PhanChavez. One suggestion by the editor who made the redirect was to discuss the idea of your article on the Talk page of Mid-major. That way you will find out whether people who follow the subject agree with you on the split. Provide a link to your draft when you ask on the talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Already done. The page isn't getting any talk. Not sure what comes of talking about something. Doesn't address the core issue here. PhanChavez (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhanChavez. One path forward is to have the draft accepted. The reviewer who accepts a draft will move it over the redirect. If you believe that the redirect shouldn't exist regardless of whether the draft is accepted, then there's Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Thanks. Based on that page, and some other review, I think I've figured out a path forward if I feel like investing the energy. PhanChavez (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolution

IMO: This issue is (mostly, if not completely) resolved, and this Teahouse entry can be archived, or whatever is done after issues have been dealt with. PhanChavez (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

New article

Hi there, When can I expect my article to be published?

Appreciate your time.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.22.230 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

What article would that be, 80.2.22.230? Your Wikipedia contributions under the IP address we have above consist only of the post under discussion here.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There are a few other contributions by this IP: Special:Contributions/80.2.22.230, but none look like an unpublished draft. RudolfRed (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @80.2.22.230:. please feel free to let us know which article you mean. there are various editors here who can help with that. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Who created Wikipedia?

This is just a question.I am just curious to know about the creator of this famous and most reliable web encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuhan2019 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The founder of Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales. He still is active here; his user name is User:Jimbo Wales. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wuhan2019 and welcome to the Teahouse! There were two co-founders: User:Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger. There's this article about the history of Wikipedia if you're interested in learning more. For future reference, the Teahouse is for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. The reference desk is usually the place to go to ask similar questions. Clovermoss (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello There. I would like to know if Sify.com is a acceptable source on Wikipedia? If it is reliable can you please re-add awards to Gurbaksh Chahal page? The awards were there but someone removed them saying links are not reliable thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.216.13 (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a news site and probably yes, it can be used as a source. Ruslik_Zero 14:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion about Chahal's awards is taking place at Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal#Awards and you can't override consensus there by asking misleading questions that don't address the actual issues, and requesting editors who do not know the background to circumvent the discussion for you. --bonadea contributions talk 08:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

how to find a author and sports person info

Thai Stick author is Peter Maguire, however another professional footballer Peter Maguire with full name Peter Jason Maguire. columbia university does not provide full details [ i may be wrong ]. i am unable to decide whether both of them are one and same. so where should i first look for authors and sports persons. Leela52452 (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The Google Books preview of the book shows that the author is Peter H. Maguire, while, as you mentioned, the footy player is Peter Jason Maguire. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Publish a biography article

May I ask for some easy and simple steps to create a biography article of my client? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliasHossainbd (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Before we tell you the steps, EliasHossainbd, you must overcome one hurdle impeding your progress:

1. You have a conflict of interest (COI), and must declare it on your Talk page. See: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple--Quisqualis (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

See the the reply from DE Siegel with the 7 steps to an article.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

See also, and with some urgency Wikipedia:PAID, as you have already been asked to do on your Talk page, and comply with its mandatory requirements. If you do not you are likely to be blocked from further editing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Paul Frederick.

Paul Frederick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul F Onyango (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Paul F Onyango: Welcome to Wikipedia. Did you have a question? RudolfRed (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Paul F Onyango:, anything to do with Paul Jones (wrestler)? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you promote articles from start-class?

I saw that the article Big Boi was a start-class article, but I believe that it is a higher quality. How do I promote it or start a discussion? I use the source editor. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Minecrafter0271. Please read Wikipedia:Content assessment for an overview of the standards. In brief, only the assessment of Good articles and Featured articles requires a formal review by uninvolved editors. You can change the grade by editing the templates at the top of the article talk page. It is probably a good idea to leave a note explaining your reassessment on the article talk page. At the very least, provide your reasoning in an edit summary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try that. Cheers. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked over the article and think that it is a bit better than start class. However, it has too much content written in the "it was announced that" and "he revealed that" style. The article should not be a list of material from all his PR people's favorite talking points over the past two decades. The article needs much more critical assessment from people uninvolved in promoting his career, and originally written prose that accurately summarizes the full range of reliable independent sources discussing his life and his entire career. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Tightened the text a bit. I agree that it can be upgraded to C-class, although quite a bit of the content is without references. David notMD (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Kindle question

Could someone please direct me towards the guidelines for adding a reference to a kindle location? The usual can't work as kindle doesn't have pages, only locations. Thank you! Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Maryanne Cunningham. It's great to see you still here and asking some great questions. I had to think about that one for a moment, then I visited WP:KINDLE, which is a shortcut to the 'book' section on 'Citing Sources'. It helpfully suggests; "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title."

If you are using Wikipedia:Source editor to add your citations, there's an option in the cite book dropdown window to 'show/hide extra fields' and you'll see one field called 'Chapter' that you can either add a number of a chapter title to. Does this make sense? If not, we can talk you through adding it manually. You can also insert that field if you are editing with Visual Editor, though it's a bit more work to find the right field amongst a million others. Hope you're doing OK? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes. Yes, I'm still here. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC).

How should academic papers be used in a BLP?

Hi there! There have been some very, very long discussions on the Talk:Judith Curry page, and I think that a big part of it is centered on how academic sources should be used in a BLP. That is, if the article subject writes a paper, to what extent can we rely on it for the article? To what extend should editors use academic articles as the basis for talking about an academic's perspectives? Are there any policies on this? Some different examples have been provided, some which definitely go with secondary sources first and use academic papers sparingly, and some which have whole sections built from academic articles. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh. The relevant section might be WP:ALLPRIMARY: "A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)." Jlevi (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Biographical Article edited by Subject

I'm interested in how I should handle the latest edit to Jakov Sedlar (by IP address 2.204.251.54)? It appears that the subject of the article is removing criticism from the article, but the sources for the criticism are in Croatian, and so I can't verify them myself. Can you point me to the relevant wikipedia policies for this situation? Thanks! Perokema (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Perokema Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The relevant policy would be the autobiography policy. Article subjects should avoid directly editing the article about themselves; instead, they may make formal edit requests on the article talk page. This user should be encouraged to do that. If they don't respond to your concerns, you may visit WP:COIN to bring up the matter. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful! Perokema (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia outage 26 Jan 2020

Wikipedia has announced in this tweet that there have been service outages across the xx.wikipedia.org domain, affecting multiple language versions. See also this informal reporting website, suggesting the problem has been ongoing since c.14:00 UTC today. This is likely to significantly affect many people's ability to view or edit pages at the present time. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I experienced about two hours of very limited access in California but things have improved in the last 15 minutes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Western Europe has been hit hardest, but the Seattle area, much of California, the northeast U.S, Ontario and Israel are also affected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, just coming back to life for me here in Western Europe. I was all set to blame it on Brexit, or maybe even on Rosiestep! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it affected me as well living in the Northeast US. Interstellarity (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, well, if it'll make people feel better, I'll take the blame, haha, but Maria Lauder has only had 9,146 page views, so it's probably not that. BTW, I experienced it, too, in California Gold Country. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I'm surprised it's not had a higher count, so I can't blame you. Roger told me you were the person who got us to 6m articles, so congratulations from all of us here at the Teahouse! I was going to attempt to put my latest draft article out on time, but I had to get dinner for the family, so I missed the chance. Glad it was an established editor like you, though. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nick, and for sure, family comes first! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding pictures

How do you add pictures/flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ask ehx udnd (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: This seems to be regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Flags on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Report User

190.38.94.242 make edit to list in Korean Drama page to 3 list.. I think we just to have 1 list not 3 list.. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The place for discussion of changes to the article is Talk:Korean drama. Also, please note that your signature needs to include links per WP:SIGLINK; if you have tried to customise your signature at Special:Preferences you may have mistakenly checked the box labelled "Treat the above as wiki markup". --David Biddulph (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Report Annoying User

190.38.94.242 make edit to list in Korean Drama page to 3 list.. I think we just to have 1 list not 3 list.. Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk)

I replied above, & you didn't need to start a new section. I'm glad that you've sorted out the links in your signature, but it is helpful if you include a timetag, which is the default when you use 4 tildes or the signature icon on the edit toolbar; if in doubt, reset your preferences to default if you've failed in an attempt to customise it. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to i need an advice for Draft:Martin Fayomi

I have made up some edits for this article, I hope it meets the criteria.Goldie19 (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

How do you give a citation a proper title?

I am having an issue giving citations in the endorsement section for Dan Lipinski. The article is linked here. Thanks so much in advance for any help! 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois#District 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMFry (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@TMFry: You were nearly there! I've fleshed out the first four of the citations in your recent edit. You should be able to see what I've done: added a reference name (only needed if it's used more than once), a title from the webpage, the website name, and the access date. That's about all you need, really. See {{cite web}}. Knowing that, you should be able to tidy up the other citations in that article if you feel so inclined. For full, if not overfull, instructions, see WP:CITATIONS.

BTW, if you're linking to a WP article, you don't need to post the full URL here. 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois#District 3 does the same job, and looks tidier. (The # points to a section; it isn't needed if you're linking to the whole article.)

Oh, and always sign your posts on talk pages like this one with four tildes (~) (see WP:SIGN). It makes it a lot easier to know who we're talking to! Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

How to find Google Scholar id?

{{Google Scholar id}} requires |id=. Where can it be found? "This parameter will be the ID string used in the URL at Google Scholar." The example in the template documentation, Yoelle Maarek, has id=EeTd0CYAAAAJ, and works nicely. However, I cannot for the life of me see where that string comes from.

I want to link properly to Tobias Capwell, who is currently being nurtured in a sandbox. I may be missing something obvious, but cannot find his |id=; which means I cannot get useful statistics like those on the right-hand side of "Yoelle Maarek publications indexed by Google Scholar".

(Please don't suggest that I edit Wikidata unless it's essential. I would marginally prefer to perform gastric surgery on myself using unwashed kitchen cutlery.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert It does seem to come from the value of the user= parameter in the "citations" URL. In the example you give for Yoelle Maarek, Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1046 publications indexed by Google Scholar also works. I'm guessing there was a renumbering at some point, since the existing link (id EeTd0CYAAAAJ) just redirects to the current one (foccT34AAAAJ).

It appears that one must have registered a "profile" with Google Scholar in order to get one of these ids. If I search for Albert Einstein, the top of the listing has a link under the heading "User profiles for Albert Einstein" that points to the profile here with the id qc6CJjYAAAAJ. A search for Tobias Capwell doesn't have such a profile link at the top. I'm not clear on whether you can create one for them or not. Perhaps someone more familiar with GS will comment. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Very frustrating. There are easy-to-use templates for non-WP:RS sites like Discogs and IMDB which make it childsplay to add them as WP:ELs; but GS should be a better site for a Publications or EL link than such as those, and be simple to link to. Narky Blert (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: It's more of an issue with how GS works. There is a template for creating the search link for people without profiles:

{{Google scholar|"Tobias Capwell"|Tobias Capwell publications indexed by Google Scholar}}

which renders:

Tobias Capwell publications indexed by Google Scholar

This can produce off-topic results if there are others with the same name. It's not clear whether the hits for "T Capwell" have "Tobias Capwell" in the underlying data and that was matched, or it searches for "T Capwell" as well (which could produce a lot more false hits for common last names). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: TY, that looks good. Fortunately, my man has both a rare given name and a rare surname, so there should be few if any false positives. If I can't get his h-index, so it goes. Still, it would be nice to use his id if he has one (does GS really demand that you make an acct to get one?). Narky Blert (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

creating a new wiki page

Hi,

I would like to create a new Wiki page. Could you please guide me on how I can go ahead?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSLink (talk • contribs)

Hello there, SSSLink, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article from scratch is the hardest thing you can do here. So it pays to take your time, learn the basics of editing and about how to add references (see this guidance I wrote for beginners), and understanding the importance of our Notability Guidelines. I suggest before anything else, you have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure - it's interactive and quite fun - and then read Help:Your first article. We now have just over 6 million articles here, so it's important that all new ones follow the same style of layout, but THE critical thing is that the subject of your article must have been written about by reliable, published sources which will help demonstrate the topic is notable. (Ignore blogs, social media, press releases etc as they're not reliable or independent). Gather those together first and write only what those sources say (albeit using your own words to avoid copyright issues). Submit your Draft article for review and you will get feedback o whether or not it is OK. Good luck, and come back anytime if the guidance you read is in any way confusing. Good luck! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, Their username indicates that they are here to promote themselves which is not allowed. They will be blocked shortly. Interstellarity (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You can tell that from a name? —Tamfang (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick, is that a template? —Tamfang (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

How to pin a section at a talk page and prevent bot from archiving it

I would like to know how exactly can an editor create a pinned section in a talk page which is excluded from archiving by bots. Thanks -- Kmoksha (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I originally thought you meant your own user talk page, which you are free to configure as you wish, but I see that you do not have archiving set up on User talk:Kmoksha. I saw notifications in the history that refer to archiving of Teahouse questions. If that is what you are referring to, the short answer is "you can't" (as far as I know). Archiving for this page is configured to keep the page at a manageable size by archiving threads that have ceased to be active. Currently, that seems to be threads not posted to for 48 hours. Perhaps whoever last configured it will comment, but it currently has 46 sections and many, many full-size browser pages of text. I suggest, when receiving notification that your thread was archived, you copy the link from the archive message (e.g. [2]) to a list in your userspace somewhere like User:Kmoksha/Archived discussions. Maybe there's a helper script to do this somewhere (anybody?). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 Thanks for your response. Please assume that the Wikipedia editor wants to do things in good faith. I do not intend to be disruptive, so obviously I would not do it in TeaHouse forum. I would like to use it for my own talk page and for Article Talk page with agreement of other editors. On own talk page, I could later use an archiving bot and use this feature to exclude some sections from being archived. Similarly, there can be sections which all editors would agree for being pinned and not being archived by bot.

