Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1070

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

Archive 1065

←

Archive 1068

→

My Talk Entry Was "Refactored"

Hello!! I'm a relatively inexperienced editor. I know basically that we're not supposed to personally attack other editors and that we are not supposed to engage in an "edit war." A few of my "talk page" entries have been both "refactored" and "reverted." Here is a link to the latest one, which was "refactored." The comment below it says to "see archives." I went to the archives and I really learned a lot, but it didn't seem to have anything to do with my talk entry. There might be a specific archive that the other editor meant, but perhaps that other editor didn't realize that I am neither an experienced editor, a mind reader, nor am I a genius. Here is the link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd#Should_there_be_a_separate_section_for_George_Floyd's_legal_troubles?

Is there anyone here that can help me get through this conundrum? Also, if I'm breaking any rules, or if I need to apologize for something, that might be a good thing to let me know about, since I am a little worried that might have happened. Since I'm not a mind reader, or a genius, nor am I an experienced editor, if I'm breaking a rule, I won't know it, if another editor refuses to tell me, or assumes that I have some wonderful mysterious way of knowing what rule I'm breaking, or what I need to apologize for, also in that case, I have no way of knowing it, without a bit more verbosity than the words; "see archives, there's been a discussion."

Thanks in advance, to anyone who can give this situation a bit of time and attention. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If you look on the talk page, you'll see an archives section with a number 1, clicking on which takes you to Talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1. You can read the previous discussions there. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

THANK YOU! TimTempleton
I found it here!!!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#Adding_Criminal_History_Section_to_Article
Now you don't need to click on it, but it appears that the consensus was to "add a new section." The discussion was initiated by Octoberwoodland and it went on to refer to a new section being created, the date of the discussion was 14th of June, and in the current talk page, there is a new discussion - asking to "add a new section." Why you may ask? There is NO new section! So, apparently, this poses some new questions; 1) most likely, I've not done the proper research in the archive, and that is why there is no new section; 2) the new section was created, and a new editor came along and unwittingly overwrote it; 3) I'm confused as to what this is all about and I do not understand what is going on, and don't understand the result of the discussion. 4) no new section was ever put into the article.
In the case that either - no new section was put into the article or that another editor unwittingly overwrote the new section, what would be prudent? In the case that either I do not understand what I'm reading or didn't find the correct archive - what should I do then? Thanks in advance, and thank you again for helping with such alacrity. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

His criminal history looks to be covered in Later life. Is it that you think this is not enough? David notMD (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David notMD! - "... this is not enough? ..." It would seem so. It's not just that I and more than just a few editors have independently been wondering about an entire section of the article with its own heading. The current talk page has a new section on it started by an entirely new editor asking for this (Should there be a separate section for George Floyd's legal troubles?); I first came to that talk page to begin a topic asking for it; and the archive discussion from 14th of June has a huge consensus poll taken twice over it. All three independently inspired. Also, there seem to be a smaller number of editors trying to suppress the criminality of the man (Mr. Floyd), for example - you just referred me to the criminal history covered in "Later life." That mentions theft - but Mr. Floyd was convicted of armed robbery - that is not the same as theft. Robbery entails harm to the victim, while theft only entails simple thievery. It is a little suspicious. One of the editors that directed me to that 'archive' mentioned above in this thread, obviously knew about the discussion on adding a section on Mr. Floyd's extensive rap sheet, but in the current 'talk' page you can, as of right now, see that same editor, ask another editor this:

willydrach, by "significant amount of information regarding his legal troubles (which is out there)"
what do you mean? We haven't seen that. —valereee.

Wouldn't that editor have seen this already? This is the very editor that later pointed me to that archived discussion? And why did that very same editor not point user:willydrach to the same archive which had finished discussing that very topic, which this editor found it so necessary to direct me to, and prompt me to come here and open this thread? Is this grounds for suspicion as to some sort of skewed position? I'm not ready to say one way or the other at this point. Of course there are so many possible explanations. I do not see clear evidence that there is a definite drive to keep this article sanitized. I will say that now I'm interested more than I was before, just out of curiosity. Why would this editor take my entry, refactor it, and direct me to this archive; why would this editor not direct the other editor user:willydrach to the same archive; why would this editor reply to the other editor user:willydrach that "we haven't seen" information on "his legal troubles?" I think it's possible that it's intentional, but I do not see any justification for such intentions, and I don't think that there is any reason to assume that this is intentional. I DO see, though, that this looks a bit strange on the part of the other editor, user:Valereee. As it is, I am not yet truly suspicious, I am CURIOUS though. What is going on with this article? Thanks again, very, very much for your feedback and your input. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've advised this user, twice now, that contentious articles under DS + new users are a bad mix. They seem to gravitate toward exactly those articles, unfortunately. —valereee (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi —valereee! What is "DS" and also please "in writing" list which articles are in "contention" so I can understand more about what is going on here? You almost seem like you are lording over me and this is making me feel kind of uncomfortable? Can you be a little more understanding, if you please? This is Wikipedia! Thanks in advance - Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

DS stands for Discretionary sanctions. Articles covered under discretionary sanctions (or General sanctions) will have an article talk page notice that indicates that this is so. El_C 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:El C!!!! I am so glad to find you finally!! I tried to enter something in your "talk" page a while ago - IT'S LOCKED!! That is so funny. I am so glad, because I have been racking my brain on trying to find a way to communicate with you!! Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, so much for coming into this discussion thread. If you possibly can find the time, please click on this topic in my "talk" page where I have a thread focused on what I needed to communicate to you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:172.250.237.36#help_request.
Keep up the good work!! Thanks so very much for participating in Wikipedia! I will click on your links (above here) soon and read them through. Please if you have a bit of time, click on MY link in my "talk" page so I can communicate to you about this other topic. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Responded at your talk, but almost every article you've edited in the past two weeks is under DS. Please try to avoid asking identical questions in more than one place, it causes duplicated effort by other editors. —valereee (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I learn more in simple terms about the rules of wikipedia?

Hey, I recently put up an article The Florida International Rally & Motorsport Park, however, it is tagged orphan. How do I fix that and learn further about editing on Wikipedia? OkayRussell (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

OkayRussell, there's a welcome box on your user talk with a lot of links you can follow. To find wikipedia policy on something, try in the search box typing (in this case) wp:orphan -- often you'll find what you're looking for! —valereee (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!!!OkayRussell (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

De nada. —valereee (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the best way to find Wikipedia guidelines/essays?

How do I find guidelines/essays? I have tried searching using the Wikipedia search bar, but it rarely shows me anything relevant. I usually resort to googling which I think is ineffective. Hmanburg (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hmanburg. We have essays covering everything, from profound to pointless, and from helpful to humourous. Try browsing through

Category:Wikipedia essays and its many subdivisions for whatever your heart desires. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes for your helpful reply! Hmanburg (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmanburg, my favorite strategy is to type WP: + whatever I'm looking for (e.g. WP:Copyright), or a likely abbreviation, Even when I don't find what I'm looking for, I'll often find a hatnote pointing me to the right place. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I'm pretty giddy that an actual Wikipedia administrator replied to me! Thanks for your response!Hmanburg (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmanburg, just for the record, administrators are no different from other editors; all editors are just volunteers trying work together on this project. Admins just have a few extra tools they can use, it literally means no more than that the rest of the community thinks they won't abuse those tools. :) —valereee (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I would argue that the fact they've demonstrated a level of dedication to the project which compels other users to trust them with the extra tools is very admirable. :) Hmanburg (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Obtaining Advice

Hi, My article Draft: Direction Finding by Amplitude Comparison needs improving. Both DESiegel (from Teahouse) and AngusWOOF (the reviewer) have made helpful suggestions.
In addition it has been suggested I may wish to contact the editor of the existing article on Direction Finding and members at Wikiprojects (Aviation, Radio) for additional advice. How do I do that? D1ofBerks (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC) D1ofBerks (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@D1ofBerks: Editors who are interested in the article Direction finding can be found at its talk page Talk:Direction finding. Just leave a message there as you did here. Similarly WT:AVIATION and WT:RADIO are the talk pages for those projects. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Quiggin's Kendal Mint Cake

Hi,

Can someone approve the new url for Quiggin's Kendal Mint Cake please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendal_Mint_Cake#Quiggin's

The old url is no longer correct, the new one is: https://www.originalkendalmintcake.co.uk/about/ I did update it but got a message and it was not changed.

Thanks in advance, Slater1234567890 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slater1234567890: The reason the first edit was reverted by CLCStudent is that we generally don't include external links in the body of an article. I'm not clear on why the second edit was reverted by Viewmont Viking, as it simply replaced the old URL with the new one, which appears to be legitimate, as it is the same address to which the old one currently redirects anyway. Your edit at Quiggins was reverted because it added a group parameter to the references tag, which is incorrect. I've updated the URL there as well. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Can/Should submitted Draft be moved to mainspace without review?

Hello, I submitted a draft but the reviewing process is taking too long. I know the article is acceptable because I know much of the Wikipedia's guidelines and have edited many articles. Can I now ― after submitting the draft for review ― move that draft directly in the namespace without waiting for the review? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: You are permitted to do that. To be honest, I think your article actually may not be acceptable -- I think there is a reasonable chance it will be redirected to Father's Day. But if you want to put the article in mainspace and deal with the issue in the normal course of editing (outside AFC) that is fine as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, To be honest, I think your article actually may not be acceptable. Then, can you give me suggestions on how to improve it? The subject is quite notable. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: Actually, that's the problem. I don't think that the subject is notable, at least based on the references in the article. The sources show her mentioned quite briefly in the context of the history of Father's Day but no sources about her as such. I guess the main thing would be to find and add reliable sources that cover her in greater depth (assuming they exist in the first place). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, Alright. So, working on that first. Thanks a lot. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: I have to agree with Calliopejen1; there is not much of a story here beyond a) it was her idea (in the USA at least) and b) her idea resulted in the first father's day service in the USA. The full Father's Day article has examples back to 1508, and already includes a short mention of Clayton. I added a couple of sources to your draft, so these are not an issue. However, the proper place for this seems to be in the Father's day in the US article, as a few sentences.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually disagree: I do not believe Clayton did invent the first Father's day; and I do not believe the sources provided back the claims in the article. Dodd does seem to receive proper credit in the article Father's Day (United States) due to this claim from one of the OP's sources: "JULY 5, 1908 One of those children, Grace Golden Clayton, suggests to her pastor – Robert T. Webb of Williams Memorial Methodist Episcopal Church South in Fairmont, West Virginia – that they hold a special memorial service for those fathers. A memorial is held – but it’s local and it’s a one-time event."[1] This does not back the claim of the lede: "... is said to be the first one to suggest celebrating Father's Day." Also: "Her father's demise inspired her to suggest celebrating father's day." This is not true. A one-time memorial service does not give claim to inventing Father's Day. The sources provided may give proper mention for Clayton in the history of Father's Day; but it is not as the article flat-out claims. This needs very strong reliable sources with a definitive quote to back the claim that the OP is stating for its subject. I do not see that. Even this statement: "However, her idea was not widely accepted" suggests that it was made known on a wide scale (widely) and was then purposefully rejected (not accepted). Which again, is not true by any source. It was simply a one-time memorial service for the fathers who were killed in a mining accident. Maineartists (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Page deletion

I wanted to create a page that has been referenced but i don't know how to add referenc. Alan J walker (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Alan J walker (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Alan J walker, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking; but I'm guessing that it is something to do with Draft:HOSMIIN. I don't know if this will be helpful, but it looks to me as if you have made the same mistake as almost every beginner does who tried the extremely difficult task of creating a new article before they have learnt how Wikipedia works: you have written what you know, and then thought about looking for sources. This is exactly backwards, because Wikipedia basically isn't interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows). Wikipedia is only interested in material that has been reliably published, and preferably by somebody unconnected with the subject. So creating a new article begins with finding the reliably published independent sources without which the subject will not meet Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. If you can't find such sources, then any other work you put into the article will be wasted, as the article will not be accepted however it is written. If you can find the sources, then you need to write the article entirely from the sources: anything you know about the subject which is not corroborated by a reliably-published source cannot go into the article. If you haven't already done so, please read your first article, --ColinFine (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How can write a good artical for Indivusual.

Vindhya08 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Hou can write a good artical for indivisual.

Vindhya08 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to attempt on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users are much more successful when they first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. It's also a good idea to use the new user tutorial to learn more about how Wikipedia works.

If you still want to attempt to write a new article, you should read Your First Article, then visit Articles for Creation where you can write and submit a draft for review by another editor, before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, you find out any problems first, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically.

In order to merit a Wikipedia article, the person you want to write about must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. Those sources must indicate how the person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. There are also definitions of notability for specific fields, like athletes, politicians, actors, etc. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Guidance before submitting a page for review

I want help to submit this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bharsoumyajit88/sandbox for review. Thanks in advance. Bharsoumyajit88 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hellom Bharsoumyajit88. I have added a header that will let you submit it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The page I am trying to create continues to get rejected for reasons I do not understand.

Hello - Looking for some guidance/insight on a page I am trying to create. I have had to page reject 2x now for similar reasons but I do not understand why. The page in question - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Greg_Yuna#In_Popular_Culture - I have noted the different things pointed out and have tried to change them to reflect but have had no luck. The sources I have cited and included are more adequate than most from very notable publications etc. but I still have the same problem. Would appreciate any opinions, thoughts or advice as I am trying to understand how to properly fix these noted issues by editors. Editor94101245 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello,, Editor94101245, and welcome to the Teahouse. Phrases such AS Yuna has extended his brand through merchandise, apparel collaborations and the development of his social media platform. sound very promotional to me. I haven't checked all your sources, but Entrepreneur is known for publishing what are basically puff pieces essential;y written by the subject, and so is not given much weight in notability decisions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel Thank you for your response. I appreciate the feedback and will make a note to correct the senate you pointed out. That is just one of many sources I have - so is it the one source that is the issue or the entire list of sources for article as a whole? I mean there is a lengthly amount of information on teh subject from a wide variety of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor94101245 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor94101245 that is one I happened to recognize as having had problems in the past. As I said I haven't reviewed your sources in detail at this time. But remember that the draft should not include any opinions or judgements unless they are specifically attributed to a named person or organization and backed by a cite that shows that person saying t]exactly that. Otherwise all text should be strictly factual, and not read as trying to promote or praise anyone, particularly the subject. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Editor94101245: I edited out promotional content, condensed, and approved the article. I think it has about a 50% chance of surviving a deletion nomination (and don't be surprised if it's nominated for deletion!). But I figured it was a good enough article to be in the main encyclopedia for now, for consideration by the entire community, rather than for consideration by a single reviewer. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Editor94101245: I also put some time into cleaning up the article, but Calliopejen1 and ThatMontrealIP beat me to it with the bulk of the improvements. Nonetheless, since this is your first article and you have a brand new account, please review WP:COI, and make any necessary disclosures on the article talk page. I'll offer the same advice to Tenn9760, Slyguy1255 and 6Lizardthewizard9, along with IP editor 66.128.253.146, all of whom have very similar narrow editing histories. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

how to assist my user page

In my talk page, there is a step to teach me how to write a page for the company I work for. The step one is "1. Go to your user page (User:Stephanie.ecms) and fill out the following template there: {{paid|user=Stephanie.ecms|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}". I try to click on "user:Stephanie.ecms" But I cannot find the template. Could you please advise how to do it? Stephanie.ecms (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Stephanie.ecms (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Stephanie.ecms. The information you need is in the third section of your talk page at User talk:Stephanie.ecms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the ten steps there. I am thinking about how to complete the first step "complete the template in my user page". I can't find where the template is. Stephanie.ecms (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Stephanie.ecms. The template is in the first of ten steps. It is the wikicode that begins and ends with the double curly brackets. Copy and paste that into your currently blank user page, and edit the part that is in italics. Then publish it. That will add the required paid editing disclosure to your user page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I make a new page?

Fortnite-Fan-222 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not by wasting other editors' time, as you have previously done. What subject do you propose to write about? Do you have ample sources for this? -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Providing a Wikipedia page in another language

Back in January, I re-wrote most of a Wikipedia page that covers a village in Italy from which my ancestors came. The name of the page is "Isola delle Femmine" written in English. The previous description of the origin of the village's name was completely wrong based upon ancient legends. I have been asked by some in Italy as well as in the U.S. to provide a copy of the page in Italian. I don't know how to do that. I have translated most of my work into Italian but I believe there is a Wikipedia-Italia into which this new page should be placed. I don't know anything about the logistics of all this. Where can I find help? JiminiVecchio (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JiminiVecchio. You can find general information about this at WP:Translate us; but for detailed information about how to do this, you'll need to ask at the Italian Wikipedia. Try it:Aiuto:Sportello informazioni. --ColinFine (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@JiminiVecchio: It's worth pointing out that the English article on Isola delle Femmine has about 45 different language versions, including Italian (see here). If you look at the lower part of the left hand column of any article on Wikipedia in 'desktop view' you will see links to all the other languages that currently exist. However, these are not direct translations of one another - each language Wikipedia has its own set of editors who work on a page from scratch. What I have done in the past when I have improved a page about a topic that relates to another country is to post on that article's talk page (in English) and link to the en-wiki article for other editors there to visit and decide if they can use). Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

JiminiVecchio I just posted to Talk:Isola delle Femmine about some problems I see in the English-languish article that you might want to address before doing more translation work. Others are of course welcome to add their views. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I would welcome additional eyes on the article and at Talk:Isola delle Femmine#Original research. To be clear, I think JiminiVecchio has mde significant improvements, but there are also some issues to be addressed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My created article about a Football Club is not showing up in Google search

I have created article about a Football Club name Shirsh Bihar United Football Club 2 days ago When I search in Wikipedia about it it shows up but when I search in google Wikipedia article about it doesn't show up in the search. Can anyone help me with this ? Also a similar article about a Football page FC Bengaluru United was created 3-4 days ago is showing up in Google search. Shivsa008 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC) shivsa008

Shivsa008, Shirsh Bihar United Football Club has not been reviewed; therefore Google cannot see it. Once it is reviewed, it will be able to appear on Google shortly thereafter. If 90 days pass without review, it will be visible to Google in any case. Just be patient.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Article Publishing Timeline

Hello,

I've recently created a page for a professor Cassie Mogilner-Holmes. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia.

It's been a few weeks now since I first published the page, but I noticed that it's still not showing up in regular search results.

Could you advise on how to check if I published it correctly and how to check when it may be reviewed and available to be viewed by the general public?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pkarundel/sandbox/Cassie_Mogilner_Holmes&oldid=965117311

Thanks!

User:Pkarundel/sandbox/Cassie Mogilner Holmes P.K.A. (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You haven't yet submitted it for review. To do so, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, David. I submitted it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkarundel (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pkarundel: It appears possible that you might have a close professional connection with Cassie Mogilner Holmes, perhaps even being paid to create this article? If so, do please follow this link to read how to declare any Conflict of Interest if you do know this person. In addition, should you be employed by her, whether directly or indirectly, you would also have to follow our obligatory requirement of declaring any WP:PAID editing. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The review time for drafts is days to months (it is not a queue). In the future, do not ask the same question at Teahouse and Help, as that waste editors' time. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewed and accepted per WP:NACADEMIC, the subject is a professor appointed to a named (endowed) chair at a major university. Issues have been tagged for attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Company page Sadas

Hello, I would like to create a company page for Sadas, Italian multinational computer technology company. I created a trial page in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox and I kindly ask some feedback before the publications in order to respect Wikipedia best practices. Thank you for collaboration -- 109.115.149.72 (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I started skimreading this from its start. I skimread nine paragraphs without noticing a single reference. This means that you give the reader no reason to believe anything that the article says in its first nine paragraphs. Everything must come with a reliable, published source; and for anything that could be interpreted as an achievement of Sadas, the source must not be Sadas itself.

Another matter. You, Giuseppe_Ardolino, are a new editor. It is, of course, commendable that you are starting out ambitiously; but experience tells me that when somebody starts out by creating a draft about a present-day company, it's because they are in one way or another working for that company. If you are related to Sadas, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary (talk) for your advice and answer. I read the guidelines for conflicts of interest and I declare, as suggested, in my profile my collaboration and role with the company but also my willingness to follow all Wikipedia guidelines. Regards your advice on references, I wrote some references starting with the "industrial sectors" section, Do you suggest to insert other references before? In history's paragraph? Thank you for collaboration and support, really appreciated -- Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Giuseppe_Ardolino, every paragraph needs at least one reference. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary (talk), I am collecting/adding new references for each paragraph as you suggested and, at the same time, I am updating the page on my Sandbox.Thanks a lot Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of deprecated sources

I tried to put a reference, but I got a filter hit. I soon found an appropriate source, and I don't want to make the same mistake. Can anyone link me to the list of sites that cannot be used for references? Technocratic Cat 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello TechnocraticCat! See WP:DEPSOURCES and perhaps WP:BLACKLIST. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! I still have to familiarize myself with a lot of the "WP" links. I appreciate your help! Technocratic Cat 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Federal Constitutional Court

Unfortunately, as I did not manage to find my way through enwiki's plethora of noticeboards and associated rules and guidelines, I remain clueless as to what I should do regarding the following issue, and, therefore, write here in the hope that someone might be able to help. In the article Federal Constitutional Court, user Doubledareyou added a section yesterday that clearly violated several Wikipedia policies (article history). I reverted, they reinstated their revision, which I reverted again after messaging them on their talk page (special:diff/969013803), explaining in detail what is wrong with the edit. Today, the user performed another edit, which significantly differs from their earlier contributions. However, I would submit it is still, without any doubt, not helpful. The additions are incoherent and, to be frank, I have no clue what the editor's point is. The parts that I do understand continue to be riddled with errors. Eg the user claims that s 630e BGB "does not demand witnesses" in a court proceeding, even though in reality s 630e BGB is a provision in the German Civil Code that concerns the duties of a treating physician in obtaining their patient's consent ...

Since I do not wish to get/remain involved in an "edit war", lack the time and willingness to engage in further conversation with the user, but still feel that the article is in a substantially worse state now as a result of these additions, I would appreciate if someone more experienced could do something about it. Taking this to the talk page seems inappropriate in light of the obvious deficiencies of the additions. Best, — Pajz (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I know absolute nothing about the Federal court in Germany. However, I reverted the most recent addition to the article made by Doubledareyou on grounds that it tried to use hyperlinks and examples as evidence. I left comments on DDY's Talk page, noting that in addition to this article, DDY (who registered as an editor yesterday), was reverted on a different article for adding content without a reference. My hope is that good intentions exist, and experience will help. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. I am less concerned by the failure to adhere to Wikipedia content guidelines (such as no external links in articles, no POV language etc.) than by the use of a "Nazi times" hashtag in this talk page rant. However, said rant might have been a genuine (if wrong-headed) attempt at initiating a discussion.

I will also ping them (Doubledareyou) so that they are aware of this discussion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community project. If you delete valuable information e.g. Broken Subsid. or allow the english title of a book (source) and forbid the german title of the same book (unsourced) you spit on the spirit of Wikipedia and Nazizeit (word used by Prof. Dr. Andreas Voßkuhle) has begun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledareyou (talk • contribs) 11:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DDY has reverted my revert to the article with the Edit summary "Illegal revision and nonsense." That and the comment immediately above make clear that we have an extremely argumentative new-to-Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Doubledareyou, you have not given any coherent explanation what "broken subsidiarity" even is (I shall note that I am familiar with German constitutional law), let alone provided any source for that criticism. If there is a source--no matter the language--and if you can explain it in a way that people can understand it, it can be included in the article. What is "broken"? And who says it is "broken"? But, please: Make your case on the talk page first. In their current form, your additions are not valuable contributions to the article, I'm afraid, and you reverting everyone else who restores the previous state of the article is not helpful in any way. — Pajz (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC) (David notMD and Tigraan, thanks for taking the time to look into this.)

Similar obdurate stubbornness going on at Sabine Hossenfelder. David notMD (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted their edits once again and given them a warning for disruptive editing. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Blunt opinion required.........

I'm new-ish and currently trying to write my first article. I'm not asking for someone to review it - I know the Teahouse doesn't work like that - but I wondered if someone would be prepared to give it a really quick glance and tell me if I'm heading in the right direction, or not? It's nowhere near finished, but I'm now pondering whether I'm including too much detail and rambling on too much. Would it be best to cut it right down before I spend time adding all the sources?

The Pottery Cottage murders Thank you. DSQ (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi DSQ, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can move the page onto the WP:DRAFT namespace, where it can be reviewed by other editors about whether it is ready to go live (to the article namespace). Let me know if you need help with any of that. Happy editing! El_C 12:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy to accept your draft should you submit. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DSQ, yes, I would trim it, singificantly. Especially the biographical sections. The part about the victims can probably be redacted entirely. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so an encyclopedia entry is what we are aiming at. See for example the Moors murders as an example of a high quality crime article. El_C 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

El_C & Theroadislong I had a feeling I was getting carried away, it was turning into a novel! I'll cut it right down before I try and move it to draft. Thank you both for your help. DSQ (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Article

Is there anyway you can write your article without wizard article Bdetfehigj (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bdetfehigj, you can also create an article in a user subspace, which will help avoid the possibility that someone tried to delete it you are done, but I'm curious about your concern with the article wizard. I think it's a great option for new editors. Did you run into problems that we should address? S Philbrick (Talk) 15:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bdetfehigj There is, but unless you are very experienced in successfully creating new articles, doing so would not be advisable and would only cause you grief. If you directly create an article and it has problems, it may be proposed for deletion. If you want to avoid that, using the wizard or Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor will help you see any problems first. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Is their a way of nominating an article for semi-protection. There is an article (the Andromeda Galaxy) that is undergoing constant vandalism unceasingly. I would like to know is I could nominate it for semi-protection.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: You may manually add a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Alternatively, Twinkle will do it for you under TW -> RPP. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do when have time.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This should put an end to the Horrible and Nonsesical Vandalism happening there. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101: You may have seen that I semi-protected the page for a couple of weeks, but with hindsight reduced it to three days as the disruption actually appeared to be from just one individual using multiple IPv6 addresses. I left some advice as to what to do if this happens again at Talk:Andromeda Galaxy. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bruh. I'm not Black after all That guy likes to Disrupt Wikipedia. There is another IP Address That does not like Images to stay on the List of largest exoplanets. I undid his edits.

new and confused

Hi everyone, I'm brand new to Wikipedia and I have no idea what the community or etiquette is like quite yet, so apologize if I'm breaking any unspoken rules. I know this question might seem obvious, but what is a "user sandbox" and how does one use it? Does it create a new Wikipedia page about your specific username? Or is it just a place to store drafts? Sorry if this question is dumb, this is all a little over my head. Atomic.madness (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Atomic.madness: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a huge beast with lots of parts, and lots of policies, and lots of acronyms, so don't worry if you feel a bit lost. I recommend starting with The Wikipedia Adventure. Your user sandbox is a page inside user space, on which you may experiment, and (in particular) start building an article, if you wish. It's special only in that there is a link at the top of the page (if you are using a browser): you can have as many user sandboxes as you like, called things like User:Atomic.madness/Sandbox1 or User:Atomic.madness/My title here. You can't put absolutely anything on them - it must be somehow connected with the work you are doing or intending to do as a Wikpedia editor, and you mustn't copy copyright material there, or write personal attacks - but you're fairly free in what you can use them for.

As for writing "about your specific username": there is a certain amount of leeway, as I say, on your user page or any user subpage (such as those sandbox titles I suggested above) but from your username I wonder if you might be here to stand on a soapbox or to right great wrongs: if you are, then I must suggest that you find somewhere other than Wikipedia to do that. On the other hand, if your user name is just something that you like the sound of, that's fine. If you mean "Write an article about your username", then I would advise that autobiography is strongly discouraged. Please come back and ask if you have further questions. --ColinFine (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I think I may have worded my question wrong. I'm not here to be grandiose or anything. I love Wikipedia, and I'm just interested in learning about the site, how it works, whatever I can do to help, and the community in general. What I meant by "an article about my username" is my user page. I originally thought that the sandbox and the user page were one and the same. I've seen people display things called ″barnstars″ on their user pages and post introductions about themselves. I think I've figured it out though and figured out how to edit mine. I'm trying to get the hang of manipulating my own page before I try anything else. I don't want to accidentally mess someone's article up. Thanks so much for the help and introduction to the community!--Atomic.madness (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

{{lang}} inside a Wiktionary link?