I saw this template - Template:Pin section but the instructions in it are not clear. It says "Place {{subst:Pin section}} or {{subst:pinsec}} at the top of a talk page section." But the "top" means above the section title ? My question is regarding formatting. -- Kmoksha (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you feel I got it wrong, but I wasn't implying anything about motive. I didn't have much to go on, and explained my mind-reading. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As to the question, it appears to mean after the section title (before the section title would put it in the previous section). E.g., User talk:Pine#Motivations for editing Wikipedia. I've clarified the doc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this what you're after? {{Do not archive until}} You can set any date on it. - X201 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Missed the bit about Pin section being a wrapper of this. - X201 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Usage example, a pinned RFC on the reliable sources noticeboard: A fake signature by a fake user with a future timestamp in an invisible comment <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:13, 4 January 2030 (UTC) --> for the bot and a {{Pin message}} for the humanoids. –84.46.53.116 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• • Kmoksha, please tell us exactly what you are talking about, with a link to the "Talk" space page you want to do this on. John from Idegon (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks X201 The template you gave can be useful along with the one which I found - {{subst:Pin section}}. I can use it for my user talk page. John from Idegon I got what I was looking for. Thanks by the way. -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

How can I Contribute content or edit content in Wikipedia?

I want to contribute content and edit pre-exist content on Wikipedia. What is the prescribed procedure for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.6.111.155 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@1.6.111.155: you can edit anything, with the exception of protected pages. I recommend that you help patrol for vandalism, fix typos and grammar, and more. Take a look at the introduction for more information. Also, since you are an IP, I recommend making an account. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 06:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"Related Articles" question

Please tell me why some titles of "Related Articles" links at the bottom of a article sometimes differ from the title of the linked article. How can that error be corrected? Thanks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palisades1 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Palisades1: Can you give an example of such a page? It may be due to a piped link or a redirect. Unless it is going to a wrong page, it may not be an error that needs fixing. RudolfRed (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Palisades1: Some articles use Wikipedia:Page name#Changing the displayed title (often via a template) to change how the title is displayed at top of the article, e.g. changing IPhone to iPhone. This does not affect "Related articles" which always shows the real title IPhone like searches and categories. The real title cannot start with a lowercase letter. We need an example to see whether this is what you mean. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Commons and Sandbox

Hi,

I want to write wiki articles but first want to learn and practice. I have a few questions.

(1) Is sandbox private or can everyone view them, edit, delete, etc? If the sandbox is not private, is there a platform on the wiki that is (private for practice only)?

(2) It seems as though I made a few wiki commons here. It seems as though they are published or copyrighted? For all intents and purposes, I don't want them copyrighted (I don't own the images) nor do I want them published (for practice only). How can I change that? Can I delete them or move them, etc? I'm doing this because I want to be able to make infoboxes' on the wiki for practice, but it seemed to require that a [wiki] common be made first to add a file name (image,) only that I don't want commons as explained above.

Thank you,

Turk Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkHill (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@TurkHill: There is no place private on Wikipedia, all pages are available to all users. Your sandbox is the best place to practice, it is unlikely to be disturbed by others unless you post copyright violations (for example) which is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. For the uploads on Commons, you should not have marked then as your own work. There is likely a tag you can place to have the files removed, but I am not sure what it is (someone else will likely be along shortly to address that. RudolfRed (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@TurkHill: If you don't want to save it on Wikipedia, you might consider using a plain text editor on your computer to edit and store a local copy of the article you are working on. You can then copy and paste it into your sandbox, play with it there, using Preview to see how it looks without saving it (don't click Publish). Copy and paste it back to your local text editor and save it there while you continue to work on it. This will allow you to work on a draft that may contain content that will not be allowed if saved to Wikipedia, even in your sandbox, like copyrighted material that you are carefully rephrasing so it will look nothing like the original. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use the text editor. That sounds like a good solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkHill (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy delete

How to speedily delete existing files (own) on the wiki commons page. Is there a quick way to do this? For example, if one uploaded a picture onto wiki commons and marked it as copyrighted when not (a mistake only intended for practice) can it be removed or deleted, and how to do this?

Thank you TurkHill — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkHill (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@TurkHill: At commons, you can add {{SD|G7}} to the file's page, (see commons:project:csd) to request deletion of a file, if you uploaded it, and it hasn't been uploaded for a long time - generally about a week or so. Above this, unless it was an obvious test, it has to go to commons:project:Deletion requests. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 16:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I withdraw my nomination for a move?

I have proposed to move Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump to Impeachment process against Donald Trump. There are all opposing views, but discussion has been open for less then a week. Would I be allowed to close the discussion and withdraw the nomination under these circumstances? I use source editor. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Minecrafter0271, yes you can. A nominator can withdraw their nomination, as long as the there has been no support, and the result is obvious. The WP:SNOWball clause would apply. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@OxonAlex: Thanks. I wasn't sure because discussion was open for less than a week. Cheers! --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Insert a Table

What's the simplest way to copy and paste an Excel table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Guldin (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

There are suggestions at Wikipedia:Tools#Excel. I don't know which ones work. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Richard Guldin - Try https://tools.wmflabs.org/excel2wiki/index.php . Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Guldin: That's good advice from Robert McClenon. I've used that tool with some quite complex tables and it works fine. I advise testing any new table in your own personal sandbox, rather then messing up a live article. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I use the Preview feature to view the table in the target document before publishing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Birth Certificate Reference

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

How do I cite Rosenberg's birth certificate? I have an official paper copy. Can I upload it so others can see it?

Someone wrote "His parents were Jean (Weiner)[clarification needed] Rosenberg..." The spelling of Weiner here is correct. How do I provide that clarification (which I also got from his birth certificate)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielrona (talk • contribs) 18:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Danielrona: hi there. I am afraid that a birth certificate is a primary reference, so doesn't meet our requirements at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you want to clarify their name, then it is best to find a different online source, then use Help:Citing to add the reference to the article. If you need anymore help, please return or contact me directly on my talk page. regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Uploading images of copyrighted artwork - with the artist's permission?

Hello! I am trying to upload images of an artist's work, and I have the artist's permission to do so, to Wikimedia Commons. I know we can make it clear that this is legit via OTRS - but my question is about the image itself. What is the right way to do this, so it's clear that the image itself is fine to upload via CC license, but that the copyrighted artistic image depicted in it is still under the copyright of the artist who created it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBGB333 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@GBGB333: hi there. Copyright is always a tough one to understand. If the artist has agreed to allow the image to be added to Wikimedia Commons, then they are stopping their copyright claim over the image; anything added to Wikimedia Commons is (sometimes under certain restrictions) available for others to use. Effectively, the image cannot be added to Wikimedia Commons with it continuing to be under the copyright of the artist who created it. It would probably be best to clarify this with the folks over at the Wikimedia Commons Help Desk Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GBGB333. The answer above is not accurate. The creator of contemporary images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons retains copyright unless they explicitly disavow copyright. However, the acceptable Creative Commons licenses are very broad and sweeping, and the artist should understand the license thoroughly. Any Commons image can be used by anyone for any purpose without permission, and that includes profit making ventures. The only restriction is that the image must be attributed to its author/creator if the specific license requires that. To be clear, Creative Commons licenses do not eliminate the underlying copyright. Instead, they allow very broad usage of the image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen is correct. A free license like Creative Commons does not remove the copyright, but only specifies the terms under which others may reuse and remix the content. Obviously, you couldn't specify usage terms if you didn't control the copyright, but this is a common misconception nonetheless.

@GBGB333: If the artist would like to release content under a free license then they can do so by following the instructions at c:COM:CONSENT. This email should come directly from the copyright holder, and should specify exactly what content they are releasing, and under what license. GMG^talk 21:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, striked answer, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

thank you

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by John BG Johnson (talk • contribs) 21:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

John BG Johnson, Howdy hello, and welcome the Teahouse! Not sure what you're thanking us for, but you're welcome. Do you have any particular questions or issues that we can help ya out with? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Borax

Hello I was doing a chemistry set and made some crystal sodium tetraborate. And I was just wondering how I can get pure elemental boron using household means? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: This is a forum for asking questions related to Wikipedia. I'm afraid if you have questions of a general nature not related to contributing to or utilizing Wikipedia, you will have to find another place to seek an answer. GMG^talk 16:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Blacephalon. I'm afraid the Teahouse is only equipped to help people who are having practical difficulties editing this encyclopaedia. We're not equipped to help you synthesise chemical elements, I'm afraid. Take look at our article on Boron, or try a browser search. Don't blow yourself up, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Blacephalon - Try Reference Desk (Science). User:Nick Moyes - He isn't trying to synthesize an element (and boron is relatively rare because it isn't produced by either big bang nucleosynthesis or red giant nucleosynthesis). He is only asking how to purify boron. I concur with the advice not to blow oneself up. That is why I went into information technology fifty years ago rather than into chemistry when I had a degree in chemistry. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not trying to blow myself to pieces. However I've tried asking on the boron page and no answer. I've tried looking it up and it says to put in HCl but I don't have that and I don't know if it being a crystal form of it makes a difference. That's why I'm ask the Teahouse. UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Answered on OP's Talk Page. Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Supporting Notability

I specifically looked up "turst" (demonic hunter) and was grateful to find a separate entry. I then noted it was of questionable notability, and I understand that this has more criteria than merely user numbers.

I would however like to add to the discussion of notability. I believe the entry could be usefully expanded, and I may be writing a print article discussing its relationship to "thurs" and similar Germanic mythical creatures, how these relate to the Wild Hunt and their presence in place names and subsequent literature.

Thank you Tallis Harrill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falkenna (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Türst was tagged as having no references back in 2010 and that is still true. Wikipedia frowns on people citing their own published work. David notMD (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

At least some of the info is in one of the two external links in the article, but I suspect most of this is mainly found in printed sources. --bonadea contributions talk 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If your article gets published by a reputable publisher, Falkenna, (with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control), then it may be cited in a Wikipedia article. You are discouraged from citing it yourself, and should make an {{edit request}}, as usual for editors with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Writing on Draft:Franziska Meissner-Diemer

Hello, I was creating a new article on Draft:Franziska Meissner-Diemer. I found the subject in Wikiproject:Women in Red. I thought that since the subject is in a wikiproject's list, it must be satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But I recently learned from an administrator, that it is not so. And, now I'm also finding difficulty in searching for its references. I could only find two references so far. One of them is a mirror site of wikipedia. another one is the Google search result only. I did find a wikiarticle on the subject in another language, but that too doesn't cite any reference. What should I do now? Should I tag the draft article for deletion since I don't think I would be able to find any reference ? Thanks in advance. Lightbluerain (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Lightbluerain. It looks like the person is on that list because there is a German article for her but no English article. You may try searching for the name variation they use there. Alternatively, the subject may be notable, but we may only be able to write an article if we can get help from someone who can read the German sources. GMG^talk 17:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. So, where can we find that German reader? Or, should i submit the draft for review after translating the German article (with the help of google translate and then proofread it) and then place the 'unreferenced' tag on it? Lightbluerain (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I did try searching for the name variations but I still couldn't find any reference in English. And, I don't understand German. Lightbluerain (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well Lightbluerain, there's longstanding consensus that we ought not be using machine translation to generate Wikipedia articles. It's fairly unpredictable and impossible to check if we don't have a human speaker reviewing the content. Umm...I know Sandstein is a German speaker. Maybe they can recommend someone they know who is active in German to English translation and might be willing to help out. GMG^talk 18:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, sure, I can help out if needed. The de: article has links to coverage of Franziska Meissner-Diemer in two scholarly biographical dictionaries, that alone should make her notability quite clear. DeepL will produce an acceptable working translation of sources that can be used for writing the article. Sandstein 18:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but AFAIK "listed on WIR" can mean "WikiData exists" (WD, handled by bots), or "manually added" (CS). e.g., I added a journalist (Ruin), a scientist (also AU), and a filmmaker (feminist). At least for the AU blogger "notability" is unclear. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

time-limit on welcoming committee?

hello! i was wondering if maybe there was a "time limit" on welcoming new editors? i've noticed several redlinks on editors' talk pages, but then realise their last edits were in 2009. should i refrain from welcoming such users?--🐦DrWho42 (🔨) 20:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@DoctorWho42: hi there. If their last edit was from 2009, then it's best not to; it just wastes your time. It's recommended that one should welcome editors once they have made an edit (this shows that they want to edit Wikipedia), usually within a week or so, then you can welcome users with the 'Belated Welcome' template through Twinkle. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

To add, I am guessing if they haven't edited in less than 1 or 2 months, then a welcome isn't worth it. I don't believe there is a formal "time limit" as such, but 1 or 2 months is probably sufficient. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's any other business on a not yet existing talk page, e.g., a warning level 1, adding a welcome can make sense. Intentionally no welcome can also make sense. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

hi i posted an article about 8 weeks ago. It hasn't been published yet. Everything's confusing and looks the same. Can someone please tell me?