At Taro#Names and etymology, I used {{lang}} inside of an interwiki link to Wiktionary; the confusing part is that it renders different in different places...

It shows up alright on the 'Show preview' (before submitting an edit), in my sandbox, and on the mobile app. But it doesn't make an interwiki link and displays that string as plaintext on both the desktop (outside of the previw page) and mobile websites:

[[wikt:talo#Samoan|talo]]

The code I used is:

[[wikt:talo#Samoan|{{lang|sm|talo}}]]

— I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'llbeyourbeach. I haven't tried it, but it looks as if {{wikt-lang}} will do what you want. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried this, @ColinFine:, and the rendering seems to be fixed on the mobile site for me (can’t check desktop rn). Thenks so much~ this is likely taken of. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Being targeted by an editor

Ok, I asked a general question earlier because another editor was being particularly aggressive towards me and then, a couple weeks later, asked me a strange question about how many accounts I have. I only have one, said so, and then asked why they asked? They are now insinuating that I control more than one account. I do not and I feel like the user is doing it because we had a legitimate content disagreement. This user even made a false claim to embellish their insinuation. Who can I ask to take a look at this? I don't want this person to be following me or making false accusations. SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Which editor is this?PNSMurthy (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it this user; Snooganssnoogans?PNSMurthy (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You may ask an administrator, or go to the help desk if you wish to have something done about Snooganssnoogans.PNSMurthy (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact. For months now, I've been accused of multiple different, and sometimes contradictory, conspiracies. This one is just too far. I have edited in English, Spanish, and Romanian and that uniqueness, plus my writing style, is more than enough to show that this is my only account. Any help with how to report this would be appreciated. It's just besmirching to go to my Talk Page ask a question and then start implying I'm doing something I am not.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never actually gone to the help desk, you should ask someone more enlightened then me. I'm actually much newer than you too WP, so...PNSMurthy (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In your place I'd ask Snooganssnoogans to stop asking questions here and there and invite them instead to initiate a proper "sockpuppet" investigation. This way it would be Snoogansnoogans wasting (investing?) their time, not both him and me wasting (investing?) ours. This investigation would never be started, or it would fail, or it would find you innocent. (I mean, assuming that you are innocent. I haven't even started to consider the matter, and don't intend to.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I think that is a solid approach. I think will pursue that avenue.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@SeminarianJohn: You might wish to use the Editor Interaction tool to assess which pages you have both edited, and how far apart those edits were (see here). It shows nothing of who edited first, or why. But it does allow you to focus in on individual pages where you have both edited. My very brief look at your latest interaction appeared to be quite polite and reasonable. But too many polite challenges can easily become, or be perceived as harassment - or they could be justified. We have so many editors here who care deeply about improving the encyclopaedia, and that can spill over into wondering about or questioning the motives of the other well-meaning editor. Like Hoary, I offer no judgement, but WP:ANI is certainly a place to raise concerns about another editor's behaviour, where both people's edits do get looked at. (Note: our Help Desk is not the right place to raise those concerns.) Should you ever choose to go down the ANI route, it helps to provide diffs for others to see what interactions, or their frequency have taken place. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. The editor in question also submitted an investigation for being a sockpuppet based on only one piece of (non) evidence. Another editor back in 2018 changed the date on my "About me" on my userpage. I am assuming that editor did so to be polite because I had not changed 2017 to 2018, but they did so without my permission. I had not idea until snooganssnoogans started claiming that I am a sockpuppet and, somehow, am misusing an account that has not even been an active user in two years. It's bizarre because 1) it is not my account and I'm sure clerks have a way of seeing that and 2) that user has not edited in two years so snooganssnoogans is accusing me of what, not misusing accounts? I am glad I raised my concern here well before snoogansnoogans went after me. It serves as documentation that even then I was concerned about their manner of interaction with me.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Curt Landry

Have you researched this evangelical pastor? 2600:6C55:7880:49:61A0:8683:E672:25C4 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. This is really a forum for helping people who encounter difficulties in editing, rather than picking up suggestions of pages to create. But if someone does think this person genuinely meets our Notability criteria, and is ~~more than just a publicity seeking self-promoter and nutty Trump supporter~~ (which at first sight their Google results seem to suggest to me that they might be), then they might well choose to start a page about him via our article creation wizard. But it would require sound, independent reliable sources that speak about him in great depth. It would attract both the positive and the negative reports about him, of course. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"...more than just a publicity seeking self-promoter and nutty Trump supporter" ... Really? This is Teahouse appropriate? Maineartists (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologise - that might have been too POV a comment from me. But having briefly found a source showing he was advocating people to ignore medical advice and listen to Trump's nonsense instead, and having lost acquaintances to Covid-19 myself, and seen too many idiots deny the severity of this virus, I probably jumped to stating an unfair opinion here. I have struck my observation, and will let any sources speak for themselves, as indeed they should. Sorry all. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC).

I think Nick's original description was more or less accurate. Anyway, the subject is not notable. Adequate sourcing is not available, other than a couple of links where he says nutty things like this and this. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk Page Topic - Hijacking/Derailing - Is That Actually Appropriate?

Hello, Thanks in advance for any help. I started a "Talk Page" topic, and it's gotten "hijacked" to another discussion. I addressed a few of the editors specifically using both the words, "derail" and "hijack" and even after this, it was basically ignored. The first editor apologized and I forgave him, and things seemed okay, but then eventually ignored the topic anyway. Actually not entirely ignored. One third user actually left a "warning" on my talk page, after I admonished another editor, asking that my topic not be derailed. So now I have about five or more editors on this topic in the talk page, totally ignoring the topic that I've set up. I keep reminding the other editors what the topic is. It does not seem to be making a difference.

1) Am I really so bad? Am I actually doing something wrong, to have started a topic, and to try to get the participants to focus on the topic, or to ask them, to start another topic, if that what they actually wanted to discuss instead of my particular topic?

2) Now that my topic has gone so badly off track (in one day no less), can I just either rename the topic to reflect the discussion and start another topic that is appropriate to my original intention? Or simply start another topic?

3) Are there any other options? I hope you won't tell me to give up, because that would not be a great idea.

So, basically, is this appropriate of the other editors to run ramshackle and roughshod over me, even when I keep reminding them about what the discussion is to be focused on?

Thanks and Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You may actually want to give up, at least on that article. I haven't read much of the underlying discussion at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, but if so many other editors are ignoring you, you are probably not being a constructive participant here. I would advise you to cut your teeth on less controversial articles until you understand more about how Wikipedia works. Then in a couple months go back to the George Floyd article with some experience in how to interact here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you complain that other editors are hijacking or derailing the discussion, that in itself derails the discussion into become a meta-discussion of the complaint about derailing. So don't complain about the derailing or hijacking of the discussion. It is better to start a new thread and see if that one fares any better. Also, if you were asking a question that is in the FAQ, or were arguing with the FAQ, that has already been discussed and there is consensus to ignore further comments. Those are my thoughts for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please review my draft

Please review my draft - Draft:Atif Afzal (music composer). I need help in expanding/editing it as per Wikipedia rules. I have created it in AFC as was suggested by members on Teahouse. I have also provided details on the talk page. Thanks. AAComposer (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

AAcomposer I see that you are attempting to write about yourself- this is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy- although submitting a draft is the correct way to go about doing so, if you truly feel that you can write about yourself with a neutral point of view. The vast majority of people cannot. In order for you to be successful, you essentially need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. I would observe that most of the sources you have offered seem to be comments by you/interviews with you, or brief mentions; these do not establish notability. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you.

You have already submitted the draft for review; you will need to be patient, as the submission notice on the page notes that there are over 2800 drafts awaiting review. Volunteers review them in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Also note that if a reviewer approves your draft and formally places it in the encyclopedia, you won't be able to edit it directly after that; you will be limited to edit requests. An article about yourself is not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

. . . and when you write "discography", do you perhaps mean "filmography"? (There's no mention of CDs, MP3s, etc.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging AAComposer. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hoary - I have renamed the section as you had suggested. Could you please look into this further and let me know what more can be improved. @331dot - Thank you for the information, I have tried my best at keeping everything neutral and have only written about myself based on the content of independent sources I provided as references. That's why I have also intentionally kept the article very small. I had thought of including names of other stars and crew associated with my films who all already have a Wikipedia page, but then I didn't incorporate that I thought it might be considered promotional. --AAComposer (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Updating the existing class for an article

Hello, I have done quite a bit of work adding content and editing this article Rhopalosiphum rufiabdominale and believe it is no longer at a start class level. Am I allowed to upgrade it myself, based on the criteria for the upgraded class? Based on what I have read, it should be at a C minimum but I believe it meets the requirements of B. Any advice? Thanks LSBryce (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@LSBryce: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes you can rate the pages yourself. What I use is an automated program called Rater, whcih you can add to your common.js page. It will rate pages for you, based on the ORES criteria. I ran it and, true to your prediction, it is B class.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would have agreed that B-class fits it fine. Nice job. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft talk:Kawal Rhode

Hello again,

An article I wrote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Kawal_Rhode) was rejected which reason that "Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Stuff the subject wrote doesn't count for notability. Websites from the subject's employer don't count. Most people are never notable, and those that become notable aren't written about until after they die."

When I tried to discuss with the reviewer and mentioned the that the points mentioned in the criteria are met as the Subject has published in Lancet journal with 200/300 independent citations, the reviewer got annoyed and asked me not to contact him again as I am not willing to take a "no" for it.

I also started another discussion on another page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Quantifiable_metric_for_WP:NACADEMIC, where we had some misunderstanding as he assumed that I have a COI with the subject, which I do not. The reviewer does not believe professors are worth notable, so I feel that he may be a nit biased?

WP:Prof also says, "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." I check this https://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Kawal+Rhode and got 1,105 results for this Subjejct. Therefore, on what basis should I accept that criteria 1 is not satisfied?

I am not sure why should I take no for it, when it seems that the subject meets the notability criteria? Earthianyogi (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the reviewer, who was more than patient in trying to explain to you that the metrics by which an academic career is measured (journal articles, grants, patents, books) have littel-to-nothing to do with how notability is determined for Wikipedia. What counts is what other people have written about the person, high profile awards and honors, and so on. A description of a person's accomplishments on the website of the university they work at can be used as a reference to support factual statements, but contributes nothing to notability. David notMD (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If you also agree, then may be I am missing something. I thought that criteria-1 was my best bet of showing that person has a number of citations on his published work. How is the criteria-1 satisfied then for an academic and how can I understand it in a better way (as I though I was following the criteria)? Earthianyogi (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

not citations of his published work. "Reliable independent sources" means that people have been publishing about him. David notMD (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh! so citations are not important, I misunderstood that as the main criteria. What you mean is that the independent sources like newspaper or webpage, etc, should talk about the person, not his work! Earthianyogi (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Selected publications (journal articles, books...) can be listed, but ideally need at least three publications about him - at length - not just name-mentions. David notMD (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

But, what is the primary criteria, "elected publications (journal articles, books...)" or "at least three publications about him - at length - not just name-mentions" - The former criteria for this subject is met, but not the latter, and therefore, it is concluded that the subject is not notable - Am I correct?

On the contrary WP:PROF reads, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. ". - So we need a consensus on how many citation are acceptable for notability?

Earthianyogi (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Question About Deletion

I got my page deleted why? Ninjagokristian (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ninjagokristian, I presume you are talking about Draft:Minecraft: The Movie. It has been rejected because no improvements were done as per the review. Also the reviewer has explained very broadly the reasons. The main point is that :

This draft is a request to spin off an article. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article, unless the draft satisfies a special notability guide. If the draft satisfies a special notability guide, please identify the notability criterion with a reliable source. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Ninjagokristian I recommend you add some of your info to Minecraft#Films and turn the article into a redirect, for now. When and if the movie comes out, you can fork it into an article. Save what you have now. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s me NinjagoKristian again no that’s not what I am talking about I am talking about Draft:MINEBLOCK

Deleting a sample page

Hello again, Does anyone know how to delete a sample page? I accidentally created one trying to learn the ropes of wikipedia ( User:Atomic.madness/Sample page ) and now can't figure out how to get rid of it. Any help is much appreciated --Atomic.madness (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Atomic.madness (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Atomic.madness: Only administrators can delete pages, for specific reasons. Your request is one of the valid reasons, so I put the db-author deletion tag on it, so an administrator should delete it in the next day or so. You can see the list of speedy deletion tags here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I should have marked that db-u1 as it is in userspace. Anyway, all taken care of now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help!--Atomic.madness (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Drafts Away!

Hi WikiMates,

I would like to work on a second and new Draft while my current submission, Draft:Mark Gillespie, is up for review. Is it possible to sandbox multiple articles so I can keep churning out my research and citing? Bouncecouncil (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bouncecouncil, I have cleaned out your sandbox, it is ready for your next draft. You can create multiple drafts in your userspace simply by giving each a unique name. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Roger (Dodger67), I have never seen a sandbox so clear! Then again, I have never been to Whitehaven Beach. Thank you for the educated insight and for going ahead and making way for my next draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouncecouncil (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

regarding deletion of page

what is the procedure to publish page on Wikipedia Skantpulmed (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Skantpulmed: In general, see the section "How to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted" in this guide I wrote for new users. However, you should also read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, WP:COI, and WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Skantpulmed Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on what you had posted to your user page(which is not article space), I think that you have a common misconception of Wikipedia in that it is not a place such as social media for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what a person wants to say about themselves or in their resume(which is essentially what you posted). If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use actual social media.

Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It's even harder when attempting to write about yourself, which while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. This is in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. In order to be successful in writing about yourself, you in essence would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage(not interviews with you, brief mentions, promotional bios, resumes, etc.). Most people cannot do that, even though it is technically possible. If you truly feel that is something that you are able to do, and you feel that you meet the definition of a notable person, you can attempt to create and submit a draft using Articles for Creation, though I do not advise you doing so. If you do, you should read Your First Article first. Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding political edits made to China/ Hong Kong

What are the standard procedures we have to follow, like do we have to make edits according to what the Chinese government says? What is a citable source in these situations? Recently I had an edit reverted in anti communism in Hong Kong which said election results do not reflect the will of the people, I don't understand this, thanks 221.126.147.189 (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which edit you are referring to, but Wikipedia is not interested in what the Chinese government says insofar as Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources say. If those sources report the views of the Chinese government, such information can be in the article in that context with an appropriately neutral point of view. The same goes for those opposed to the Chinese government. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source for websitesWordleys (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I came a cross a source in wikipedia that list websites that are approved by Wikipedia for use as reference and those that are not. Can someone please show me where I can find this, or perhaps there are a few pages? Thanks Wordleys (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wordleys Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like you are referring to the list of perennial reliable sources. They haven't been "approved by Wikipedia" per se as Wikipedia does not have a body which grants or denies approval, but editors have come to a consensus as to the views on the sources listed there. The list is not exhaustive and a reliable source does not have to be listed there to be considered reliable. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Images

It seems, that, whenever I get an image relevant to any topic, the image is protected and cannot be used. Why is this happening?PNSMurthy (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse PNSMurthy. Your question is not very clear, but I’m guessing you might have been trying to upload images that were copyright and not your own. We do not permit such images to be used here unless published under a licence explicitly permitting commercial re-use. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for further information. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Nick Moyes. I understand. To clarify, I meant that, every time I chose an image, a notification came up telling the image is protected and can't be used. But anyway, I will resort to where you, Nick Moyes, have guided me. Thanks, PNSMurthy (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@PNSMurthy: Would you mind giving me a link to such an image? I can't say I've ever experienced the kind of message you allude to, or the situation where that might happen. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, PNSMurthy. I'm guessing that you might mean images in Wikipedia articles that you want to reuse, but find that they are non-free? Yes, that is a problem. One of Wikipedia's fundamental goals is that all its content be licensed in such a way that anybody can reuse it for any purpose. Unfortunately, if we stuck to that for images, many articles would not have any at all, and the result would be less attractive and in some cases less useful. (I believe that some of the other language Wikipedias do stick to that policy). So the compromise is that we allow non-free material (nearly always images) to be used, provided the image and its use meet all the criteria in the Non-free content criteria. It sounds as if, for some reason, the topics you are looking at often have non-free images. There's not really any solution to this, as far as I know. --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

about my article

why my article got rejected this is my first time using wikipedia i dont whats going on. jaspreet kaur Aulakh (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ms.kaur23: As stated on User:Ms.kaur23/sandbox and your talk page, your draft was rejected and deleted because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This has a link to Wikipedia:Notability, which details the inclusion criteria used to determine if a topic merits an article in Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ms.kaur23, and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that so many new editors try to start by creating a new article. I compare this to trying to play a piano concerto after your first music lesson: creating an article is one of the hardest tasks there is in editing Wikipedia. My advice it to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles (we have thousands and thousands which would benefit from some attention) and learning how Wikipedia works, before you try it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding a new Article about an open source software (FlaUI)

Hello all I'd like to ask here if it would be valid to add an article about FlaUI. As this is pretty much the only complete, maintained free/oss solution for Windows Desktop Automation, it could help have that in the wiki and also extend the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_GUI_testing_tools with a link to it. Would that be a valid article or would that be dismissed? Thanks for your help. Roman Roemeeeer (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Roemeeeer, and welcome to the Teahouse. In considering a new article, the very first question (and sometimes the only question) is: has the subject been covered in enough independent reliably-published sources to base an article on? Or, in Wikipedia's language, "Is the subject notable? Wikipedia is basically not interested in what a subject says about themselves, but only in what independent sources say about them. So your first task would be to find several places where people who have no connection with FlaUI have written about it - and been published in places with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, such as books from reputable publishers, or well-regarded magazines. Only if you have found such sources is it worth spending any time at all on such an article.

But I have another concern: creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks there is in editing Wikipedia, and editors who try it before they have spent significant time learning how Wikipedia works, often have a frustrating and disappointing time - they spend a lot of time on their article without understanding what is really needed, and then understandably get upset when their attempt is rejected. (I liken this to trying to play a piano concerto after one music lesson). So my advice would be to put this project on the back-burner and work on improving existing articles. But in any case, it's worth reading Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD Nominating

I am nominating the article about 270towin.com for deletion, as there is no significant coverage of it anywhere. I have added the template to the page but I am unable to start the deletion discussion for it. Can someone create the discussion? My rationale is as follows:

Subject has no significant coverage in the news, articles on it have mere mentions and Google has no results showing newspapers writing about this in detail.

45.251.33.42 (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is one path to starting the AfD: "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:270towin.com and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." David notMD (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Positive tone in Hitler article?

Hello,

I have noticed that Introduction to Adolf Hitler's Macedonian article ends using positive tone. My translation of the final sentence is as follows: "Nevertheless, he was a vegetarian, he loved his children, he loved animals, he did not smoke or drink, but he used amphetamines and to the bitter end remained faithful to his lover, Eva Braun."

I am not sure if this breaches Wikipedia's policy on tone, and what should be done about this, in particular this aspect: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized". How relevant is the fact that he was a vegetarian, or that he loved animals, or that he remained faithful, when the Introduction does not even include a reference to the Holocaust? The last sentence of the Introduction therefore inappropriately humanises him. It could also contribute to readers developing a more positive conception of him due to the recency effect.

Full disclosure: I deleted the ending sentence on 27 March 2020, but the change was quickly reverted. I only recently noticed this, but was unsure how to proceed, which is why I am looking for advice. 82.5.13.62 (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much the only thing you can do is to try to discuss this somewhere at the Macedonian WP. The policy you linked is en-WP specific, and may look different on other WP:s. I'd start with the talkpage, then look around for pages like this. There is also something called Wikipedia:Meta. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, different language Wikipedias operate very differently, and we cannot offer much assistance in editing the Macedonian Wikipedia, especially as it's not likely anyone here speaks the language. Instead, you could bring this up on the talk page over there and ask for comments from other involved editors. If this sentence was in the English Wikipeida, however, that sentence would probably be moved somewhere else, most likely to the "Personal life" section. It would also have to be reliable sourced and more specific (which animals? did he drink on fancy occasions only or does he never drink?) ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello Fiddle Faddle and thanks for your input, but I have one question how do I change the title of my Draft from Basketball to the Origins Of Basketball? Simple sports (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The article Basketball has a history section, and there is also History of Basketball. I do not see a need for another article on the topic. David notMD (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Simple sports, Most of what is in your sandbox is already in the article History of basketball. One exception is that you state that professional basketball started in 1896. You have a published reliable source for that? If so it might be a nice addition to the article. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Reporting

Good Afternoon, how would I report a disruptive editor for repeated vandalism?-Thanks ReedBlower (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@ReedBlower: Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Vandalism has info on how to warn vandals, and if that does not work, there is a link there to the noticeboard for reporting them. RudolfRed (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This is where you report vandals: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism RudolfRed (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested Article- Shamsher Singh (Indian journalist)

Hello editors, I have placed a request for creation of an article Shamsher Singh (Indian journalist) on the requested articles page with 21 references for helping the editor but I haven′t got any response. I cannot directly edit the article due to COI. I hope any of you will help in creating the article
Thanks!-- SinghPurnima72 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This was literally just deleted at AFD no less than 3 days ago. Praxidicae (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi SinghPurnima72. As pointed out by Praxidicae, this article was deleted by the consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamsher Singh (journalist). You participated in that discussion and weren’t able to convince the community that the article should be kept. So, unless you have drastically rewritten the article and have addressed all of the concerns about its appropriateness for Wikipedia, any attempt to recreate the article is only likely going to lead to it being deleted again per WP:G4. If there’s something about the AFD close you don’t understand, you can post a message on the closing administrator’s user talk page and ask for clarification. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Where To Sit My Tea?

Hi Fellow Wikipediamights,

According to tutorial Wikipedia:So_you_made_a_userspace_draft#Ready!, one submits their article to the AFC by placing {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} "at the top of your article". Where exactly does this mean one should sit the actual code?

A) At the very "very" top? B) Above my submitted text, but below "EDIT BELOW THIS LINE"? C) Neither. I simply submit draft and find that a "Review waiting, please be patient." tutorial message is auto-generated.

I query this because it seems the recommended placing of {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} within Draft:Mark Gillespie has resulted in the duplication of an AFC auto tutorial. Bouncecouncil (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bouncecouncil I've fixed it, the draft is now correctly in Draft-space at Draft:Mark Gillespie (music manager) awaiting its next review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roger (Dodger67), Thank you so much for the educated insight as well as the sandbox updates. I have never seen sand so clear. Then again, I have yet to venture Whitehaven Beach. Is it a wiki faux pas to move the sourced draft myself to the live article section?

You're allowed to do it, Bouncecouncil. But if you do, you are essentially saying "I take full responsibility that this draft is up to the standard required for a Wikipedia article". It will still probably get reviewed by the New page patrol, and if they decide that it is not up to scratch, and especially if they see that your draft was twice declined before you unilaterally decided to move it, they may not be kind to you. If they notice that you have also edit warred with Dodger67 over the title of the draft, they may conclude that you are editing disruptively. I have just spent time looking at all 9 of the citations in your draft, and I might have said "wasted time". Please look at common sourcing mistakes and do not move or resubmit the draft until you find at least three sources which meet the requirements. --ColinFine (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Submitting a draft and getting it declined includes recommendations about what is missing. Converting a draft to an article can result in an Articles for Deletion process, which is much less forgiving. David notMD (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried to review it in draft-space but conflicted when it was moved to mainspace. So I gave up on reviewing and then just fixed the title (twice) and a cite template error. As AFC review has been stopped by the move to mainspace the article will now live or die according the NPP process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Information entered under parameters 'fields' and 'education' doesn't show in the saved version. Warning says inbox needs to be updated. How is that done? I've also added parameters, but entries do not show. CPDeLisi (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC) CPDeLisi (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CPDeLisi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Which article are you talking about? If it is Charles DeLisi, then the infobox in question is {{infobox academic}}, which does not have a parameter 'fields', and is called in that article without the 'education' parameter. But of significantly greater concern is that you would appear to be editing Wikipedia's article about yourself, which is strongly deprecated. Please read about conflict of interest and autobiography, and henceforward suggest edits to the article using the edit request mechanism, rather than making them yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rekha Krishnappa

Anybody is free move this page Draft:Rekha Krishnappa to Rekha Krishnappa Thanks and I don't know to move this file. Eswnav (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eswnav, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your draft which will allow you to submit it for review when it is ready. At present, in my judgment, it is not ready, as it has no substantial independent sources about Krishnappa. Please see WP:CSMN. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you expand this article? Eswnav (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse volunteers answer questions about how to do stuff at Wikipedia, not to help write articles (although sometimes some do, mostly by removing stuff that harms the drafts' chances of being approved). David notMD (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Query regarding submitting article for AfC

Greetings Teahouse!

I am new to Wikipedia and have an article that I wrote about a living artist, [William Woodward]. I do know this artist which is what led me to create this page, because there is a deceased artist by the same name [William Woodward] and I understand that this has been causing confusion when people (patrons, galleries, museums, etc) while searching for him online. I wish to have the article about the living artist published to provide disambiguation regarding these two artists. I understand that since I am an acquaintance of the artist that this may cause the article to be denied for conflict of interest ... I then found the section for [Article for Creation] and I believe that this would be the place I should submit my article. So, finally, here is my question: how can I submit my article to the [AfC]? And also wondering if anyone might be able to briefly review my article and provide suggestions for improvement? Thank you for your time! I appreciate the help! EArvaWeb (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

EArvaWeb, there are many essays such as this one that suggest how you might create a half decent article. Broadly, start with a pile of references and craft the article around what the references say.

Submitting to WP:AFC is as simple as going to that page and scrolling down a little so that the big blue button comes into view. Follow the guidance the wizard gives you.

A pre-review is usually pointless. Gird up your loins and have a crack at it. Once you think "This looks ready" submit for review. We'll get to it, though the queue is more like an amorphous blob than a linear queue.

Once submitted continue to enhance it. Or start another draft.

A note of caution. I knew the late Keith White (yachtsman). When I created the article I only knew him. At a point we became friends. At that point I stopped editing the article and declared my conflictt of interest. Fiddle Faddle 19:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semya earthquake, feb 1975

Hoping for a list of people hurt. My people?? Thanks 2601:406:C201:46A0:491F:5DCB:B229:2C59 (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that long lists of injured people should not be included. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been unable to confirm the existence of any place called (just) Semya (which seemingly is the Russian for "family"). However, I suspect the OP meant Shemya Island, with the relevant event being the 2 February 1975 Near Islands earthquake, in which 15 people were reported as being injured, though none killed.

As Ganbaruby explained above, Wikipedia does not normally include a full list of casualties for such events, and I myself have been unable to find a list via the article's references or by general websearching.

For anyone else wanting to look, note that the quake occurred at 08:43 UTC on February 2, which was still February 1 locally – this might be relevant to search strategies and results. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.211.254 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

When is the specific guideline about multiple sources combining to show notability used?

WP:BASIC says that:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

I don't understand how it doesn't contradict the guidelines which talk about in-depth coverage. Thanks! Hmanburg (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hmanburg, and welcome to the Teahouse. My interpretation of that is that we don't absolutely have to just two or three really in-depth articles about someone for them to meet our notability criteria, but equally we don't accept numerous short, trivial mentions of them, either. (if we did, I could show you my press cuttings box file from the last 40 years and prove that that I deserved a Wikipedia page here; I don't!) But, somewhere in between lies an acceptance that there can be quite a few articles of mid-depth which, taken together, contribute to demonstrate a person's notability. Other might disagree, but that's how I see it. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Nick Moyes! I was thinking along the lines that depth and triviality are two different things. For eg., A trivial mention would be a phone book entry. While a non-trivial but with low depth might be something relevant about the subject but not much more.

When can I consider myself a member of a WikiProject?

I've only participated in a few discussions in WP:BLM, but I already put up a userbox on my page. Is this too early? When can I put it up and call myself a member? Bowler the Carmine (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, talk and welcome to the Teahosue. For most WikiProjects, any editor in good standing may become a member simply by declaring him- or herself to be a member. Simply adding oneself to the list on the project page is enough. Placing the user box on one's talk page is not needed, but is a way to let others know of one's involvement in the project. There is no exam to pass nor do other project members havbe to approve a new member. Welcome to the project. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Bowler the Carmine, What DES said!