The post i did is for a site i'm on called Streamavid. That's also the name of the wikipedia post. I see it in my 'contributions'. I received an email saying it will take up to 8 weeks to review. The page isn't live I dont think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nameuser22222 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Nameuser22222 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You had edited your user talk page, which is not article space, but a place for users to communicate with you. Unfortunately, I had to delete your text as it was blatantly promotional in nature. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If you are associated with the subject, it is a conflict of interest and possibly a paid editing relationship. Please review those policies. I would suggest that you read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to get a better idea of what Wikipedia is, how it works, and what is expected of new articles. You can then create and submit a draft for an independent review using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Streamavid was declined in November. The reasons for it being declined were given on the draft page and at User talk:Streamavid. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Old Talk Page Comments Violating Wikipedia Guidelines

For people's comments on Talk pages that violate Talk page guidelines (e.g. making it a forum, spamming, etc.) that are extremely old (past 2012), what should I do with those comments? Am I allowed to remove them? Or should I leave them there? Thissecretperson (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thissecretperson Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's difficult to advise you without knowing the page involved or at least what guidelines are being violated. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

331dot I mean these types of comments in general/as a whole; I'm not referring to certain comments on certain talk pages. But if needed, I can provide an example of such comments: the second comment without a header, for instance, posted something that doesn't help the article, it just provides a personal experience and makes the talk page a forum. The comment was posted in 2011, however; what would I do for comments like those? Thissecretperson (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Thissecretperson. I routinely delete talk page comments like that with an edit summary of "not a forum". I encourage you to do so as well if the comment has nothing to do with improving the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Great! Thank you both for the clarity. Thissecretperson (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Caveat, anybody trying to police "my" talk page (logged-in or otherwise) without compelling reasons could be in trouble. –84.46.53.84 (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Article: Hassan Rouhani

The article on Hassan Rouhani indicates that he was preceded by Mahmoud Anmadinejad and succeeded by Nicolas Maduro (in fact box on the right side of the page. It also indicates that he was in office 3 August 2013-17 September 2016. The main article indicates that he was reelected in 2017. I have no idea how Maduro appeared in his info box and no idea what to replace it with if removed. As a locked living person item, I do not believe I can edit it.

I don't know who can correct, but respectfully request that someone address the issue.Hassan_Rouhani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plainreader (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The capacity in which the infobox gives those dates & that succession is as "Secretary General of the Non-Aligned Movement". Do you have sources that say that the information given is incorrect? --David Biddulph (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Our article Non-Aligned Movement also reports that Rouhani served in that role and that he was followed by Maduro. The current head of that group is Ilham Aliyev. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

About a Brand Page

Hello, I would like to create a page for a fashion brand. Could you help me to create it without been an advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrouk (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Syrouk Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have already been given some good advice by Theroadislong. Are you associated with this brand? 331dot (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am the designer of this brand. The innovation of this brand is that it has product patent about a product. Theroadislong advise me that the page look like an advertisement. Could you help me or write about the brand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrouk (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Syrouk. Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. Your draft is written in a promotional, advertising style that violates our core content policy called the neutral point of view. The draft fails to show that your company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It cannot be approved until these issues are fully resolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! I understand about the style. Could you help correct the style or could you write about this brand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrouk (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The question you need to ask, Syrouk, is which people, wholly unconnected with Constasy, and unprompted by Constasy, have chosen to write at length about Constasy, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking? If the answer is "none", then you should stop working on this, as it is a waste of your, and our time, since the brand is not yet notable. If there are two or three such places (which don't have to be in English, though if there are English sources, this is preferred), throw away all the text you have written, and start again, limiting yourself to what those sources say about your brand. Remember, Wikipedia is basically not interested in what you say or want to say about it: it is only interested in what those independent people have said about it. --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Syrouk. No, I am not going to write about your brand/company because I see no evidence that it is notable. It is your obligation to convince experienced, uninvolved editors that it is notable, by providing links to the type of coverage that ColinFine describes above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This links are from independent people and magazines

https://www.yes-i-am.gr/fashion/constasy-reveal-who-you-are

https://www.womantoc.gr/made-in-greece/article/ta-stilata-aksesouar-tis-constasy-eksagoun-ti-thalpori-mexri-ti-finlandia

https://www.savoirville.gr/constasy/

https://elle.gr/moda/to-glam-axesouar-pou-theloume-stin-syllogi-mas/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrouk (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

What’s your opinion about the links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syrouk (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Interviews and press releases are of no use in demonstrating notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Syrouk, I think that the best thing for you to do is to concentrate your efforts to publicize your brand in a place where that is permitted, like social media. Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Syrouk, those are highly promotional articles that show every sign of being generated by press releases and public relations activities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Parks

Should I make articles on the parks near me? These are smaller city parks. Is this notable? I've checked and no articles exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewpiter (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Drewpiter. It is not the size of the park that is important. The issue is whether or not the park has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. That coverage should not be run-of-the-mill, but genuine in-depth coverage. If so, a separate article may be appropriate. If not, perhaps the information can be included in a "Parks" section of the article about the city. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I used WP:VANISH on an old account

I misunderstood WP:VANISH. My intention was to return to a new account (with different name out of privacy reasons) editing a different set of articles (so as to avoid controversial topics). When I created a second account it got flagged as a WP:SOCK. In hindsight I should have gone for WP:CLEANSTART. So here I am with my 3rd account, with a note on my user page. How do I make sure my account doesn't get flagged by an admin in future? It would be a pity to waste my ongoing efforts of volunteering only to be blocked because of prior policy misunderstanding. BecomeFree (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@BecomeFree: To help us answer your question, would you mind disclosing the accounts you used? This will help us review the circumstances regarding your accounts. Have you read WP:SOCK? Interstellarity (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: For privacy reasons (original account contains my name) I'd rather reveal privately to an admin or check user. Is there a mechanism for that? BecomeFree (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@BecomeFree: You can email checkusers privately at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Interstellarity (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• The note on your user page says BecomeFree is your second account but here you say it is the third. Which is it? Furthermore, checkusers do not go around checking technical evidence without behavioral evidence, so I find it hard to believe you got blocked as a sockpuppet without some mischief of your part. You will have some explaining to do with the checkusers, methink.

On a side note, Wikipedia:Clean_start#Criteria would seem to ban any sockpuppetter from a clean start (since "no active sanction" refers to a person, not an account, and sock accounts never get unblocked). That does not seem intentional.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Third (I fixed my user page). I tried to explain the situation to an admin in the Talk page of a prior account, but they eventually stopped responding (and I just gave up). I understand that checkusers won't go probing in without an open investigation, in which case I give anyone permission to do so (open an investigation). I just don't feel like wasting my good-faith time on Wikipedia only to be abused in some future. BecomeFree (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

BecomeFree, not any kind of authority on these matters but only as a fellow editor, I think you need to get unblocked first. Otherwise, all your accounts are technically block evasions (think sockblocks are usually indefinite, with a prohibition on new account creation) and all your contributions are candidates for immediate rollback even if constructive. I suggest contacting a CU, an Arbitrator or the ArbCom via email and explaining to them that you did not intend to sock but only a clean start. If they buy your explanation, they can unblock you and add you to their list where they can see who you are. Of course, since you won't publicly disclose your previous accounts, you can't edit any articles you've previously edited, for your own good and that of all others working on those articles. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, since you won't publicly disclose your previous accounts, you can't edit any articles you've previously edited - This works for me, as I have no intention of editing anything in those topic areas anyway. BecomeFree (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Publishing a (finished?) article

Hello, I recently translated a Wikipedia article from Croatian into English about Hvar Observatory. It's currently a draft, the link is: Draft:Hvar Observatory I think it's ready to be published but don't know what steps to take. I apologize if this has been covered elsewhere, there's a lot of information about editing Wikipedia and I wasn't able to find it. Do you know what I'm supposed to do now? Thank you! SonjaSonia (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC) :)

@SonjaSonia: Welcome to the Teahouse! Just about everything in WP has been covered somewhere, the difficulty is in finding it...

I see that you've bitten the bullet, and moved Hvar Observatory to mainspace. It looks fine.

As final piece of tidying-up, tag the redirect Draft:Hvar Observatory (NOT the article!) as WP:G7 (instructions in that link). That redirect is no longer needed.

I've de-orphaned the article by adding it as a see-also to Hvar and Hvar (city). Should it also be linked from University of Zagreb or elsewhere? I leave that up to you.

If you want to see how your new article is doing, look at this page and this one. Narky Blert (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll be sure from now on to de-orphan new articles and other steps you listed. SonjaSonia (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmitry Orlov (banker)

I'd appreciate it if anybody can tell me what's yet to be done to remove 'multiple issues' and 'tone' tags from the article. Thanks, --VLu (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is written as a list of events. A reader might wonder if the article sources consist of a series of PR announcements. Is there no in-depth coverage of Orlov? Who did he interact with? What world events influenced him and his career? How is the world different due to his actions?--Quisqualis (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

VLu I'm letting the system know about my post above.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

which source should i refer original or derived ?

http://www.wqow.com/story/18975219/arizona-man-killed-in-accident-on-i-94 ~ Van's Warped Tour 2012 Zach Booher pronounced dead, however the article mentions https://web.archive.org/web/20120712014248/http://www.wqow.com/story/18975219/arizona-man-killed-in-accident-on-i-94 ~ report from news station WQOW, the source is found in archive.org. should i both give as refer ? in similar situations is it correct to refer both of them ? Leela52452 (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leela52452 and welcome to the Teahouse. For non-contentious material, a single source is adequate. Archived sources are less prone to link rot.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

please excuse copy pasting messed up my query, the correct hyperlink which refers to archive version is https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/music/zach-booher-of-pop-punk-band-while-were-up-killed-in-car-accident-6607576 ~ "Van's Warped Tour 2012 Zach Booher pronounced dead" once again sorry, i will read and make notes about link rot Leela52452 (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leela52452, An archived hyperlink will always begin with "https://web.archive.org", so the New Times link you just posted is not actually an archived link. It's quite good enough for now, though. There is a Wikipedia bot that I believe fixes rotten links: InternetArchiveBot.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Kanva Souharda Credit Co-operative Society limited

Dear Sir,

I have created a page in the above mentioned subject line, which highlights a huge fraud of a ponzi scheme by a well known entrepreneur. He has cheated thousands of pensiones, gullible investors in the pretext of providing high interests on deposits. Is such a page permissible in the interest of investors in Bengaluru. This is a 500 crores (70,100,000 USD). Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumar245 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Vijaykumar245 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted your draft for review. You will need to be patient, but it probably will not be accepted at this time, as it lacks the correct formatting and has others issues. I would suggest that you review Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about how Wikipedia works and what is expected of new articles. You should also review the Biographies of Living Persons policy; we must be very careful with how living people are written about. We cannot say someone committed a crime, for example, unless the matter has been heard by the legal system of your country and adjudicated.

The subject certainly seems like it could be notable- but Wikipedia is not concerned with helping investors or promoting any cause. That's what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Need to create a page for Noni

Dear Sir/madam,

Is it possible to create a Wiki page for Noni manufactured and processed by a specific vendor for commercial use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totempole245 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Totempole245. The simple answer is No. It will not be possible. You must be referring to Draft:Amrith Noni, and this would simply be promotion and unsubstantiated pushing of a herbal remedy as a genuine medicine. Until a medicinal product has been scientifically reviewed and proven to be efficacious in every way (i.e. it works), there will not be a page about it here. We have enhanced requirements for medicines (see WP:MEDREF). Sorry to be the bearer of bad news - but this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to highlight dubious products and herbal remedies. I do however commend you for including the FDA warning letter about false claims associated with this product. Unless the product itself starts killing people, and reliable sources start to write about the concerns over it, it would seem inappropriate to highlight its existence here, and there is no "need" to have a page about it here. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is evidence published in reputable science journals that Noni has health benefits, that information should be added to the Morinda citrifolia article rather than to noni grown in a specific place or by a specific company or processed in a specific way. Noni has been promoted worldwide as having health benefits. There are hundreds of articles in the scientific literature. HOWEVER, there are only a handful of published clinical trials - for different indications - and no published meta-analyses or systematic reviews. None of the claims mentioned in your draft ("Arthritis, Allergy, Asthma, high blood pressure, Cancer, Cold, Psoriasis, Indigestion, Hairfall, Recurrent head pain, Heart diseases, Urinary infections, low immunity and menstruation disorders in women.") are supported by the existing literature. David notMD (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

how to make and add an audio file

I've spent a long time unsuccessfully looking for help here and on commons.wikimedia.org. Help:Creation_and_usage_of_media_files#Audio sounds like the right place to find info, but it's written in a way that doesn't help even experienced editors. Nowhere does it say how to make a recording. Perhaps this is meant with "For encoding to Ogg Vorbis", but that is incomprehensible to most users and it links to http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Recommended_Ogg_Vorbis which is even less user friendly and doesn't even mention Android. --Espoo (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Espoo: Commons works with audio more, and their pages are a bit more helpful - Commons:Project:Audio ~~ OxonAlex - talk 12:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit removed from John Altobelli page.