You can join or leave pretty much any project at pretty much any tine. A few require a track record. A good example of that is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation where experience begets expertise and is very much required. Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Editing a page or adding information cant get the format cite right with the arrows Please help I dont know where to put the summary nor the citation"

This is how I entered it: "Andrew Tisch" was an exec of Lorillard Tobacco Co. He appeared and testified before Congress in 1994 where all 7 execs said tobacco was not addictive.[2] Bloopersbetty (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bloopersbetty and welcome to the Teahosue. It seems that you put the information into the edit summary and only adde3d an empty pair of <ref>...</ref> tags to the article Andrew Tisch However, the information you wanted to add, using the exact same source, is already in the article at the end of the "Career" section. Did you want to ? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

For the future, please read Referencing for Beginners. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Rejection of new article: John David Garcia

Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Re: Articles for creation: John David Garcia (July 23) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_David_Garcia)

Hi all! I have written an article to replace one previously removed regarding John David Garcia. It was rejected at “Articles for Creation” because:

It is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. Needs more external news sources.
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established.
This reads like a hagiography of the person. Needs more external news sources.
It seems to be copied from some other biography articles, especially with dangling sources.
Whole sections go into his outlines of his theories.

The sources used for the article were: 1. http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr 2. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com 3. https://patents.google.com 4. https://patents.justia.com 5. http://richwritings.com 6. https://psychology.wikia.org 7. https://archive.org 8. https://www.amazon.com (Undertow by Warren-Adler to show book dedication) 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HUMBERTO_FERNANDEZ-MORAN 10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220393527 11. https://www.see.org 12. https://medicalarchives.jhmi.edu

All are independent, reliable, and verifiable… although the see.org cite is a Garcia “memorial site” used merely as the source for one of his writings. Regarding the lack of “news” sources (and the “notoriety” standard): People who seek notoriety may find themselves in the news and many people in the news are undeserving of “fame”. I would think that the concern of Wikipedia is that subject persons be “widely known” (as an aspect of “notoriety”) as opposed to “She gained notoriety when nude photographs of her appeared in a magazine.” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notoriety). A “news” story is only as reliable as its sources – which is more reliable or verifiable, a news story about a patent or the patent itself? Wikipedia should not ignore important people who make meaningful contributions to humankind just because they don’t seek notoriety or do things that newspapers believe will sell newspapers.

If I had a “neutral point of view” about Garcia’s importance, I wouldn’t have bothered to create this article. I have attempted to offer an explanatory exposition which accurately reflects the views of others regarding Garcia’s importance and Garcia’s own content about his work (which was often self-critical). The reality is that my personal views are often in conflict with Garcia’s and I am pleased that such doesn’t show in the article. My views of John’s ideas are unimportant. I made an attempt to find and offer “a range of independent, reliable, published sources” relating to Garcia’s work. The materials “produced by the creator of the subject being discussed” were derived from and were consistent with those sources.

“This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia”. An “advertisement” “tries to persuade you to buy something” (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/advertisement) or is “the action of making generally known” (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/advertisement). I suppose this is meant to mean the former; my intent was the later. I would welcome specifics on what is being sold here.

“This reads like a hagiography of the person.” Garcia was certainly no saint, but since he is not able to refute this content, it would be unfair to make it hyper-critical. Instead, I chose to use Garcia’s self-criticism where known. My own critical opinions were not included as being both irrelevant and unfair. If that makes the content seem adulatory, so be it. (I admire many of Garcia’s ideas, but I suspect some would find this article overly negative – e.g. I “hint” of his adultery). It “seems to be copied from some other biography articles”. I copied from MY previous work which was removed from Wikipedia but remains on psychology.wikia.org. Because both writings state the same facts from the same sources, it may appear as “plagiarized”. If that content appears elsewhere, it should have been credited to me. You need to be specific about the “dangling sources” mentioned.

“Whole sections go into his outlines of his theories.” Yes, his and others. I modeled those parts upon: “Philosophy: Substance, attributes, and modes” in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza. His patents and scientific work were noteworthy only because they demonstrate his creativity (and practical contributions) and were not, therefore” worthy of elaboration. Garcia’s “notoriety” arises from the importance and uniqueness of his “theories” (or philosophy, substance, attributes, and modes). The cited content for those “outlines” were either notable figures or publisher created “sleeve” content for his books (to which Garcia may have contributed).

In sum, I believe this “rejection” to be unfounded, improper, and reflective of misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the content. In addition, the response was seemingly biased, too vague, and in itself lacking “references” (details) that would make it useful. Please tell me I'm wrong (and why). Thanks, RVW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich1vanwinkle (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You're wrong. The draft goes on and on and on. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a concise description of the topic, not, as in this instance, reproduce everything Garcia ever said, wrote or thought. I cut some, but strongly recommend you cut this be more than half before considering resubmitting. Leave what people have written about Garcia, not what Garcia has written. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Article declined

hello friends, I have submitted an article yesterday, and it's been declined, really it was very disappointing because I spent so much time by writing and completing it, so please help if there is any problem, or tell me if there are any guidelines to follow Cambuul (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, your draft User:Cambuul/sandbox/cambuul was declined as a test edit because it has no content. Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Updated please check it again. Cambuul (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this about User:Cambuul/sandbox/cambuul? It's not clear whether that is about a person or a subclan. If a person, when did he live? In any case, it fails to establish its subject as notable enough for a Wikipedia article, because neither of the cited sources (both maps) even mentions the subject, let alone discussing him/it in depth. Maproom (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Konutka

Can someone please give some advice to Konutka, which will first involve determining or at least guessing whether their first language is Russian? This editor is submitting biographies of academics from the Udmurt Republic, which appears to be a region in the Russian Federation. There are several problems with the submissions. First, they are being submitted as last name comma first name patronymic rather than first name patronymic last name. This is obviously meant to be helpful to us, but is not helpful. Second, they are submitting two copies of each biography, one in draft space via AFC, and one in article space. This is problematic. Third, they are resubmitting the drafts after they are declined as 'exists' because of the articles. Fourth, the English is both clearly non-native and not in an encyclopedic style. They probably can't help that, but the other problems compound the fact that the writing needs help.

Can someone please give this editor advice in their first language, which is probably Russian (and is almost certainly an East Slavic language)?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I'd post at WT:RUSSIA for more visibility. Wish I could help! Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Calliopejen1 - That probably did help. Thank you. Maybe someone can give them advice in Russian. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

achieving consensus

Hello everyone - I have been working on the article on Charlotte Latin School in an attempt to improve it (it is currently in stub/low importance status). One of my edits was reversed by another very experienced editor for being "unencyclopedic, promotional, and unsourced." The edit in question was noting that the school is a member of the Cum Laude Society - I would note this organization has their own Wikipedia article, which I think would sort of make it encyclopedic dic and notable by definition(?) I also included a citation, in this case a link to a primary source, the list provided by the society itself of members.

I started a discussion in the Charlotte_Latin_School talk page to attempt to form a consensus. It has been several days and no one else has opined. It looks like the editor who reverted/deleted this insertion is now on an "indefinite block" as well. I'm not totally sure what this means, but he is a very experinced editor and I don't wish to edit war with him without achieving consensus...but that's hard to do given the lack of replies from him or anyone else.

I would appreciate any feedback on how to proceed.

Best Jiffy.morton (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

John had a temper tantrum, and is indefinitely blocked until he stops threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue, and apologies. So you are not going to hear why he reverted your content. David notMD (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as this, should he be removed from wikipedia:teahouse/Host landing? He said on his talk page he isn't planning on coming back. Ghinga7 (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The content you added about SAT scores and what colleges graduates went to were referenced to the Charlotte Latin School website. The Cum Laude Society ref was the cumlaudesociety website. These are primary, not secondary sources, and hence not to be used. (My own website says I am tall, dark and handsome, whereas the truth may be closer to wide, bald and interesting looking.) David notMD (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: What I coincidence - I resemble that remark too! For a small fee, I'd be happy to publish on my website that you are extremely tall, dark and handsome, so you can use it in your WP:AUTO. :-) GoingBatty (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. I was asking specifically about the cum laude society. My understanding of the rules around primary sources was they are acceptable when used simply to establish a fact. I am making no claims about he cum laude society other than the fact that the school is a member. Isn't just an actual link to the membership a great way to do that?

Jiffy.morton (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Jiffy.morton, I concur with circumspect and sparing use of primary sources where the fact is not susceptible to challenge, but prefer reliable sources in all possible instances. I use primary as a last resort, and ony after considering whether the fact is important Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Timtren Thanks. That makes sense. I was able to find a secondary source (newspaper article) that establishes membership as well...I think the sentence in question is now very thoroughly cited! Jiffy.morton (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

feedback on url changes to Sodomy laws in the United States

I am looking for some feedback on changes to a couple of urls in a recent edit of Sodomy laws in the United States. I am particularly concerned with the updated Oklahoma url, which returns an rtf file.

However, it looks like the updated Lexis-Nexis links may not be working either. I am requesting input on any of the "changed" links listed below:

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Mississippi

Oklahoma

Tks! Fabrickator (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:

Florida is a link to an identical, working page (the only diff is the capitalization of a letter in the URL).
Both the old and new Lexis links are bad pages (Georgia and Mississippi).
The old Idaho link is bad and the new one works.
The old Oklahoma link is to 21 OS 886, a specific section, while the new link is to the entirety of title 21 (as an RTF), which is not ideal.

I'd discuss it with the editor and others that may be interested at Talk:Sodomy laws in the United States. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to work as a paid editor

I want to create a page for a company. It has several independent references on the internet. What should I do? or how can I start? Please help Thank you Seedlesslime (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seedlesslime: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for stating that you are a paid editor. You must follow WP:PAID required disclosures. Tp create an article, you can follow the steps at WP:YFA, and there is a wizard there you can use to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seedlesslime:, the way I interpret your comment is that you would like to be paid to edit. Wikipedia does not pay editors. While you are free to offer your services to others off wiki as a paid editor, Wikipedia is primarily edited by volunteers working on their own time because they believe in the value of this project. As noted, if you choose to edit for people that hire you to do so, you must comply with the relevant policies. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Be aware that the company you are thinking of may not want to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Once an article (not a 'page') is created, anyone can add to it as long as they provide valid references. Has the company ever lost a lawsuit? Been the subject of government regulatory action? All that could end up in the article. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Seedlesslime: There's an essay about that at WP:PROUD. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

How to create

Hi! How to create an article? Eswnav (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eswnav: There is a lot of good information at WP:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eswnav: ... and in the post on your talk page at User talk:Eswnav#Welcome!, left just before you posted here. Keep in mind that creating an acceptable article from scratch is a substantial amount of work, requiring familiarity with what Wikipedia is not (a promotional or social media platform), Wikipedia's notability and reliable source requirements, Wiki markup language, citing references properly, article layout, etc., and must be written in a professional, encyclopedic tone. Those who try to do so without having spent some time editing existing articles to "learn the ropes" will often have a difficult experience. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Land Borders fix

Can someone please fix India's entry on this table? I am unable to figure out to wikitext to do it. Thanks! I-82-I | TALK 22:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@I-82-I: I think I fixed it by adding "|Includes:|" in the table code. Let me know if this is not what you had in mind. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1:Thank you! That fixed the problem. I-82-I | TALK 07:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

About the publication of a new article

Hello,

When you finish and publish a new article, how long does it take to appear suggested in any search?, in Google for example. LiebeZenPeace (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a frequently asked question. Not before Google cares to add it. But in practice, fairly quickly, once Wikipedia has authorized its appearance. To quote Quisqualis above: "[your article] has not been reviewed; therefore Google cannot see it. Once it is reviewed, it will be able to appear on Google shortly thereafter. If 90 days pass without review, it will be visible to Google in any case. Just be patient." -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Awards add

Rohan Mehra

How to add iconic and star parivaar awards And if in relible sorce infomtion is wrong about birth year then how can change it correct? Rohan Fan (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Add awards to the table in the "Awards" section, of course citing your sources. Wikipedia uses reliable sources. What makes you think that the "reliable" sources are wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Article for Creation: Eric Rosen

Hello,

The page for Eric Rosen, a popular online chess player and International Master, was deleted in November 2019 due to lack of notability. It was asserted that IMs don't generally deserve their own Wikipedia pages, which makes sense. This assessment was confirmed in June 2020, when a submission to reinstate the article was rejected.

I'm a little confused by this, though. There are several pages about IMs or FMs whose online viewership is less. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Botez is a WFM with 95k subscribers on YouTube, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Steil-Antoni is a WIM with about 10k subscribers on Twitch, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Rensch is an IM with 17k subscribers on the platform. Rosen currently has about 107k subscribers. Under WP:BIO, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" is a valid criterion for notability. Of course, "large" is pretty subjective.

How should this page's notability be decided, and at what point of popularity should the article be created? Or is there a different test for notability that applies here?

Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ovinus Real: Could I just ask you to expand on the acronyms, as they may mean little to most people (i.e. me!) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, IM = International Master, FM = FIDE Master, WIM = Woman International Master, WFM = Woman FIDE Master. They are all various official chess titles. Ovinus (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

OK (you missed one: I discovered that FIDE is an international chess federation.) Without me having to look at any of these articles, I can say that (for anyone) Wikipedia doesn't really care how many followers any person has got on any social media platform. The quote you gave does seem to relate to entertainers, actors and models, and in today's times I agree that 'large' is very subjective, but 100k might not be that significant. We really only base NOTABILITY on whether or not independent, reliable sources have written about that person in detail and in depth, or whether they have won certain national or international awards or accolades. We have an essay called "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists which might interest you. Often, when someone says "oy, you deleted person A, but not person B" someone will then take a look at person B and consider whether or not that person also meets our current notability criteria, or not. Of course, media coverage changes. So a person previously not notable can become notable once circumstances and sources describing them also change. You might get more specific chess-related advice by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ovinus Real. Among the millions of articles in English Wikipedia, there are thousands (probably tens of thousands) which are not satisfactory, and would not be accepted if they were submitted for review now. Ideally they would all be fixed or deleted, but for some unaccountable reason not many editors want to spend their time rooting through the spoil heap (I include myself in that criticism, obviously). If you find an article which you think is substandard, you are welcome to fix it or tag it appropriately. If you think that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, you are encouraged to nominate if for deletion - though you should carry out the process in WP:BEFORE first. Please also see other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ovinus Real! We do not have specific notability guidelines for chess players. So, notability has to be decided on WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT. Even most of the GMs don't meet our notability guidelines; we keep them anyway because WP:WikiProject Chess advises that we do and at least some of them are likely to. So, it is extremely unlikely any non-GM is notable. I don't think any of the other people you've linked meet our notability guidelines either. Daniel Rensch in particular seems to have been written for promotional purposes, possilbly by WP:COI or WP:PAID editors. Please look at WP:NCHESS, which is not a community guideline on notability but is a good rule of thumb for which articles are likely to be kept in a deletion discussion, and which articles the chess-topics editors are likely to approve of. For example, Fiona Steil-Antoni apparently won a medal at women's chess olympiad (pass of NCHESS and more importantly, arguably good enough for ANYBIO) and the article content isn't itself hugely problematic, so that article is fine by me. If I had the time, I would investigate Danny Rensch's article thoroughly to see whether it should be trimmed or deleted. Botez is probably not notable either (women notability bar is lower) except she might have got some coverage because of how well known the Botez gambit has become as a meme (I don't know). To summarise, GNG is the gold standard, article may otherwise be kept if good arguments can be made at a deletion discussion that the subject meets NCHESS or ANYBIO. If articles exist that don't meet this standard (assuming you didn't miss something in your analysis), it's more likely that those need to be deleted, not new ones of similar notability created. On a personal note, no, I don't think Rosen is any less notable than Rensch or Botez; it is more likely that all three are not notable (Rosen has an article on the German Wikipedia, and based on brief perusal, someone seems to be trying to promote Rosen with weak sources, as with Rensch, NOT GOOD; I never support keeping any article created for promotional purposes, we are an encyclopedia afterall). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Should Events at the 2013 World Games be an article?

I just noticed that @Govvy: nominated Finswimming at the 2013 World Games for deletion. (as the deletion tag is about to expire I'll remove it for this discussion) At the bottom there is a box "Events at the 2013 World Games" with a whole bunch of red links, and I don't know if fistball at the 2013 World Games is much more notable than finswimming.

Perhaps all these events (or at least the results) should be merged into Events at the 2013 World Games, redirect the existing articles and only keep articles (with a {{Main}} at the to be created "events" article) for single events that appear to be notable on their own and consist of more than a table of winners? - Alexis Jazz 22:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, done. - Alexis Jazz 08:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

A Proposed GAN

Hi,

I want to nominate Helena, Montana for GA status, but I'm not sure if I have made enough edits. Could someone help? Also, please give any other suggestions if you have them. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi P,TO 19104, and welcome to the Teahouse. There's no requirment for having "enough edits" to nominate an article for GA; in fact, anyone could do it. Seeing that you have 34.6% authorship of the article, you seem very familiar with the subject, which will make the review process easier. The instructions on how to nominate an article are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Good luck! ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

P,TO 19104 One specific thing about the article: [3], and the two city-data.com references are three sources that shouldn't be used as they're highly questionable sources as per WP:RSPSOURCES. NNDB doesn't have good fact checking, and so may be inaccurate, and city-data.com looks to be a site that copies from other sites without attributions (and is now on our spam blacklist, so cannot be added anymore). If you could find better sources to replace those three sources, that would be good (it'll likely be something picked up in a GA review). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

P,TO 19104, one thing I will add to the above is that, before you proceed, you ought to propose and discuss this with other significant contributors to the article who are still actively editing on Wikipedia, if any. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I start as a contributor for Wikipedia

What tips and tricks do you have for me, how do I find vandalism, because it seems like there is barely any, and what is a good way to start getting some edits in. AydenBear (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Aydenbear, you can start at Help:Introduction. You do have multiple warnings on your user talk for unconstructive editing, including some that appear to be deliberate vandalism, so looking for vandalism may not be a good place to start. I would recommend you instead start by making small constructive edits to articles you have an interest in, and always include an edit summary explaining why you think the edit you're making is an improvement. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

... and Special:RecentChanges, Aydenbear. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding caption to image in article, etc.

Please, I need help with Ramesseum magician's box. I did copyediting here, but the captions for the photos (from Commons) are stranded over in the text. If someone can "fix" just one of them, perhaps I will be able to see how to do the others.

Next, the image for "boy carrying a calf" is not present at all, although it has a link in the text to a museum image. Not sure what should be done here. I suspect that this is not a free image, which is why it was not posted to the article, but would like advice, etc. Perhaps I could just put the link under external links, versus in the text area? Seems best??

I don't have experience with image captions, or images, but I am willing to learn. Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Your first question: Not "[[File:Ramsseum contents pic.jpg|thumb]]" but instead "[[File:Ramsseum contents pic.jpg|thumb|Whatever you'd like as a caption]]". Your second: the section "Boy carrying calf" simply doesn't ask for any image to be displayed, or anyway doesn't do so in any valid way. By "Penn Museum [https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/136702 Statuary - E13405 | Collections - Penn Museum] E13405, H 3.17cm, L 7.62cm, W 1.91cm", are you perhaps attempting to have a file hosted by penn.museum displayed? If so, this won't work: no file external to Wikimedia will be displayed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: Thanks for the info, very helpful, will give it a try. As for the Penn.museum, I think this must be why the original editor left it as is, since we cannot link this way, but thanks for confirming. Will move from text to external links, if I think it is appropriate. Thanks! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

/* External links */

I think this external link is good because there are did not such an external link in this article please help me what is the right way Etexplain (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Etexplain I think it is because you are not allowed to link to a blog, (if this question refers the the Poison article) Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no right way to add links to your blog. You have repeatedly asked not to attempt this. If you persist, you will be prevented from editing. -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Discouraged by added complexity of automated processes, thinking of giving up editing WP

I am not exactly a new editor for WP but I was pretty inactive for a long time due to life circumstances. Since I have started trying to engage with it again, my experience is that it has become a user hostile medium that is too complicated to be worth investing my time into.

I have just spent a long time trying to fix two non-functioning reference notes at the article on Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a "first wave" feminist thinker and writer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlotte_Perkins_Gilman Notes 68 and 69.

The notes are important because it appears that pretty much the whole bibliographic section comes from the same source, to which both of the notes refer. The original notes apparently were created in 2008, and the underlying article in 1999. They now go to a revised and marketing oriented version of the website in question which has no way to get to what material may exist there relating to Gilman.

In the Talk page there is a note by the InternetArchiveBot saying it had created a web archive link for the notes to The Wayback Machine. The bot wrote:

I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132018093800/http://www.womenwriters.net/domesticgoddess/CPGguide.html to http://www.womenwriters.net/domesticgoddess/CPGguide.html

As listed on the talk page, the archive link does work, leading to a Wayback Machine page devoted to Gilman which shows all the signs of having been created in 1999.

However, the web archive URLs in the main article are incomplete, and not the same as the one in the talk page, apparently following a truncation in the original link (?).

Gilman's works include:^[1]

See, I thought I was actually including the text from the note, but apparently the reflist formatting transfers here too.

Did the bot fail? Did it not include the complete URL because it was following an incomplete model? Did someone mess with its work?

I tried to add the missing piece of the URL from the Talk page but encountered two problems. First, it turns out that you can't check to see if a link works from inside a preview page (or if you can it requires arcane knowledge I don't possess), so I had to make actual edits to see if they worked. Then it turned out my modified links didn't work. I'm not sure why not. I think maybe it has something to do with the reflist citation method.

At first I tried just typing in the missing end of the URL(s). That produced a link to a different Wayback Machine iteration of the website than the one needed, though for the URL itself what was visible was the same as what was on the Talk page. However the Talk page did not include everything in the {{ ... }} brackets, or in the whole Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. So I tried again, this time copying and pasting the whole URL from the Talk page. That produced a date mismatch somehow between July 25, 2020, which now appeared, and the November 2018 web archive date by the bot, in a way that my just typing hadn't. So I reverted it all, or at least I thought I did.

This is only one example of the kinds of complexities I find myself facing that have me questioning if the game is worth the candle.

In this case I suppose what I should do for the Gilman article is try to use my sandbox to try to build a reference from scratch that works while preserving what should be preserved from the original.

I'm an ex-academic with a Ph.D. in African History and a lot of knowledge about other history, and other work experience as a professional editor. I always thought that Africa scholars have done a pretty piss-poor job of making the knowledge created in African Studies since ca. 1950 available in a more publicly accessible way -- both circulation and writing. I have that kind of substance to contribute, including knowledge of reliable sources, as well as copy editing and proof-reading. The information democracy aspects of Wikipedia have always appealed to me.

But it seems like since I first edited around 2009 or so, Wikipedia has gone a significant way toward being really only for devoted insiders with very high barriers to entry for what ought to be fairly simple kinds of tasks.

Sorry to be so whiny, and so discursive. Cabin fever and fascistic federal agents wreaking havoc in the streets of Portland where I live, I guess. Chris Lowe (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cclowe. I for one hope that you will continue editing and in my personal experience with general editing for 11 years, I rarely run across such vexing technical challenges. You wrote, "In this case I suppose what I should do for the Gilman article is try to use my sandbox to try to build a reference from scratch that works while preserving what should be preserved from the original." I think that you gave yourself some excellent advice. It is less frustrating to try to solve such a problem in a sandbox than in a live article. Sorry about the heavy handed feds roaming your streets. Best to stay away from the Federal Building late at night, I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't follow what I think are your main points. Some minor comments: It's normal for one reference to point somewhere and for another, later reference to point to the same place. Wikipedia makes great use of one flavour of the "Vancouver system", of which this is a result. I don't much like it. (And I'm quite mystified by the inversion of names: Why "Davis, Cynthia" instead of "Cynthia Davis" [as one example], when there's no alphabetically ordered list?) But that's what we have. Any attempt to imagine that it's a footnote system is doomed to increase confusion. There's no reason to write "Online. Internet." when it's obvious that something is a web page, which of course is on the internet and (server downtimes etc aside) is online. If a past version of a web page is superior to the current version, just link to the past version (perhaps adding a comment that will dissuade a later editor from updating the link). If some nitwit either hasn't heard of Gilman or pretends he hasn't, and writes on the talk page that nobody's heard of her, better just to ignore this (unless the comment is lengthy, offensive, or repeated). Inane comments aren't speedily deletable merely because they're inane. -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Cclowe, so, to take it from the top, the template {{webarchive}} uses the "date" parameter (click the linked for documentation) for the date of archival. The date of archive is also easily deduced from the archiveurl which is in the format "web.archive.org/web/[date in the format YYYYMMDDhhmmss]/[url]". As you say, the article was using the archive links from already after the url was dead, i.e. from 2018, this was reflected on the url and the date parameter of the template. I copypasted the url you gave above which redirects to one (that works) from August 2013, and also got a date mismatch error, and then fixed the date parameter of the template in line with the url, which worked. The url goes web.archive.org/web/20130812..., so the date should be August 12, 2013. You can use the preview button to see if the link works. Click on "preview" on the publish dialog window; the preview that is given works the same way as the published page.

Indeed, the compromise between functionality and accessibility is a tricky one, and the problem you said you face is not one that the regulars never do. I took months to figure out the essentials and am still figuring out new things as I have to.

Using your sandbox to figure out stuff is the best option there is. That's what it's there for. You could also have used a {{help}} template to ask another editor for help with regard to that issue. And, finally, I reckon there are a lot of topics on African History altogether missing from Wikipedia. Perhaps, you'd consider creating missing articles from scratch. WP:CITEVAR allows you to choose any citation style that you feel comfortable with, in articles you start. You could use just the styles you have been using in your academic work. This option, it seems to me, would be miles better than leaving, depriving the world of your knowledge in a topic area that is embarrassingly undercovered on Wikipedia. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

References

^ The bibliographic information is accredited to the "Guide to Research Materials" section Kim Well's website: Wells, Kim. Domestic Goddesses. August 23, 1999. Online. Internet. Accessed October 27, 2008 Archived November 22, 2018, at the Wayback Machine

Graph

How do you reverse the x-axis so that the highest number shows first using the Wikipedia template? DMBanks1 (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DMBanks1. Whilst I have never used the Graph template to which I assume you're referring, if you search the documentation for xAxisMin at Template:Graph:Chart you'll see a description which states: "xAxisMin, xAxisMax, yAxisMin, and yAxisMax: minimum and maximum values of the x and y axes (not yet supported for bar charts). These parameters can be used to invert the scale of a numeric axis by setting the lowest value to the Max and highest value to the Min." Maybe this might be of some help? But avoid bar chart format!. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I tried but cannot figure out how to do it. Also, can a notation be shown with the numerical value on the x-axis, or alternatively within the body of the line graph? DMBanks1 (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: May I make a suggestion? Copy the source code of whatever it is you are trying to work on and paste it into your sandbox (which you've not yet created - see red link at very top of any page). That way we can see what it is, and try to help you. I'm no expert, but I do like toying around with things like that, as it's a great opportunity to learn new things myself. I just need to see what it is you currently have, and what it is you're trying to achieve. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: I've had a little play around with the sample graphs at Template:Graph:Chart.

version 1 - normal x and y axes

version 2 (below) - X axis reversed by inserting the parameters xAxisMin=8 and xAxisMax=1

I assume this was the kind of thing you wanted to achieve? I'm not quite sure what you meant by your second question about notation. You might need to explain that a bit further (maths and graphs were never my strong point!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for various advice. My next query is how do I add two verticle lines that enclose a section into which can be added a comment? DMBanks1 (talk) 23:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: From looking at the template documentation I linked to above, I doubt that's possible, but it's certainly beyond my abilities to fathom. Do you have any urls that might demonstrate the type of thing you want to achieve? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Something like the pale blue section of the first chart on Recession of 1937–1938.DMBanks1 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: The graph used in Recession of 1937–1938 (and reproduced here with modifications) is an image file, not a live, editable Wikipedia chart. You would have to make that image in another programme, such as Excel, and then upload the jpg/png file. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

How to disable this text being added in my Contributions log?

Hi there! In all of my recent contributions, a line appears afterwards saying:

Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

I have no idea where this came from! And I don't know how to disable it. Can I disable it? I imagine it is probably some setting that I modified in Preferences, but I can't figure out which one. Thanks in advance. Nickgray (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nickgray and welcome to the Teahouse.