On January 27th, I corrected incorrect information on John Altobelli's wiki page. Someone had edited to say he was the son of Joe Altobelli, former MLB player and manager. There was an article that I linked that said he wasn't, a link that featured a statement from Joe's former team that John was not related. I noticed that link and my edit have both been deleted, and I request clarification as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsfan1976 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sportsfan1976 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In looking at the edit history of the article, I'm not entirely certain why it was removed, as there has been a lot of edits to that article. The best way for you to find out would be to post an inquiry on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sportsfan1976, it was removed in this edit. The reason given was "I don't see how this is relevant". I think the point is that the issue was too minor to deserve inclusion. Being true or verified isn't always sufficient reason to include a piece of information in an article. More than that, you could link the diff I provided and ask at the article's talk page or the reverting user's talkpage, to further discuss the matter if you think your addition deserves to stay. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of "AGF"

So, I looked at WP:AGF. and I think I understand it, but I want to clarify. Does that basically mean, you should assume an editor has good intent unless there is a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise? Thanks, King of Scorpions (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, Yes. Exactly that. You should assume that every editor is here to improve the encyclopedia, and every action is done to improve the encyclopedia, unless you have good evidence to the contrary. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference to wikipages in a different language.

Hello all,

I'm attempting to translate my first wikipage from English to Spanish and Portuguese. I notice that there are many WikiLinks that exist only in the English Version. Shall I keep the existing links to the English Wikipedia or should I just remove the links?

How does one link a Spanish Wikipage to an english wikilink?

Thanks, --Coel Jo (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Coel Jo. Sources do not have to be in the same language as the article, although it's vastly preferable. If you cannot find good sources in the language of an article, you can keep the original sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: I believe that the OP was asking not about sources but about wikilinks. The enwiki guide about how to provide a wikilink to an article in another language's Wikipedia is at Help:Interlanguage links. From the language links in the left-hand toolbar, it appears that the eswiki equivalent of that help page is at es:Ayuda:Enlace interlingüístico. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Coel Jo: Since you're editing pages on Spanish and Portugues Wikipedia, help desks on those wikis will be a better place to get specific advice that applies to pages there. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation

How to add citation in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawale Kiran (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Jawale Kiran. You add it in the article's text; the software then constructs the citation at the end of the article. See: WP:Citing sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisqualis (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

speedy deletion

I just found a spammy draft article called Draft:Power Bottoms™. I also found out about speedy deletion tags, so could someone look at the draft and find out which tag applies, if any? Thanks, King of Scorpions (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted the draft, King of Scorpions, which sounded like it was just someone trying to be funny by creating a hoax. For more information on speedy deletions, please read WP:CSD. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It was kinda funny, but I'm guessing it belongs somewhere else, and not an encyclopedia? Also, i think I will check it out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Scorpions (talk • contribs) 17:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Making my first page

I have made a page for an app that a lot of people have been searching online.

Even I was searching for it online and there was not much information and only there website.

It has thousands of downloads and I have been doing research. It would be easier if people could go to the Wikipedia page and read about a fascinating application that will help many others. Instead of scrolling for pages for something on google.

The application is called WhatWeWant

I would be happy enough to donate if this page could be allowed.

Many thanks

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesF12345 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

JamesF12345 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Whether you donate or not has no bearing on what will happen with your draft. The Foundation that collects the money appreciates any donations, but they do not involve themselves in day to day operations here.

I am sorry, but I had to delete your draft as it met the given criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something or to promote something as you were doing. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. As you state that there isn't much online about this app, it likely does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Where can I request for change in wikipedia.org? (article number change)

Since the number of article have exceeded 6 million, while it shown 5994000+, where can I request number update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

‎DrifAssault Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't something that you can "request", as it is updated automatically. The exact number of articles is actually difficult to determine, as articles can be merged, deleted, or created from existing redirects. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@DrifAssault: https://www.wikipedia.org/ copies the counts from meta:List of Wikipedias/Table. The latter is updated daily but not the former. phab:T128546 says "Optimally, we want to do this task every two weeks." The currently shown counts are from 13 January 2020. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

However at Template:About Wikipedia, the number is currently 6,005,191 - Arjayay (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:About Wikipedia and Main Page use the magic word {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} so they are automatically updated every time the page is rendered by the software (which is often but not at every page view). Magic words only work within the wiki itself so they cannot be used at https://www.wikipedia.org/ or meta:List of Wikipedias/Table. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Dispute in Content

How do I contact the editor of a page with misleading or wrong information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B1A9:375D:9CF4:1CD1:227C:AB42 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is comment on the article talk page to detail your concerns. You can also examine the edit history of the article and locate the name of whom you wish to contact, and do so on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You can see a list of editors by clicking on page history, next to the edit button in the top right of the page. However, there is no central editorial board here, and each article is edited by a large numbers of individuals. If you find factual inaccuracies, you can either post at the articles talk page (there is a link in the top left of the page) with the problem, or, if you know how, fix it yourself, although if there is a disagreement you should then go to the talk page - see wp:brd. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Amrith Noni

Amrith Noni

I reviewed a sandbox and moved it to Draft:Amrith Noni, and then rejected it as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, because it appears to violate the policy on fringe science, and promotes what appears to be a questionable herbal remedy for which claims are made that do not satisfy medically reliable source guidelines. User:Totempole245 then emailed me and asked me to re-review it. They responded to my inquiry about conflict of interest by acknowledging a conflict of interest, and have made some changes to the draft. I do thank the editor for having the integrity to declare their conflict of interest. I see that they have made some changes to the draft that do not change my assessment. It still looks very questionable to me (to put it politely). Will another experienced editor however please look at the draft and offer an opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Need to create a page for Noni —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Utter garbage. My credentials: PhD MIT Nutritional Biochemistry and 2004-2019 consultant (now retired) to dietary supplement companies. There is no credible science - based on clinical trials or reviews of same - that noni has any health benefits. Basically, not proven. Furthermore, this particular brand has no science support to differentiate it from noni products in general. David notMD (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"undo" button

When I look at a page's history, I see an "undo" button next to the most recent edit. Is it exactly what it sounds like, or is there more to it than that? Thanks, King of Scorpions (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

​It is exactly what it sounds like, clicking the button will open up an edit window that undoes the last edit. You still have to click on "Submit". By default, the editor will be notified that you undid their edit unless they have turned those off in preferences. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@King of Scorpions: There should be an "undo" link for every edit and not just the most recent. The link undoes the clicked edit but not later edits. Sometimes you get "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits". You can write an edit summary after clicking "undo" to explain the reason. See more at Help:Reverting. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If you do choose to Undo, you should provide an explanation at Edit summary (at bottom of the editing page). And if the first editor reverts your Undo, start a discussion on the article's Talk page. David notMD (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect personal information

The site contains information about me personally which is incorrect. How can I best correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwoch (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jwoch. Please provide a link to the page and let us know what's wrong. Alternatively, you can email an administrator. I am an administrator willing to assist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your Talk page indicates you were blocked twice in 2018; not clear if the second time was ever resolved. Is this what you are asking about? David notMD (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If so, recent edits by 109.150.34.80 may be relevant. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What you know may be true (from your User page: " I was works manager and project manager for the Class 155 to Class 153 conversion."), but Wikipedia requires references. You were blocked in 2018 for adding content without references, and the evidence mentioned above suggests you have recently made similar edits as IP 109.150.34.80, i.e., not logged into your account. David notMD (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Links to some of the many previous attempts to explain to this editor the need for published reliable sources are available at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#Editor repeatedly changing information to contradict sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia log edits/where can I confirm I've met the 10 edit criteria?

Hello,

I'm on my way to gaining permission to create an article. I see only one of several edits I made acknowledge in messages I've received from Wikipedia. Where do I confirm my edit count, and how will I know when I have official permission to create an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor Thomas O'G (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Conor Thomas O'G, there are two criteria - 10 edits, and 4 days. You seem to have 8 edits, so theoretically need 2 more. However, you are strongly recommended to go through the wp:afc process for your first article, even if you don't technically have to.

Writing a new article from scratch isn't an easy task, and the reviewers at AFC are more suited to helping newcomers get articles right. A bad article submitted normally will likely get sent back as a draft, or deleted, with little useful feedback given - the volume of articles to review somewhat forces this. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 20:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Conor Thomas O'G You can look at your edit count by examining your contribution history- click "Contributions" in the upper right corner of the screen(on a computer). As OxonAlex quite correctly said- it is a good idea for any new user to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by others before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, even if you don't have to. Many new users don't realize that successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It's good to get some advice on the process first. You may want to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Reporting a possible glitch?

I noticed when I went on the Galactic Republic Wikipedia article that the flag and emblem were not on the page. So I checked to make sure that the images were not taken down, and they were not. So then I thought it might be something with my phone, since I was using Wikipedia on mobile device, but when I checked the Galactic Republic Wikipedia page on my computer, I discovered that the image for the flag and emblem were also not on the page. Maybe one of you can look and figure it out, because this has never happened to me before.BigRed606 (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor changed the infobox to call up parameters image_flag and image_coat, but those parameters do not exist in Template:Infobox fictional organisation. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done @BigRed606: I've reinstated them in the way they were before November last year. This might have been something you could just as effectively raised of the talk page of the article itself. But thanks for raising it here. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the other unused parameters which the same editor added in the same group of edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

CS1 Error- Same date, differnet result.

I was editing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Implications page, wanting to provide a few references for a section that had none. So, I found two, but one has a strange error with the date.

This one is getting a CS1 error, where it says that the access date is formatted incorrectly:

And This one isn't:

They look the same to me. What's the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argis113 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

References

The error message is not referring to the access date but to the date. You have |date=Apr., 1979 , which isn't a valid format. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Very strange situation need help

I recently made a Wikipedia account my old acquaintance recently came back to the United States and she showed me she edits Wikipedia. So I decided to make an account today it looked interesting when she showed me, she recently texted me and said she got blocked. So I'm just trying to figure out is there any way to mark us to show we are two different people, we live in the same area. I like bodybuilding she doesn't she's into history but I'm kind of into World War II history she was editing through a computer I was going to continue editing through a MacBook I just wanted to ask before I get mistaken for her.Matt Morgen (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey Matt. This is probably not going to be easy to sort out without knowing who your friend is and who blocked her. GMG^talk 20:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Her name for Wikipedia is TheSunofman after the painting I looked her up under contributions. She was blooked by Bbb23 I came here first before I continue to find out how not to get blocked for her mistakes since we live in the same area.Matt Morgen (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Matt Morgen: Ooops! User:TheSunofman got blocked for WP:SOCKing, abusively using multiple accounts – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheSunofman. That is a very serious offence on WP. Such blocks are not made lightly. Only a very few senior editors have the authority to investigate them. They don't go fishing on a "hmm maybe" basis, only if there is strong prima facie evidence.

If this account truly is your own independent account, you have nothing to fear. Happy editing! Narky Blert (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As noted above, User:TheSunofman blocked while an investigation is being confirmed for the evidence of registering and using more than a dozen accounts, to which TheSun has admitted. If you were going to be using the same computer, there could be suspicion that you are her, trying to leap to a new account. I am concerned because your and her User pages have a similar grammatical style of lack of punctuation. Given that a lot of her edits pertained to WWII, I suggest you avoid that part of history entirely. David notMD (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

alphabetize rows in a table

how to alphabetize rows in a table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parviz.Vakili.Poet (talk • contribs) 00:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

See Help:Sorting. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't login to Wiki

I started a page few years and now I want to go back and new information, but I no longer have access to the email I created my wiki account with. My question is: if I open a new account can I continue where I had left or do I need to start from the scratch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.249.109.189 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you know the username that goes with the account? Interstellarity (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have access to the email used to recover your password, and do not remember your password, you will have to create a new account and identify it as a successor to your original account("I am User2, I previously used the account User1 but lost access to it") 331dot (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

To answer the question which you asked, if you saved a page from your previous account you will still be able to edit it from your new account. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

IP user: there is absolutely no connection between an account and any article. With few exceptions, any editor can edit any article, and any article can be edited by any editor. Nobody owns any article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yobetit

HI -

I am trying to write a Wikipedia page for a company that I work for, however, it seems that it got rejected. Could someone help with this?

Thanks!

DM — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Mallia (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, David Mallia, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is probably that you stop trying to use Wikipedia for promotion and go and advertise your company somewhere else: see WP:OUT.

In more detail: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles which summarise what has been reliably published about notable subjects. If your company meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (basically, that several people, wholly unconnected with the company, have chosen to publish material about the company) then we could have an article about it. You are discouraged from creating the article, or editing it directly; and if you do so, you are required to make a declaration as a paid editor; the article should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the company have published about it, not what the company says or wants to say (including material issued by the company in press releases or interviews); and you will have no control over the contents of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Link rot: How to change citation for dead link

I came across this "link rotted" reference in the article on Henry Morton Stanley: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/grant-stanley/. I checked for an archived copy on archive.org and several other archival sites but only found the dreaded 404 error. For now, I am going to edit it to say "citation needed" and put the old reference in the "reason" so I don't lose track of it.

Really, what is the proper thing to do? Is there any single "how to" page on Wikipedia? The more I learn, the more rabbit holes I fall down.

Batya7 (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Batya7. Pages get moved all the time which is why we like references to have title, publisher as well as the url. Then Google can be your friend. I googled '"American Experience" Henry Morton Stanley' and found the new location of the page. And I put it in the archive here in case it moves again. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma. Thank you for your assistance. Duh, I did not think to google it. Will now update the reference. Should I cite the archived page? Batya7 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

NEEDS GUIDE

Hi, please i need a guide on how to cite apart from referencing--Pheritenom (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pheritenom, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a little uncertain what you want to do - adding inline citations maybe? We do have this help page: Referencing for Beginners. I find it pretty incomprehensible, so I wrote WP:EASYREFBEGIN which is my attempt to explain how to add inline citations using either WP:Source Editor or the Visual Editor. Let us know how you get on, or if you want more specific assistance. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC) 

Thanks User: Nick Moyes for the understanding applied to answering my confusing question. I have gone through your article about referencing and it was helpful. i would surely get back to you after applying the knowledge gotten, thanks once more --Pheritenom (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User Page information limit!