There is nothing to worry about. Wikipedia supports (at least) three different editors. There is the classic wikitext editor, which is what I use, and i think is still the default for new accounts. There i9s the 2017 wikitext editor, which is a somewhat minor change from the classic editor. And there is the visual editor. (I think the editor for the mobile version is again slightly different.) The tag in the history is just to tell any reader which editor you used. (That can be set in your preferences, yes.) That isnt because any of these are wrong to use. It is just that some functions are easier on one editor than another, so it is helpful to know which o9ne an editor used, so areas that are harder with that editor can be more carefully checked. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Nickgray. I assume you mean why are all your edits ending with "(Tag: 2017 source edit)". That's because you have 2017 wikitext editor enabled in the 'Beta' Tab in your Preferences (see here). I have been using it continuously for the last few weeks, but have just turned it off again as it singularly fails to work on my mobile in desktop view. If you look at my user contributions, you'll see the tag disappeared late last night after I gave up in sheer frustration at not being able to view anything correctly on my phone screen. Does that make sense? (It's a pleasure to return to real source code editing, not this half-way house of source editing inside the Visual Editor's layout.) See Wikipedia:Tags for more information. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That fixed it, thank you so much Nick Moyes and DES! I really appreciate your support and this TeaHouse space to ask questions. Nickgray (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Hi there. I have a question regarding web comments and copyright. Are they copyrighted? For example, are YouTube comments copyrighted? And I were to publish a screenshot of it, what license would it be appropriate to be labeled? Gerald WL 07:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Yes, theoretically. Why would you need to screenshot them rather than just quote them? Under the law, the result is the same, but Wikipedia treats quoted text more leniently than screenshotted images, generally speaking. It's also better for visually impaired people using screen-readers (and other readers, frankly) to just type out the text rather than using a screenshot. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Can you be more specific about the case? Most comments by random users would not seem to be something we should quote or cite here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Its those comments where they talk poetically about their reaction to a video, similar to of people in existential crisis. I feel like its original and that the words belongs to the author, but at the same time, comments with similar statements have been replicated, to the point where I feel like it seems cliche and ineligible for copyright. Gerald WL 07:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Which article? Which video? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: The article is Timelapse of the Future. The video is this. Gerald WL 08:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Side note, in order to have a sense on why the photo is there, I might put a caption like "An example of a triggered viewer comment. This type of comment is seen a lot of times" or something. Gerald WL 08:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis a ststement such as This type of comment is seen a lot of times would be Original research unless the conclusion was first drawn by a reliable secondary[ source which is cited in the article. This is exactly the kind of conclusion drawing that editors here should not do. Who decides what 'kind" of comment this is, or how typical that kind is? Only an RS should do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Can anybody help me

Can anybody help me in creating a article about a Indian politician which have no articles about him on Wikipedia?

Nandu M Nair (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nandu M Nair: I recommend reading WP:YFA. If you have any further questions after reading that, feel free to ask them here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Nandu M Nair (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This politician would need to meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If that's the case, you may visit Articles for Creation to create a draft article to submit for review. You may want to use the new user tutorial first. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

About my first article

Ja99u (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ja99u Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about your first article? 331dot (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ja99u, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am guessing that this is about The Citi Bazaar, as in User:Ja99u/sandbox. If you are contemplating the very difficult task of writing a new article, I suggest you start by reading Your first article, and then read about notability, and see whether you can find the independent reliably-published sources which are the very first step in creating an article (because if you can't, then any other work you do on the article will be wasted). If you can find such sources, then you can start writing the important part of the article, which is the text summarising what independent commentators have published about the company. Finally you can add finishing touches like images and infoboxes. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding "citation needed"?

Hi! I'm wondering how to add a "citation needed" note in an article? I chose to edit an article from the "Popular low quality articles" list, and landed on Brooklyn Beckham. There are several claims in this article that don't seem to be substantiated clearly from a reliable source, at least online (for example, that Elizabeth Hurley is his godmother), but they're not entirely without credibility (one tabloid article in the Daily Mail does mention this in passing, and there are several photos published of Hurley with Beckham's parents), so I think it might help to give someone a chance to add a citation. What should I do? Cisternet (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cisternet: To insert the citation needed template, insert {{citation needed}} at the end of the sentence, after the period. Keep in mind that the Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source; that is, the Wikipedia community reached the consensus that its generally unreliable and shouldn't be used as a source. If you find a dubious claim, you are allowed to outright remove the claim itself, especially if it's a biography of a living person. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! and thank you for the heads up on Daily Mail, I wasn't sure which citation was at issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisternet (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Current Events page

I added the headline about Arizona's Democratic Party HQ being burnt down (which is significant considering that police believes that this is probably arson in an election year in a battleground state) to the Current Events page for 23 July, but I have two queries:

which section of the page is more appropriate for this? Politics or Crime?
since the fire happened overnight, should it be listed as happened on 23 July (when it started) or 24 July (when it became apparent that the attack was serious and manmade)?

45.251.33.122 (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding when, take your queue from what reliable sources say. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Noted, Sphilbrick. I’ve moved the headline to the next day as the fire was reported an hour after midnight. (I am the same IP editor) 45.251.33.0 (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate. S Philbrick (Talk) 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding an article

I recently tried to add an article about Gallery House London, which was an important alternative art space in London in the 1970's. I think it's important that there be accessible public record about these vital, often overlooked alternative art spaces, which have so often provided platforms for creators who weren't supported by mainstream arts institutions, but I'm disappointed to see the article isn't live. I was careful to cite credible, published sources for nearly every sentence of the article, including "London Art Worlds", a book published by Penn State Press, which has the most comprehensively compiled research on the organization. I don't see any records about my attempted article addition, so I'm not sure what happened. Is there any way to find out? I was going to start adding some articles about other alternative art spaces and their histories, but I want to make sure I'm investing my time wisely and correctly so the articles are likely to be published. Thank you in advance! Cisternet (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Cisternet (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cisternetm and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that Draft:Gallery House, London is currently awaiting WP:AFC review. Because there are many drafts and few reviewers, a review can be delayed for weeks or even months. I see that the draft currently cites only four sources, and the National Archives source does not seem to have much directly about Gallery House, so a few additional sources would be desirable if such sources exist. I also notice that there is no source given for the date of the closure of Gallery House, or the circumstances of that closure.

Thank you for writing this draft. If you need help with any improvements, please do ask here again. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cisternet. The draft in question is Draft:Gallery House, London. Of the four references in the draft, it appears to me that only one, the book called London Art Worlds, is a reliable source that devotes significant coverage to this gallery. Most reviewers will expect at least three references to sources that discuss the topic at length and in detail. I suggest that you search for reviews in the London newspapers and art magazines of the era, especially those discussing the opening and the closing of the gallery. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing and citations

I have been adding to an entry that someone else created for my late father, Gerald Bonner, who was a historian of the Early Church, recognizing the potential conflict of interest and endeavouring to remain as detached as possible. My father's area of scholarship was such that relatively little has been written about him in secondary sources (other than a festschrift compiled in his honour, which includes a short biography), but having worked my way through his papers and private correspondence there is considerable information in unpublished form. I would like the Wikipedia entry to be as comprehensive as possible and wonder if there is a way to incorporate unpublished sources (perhaps by uploading pertinent documents to an online site). What is the general view of unpublished sources? JBonnerAnglican (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, they cannot be used. WP is an encyclopedia, so we can only summarize what is found in secondary sources. Perhaps some other entity might be interested in his papers...museum, historical society? Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 19:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JBonnerAnglican, and welcome to the Teahouse! In short, unpublished material (see Wikipedia:Published) is not what should be used on WP. The approach has strengths and drawbacks, but it's how we work. If you wish to write about your father using such material, WP is not the place. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, JBonnerAnglican. I am terribly sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia cannot base articles on unpublished documents, nor would it want to base them on links to a blog or other online site. Because we work on a principle of Verifiability (q.v.) we need to cite independent and properly published books, journals or online sources that have had editorial scrutiny. Not doing so would leave us open to all sorts of mischievous links to fake websites, POV-pushing sites and false information. So we have a principle of not accepting them at all. That said, there could be times when an External Link to a resource page might be included, but none of the article's contents should actually be based upon it. The way around the probelm could be to encourage an organisation with some credibility (museum, historical society, university or local newspaper, for example) to publish documents and accounts. We would probably regard that as more reliable than a homespun website, and thus be happier to link to it. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a better explanation....Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 19:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Charmaine Fong

Needing help with the article Charmaine Fong. The user Magnolia677 is constantly reverting edits to "remove unsourced content" even when it is just a list of musical releases that is common knowledge and can be found anywhere, and shouldn't require citations. They don't seem to have a problem with Filmography or TV series which are also unsourced. I think it's bad practice to just outright undo people's contributions as opposed to add a simple "citation needed." 218.255.108.232 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. Magnolia677 was quite justified in undoing this edit. You added statements that were not backed up by sources, and it seemed a bit non-neutral as a result. If someone challenges a factual statement, it is up to the inserting editor to supply a source - especially if, as you say, you think it can be found anywhere. So supply the link, please. That said, I'm not so sure I'd have removed the year 2019 from one of those edits, as the YouTube video did suggest that was when her song was released. Often you are better asking these simple questions of the other editor directly, rather than initially seeking third party comments. I would add that two edits to remove challenged information hardly constitutes 'constantly'. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

While agreeing with almost everything that Nick Moyes wrote above, I would add that, in general, if you object to a revert, the best place to comment is on the article talk page, in this case Talk:Charmaine Fong, in line with the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. I would say, however, that publication dates of creative works are generally considered to be implicitly sourced to the work itself (at least if the published work contains a publication date) and do not need separate sources. The same is true for information included on the copyright page/section or credits of a published work, (such as the name of the author, and cast lists and such) so bibliographies/discographies do not usually need separate sources, although they can be provided. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Where do i report an editor for spam?

Specifically this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/154.72.171.45 Disoff (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @user:Disoff, and welcome to the teahouse. It looks like the user has already been properly warned by User:The4lines. If the editor continues, you will have to give them a higher level warning, such as a level three. You can see more information on the templates we use for warnings here. Happy editing! Ghinga7 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If you would need to report them (like if they did it several times after being warned), you should probably contact an admin on their talk page. I don't know of any noticeboard for advertising. Ghinga7 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Disoff and Ghinga7. Spammers should be reverted and warned. If warnings and discussion do not work and promotional editing continues, then please file a report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard aftee reading the instructions at the top of the page. The quick shortcut is WP:COIN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought about COIN, but I thought that might be a bit specific. @User:Cullen328, would it still be appropriate to post to the talk page of an admin about that sort of thing? Ghinga7 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ghinga7, it is OK to approach an individual administrator, but that person might be busy off-Wikipedia at that time. You may get a quicker response by posting to an appropriate noticeboard monitored by many administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Serious pandemic figures in error?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data tells me that Canada has had 8,923 deaths (seems correct). Canada has a population of some 37.411 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COVID-19_pandemic_data/Per_capita tells me that Canada has 3 deaths per million population. I get around 238. What am I doing wrong? The figures for USA are 147,650 deaths, 329.065 million population and I get 449 per million which is very roughly the 405 from the Wiki page. Canada's figures are way out, by the looks of things.

--Terry Dr T Rowe Gromit1943 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gromit1943! I suggest you ask this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Naypta. I guess User:Yapperbot/COVIDdata uses Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita/death calculator. The entry for Canada includes {{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|ps=1|qid=Q83873580|P1120|list=p-1}} which produces: . At the time of writing it says 101 which is an old number of deaths from 31 March in COVID-19 pandemic in Canada (Q83873580). I guess it's supposed to use the latest number 8,711 from 7 July. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks for the ping, and thanks to Gromit1943 for raising the question. This was an issue with an entry on Wikidata; PrimeHunter rightly points out that the data from 31 March was being used, because it was set as preferred. I've unset it as preferred, so when the bot next runs (in a few hours time), the data should update with whatever the latest record on Wikidata is - which looks correct.

As an aside, Yapperbot doesn't use Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita/death calculator - it just calculates everything itself. You can see the full template it uses over at User:Yapperbot/COVIDdata/template.

Cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Japanese actor article titles

Hi, I've been reading up a bit on the naming convention for articles pertaining to subjects or people where the name is not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Japanese, and have a bit of query about how certain articles are currently titled. Specifically, I happen to edit a lot of articles about Japanese actors (voice actors mostly) and have noticed that most, if not all, articles currently feature the macron form of the actors names.

Most of these actors have official English romanizations of their names provided by their management agencies (eg. Sōma Saitō spells his name as Soma Saito), and these romanized names are what's predominantly used by news outlets in English when reporting/talking about these actors (not to mention is also how the actors themselves spells it on their social media/official website/merchandise/etc.). So far I've only encountered one article on Wikipedia that follows the actors own preferred spelling (Koutaro Nishiyama) and that article name change was only relatively recent.

Long story short, my question is: is it acceptable for regular editors such as myself to change the names of these articles provided there is sufficient proof of how the actor prefers to romanize their name, since by all account it follows the guidelines written here?

Thank you, Saruhikofushimis (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Saruhikofushimis, those guidelines say: "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." What you should look at is this. For ambiguities or difficulties, or to propose changes, ask here. Once there's agreement for retitling, regular and irregular editors are equally authorized to carry it out. (Incidentally, "Koutaro" is a mongrel rendition, isn't it? Normally I'd expect either "Kōtarō" [Hepburn] or "Kotaro" [macrons zapped].) -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary, thank you for getting back so quickly! And thank you for clearing things up and for the link; just to clarify though, I should leave a proposal or start a discussion here first before actually changing any article names, correct? (And yes, "Koutaro" is an unorthodox romanization being halfway between the Kotaro or Koutarou versions, but it seems to be his definite preference as its used consistently on his websites/social media/acting credits) Saruhikofushimis (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Saruhikofushimis do remember that Wikipedia does not automatically follow the preference of the article subject (much less that of the subject's manager) or any "official" name, but rather follows the usage in reliable English-language sources, as per WP:COMMONNAME. You should in my view start a move discussion on the article's talk page, and list it at requested moves, but you will p0-robably get more editors with a knowledge of the issues involved if you post a pointer at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles (as {{|Hoary}} suggested) or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan or both. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good advice from DES. I'm not at all fond of WP:COMMONNAME, but at least it's consistent and fairly easy to apply ... except when something or other (class deference?) renders it inapplicable. Not "Anthony Blair" but "Tony Blair", good; but none of "Tony Armstrong-Jones", "Snowdon" or "Lord Snowdon", but instead "Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon", which I think few people outside Wikipedia would say or write with a straight face. (Also, people such as Snowdon are described as having "issue", which to me sounds revolting, like some kind of suppuration.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why doesn't my edit box include a "cite" menu?