What information I can added in my user page?

As i have added all about myself in my user page. An administrator have deleted it.

Can you help me to understand what to add there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anzer Creation (talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anzer Creation. You can find more specific details in Wikipedia:User pages, particularly in the sections Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? and Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?, but bascially a user page needs to primarily related to your activities on Wikipedia. Some personal information is generally considered OK when used to introduce yourself to other members of the Wikipedia community, but anything that appears to be an attempt to create an online profile or a de-facto article about something is usually not deemed appropriate per speedy deletion criterion U5. I'm not an administrtor; so, I cannot see what you had on your page and can only speak in generalities. There are some Teahouse hosts who are also administrators and maybe one of them can further clarify things. You can also ask for clarification from Spencer, the adminsitrator who deleted the page, by posting a message at User talk:Spencer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Anzer Creation. I am an administrator so I was able to read your deleted userpage. It was a highly self-promotional and autobiographical page written to appear like an encyclopedia article. That is not the purpose of a user page. Instead, it is to present yourself as a Wikipedia editor. It is a place to tell your fellow editors a bit about what you have done and plan to do to improve the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a project to build a free encyclopedia. It is not a social media site where people promote their careers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User page

I have another question. What is your user page for? I have a link to it in my sig, I think... King of Scorpions (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, it can be used to put information about yourself. See WP:UPYES for the details, but you generally have a fair bit of room to do what you want with it, as long as you are making good contributions elsewhere. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You also don't have to have anything there at all. There is no requirement for a user to have a user page, but most do. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

On some projects, I'm aware of Wikidata, Babel language preferences (user boxes) on your user page have a technical effect, they determine which languages you see and can edit in the descriptions of Wikidata items.
If you plan to hop around between different Wikimedia projects (enwiki, commons, wikidata, mediawiki, etc.) you can create a global default user profile on meta, shown on all projects where you have no specific user page. Digging out an old example, because "should also work on projects with right-to-left scripts" is tricky: default profile on meta. –84.46.53.165 (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

War thunder

is there a war thunder page?and if not pls add it THX :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanmeurgey (talk • contribs) 10:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Romanmeurgey Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is an article called War Thunder, if that is what you are looking for. If you are using a computer, there is a search bar in the upper right corner of every page on Wikipedia that you can use to search for topics. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Trustable

Hi everyone! I wanted to know how to become a trustable person on Wikipedia, any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norlopezlincuez (talk • contribs) 10:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Norlopezlincuez Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The way to build trust with other editors is just like in real life- be honest, respond to the concerns of others, and do good work. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit title of the page

How to edit the title of the wikipedia page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanliim (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jeanliim. You can use the Move tab at the top of the page, once your account is confirmed. That will be when you have 10 edits and your account is 4 full days old.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jeanliim. As Quisqualis explained above, you'll be able to WP:MOVE a page once your account has been WP:AUTOCONFIRMED; however, whether you should move an article to a new title is a different matter altogether. So, before you do so, I suggest you carefully read through Wikipedia:Moving a page#Before moving a page and follow the guidance given there. Changing the title of an article can often be something that's quite contentious; so , it might be better to be a little more WP:CAUTIOUS then WP:BOLD and at least proppse the page move first on the article's talk page to see what others think. If you make a good argument in favor of moving the page and a consensus is established to do so, most likely another more experienced editor will be happy to do. If you do, however, decide to be BOLD in moving the page, but are WP:REVERTed by another editor, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discuss things on the article's talk page. Trying to repeatedly force through a page move without establishing a proper consensus to do so is likely going to be seen as edit warring and may lead to an administrator stepping in and taking action to prevent any further disruption, even if that means WP:BLOCKing some accounts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are asking about TripleOne Somerset (a Good article) I agree with Marchjuly that you first propose the name change on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Double redirect

Why not to delete the empty article redirect Relations between early Christianity and Judaism? and to clean redirect on History of early Christianity? I guess you have the redirects for merging or like that. PoetVeches (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@PoetVeches: Thank you for visiting the Teahouse! The place to raise questions like this is WP:RFD – where ravening editors like myself will either tear you limb from limb, or agree with you, or fight to the death among themselves. Follow the instructions at WP:RFD#How to list a redirect for discussion.

All joking aside, RFD really is the best place to ask questions like this: 'D' stands for Discussion, not necessarily for Deletion. We're quite nice really. (I suspect that both those redirects might get the OK, but I'm not going to prejudge any discussion. It doesn't hurt to ask. Keeping good redirects, deleting bad redirects, and retargetting iffy redirects are all important. If no-one asks the question, no-one ever looks; so, if you have a doubt, ask the question.)

(BTW, those aren't WP:DOUBLEREDIRECTs. That term has the special meaning of A -> B -> C, which Wikimedia software doesn't like. They get corrected by bots into A -> C plus B -> C almost before you can blink; not always correctly.) Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

LoL, a good description of RFD, so far I survived a few excursions as IP. –84.46.53.165 (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert:, tea was fantastic, my bot says thanks very much :) PoetVeches (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

how to fix id:Vonny Cornelia on Putri Bidadari

wikilink showing as id:Vonny Cornelia. should i remove it ? Leela52452 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

In the time of my post, you don't need to fix it. It is already in the right place, as it identify id:Vonny Cornelia to Vonny Cornelia by now. Somebody might have fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

for me it did not changed. perhaps i am viewing old version. id:Vonny Cornelia shows content in foreign language, not english. in order to show english content, perhaps we have to use [[Vonny Cornellya]]. i have just observed that are other wikilinks with similar code. Leela52452 (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452 and DrifAssault: Welcome to the Teahouse! [[:id:Vonny Cornelia|Vonny Cornelia]] (as in the article now) produces a "soft" link to Indonesian WP, which shows blue but lands you at the Indonesian article id:Vonny Cornellya (by way of a redirect in Indonesian WP). Because the corresponding English article Vonny Cornellya exists, by all means replace the link with that one in the way you suggest. Narky Blert (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

How can i get an article published and moved to live space

Hi My name is harry am a blogger and editor basically i do music related articles and post here in my country have been editing for years now though am not new to Wikipedia .

I was contacted by one of my college concerning an article he wrote concerning a very popular business crytocurrency trader and celebrity author here in my country as the article was marked for quick deletion in which i felt is unfair . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilsonharry454 (talk • contribs) 2020-01-29T10:57:00 (UTC)

Hello, Wilsonharry454. It's hard to say anything about the case since you haven't told us the name of the person who created the draft, or what it was called. But if was deleted in a speedy deletion, WP:SPEEDY tells you the criteria used for that, and how to appeal it. If it was one of the other deletion processes, look at WP:Deletion policy.

In general, creating a new article that gets accepted is one of the hardest tasks to do on Wikipedia. User:ian.thomson/Howto is a good summary of the steps it will take. --ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi {U|Wilsonharry454}}. thanks for your note above. We are glad that you took the time to write. By the way, i wanted to ask, what country are you referring to? we have a whole set of timeline articles for individual articles for each year, e.g. 2020 in France, 2020 in Italy, 2020 in Turkey, etc etc. would you like to help us keep them up to date? I recommend that sometimes to some new editors, simply because it is a quick and easy way to start one's editing efforts here, by adding facts to one article in a simple fashion, and thereby getting a feel for Wikipedia's general tools, and how things work. I hope you'll feel free to give it a try. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

New article being written about notable Canadian Radio Host

Hi there, I'm about to write an article about a notable Canadian radio host. Article is factual and would love for it to not have a speedy deletion tag or proposed for deletion tag on it. Here's the article. I feel it's okay for Wikipedia as it's basic facts and references properly. Any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisrobertson (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I've moved draft content to Draft:DJ Blitz - most speedy deletions tags won't be applied to drafts ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:DJ Blitz ready to be moved to mainspace

Hi there. I have just written an article about a notable Canadian radio host, and it's ready to be moved to mainspace. Would someone be able to do that for me? I'm not seeing a move button.

Someone please look into this Draft:DJ Blitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisrobertson (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Krisrobertson The 'Move' button is under the "more" tab at the top of the screen(if using a computer). It is strongly advised that anyone new at creating articles run it through Articles for Creation even if they don't technically need to. It's better to get feedback before your draft is in the encyclopedia instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. Creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, and it's good to have more eyes on it. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my last question. How do I move this into mainspace? I'm still unsure. Any assistance is much appreciated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Blitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisrobertson (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Krisrobertson Follow ups can be placed in the same section as your original question; click "edit" in the section header. As I said, that's strongly discouraged unless you have much experience in article creation. Do you have a particular need to place it in the encyclopedia right away? 331dot (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

No need do it right away. My worry right now, is that an admin of wikipedia moved my content to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DJ_Blitz, but I don't actually own that draftspace. So it doesn't show that I'm the author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisrobertson (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Krisrobertson, I hadn't noticed that User:Krisrobertson/DJ Blitz (Radio Host) already existed when you copied the content here, hence I moved it to it's own page. Looking at it now, I've marked the duplicate page at draft:DJ Blitz for deletion. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

But the above advice still applies about moving to mainspace etc. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok! Thanks so much. But which name should I actually have my final article as for him? DJ Blitz or DJ Blitz (Radio Host). Cause I'm assuming it's the exact same thing and in the past maybe someone tried to create a page about him before. So I just need assistance with picking either DJ Blitz or DJ Blitz (Radio Host). Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisrobertson (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Because if I remove that "(Radio Host)" part of the article title, it will probably get flagged or something, because it was recently deleted. Your thoughts? Like, could I just stick to having it "DJ Blitz" instead? I don't know which title to pick

You don't need the career disambiguation unless there is another article by the same title. Avoiding being "flagged" is another reason to use Articles for Creation, so you find any problems first. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Krisrobertson. Since there is no other article called DJ Blitz, your draft should definitely be called just "DJ Blitz": we only put a disambiguating term in an article title if it is needed for distinctness. But I echo the other people who have strongly advised you not to move your draft to mainspace yourself, but to put it through review (by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top - with the double curly brackets). But first, you need to establish DJ Blitz meets Wikipedia's standard of notability. I am unable to see the Winnipeg Free Press articles (because I'm in Europe), so if they are in depth discussions of DJ Blitz by somebody unconnected with him, they may establish his notability, but the ones I can read are just passing mentions, and do nothing to establish it. Unless you can find the multiple, independent, reliably published, in-depth pieces about him that are required to establish notability, then I am afraid that you are wasting your time working on an article about him. --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for feedback ColinFine (talk). The one thing I'm a little confused about, is that I've looked at a couple wikipedia pages that are currently live and in mainspace, and they seemed to have passed the notability test. However, it has like 1 reference, and I think the other has none. How did this pass a review from Wikipedia review staff, yet the DJ Blitz one that I wrote wouldn't? I included several reliable news sources that confirmed events, the philanthropy work, and also his job title. Is there another way on top of the news sources to demonstrate notability to Wikipedia? Because he is in fact a notable broadcaster. Perhaps since he works for Bell Media which has it's own news outlet, competing news stations wouldn't want to write competing articles on him? That might explain the absence of in depth articles on him online

Here are the 2 articles which would signify to me that the DJ Blitz one that I wrote could probably be considered for main space:River_East_Collegiate Now_or_Never_(radio_show). These both are very weak reference wise and in terms of notability, don't really demonstrate. Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisrobertson (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This part of the discussion could also include anyone who would like to weigh in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisrobertson (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in, Krisrobertson. Wikipedia has an article called Other Stuff Exists. Standards were much lower when Wikipedia was emphasizing growth over quality. Since then, standards have been steadily tightened. The fact that articles exist which should be deleted is not a justification for more such articles. Each day, about 200 articles are deleted from Wikipedia by us volunteers. If articles for every person as WP:Notable as Blitz were to suddenly appear on Wikipedia, our article count would more than double, from 6,000,000 to 12,000,000, and Wikipedia's utility as an encyclopedia would be affected. I shudder to consider the added burden it would place on our volunteer editors. ColinFine is absolutely right. All of this raises the question of whether you might have a conflict of interest in writing an article about Blitz. Promotion of the non-notable is one of the main motivators for writing a Wikipedia article, and also one of the main factors keeping articles out of Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk, Discussion Content: Indents vs. Bullet Points

While talking about or discussing something, responding to someone, what is the preferred method of communication?

Sometimes I seen an indent, designated with ":" (single) or "::" (double), or deeper indentation, and other times I see a bullet point with "*", which in combination seems a bit unclean (unclear) trying to read through things.

Is there a rhyme or reason for one or the other, or does it depend on individual preference? Is there some documentation to understand, otherwise?

IMO: Trying to read through various comments across topical conversations seems variegated. This question is only a learning question.

See examples below.

This is an indented comment. PhanChavez (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

And now I'm talking to myself with a doubly indented comment. PhanChavez (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• But then someone comes along and uses a star bullet point instead. PhanChavez (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Now my stars are misaligned with the overall view of the discussion. PhanChavez (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

See WP:THREAD for the norm....that seen best to just try to follow along as some editors are not a fan of "Style" correction as per WP:TPOC. Personally I just use the original format in a post even if that changes throughout.--Moxy 🍁 04:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In summary: As long as I keep it clean and don't negatively impact the overall discussion, I can clean or fix things up as I desire? (i.e. if I maintain proper nesting, don't corrupt things, I can change the style)? But don't screw with others' talk pages or their preferred style (there). And try to keep things clean in public forums (according to community preference, not my own view). Would this be a correct interpretation? And if different users mix bullet-points and indent style in community forum, I can clean-things-up as necessary or needed (so long as appropriate; nesting stays the same)? Or does that upset people (i.e. admins/bureaucrats)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanChavez (talk • contribs) 06:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi PhanChavez. As someone who occasionally does some of the things describe above, it is something (at least in my opinion) allowed per things like WP:TPG#Fixing format errors, WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors, WP:AFDFORMAT, WP:LISTGAP, etc. In some cases (e.g. at formal discussion like an XfD discussion or an RFC) this can be helpful in keeping formatting consistent; in other cases, however, perhaps on an article talk page there might not be such a pressing need to do such a thing. So, like anything on Wikipedia, you can be WP:BOLD as long as you're careful to avoid any WP:REFACTOR#Concerns. If you start to be reverted or receive some serious resistence to such edits, then you'll need to decide if it's something in particular that you want to fight over. It's almost certain that edit warring over something like this is not going to be considered an exemption to 3RR, so you're going to have a hard time justifying repeatedly doing so if someone is hell bent of undoing your "improvements". There are some editors who don't care about this, but there are also editors who do; so, I wouldn't be so quick to start searching them out as part of some general cleanup of Wikipedia as a whole. If you're participating in a discussion or you comes across a particular discussion by chance and think such tweak will improve the flow and understanding of the discussion, then maybe others won't care. If, however, it's a contentous discussion, then just showing up out of the blue to tweak the indentation might generate some heat in your direction, aprticularly if it's on another editor's user talk page. Depending upon ow you look at things, the indentation used here at the Teahouse is often "technically" incorrect, but this is often overlooked for the sake of clarity since multiple replies to the same question indented to the same level often can be harder to read or distiguish by those asking questions (editors who often tend to be users unfamilair with things like WP:TPG, WP:INDENT or even WP:SIGN) than if each reply is indented to the different level.

This is just an observation and not meant as a criticism, but your account appears to be fairly new and thus you might find yourself experiencing more blowback from making these types of edits than perhaps a more experienced editor whose has a much more established history of improving content in the mainspace. That's not to say such a blowback would be justified, but people might be a little less tolerant of it if such cleanup appears to be your primary your focus when it comes to Wikipedia editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for the detailed response. On the latter point of blowback, I'll keep that in mind. (What I was trying to get at is: If not inappropriate, such as on my own talkpage, I might put things in order and try to maintain consistent formatting to understand the flow of things. I find it easier this way. But I'll keep what you said in mind and try not to screw with others' preferred formatting and such.) Thanks. PhanChavez (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You have much more leeway when it comes to posts added to your user talk page as explained in WP:BLANKING, but at the same time you should try to avoid changing any posts made by others to your user talk page in any manner that might change their meaning or intent as explained in WP:TPO. You also need to be aware of doing the same for your posts as explained in WP:REDACT. Finally, you might also want to keep in mind that the purpose of a user talk page is to make it easier for other Wikipedians to communicate with you about things related to the project; thus, a user talk page doesn't necessarily need to be held to the same high standards for content, spelling, grammar, etc. as an article is expected to be. So, if the way people are formatting their posts bothers you, you can politiely let them know or even "fix" the formatting; you can even create a "header" so to speak and add it to the top of your user talk page which sort of provides some guidance to those who decide to post on it. How rigorously you try and "enforce" such a thing is up to you, but if others start feeling that posting on your user talk page is more of a hassle than anything else because you're proofreading/correcting everything that everyone posts, your user talk page is probably going to be a very lonely place and whatever comments do end up being posted there might not generally be very friendly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I added further indents to the above two comments

@PhanChavez: +1 to MarchJuly's description of the balance. I try not to reformat too much either, tending to do so only on non-user-talk pages, when it clearly improves readability, and there are only one or two responses that need it.

Here at the Teahouse, a number of us tend to use a modified indenting format that reflects which previous comment we are responding to. For example:

User1 posts a question like this.

User2 answers User1 here with indent of 1 (one more than User1's 0-indent).

User3 provides further information to User1 like this, using the same indent (1) as User2 did (one more than User1's 0-indent).

User4 comments on User3's post, using an indent of 2 (one more than User3's 1-indent).

User2 comments on User3's post, using an indent of 2 (one more than User3's 1-indent).

User5 comments on User4's post, using an indent of 3 (one more than User4's 2-indent).

This format has the added benefit or allowing more comments before you get too many colons to easily count or that take up all the screen space available, before someone has to {{Od}}. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can a company create a Wikipedia page?

Hello I represent a PR company. My client wants to create a Wikipedia page about the company. Are they able to do so? Or does a page about them have to be written by others? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.64.73 (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• That is strongly discouraged, but allowed. However, there are multiple caveats:

1. it must be done in compliance with Wikipedia's terms of use regarding paid editing (which requires you to create an account and disclose who is paying for what page)
2. the client will not have any control about what the page says. In particular, it cannot be used for promotion; only raw, sourced facts will be allowed to stay. See Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing (which is written mostly with biographies in mind but applies here as well)
3. there is no guarantee the page will stay. No matter how hard you try, if the client's company is not "notable", the page will be deleted. "Notable" here has a specific meaning, which is not the colloquial "worthy of being noted" (subjective), but "has been talked/written about at length by multiple independent reliable sources". If such sources do not exist, do not even bother writing the page.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain to your client that Wikipedia is not for promotion (which here means "telling the world about something"). Wikipedia is only interested in subjects which the world has already been told about, by people other than those close to the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Some companies don't realize that it is often a better expenditure of corporate money to improve their own web site, which they control, than to try to create a non-neutral web page on Wikipedia, which has a neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, please click on the blue links in the text above to see the details of the policies that the editors have summarized, especially WP:NOTPROMO (and the rest of that page). Wikipedia is especially incompatible with the purpose of a PR firm – it's just not what we're trying to do here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ray the Film

Did Jamie Foxx play the piano and sang all the songs himself in the film RAY

86.30.198.8, you may ask this at the Reference desk in the Entertainment section, as the Teahouse is for discussion of editing articles.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

war thunder

because there are no people working on war thunder page can i please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanmeurgey (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

is it just me or most admins are bots Romanmeurgey (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Romanmeurgey, you can work on any page. Editors don't own any page (see wp:own), and it is typically for many editors to be working on a page at once. You are encouraged to wp:be bold in improving the encyclopedia.

Although there are bots with admin rights (see WP:ADMINBOT), there are very few adminbots, and any admins you've come across probably aren't bots. I'm not quite sure where you've got that impression from. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Also on admins being bots - there are several commonly used templates to pass information to users, that almost all editors involved in maintenance will use, to save writing out the same thing several times. This doesn't mean the user is a bot, just that they have used a templated message. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, Romanmeurgey. Despite my reverting your edits, you are very welcome to work on the that article and any others, provided you follow our guidelines such as verifiability, original research, citing sources and neutral point of view. You might find The Wikipedia Adventure useful to get to know about some of these. --ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the tags at the top of the War Thunder article say that it needs work, but the article itself dates back to 2013 and has had more than 1,000 edits by scores of editors. Including recently. Many of these may have it on their Watch list, so they get notified if any changes are made to the article. So your statement "because there are no people working on war thunder page can i please" not true. This does not mean you should not, only that sticking to Wikipedia's rules will help. David notMD (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Company Page vs Product Page

Hello,

We have a product page (Croquet Project), and now we have a company (Croquet) that we need a page for. Wondering how to create a company page, or just combine the two. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.32.107.136 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Would you like to promote Croquet Project on Wikipedia so that the world can gain awareness of your company? Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot support that goal, as it is not for promotion. Sorry, 46.32.107.136.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There is an existing article Croquet Project. Is that you? A few problems going forward. Editors are individuals, so there should be no "We." Wikipedia is articles not pages, and "need" does not apply. More importantly, WP:PAID applies, meaning that you are to register an account, declare on the User page of that account your paid status, and rather than edit the article directly, request specific edits on the Talk page so that a non-connected editor can decide to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S.

Please help me with edits i really want to help but everyone thinks that my edits are bad and useless.i just want to help and make wiki better i want to be a host but its not working — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanmeurgey (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Most editors go through a learning curve wherein there edits are being reversed because they do not understand Wikipedia's rules. Creating a new article is an order of magnitude harder. There are tutorials and guidelines which I hope other editors will point out to you. David notMD (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I notice you made an edit "new update april 2020 please wait", which is more of a social media-type edit and not encyclopedic. Once you have read about what Wikipedia is and what its tone should be, you will know why you were reverted. See the beneficial links posted to your talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

seeking to improve my page's rating on the quality scale

Dear Teahouse

I have recently published my first Wikipedia page, Dietary Conservatism. It received a C-Class rating.

The C-Class rating is described in this way:

"Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study."

I'm quite disappointed with this assessment. I thought I'd done a reasonable job on covering the subject. Clearly my idea about what is important to include on the subject differs from that of the reviewer(s). In the mind of the reviewer(s), there is plenty of room for improvement.

I don't understand what information is missing, or how it might be presented differently. Is there any way I can communicate with the reviewer(s), in the hope of improving the page, and maybe its rating?

best wishes, David Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Para-eunoia (talk • contribs) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

One reason your article may have that rating might be that it lacks categories (see note on article page). Also, I noticed that adjectives (surprising, remarkable) seemed gratuitous and may be affecting the article's tone. Other than that, not having read it, it seems to be of decent quality, and a C rating is not a disparaging assessment. It can be a reflection of the topic's relevance and interest to general readers.

I might suggest that you try to find sources tying DC to larger themes in ecology (i.e., topics which WP covers in longer and more numerous articles), rather than just drilling down into the details of DC. This would illustrate DC's significance to the reader.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Five of the 18 references are articles you authored or co-authored, and many of the factual statements are without referencing. I have added citation(s) needed. Over time, the expectations are that other editors will add/subtract content and the article will be improved. As the article creator, you should not upgrade rating. David notMD (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating page on living person with little online presence

Avrohom Yehoshua Soloveitchik is as you can see, well, barely a page at all, since he is a pretty prominent man in my community i wanted to create\upgrade the page, the problem is that there are barely any sources online about him, so even though i know many things about him i can hardly write a word. in such a case is there leniency in sourcing etc.? Stalwart Mugwump (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Stalwart Mugwump: Sources needn't be online, they need be published. See WP:SOURCES. --CiaPan (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sources don't need to be online, provided that they have been published; see WP:PUBLISHED. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Stalwart Mugwump. I suggest that you also ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism where you can find editors with experience in improving this type of article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Stopping an edit war

In Wikipedia:Help desk There is a section called "2 questions that are related.". It is about an on-going edit war. How can I contact an administrator to help monitor the problem? Elijahandskip (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, if you think there is an edit war that required admin intervention, then wp:anew is where you can report. However, this more of a last resort option. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

and be aware that if you go to the noticeboard, you can be found as the one at fault and sanctioned. You are advised to take the comment at the Help Desk in account. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Banned from an IRC channel

I have been banned from one of the IRC channels, and would like to know if there's a way that I can get unbanned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help

--MikaelaArsenault (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)MikaelaArsenault

MikaelaArsenault, this has been answered at the help desk. There isn't a reason to post on multiple pages, because it can lead to wasted time if people work out an answer you've already been given elsewhere. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 20:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

admin request - information from a deleted file

Right now I'm working on Commons to improve the image description page of File:F1 grenade DoD.jpg. The page says it was uploaded to en.wikipedia under the name "F1 grenae.JPG" by User:Megapixie.
Can an admin please retrieve the information from this file so that I can add these informations to the image description page. You can leave the information here, on my en.wikipedia talk page or my talk page on Commons.
Thank you for your help --D-Kuru (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: There's a typo in the description. The original file was File:F1 grenade.JPG. There is really no more information than what is already in the comments. Uploaded 14:38, 30 July 2005. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Thanks for the fast help! --D-Kuru (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

My correction was reverted.

My first correction, on the Jim Keltner page, was reverted. Is that to check my accuracy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken Skead (talk • contribs)

The edit summary of the reverted edit explains the reason your edit was reverted. A part of your edit was reverted because the mention of Keltner being included in 8 of 14 tracks was not included in the sourced material. When adding information to Wikipedia, please be sure to cite reliable sources. I also recommend reaching out to the editor who reverted the change if you are unsure of their reasoning so you can get more details/work it out with them. Orville^talk 21:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

need help completing edit made to List of Anglo-Catholic churches in U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Anglo-Catholic_churches#United_States

Hello, I am the Interim Rector of All Saints' Episcopal Church in San Francisco, and yesterday added our church to the table on the page above.

This was my first time editing Wikipedia.

Today, All Saints' (the title) is missing. Haight-Ashbury and San Francisco is in the "parish" column. The self-identifying information has moved to the "image" column.

How can I fix the listing to be:

All Saints' (with link to website) in the "parish column" and move the other items over a column to the right.

Thank you,

RevbethF — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevbethF (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Orville^talk 21:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging RevbethF in case they aren't watching here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

long-standing consensus and 3RR

I need to leave soon, but there is an issue regarding a long-standing consensus and 3RR at National Rifle Association (see Talk:National Rifle Association#Russia connection, justification examples of Timelines' inclusion in See also). It is my understanding that an long-standing edits stay during the Discussion phase of BRD until, and if, there is a new consensus. Is that not correct? X1\ (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

At this point you are at 4RR on that article also everyone else in the discussion on the talk page agrees there is a new consensus. Please do not engage in WP:FORUMSHOP. PackMecEng (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding has been a newly challenged consensus (in this particular case, a 320 day long consensus) item stays in place while the item is being discussed; so "reverting" to that condition is restoring (not counted as a Revert) to the proper conditions for Discussion. User PackMecEng is an involved editor with an opposing viewpoint on whether the item is to remain included. It is important for me to understand, in general, if my belief in this distinction is or is not correct. Can you point me in the correct direction if this is not the best place to find this "policy" clarification? X1\ (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your understanding is half correct. A reversion associated with BRD is a reversion and not one of the 3RR exceptions here [[3]]. As for what version of the article should stand during the BRD cycle, that should be based on WP:consensus (and common sense). If during BRD a new consensus hasn't been formed then WP:NOCON applies and the article should go back to the last stable state. If a new consensus exists then the article can change even if the discussion is on going. Common sense should be applied if a continuation of the discussion may sway current consensus. As an example, the old consensus was A. A new local consensus has formed around B but additional editors are joining the discussion and starting to suggest option C. Even though A is no longer the consensus and B is the new current consensus, it's better to wait for additional input to see if C will be favored over B. This is particularly true in cases where the discussion very recent and it's likely additional voices will weigh in. Disclaimer - I'm an involved editor. My example was meant to be general and not meant to reflect the discussion in question. Springee (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As presumably most readers/contributors to the Teahouse know, it is to seek outside opinions, that is why I came here. Springee is yet another involved/biased editor to the specific situation, that gave rise to a general question here from me. As I have not seen a comment from an un-involved editor, in the past few days, I will assume that implicitly I should seek my response else, maybe somewhere more specificly related to my question. X1\ (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The fact that I said "Disclaimer - I'm an involved editor." indicated that I was an involved editor. Springee (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: You should lead with WP:COI instead of after-the-fact disclaimer. RE: "Disclaimer - I'm an involved editor." PhanChavez (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@X1\: Exactly. That's what third opinion is for. I agree with User:PackMecEng's above comment to the effect of forum shopping. See my IMO (below); I think there's a relatively simple solution to this unless or until someone comes along and screws with the NRA page (controversial on its face; at large; at present; over the last few years). PhanChavez (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO: 3O

I'm new here, please don't shoot me (just breaking the ice).

I tried reading through the whole thing on the NRA talk page, but the depth and content of arguments is insane. It is too involved in both relevant content/context/details, and semantics (MOS). I have not read through all of the various or whatever diffs or version history (that's just more insanity, and when I say "hajime," or "fight," you can start shadow-boxing with yourselves for all I care).

I think I have a reasonable grasp of the overall concept and issue at hand (not context or details or edit history).

So, being new here, I made a mistake a few days, or month ago, to the effect of posting in both 3O (Third Opinion) and WP:DRN at the same time, simply seeking resolution. I'm not good at talking obvious things in circles. At least things that are obvious to me, that I have my head wrapped around. (As those so involved in this issue are already up-to-par upon.)

My 3O is simply this: Some articles have a Controversy section. At present, I would suggest shunting the Maria Butina and Trump-Russia stuff between the existing (6) Criticism and (7) List of past and present leaders, such that you have something like:

• (6) Criticism
• (7) Controversy
  • (7.1) Maria Butina
  • (7.2) Trump-Russia
• (8) List of past and present leaders

Or, whatever. Something along these lines. I see definite context and relevance to the whole issue. But trying to shunt all of the crap on the talk page into the NRA article seems inappropriate. Thereabouts, the other 4-or-5 "timeline" articles are relevant. But the "See Also" section, as noted, doesn't need to be overloaded with a bunch of other stuff.

As a reader and consumer of information, if I want to drill-down to specific details about something in history, I want a clear and concise history and drill-down, not a sh*t fight over who's right about what, when, why or where. (Apologies for the profanity.)

Also, IMO, in good time, this stuff will work itself out as everyone decides the history they want to read. (However, in whatever form, it should be memorialized in past history/diffs. What people do to all of that long in the future, no one can say.)

I say: Re-start from a clean slate. Just add the Controversy section, and branch-off with relevant and contextual sub-sections, details, articles from there, instead of an overloaded "See Also." Just a series of sub-sections with headings and a link to full timelines of specific issues, etc. Describe relationships in-line within that article where necessary.

It doesn't all need to be shunted into the NRA article. Create stubs if necessary. Delete and consolidate later, if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanChavez (talk • contribs) 06:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The MOS has nothing to do with semantics – in fact, it is the exact opposite of semantics. As for the rest of your overly convoluted and partly unintelligible post, this does appear to be forum shopping. If you are looking for a third opinion, do so at 3O. But be succinct. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Please pay attention to the details. Your reply to the subsection here, my own addition to the OP is inappropriate. Maybe that's why you find it unintelligible? You didn't read the aforementioned information before IMO: 3O. The semantic details behind the Manual of Style and attempting to implement various information into the main article is a core issue. And it is a matter of semantics. If it is not a matter of semantics, then it is a matter of preference, aside from generally accepted guidelines such as MOS. That's where MOS comes in. It eliminates preference. If MOS is unclear, then shouldn't it be discussed (as an example) on the MOS talk page? Just saying. Again, things speak for themselves (KISS). PhanChavez (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear with my there is an issue question. I am not seeking an response responses to the article, but regarding long-standing consensus and 3RR.

If an item has long-standing consensus, and that item is deleted; it is my understanding that deletion is Bold, and if it is Reverted (as it was in the example article I gave), it is then Discussed, and stays Reverted until, if and when, a potentially new consensus is reached.

If that long-standing consensus, in this particular case, needs to be Reverted multiple times to maintain the proper situation of the B & R described above, it is a restoration, and not a violation of the (spirit of?) 3RR, since it is done in order to properly follow BRD.

To be clear, I am not seeking a 3O on the article's content, but on the proper process for BRD and long-standing consensus in relation to 3RR.

Would Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia talk:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or some other venue be more appropriate for the clarification I seek? X1\ (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Article of the video game "Defend Them !"

Hi,
I have published yesterday an article about my own game ^{Draft:Defend Them !} with some basic infos, which releases in about 3 weeks on steam.
I have realized too late, that it needs an article on wikipedia to get a category on youtube...

How long would it take to be official?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Game Dev 666 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Game Dev 666, I am sorry, but wikipedia only covers notable topics. Your game does not pass the notability rules for games and will not be published. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Game Dev 666, thanks for your contribution, but promotion of your own game is not one of the purposes of Wikipedia. When your game is WP:Notable, people will be writing about you on their own. Please see WP:Your first article for the details on this process. --Quisqualis (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You have not submitted your draft for AFC review, but you would be wasting your time to do so as you have no references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to show its notability. By saying that "it needs an article on wikipedia to get a category on youtube" you are confirming that your intention is to use Wikipedia for promotion, but that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the above, notice also that by uploading File:Defend_Them_!_Cover.jpg under a CC-BY-SA license you allowed everyone, everywhere to reuse it for free. Maybe you (and possibly your boss) are OK with this, or maybe you just clicked whatever was necessary to post it to your draft. If it is the latter, you might be able to request it be deleted to limit the spread (even though you cannot revoke the legal license, you can reduce the technical ease to obtain a copy). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be easier to find sources, now that you've made it possible for anyone in the entire world to use your cover art for whatever they want. Congratulations, Game Dev 666. John from Idegon (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It was completely fine for me, that everyone can use this cover image, as long as they credit me and my company (it´s exactly what the license says) ... but ok, delete it and the article of my game too, it´s not notable, it´s just crap^^ Game Dev 666 18:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Game Dev 666: Though you might have been kidding, I just wanted to say that "!notable != crap". There is plenty of software in the world that may be the result of millions of man-hours of work (each) and yet still not be notable in the Wikipedia sense. I was a principal of a company that created such a product, and don't feel the least bit offended by it not being the subject of an article here. You shouldn't either. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thanks, but I have understand now, what a wiki is ... it´s not a page for informations which a developer gives about his own products, but it´s a "fan-made" information site. If anyone loves a product, he/she/it creates an article on wikipedia, but never the developer by himself. If anytime anyone thinks my game needs an article on wikipedia, this one can create one, I have no problem with that, but I won´t do that anymore, I have better things to do than to be annoyed by some nags, I was completely fine with my "cover" picture, but others not, so, please delete it, it was my fault, I thought I can share my picture for free use with credit, but unfortunately no ... I never wanted getting advertised by wikipedia, but youtube gets their information of a game from wikipedia, is this my fault? no ... I have never thought about this part, but someone has asked me if I could create one and I tried, but I have failed, my community needs to be really ashamed about me, so, just remove the article about my game, it currently doesn't deserve one^^ If there are any press articles about my game available (which happens in about 3 weeks) and anyone thinks he/she/it needs to create a new article about my game, it´s completely fine for me, even if there are wrong informations available, it´s ok, the informations I have to add are nowhere mentioned because I´m only a developer, no press article. Game Dev 666 23:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is not a fan-made site. It's a real, standard-type online encyclopedia that is based on reliable, published sources. If the right publications were to write about you in depth, then an article about your game might be possible.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Reporting another glitch

I am reporting another glitch, this time concerning 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, see Talk:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Reporting_something_wrong_with_template.BigRed606 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ps it only seems to occur on the mobile version.BigRed606 (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi BigRed606. It might be better for you to report any "glitches" you find at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or maybe even on the talk page of the relevant template, etc. Of course, you might find someone here at the Teahouse who's able to sort things out, but you'll have a better chance of finding such a person at VPT of via the template's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Asking here is fine. Template talk pages usually have few watchers and views (this may be a current exception), and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is not for simple editing questions. Fixed by removing a class which doesn't display in mobile because navboxes are omitted there.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

SAMUEL G HAVERMALE

MY NAME IS EMERY J HOVERMALE. SAMUEL IS MY 2ND COUSIN. I HAVE AN 11 PAGE WORD DOCUMENT I WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE IT WITH WHAT YOU NOW HAVE ON WIKI. UNFORTUNATELY I AM LEGALLY BLIND AND DEAF. I AM 84 YRS OLD AND I CANT FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT MY DOCUMENT ON SAMUEL'S WIKI.THIS DOCUMENT HAS MANY SCOURERS BUT THE PERTINENT DATA CAME FROM ACTUAL HAVERMALE RECORDS. I WOULDN'T MIND IF SOMEONE JUST USED THE DATA AND ADD IT TO WIKI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hovermale (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hovermale: Unfortunately, Wikipedia depends on reliable sources for its information, and a personal biography written by a family member wouldn't meet that standard. Can you point to any online links where there might be coverage of Mr. Havermale? Courtesy link Samuel G. Havermale. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hovermale. The article on your relative is not in need of any more detail, and we generally don't accept email submissions. Your visual problem creates a need for an exception. You may add the content of your Word document to your Talk page, where I will review it for relevance, use what I can, and then delete it (any other editors may do so as well while it is there). Note that, as more information on his life may or may not be what Wikipedia needs, if your intent is to preserve family history, we may not find your submission in keeping with the purposes of Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: Did you intend that to be User talk:Hovermale (instead of Talk:Hovermale, since there is no Hovermale in article space)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Unfortunately, I created Talk: Hovermale. If it isn't too much trouble, would you please try to move T:H to UT:H? I'm working on a different article atm. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Haiphong Maritime High School article w/exception of date copied from wn.com

whole article Haiphong Maritime High School copy pasted from https://wn.com/mobile/haiphong_maritime_high_school except date. please verify Leela52452 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Leela52452. The Wikipedia article was created in 2011, and has been edited several times since. The text at wn.com seems to be the same as this version from last November, so it seems almost certain that the wn.com entry is a copy from Wikipedia. This would be perfectly legal if they attributed it, but since they haven't, wn.com are violating the licence. --ColinFine (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

More precisely, they copied this version from 2011. They are listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/VWXYZ#World News Network. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine wow, i did not think that way. there is no date in hyperlink. is there any way to find info. Leela52452 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you clarify that question? What do you mean by info?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think they want to know how to see when a webpage was created, or how to discover its provenance 194.75.231.3 (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Windows Communication Apps

I have no trouble citing http or https files, but have no idea of the syntax to cite a file such as: file:///C:/Users/great/AppData/Local/Packages/microsoft.windowscommunicationsapps_8wekyb3d8bbwe/LocalState/Files/S0/4/r491[1090].pdf DMBanks1 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

DMBanks, unfortunately its not feasible to "cite" things like that. Wikipedia can only use other websites (http/https) as sources - its just not possible to cite things from your local computer (see file URI scheme). theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not off my computer. I assume it is part of the MS web, so maybe its needs some prefix. If you copy it into a web search on any computer, this file produces a bus route map.DMBanks1 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I put that into my address bar and into Google and got no results. "file:///C:/Users/" leads me to think it pertains to your computer only.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I searched my C: drive, but nothing came up. As far as I can tell, it exists only as an attachment to an email. Does the address bar also read all my email attachments when locating a file, or does opening an attachment (but not saving) leave a hidden duplicate even after the opened file is closed?DMBanks1 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

DMBanks1, If it is an email attachment, then it does only exist on your computer, and shouldn't be used as a source here on Wikipedia. We can only use things like books, magazines, websites, that sort of thing. If you can find the file you want on the internet, then that can work. If you don't have a version that you can link to, providing author, title, publisher, etc. should be enough. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I am gradually grasping some of this tech stuff.DMBanks1 (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this a good article?

I have written this article with references from news and blogs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jantroon_(Dhar)

Jantroon_(Dhar)

I had made firstly a draft today i was writing its talk page then suddenly it showed directly writing an article. I copied all my draft and added the same in above article.

I don't have any more online references for adding more details. But I personally have researched about the place..

Is there any mistakes in the article? Kindly fix it or let me know. - Anzer Ayoob (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anzer Creation (talk • contribs) 04:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, Anzer Creation. Making a referenced article is already a good step, the one that new users usually fail to achieve (although the fourth reference is to a blog, hence not a good source - see WP:IRS for details). However, the article is not written from a neutral point of view: for example, one of the beautiful tourist destination[s] is opinion, not a fact you would find in an encyclopedia. The worst however is But the Govt has always ignored its development despites repeated requests. If govt. develop this place... which is something you would find in a local party electoral leaflet. I will change that soon.

Some light copyediting might be needed too, but that is not such a big deal. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anzer Creation: I am concerned that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons a watermarked image, clearly marked as The Chenab Times, yet have claimed it has a Creative Commons licence. I find that highly unlikely, so will probably recommend it for deletion. Before I do, I'm giving you a chance to edit that image and add in a url to clearly demonstrate that the Chenab Times has definitely released it on a CC-BY-SA licence. I somehow doubt you will be able to do that. My attempt to reach their domain fails. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nick Moyes: , I am an administrator in Chenab Times, I have not any plain image file related to Jantroon, so my CT members sent me this image. Now I found the URL in The Chenab Times for this image which is https://twitter.com/thechenabtimes/status/939366961338761216 . As I am a new user so please don't delete that image file. I will try the procedure to add license url soon. Anzer Ayoob (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anzer Creation: I am happy to give you some time, though I cannot promise that another editor will not see it and propose it for immediate deletion as a copyright violation. If you are an administrator of the Chenab Times, you presumably know that it's web domain cannot be reached at all, and also that someone sending in an image does not give you the right to release it under a free commercial licence, as you have done. The twitter link you supplied will not be sufficient, I'm afraid. Bear in mind that an image does not help convey notability, so it is not essential to the article. You could consider adding a map to the page instead. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Yes, due to restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir, India. The Chenab Times had shut down it's website for some time six months ago. Till the situation goes normal here in J&K, we will restore it soon. I will update plain (without watermark) version of the image if i found in my laptop. I think plain images don't need URL which is captured by me or my CT team?

Map idea is also good but I am new user, I need time to learn about how to add accurate maps. -- Anzer Ayoob (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Anzer Creation: for maps, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps#Coordinate-referenced_map_templates which is probably what you should use. If you have the GPS coordinates of the area that's enough.

For the image: the biggest problem is not the watermark, which is a technical problem, but copyright, which is legal. With or without watermark, you cannot upload an image you do not have the rights to. Assuming you are indeed the "administrator" at the Chenab Times (we have no way to know that for sure over the internet), it still does not mean you have the legal authority to release the copyrights of the picture. Even if the "administrator" has ultimate authority for all legal decisions of the Chenab Times (~CEO or such), the copyright might still rest with the photographer who took it rather than the corporate entity. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anzer Creation: To be clear, please tell us who created the picture and how they are related (employee, anonymous contributor, etc.). Are they willing to release it under the CC BY-SA license that is required, which basically means it can be modified and used for any purpose, including for profit? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:, the picture is allowed to release under CC BY-SA by our original author of the picture while submitting it to The Chenab Times. Anybody can make fair use of pic. That pic is not for sale. -- Anzer Ayoob (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Anzer Creation: Anyone can create an account on Wikipedia. We simply have no proof that you are a member of staff of the Chenab Times, let alone one authorized to release the picture as CC-BY-SA. I am going to nominate the picture for deletion on Commons; if you want to re-upload it, read WP:DCM carefully before trying to re-upload it, and follow the appropriate steps so that we can ensure you are not just a rando who grabbed the picture from the Chenab Times Twitter feed. (It would be nice to have the no-watermark picture, too.)

I am not doing this to spite you but out of important copyright concerns. The previous posters were lenient enough to not list the picture for deletion because they expected a valid licensing would be forthcoming; reading your posts, I have little confidence this will happen if the image is kept live. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

COI editing question

Is it permissible to make small edit corrections to an article that you have COI with, for example, deleting an extra word, correcting a date, and adding a missing word in the name of a film? Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: If you've declared that WP:COI on your userpage, that would be fine. You could even note it briefly in any edit summary if you feel someone might take objection. I would say it's not worth the aggravation to place an edit request for minor typos, and the like. I know you've done that for bigger edits, so don't worry unduly about tiny corrections. If anyone challenges you, just accept it as the position of another editor - or refer them to the advice given to you here. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LorriBrown (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi LorriBrown. You can find a little more about this in WP:COIADVICE, but as Nick says above you should make sure to leave an edit summary explaining why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

How to delete a page?

Little_Goguryeo I nominated for removal. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Little_Goguryeo and Talk:Little_Goguryeo I explained why. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_January_31&action=history I added a delete request. But for unknown reasons, he did appeared without a title in the list of topics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_January_31. What to do next? 06:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Aek973 (talk)

You didn't format your request properly, see WP:Articles for deletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Using the wrong hyphen in articles

Initially when editing articles I used the hyphen found on the normal Querty keybard (eg 3-4). Then I found a bot came round and converted it to the accepted Wikipedia one. I was able to use the latter by copying and pasting from corrected articles. Is this 'correct' hyphen on tthe normal keyboard? You need good eyesight to see the difference between the two types of hyphen.BFP1 (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The use of dashes and hyphens is covered at MOS:DASH, and at WP:How to make dashes. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DavidBFP1 (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Making my Biography Live on Wikipedia

hey guys im Bjorn. I just have one question? how do i publish my bio so that it can be live on wiki. Thanks in advanced! — Preceding unsigned comment added by B major SA (talk • contribs) 08:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't. Please read Wikipedia's view on autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @B major SA: This link will take you to a guide that explains how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted but be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your music career. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@B major SA: Hello. I would add that what you wrote is more appropriate for a social media entry than an article in an encyclopedia, as Wikipedia is. It is blatantly promotional in nature, and cites no independent reliable sources to support its content- only your website, which is not acceptable. As noted, autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged here. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and not with a neutral point of view. If you meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually take note of your career and write about you here. Also please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Help me that this page is now completed to submit

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jasrasar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsouravrana (talk • contribs) 09:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Iamsouravrana Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have submitted your draft for review. As noted in the yellow box on your page, there are over 4100 drafts awaiting review. As reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order, it could take several months before your draft is reviewed. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

331dot Ok, Thanks for your reply. User:Iamsouravrana(talk)

Follow-up to Help in writing

About the reliable sources so "Sarin foundation" has multiple news publications. Some of the sources are

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/18-teams-to-compete-in-global-moot-court-today-753345 https://aerohelp.com/en/mootcourt/leiden-sarin-international-air-law-moot-court http://www.thevoiceofchandigarh.com/national-institute-of-singapore-wins-the-10th-leiden-sarin-international-air-law-moot-court-competition/ https://spotidoc.com/doc/1700227/the-first-5-years---sarin-foundation

Kindly advice if I can publish about Sarin Foundation. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.34.115 (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Three of those don't even mention "the Sarin Foundation", and what they say about things related to it are just passing mentions; the last one is published by the foundation, so is not independent.

The question you need to ask is, "Where have some people, wholly unconnected with the Sarin Foundation, chosen (unprompted by the Foundation, and not relying on press releases or interviews from it) to write at length about the Foundation, and been published in reliable places?" Such resources are really the only ones which are relevant, and certainly the only ones which confer notability. --ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Region Filter in Recent changes patrol

Namaste all Wikipedia users,

Can anyone help me to find filtered results region wise in Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. So my question is: Is there any possibility to filter results for a particular country in Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol? DMySon 06:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Country by editor isn't possible for logged-in users, for IPs "GeoIP" is black art, and for everybody you'd need CheckUser rights before you can abuse + lose them. Country by topic of the edited article makes no sense, what are you talking about? –84.46.52.25 (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP still pending Review

The article ‘Kunle Adeo-Ojo’ BLP started by me has since been waiting on review for as long as I can remember. Can any editor in the house kindly help put it through to the mainspace or better still state reason for the delayed response.

--Niftyrules™ 14:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyrules (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kunle Ade-Ojo was reviewed & declined. The feedback is on the draft page, and at your user talk page which you mistakenly moved (& I have requested be moved back). You have resubmitted it, but less than 6 days ago; as it says on the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,113 pending submissions waiting for review." --David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Having Issues submitting for Review

I have been having issues all of a sudden in the article 'Tupocracy'. I tried several times to submit for review but I seem to be making mistakes. In fact the article is not clustered around other articles within my watchlist. I Couldn't tell what exactly is the problem. Kindly help look through it as I am trying as much as possible not to cause damage to the Wikipedia environment.

--Niftyrules™ 14:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyrules (talk • contribs)

--Niftyrules™ 14:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyrules (talk • contribs)

You have made a dog's breakfast of a whole load of mistaken page moves, including of your user talk page. According to what you wrote on Talk:Tupocracy, 'Tupocracy' is a new body of knowledge that you are working on. That is therefore not an acceptable subject for a Wikipedia article, see WP:Neologism. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Question

Is there a page/list of all articles contained with a template? Example {{ current related })Elijahandskip (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the best option would be [[Category:Current events]]. Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events looks like it's inactive. Bkissin (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Current_related --David Biddulph (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Elijahandskip. You can also use the search box: hastemplate:"current related". This can be combined with other search options. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Danish withdrawal from the European Union

Could be maybe very positive if you give a "start" for "Draft:Danish_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union" (if this article is acceptable/good) due to BREXIT today. Wname1 (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Just being curious here: why could it be maybe very positive? Lectonar (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and it needs to be submitted via the process laid out here. Lectonar (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

What might be happening today is of no relevance to getting an article reviewed, Lectonar. WP:NOTNEWS. --ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I was just repeating what the OP said, because I am curious as to what impact today would have on the review of the draft. Lectonar (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, Lectonar, I meant to ping Wname1. --ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It also sounds as if OP has an agenda or WP:SOAPBOX here. As ColinFine mentioned, we are WP:NOTNEWS. We don't promote particular articles because of outside events. Bkissin (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

How to donate an image to the commons?

Hi everyone, thank you beforehand for your help.

I'm trying to donate a picture to the commons, however on the guideline on how to do this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries - they explain that you should send the request from an email associated with your name/website in order for them to be able to confirm your identity. It happens to be the case, that I do not have an email server associated with my name or publicly listed, to send the request. Is there any other way that I could provide proof of identity for my request to be taken into account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaDelgadoDKM (talk • contribs) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

MariaDelgadoDKM, given the small number of people who answer email queries, I would send an email asking. You're much more likely to get a good answer there than here, as there are only about 150 - 200 volunteers that can access email. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Tweets as Sources

Are tweets from verified twitter users appropriate sources? For example, if Elon Musk's verified account tweets a fact about Tesla would that be an appropriate reference for an edit to Tesla's page?

Also, if a tweet contains an MP4 video file, would that be an appropriate reference to refer to something that occurs in a video? For example, if a structure collapses and a twitter user recorded video of the event, could that be used as a reference to make an edit to the structure's page detailing its collapse?

Caratacus54AD (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Caratacus54AD, for Twitter, see WP:Twitter-EL, and WP:TWITTER - it usually isn't a suitable source, and if information exists elsewhere it isn't shouldn't be used. There are some occasions in which it is suitable, for which you can use the {{Cite tweet}} template. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Urn (band),

Greetings, I am working to re-work/update this page with verifiable content as I do not wish for it to be deleted. I am seeking advice/counsel in terms of properly editing this content as I am not a seasoned editor. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyreal13 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello there,

This type of message should be on the Talk page for the article you're trying to update. I should ask however if you're in any way connected with them? If you are a member of this band, their manager, or in anyway affiliated with them, you need to declare a WP:COI on your user page, and you should also consult WP:NOTE to see if an article is necessary in the first place.

Please remember WP:VERIFY - an article of any subject, especially a band, needs third-party sources discussing it, not simply listings of where the band is playing as confirmation of their existence. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a protocol for creating pages meant for entertainment?

I think I have seen pages somewhere that have comical intent. Is this true, or am I making it up? If it is true, I would appreciate sample articles, and the pertinent information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Pages for comical intent exist at many places on the Web; however, the comical intent of Wikipedia is limited to wry remarks on pages which have an instructional or advisory nature. I hope this answers your question.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Mulstev, in short, Wikipedia does not host comical content. It's a serious encyclopedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis, I am afraid that you are incorrect. WP:FUN. WP:GAFDEW. WP:WikiFauna, just to name a few. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mulstev. Please read Wikipedia:Humor for an overview. Encyclopedia articles should not be written humorously in Wikipedia's voice. However, there are many humorous Wikipedia essays available for your reading pleasure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, thanks to all. I appreciate it.Mulstev (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Research for Population Density of the U.S.

I'm doing research on population data on the United States and I noticed that when I search for a city, I wonderful table shows the populations dating back to the 17th century. Is there a database or research that has begun that shows the population of each state for the past 200 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engmaxine (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Engmaxine: Possibly the US Census data at [5] RudolfRed (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)