I am new to serious editing of Wikipedia. All the instruction pages I see (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners) explain that citations are really easy because there's a "cite" menu in the edit box. Why doesn't my edit box have this?? I see "Advanced," then "Special characters," then "Help," and that's it. Do I need to activate the "cite" menu somehow? Or does it work only in certain browsers or only on Macs (I have a PC)? Thanks for any help folks can offer. Grn1749 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grn1749: That's really weird. It definitely works on my PC, and I don't think I had to activate it. Have you tried editing in the visual editor rather than the code editor? The visual editor has even better tools for making citations than the code editor does. I rarely work with citations in the code editor these days. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are using the wiki-source editor, Grn1749, you need to enable the RefToolbar This is done in the Gadgets tab of the Preference page, in the Editing section. If you do that you will see the "cite" option toi the right of "Advancd", "Special characters", and "Help". The visual editor uses a quite different interface for a similar purpose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel:Ah, perfect! That fixed it! Thank you so much. Might I suggest somebody update all the how-to pages to add that instruction? I found it super frustrating to keep seeing references to this toolbar as though it were an automatic part of the editing menu! Grn1749 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I Have just updated Help:Referencing_for_beginners, Grn1749 to mention this. I would add that you should never trust the output when you use RefToolbar's "search":con next to the URL. It often gets most of the fields correct, but it sometimes makes significant errors. It has a nasty tendency to stuff the site name into the title of the page being cited, after {{!}}. This is simply wrong, and you should always check for it and move the name into the "website" or "newspaper" field. It sometimes gives the title in all-caps, which is also wrong. It quite often fails to pick up publication dates and the name of the author of the page/article being cited, if they are in slightly non-standard locations. And it never wiki-links the author or the work (website, journal, or newspaper), which should be done when there is a relevant article. It is a sizable help, but it isn't magic, indeed it isn't as good as a human. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grn1749 and DESiegel: To be quite frank with you both, I had thought it was a default function, myself! I've long felt that every page in Preferences should clearly show what the default setting normally is for each tick box. Those of us who've been around a while tend to forget how the settings were when they first started! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel, Nick Moyes, and Calliopejen1: Thank you, everyone!! Grn1749 (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel, Grn1749, and Calliopejen1: Interestingly, our edits to update the help guide have just been reverted by Sdkb, who quite rightly pointed out that they were unecessary as RefToolbar IS enabled by default. I have also checked with my alternative account which uses only the default settings, and can confirm they're quite correct. So maybe, Grn1749, you had at some time in the past unwittingly turned off this function without realising it, which is why you lost it. I stand by my statement that default options ought to be clearly marked in Preferences. Can anyone comment whether this is a WP:VPR issue just for en-wiki, or is one better raised at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:Preferences. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel and Sdkb: Interesting. I don't believe I ever turned that default setting off, because I don't recall ever going into my Preferences tab. Although I've had a Wikipedia account for more than a decade, I haven't done much more with it than correct punctuation and typos, so haven't previously had the need or interest to venture into custom settings. Is it possible my account predates the existence of the RefToolbar, and that's why it wasn't included in my editor? Regardless of it being the default setting now, surely I can't be the only one who for whatever reason doesn't have it activated and doesn't know how to activate it. Isn't there value, then, in allowing your one-sentence explanation of how to turn it on to stay in the reference guide? Grn1749 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Grn1749, your hypothesis is correct there — the RefToolbar was turned on by default in 2014. You might find it helpful to go into your preferences and click the "reset to default" button, in case there are any other similar things going on with other tools. Regarding the intro tutorial, we're discussing it here; my suggestion is to add a link to WP:RefToolbar to help anyone else who encounters the issue in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, thanks for the tip! I've reset my defaults. And thanks for the link to your conversation. Reading the discussion about if/where to include instructions on turning on the toolbar is a fascinating education for me about how Wikipedia editors make decisions behind the scenes! Grn1749 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grn1749: And here is a further piece of behind the scenes discussion that your Teahouse post has prompted!. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Need help

An article name Babushan Mohanty was needed additional citation. And someone added references and it improved. So can anyone help me how to remove the tag Additional situation or can someone remove the tag from there. Myslfsbhijit (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Myslfsbhijit, welcome to the Teahouse. Almost everything in the article is still uncited. Per WP:BLP, this is not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi , thanks for your review and reply. So can you help me how to remove the tag of additional citation need when the article will completely improve ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myslfsbhijit (talk • contribs) 06:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this article self-promotion?

The article about Tim Dodd reads like self-promotion to me. Things like bed sheets, childhood toys, ... triggered me. It feels like it abuses references and links to other articles. But I might be completely wrong - I haven't edited much on Wikipedia.

Reference: Identifying_blatant_advertising (Behalf_of_a_person)

Should I propose changes? 176.63.184.197 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose changes. If I were you, I wouldn't be worried by the man's bedsheets; however: (i) "In 2019, Everyday Astronaut stickers were taken up to the International Space Station and photographed floating in the cupola." Cited source for this: a tweet by the man himself. (ii) "he released exclusive video interviews [...] that trended on YouTube." Who were or what was excluded, exactly what (if anything) does "trended" mean, and what's the source for the claim of trendedness or whatever it is? -- Hoary (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

about the new article

new article

my husband published a book in 2018 we want to share some of the imporptant informations of that book and author, can we create the new article about that book in wikipedia? shall wikipedia approve the article?? Mariyadivya (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Mariyadivya Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell people about something, like a book. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable book). Not every book merits a Wikipedia article for this reason. If this book has significant coverage in independent reliable sources(such as reviews or discussion in the news or academic journals, not brief mentions or press releases), it may merit an article.

Furthermore, you would have what we call a conflict of interest(click to review) in writing about your husband's book. Writing a new article is the hardest possible task to perform on Wikipedia; it's even harder to do when you have a conflict of interest, but it is not impossible; you would need to use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. Please review the conflict of interest policy before attempting to do that. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

New pages feed backlog

What is with the incredibly long backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed? There are unreviewed articles dating from 2005, and are over 9000 total. I recently created my first article (Ed Currie), and discovered it is pending review. I understand that I just created it and it may take a while, but I am concerned it may take months (due to the backlog). Why is the backlog so long, and is there anything I can do? I-82-I | TALK 09:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't panic, I-82-I. What looks like an incredibly long backlog of articles from 2005 and 2006 is actually a reflection of very recent changes to pre-existing pages which have brought them suddenly to our attention. For example: Cypriots was a simple redirect page for 13 years until yesterday when this edit converted it to an uncited article. It will now be assessed as if it were a completely new page, but its date of creation is still displayed as 2006. But, yes, it may well take up to three months for a new article to be reviewed. With 9,000 new articles pending review - our volunteers are not going to rush to especially review yours or anyone else's. You will have to be patient. The trick is to make the reviewer's life easy by ensuring you include clear evidence that the topic is notable. If, after 90 days, an article has not been individually reviewed, then it will be released to Google to be indexed. That won't stop someone subsequently nominating it for a deletion discussion - but that applies to every article here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I had recently edited "UNTOUCHABILITY" but it has been deleted after a few days..why is that so ?

103.208.71.97 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited the article to bold a word in the lead of untouchability; typically only the title of the article, or the titles of redirects to an article, are bolded. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

103.208.71.149, who edited 22 hours earlier, damaged the markup for an illustration (with no explanation) put various sentences in bold (with no explanation) and removed two references (with no explanation). So in the space of 22 hours, two IP numbers belonging to Global Networks Infocomm Pvt Ltd added nothing to the article Untouchability but instead merely degraded it. I note that another user has since appeared, again putting bits and pieces in bold. My thanks to Suneye1 and Kakima minimoto for their work reverting such damage. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding file license

Should autopatrollers add |image has rationale=yes by themselves in the license template? -- CptViraj (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

CptViraj If a previous editor (likely the uploader) has in fact provided a rationale but failed to add the template parameter it would certainly be helpful for a patroller (or indeed any experienced editor) to correct the template. If the reasons for usign the image under fair use are in fact reasonable clear, it would even be helpful to write up and add the rationale, but that is farther than most patrollers choose to go.

By the way i suppose that you mean "New Page Patroller" not "autopatroller". An autopatroller is a user who is experienced enough that his or her edits are automatically marked as patrolled, and do not need to be reveiwed by a member of the NPP. Pretty much all NPPers will have the autopatrol right, but reverse is far from true. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: No, I really mean autopatroller. As you said "An autopatroller is a user who is experienced enough that his or her edits are automatically marked as patrolled, and do not need to be reveiwed by a member of the NPP", so would it be fine if an autopatroller add that parameter by himself/herself on his/her own uploades? -- CptViraj (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I see, CptViraj In any case, any user, with or without any special rights, may (and indeed should) add that parameter if a proper rationale is present. This is true whether the user has personally written the rationale, or some other editor has previously done so. Is that clear? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Yep, this is helpful. Thanks :) -- CptViraj (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting revisions

Another user has been adding copyrighted lyrics to Don't Know Why. I want to use Template:Copyvio-revdel to request redaction of these edits, but this is the first time I'm doing this, so I'm a little confused. I know how to add the revision number to the "start" parameter, but it's the "url" field that's perplexing me: "The url of the site the article was in infringement of, or a text explanation of where the source(s) can be verified". No site was infringed upon. How do I handle this kind of thing for copyrighted song lyrics? Thanks. ResPM^{come to my window} 01:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC) ResPM^{come to my window} 01:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ResolutionsPerMinute, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I have done quite a few copyright revdels. What the reviewing admin needs is some way to see the copyrighted text that has been infringed, so that s/he can evaluate exactly what is and what is not an infringement. Note that the admin must confirm that an infringement exists at all, as well as which revisions infringe. So if the copyrighted text is available online, please link to it. If it isn't online, explain where and how to find it, please. Without this, the reviewing admin has a much harder task. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I'm a little puzzled. Because it's a modern song (2002) by a well-known commercial artist, shouldn't we assume that it is copyrighted in the absence of evidence of a suitable license (unlikely)? This search shows it's been reproduced all over the place, but those are probably all copyvios, too (as usual), so we don't owe them the protection so much as the original artist, right? The relevant edits are the latest four: 969526531, reverted at 969528179, and 969533068, reverted at 969534325. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, I agree with you and just did the revision deletion. @ResPM:, I think you're all set. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Pinging ResolutionsPerMinute. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thanks for the clarification. So what you're saying is I need to link to some site that displays lyrics, like MetroLyrics? Does it matter if the site is a licensed lyrics provider? ResPM^{come to my window} 11:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 It wasn't so much a question of confirming that a commercial song was copyrighted -- I would indeed assume that -- as of confirming that the text added to the article was in fact the words of the copyrighted commercial song. For that purpose, any reasonably reliable site, copyvio or not, would do. Yes I probably should have just searched for such a site myself, but I answered the question as asked. ResolutionsPerMinute, Calliopejen1 says the issue is now dealt with. But yes, any such site, licensed or not, would serve the purpose, IMO. While we do not normally link to sites that display copyright violations, for the limited and very temporary purpose of showing what the copyrighted text is, I think it would be OK. If a licensed site is known to you, that would be better, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Individual Passenger Train Articles

Hello fellow editors ! I have a doubt regarding inclusion of individual articles on normal passenger trains (which are approximately 14,000 in India). For example articles like Indore–Ajmer_Link_Express, Rajendra_Nagar_Patna–Indore_Express. These both examples are completely normal trains, which clear fails WP:GNG and their is no other subject specific guidelines for trains (that I am able to find). Most of these articles are unsourced or poorly sourced stubs. I believe that these articles should not be included on English Wikipedia, this may also be a case of WP:NOTTRAVEL. Can someone provide their views about it. Thanks. Zoodino (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Zoodino, I would ask this question at WT:RR. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I was going to ask at WT:INRI, but asked here earlier to get a general perspective from people who were not a part of the project. I would ask there, but if you or anyone else have views about it, you are welcome to comment here. Zoodino (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Rumtek

Dear fellow editors, There is a page on Rumtek Monastery but no page on Rumtek. I think there was a page about the city but was merged into this.... Can you please rename the page to Rumtek, so that I can add information about the city... Cheers ... Anupam Dutta (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Anupam Dutta (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: Please make this suggestion on the article talk page: Talk:Rumtek Monastery. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Academic and expert reference being disputed

Hi Wiki Editors,

I'm currently having a debate about whether the following references would merit inclusion in the body of an article (note, I'm not trying to start a new article here!) and would truly appreciate your views. The change references a controversy connected to the initial article:

a) One of the references is self-published in the form of a letter, signed by a subject-expert (someone who's won a number of awards in their field and had their work nominated for the top global honour). They've been both academically and professionally published on a number of occasions.

b) Another reference is in the form of a link and reference to a lecture on the controversy, which has been published directly from a respected university website's news page.

c) The controversy has garnered significant public support (videos about it have been seen over 40,000 times, and a petition made in outrage of the controversy has been signed 1,500 times).

However, as of yet the references haven't been cited or used in the mainstream, commercial media.

Given that the article is about a high value product, owned by a corporation who would naturally want to protect it, I have been told that none of the above are strong enough references to merit inclusion of the controversy in the body of an article. I totally disagree, given Wiki's guidelines (I have noted these differ, depending on whether editing an article or starting one).

My opinion is that the article is clearly not neutral without a reference to the controversy in question, and I am concerned that those who are arguing against me may have ulterior motives.

I would therefore really appreciate the thoughts and a fair debate with the wider Wiki community (i.e. with those not connected to the article in question).

Thanks. 78.144.198.67 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You might find reading WP:ACADEME will answer an element of your question. Experts and Academics have a different view of the world from Wikipedia editors. Fiddle Faddle 20:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent. I've gone through article with interest. The issue here, though, isn't that the person wanting to make an edit is an academic (I used to be!), but rather that I want to cite academic sources and subject-experts on the matter, who have in turn published information about this controversy independently.

I have used this as a reason for doing so: 'with regards to Self-published expert sources (they) may be considered reliable (for inclusion in an article) when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' WP:SPS. But it's being ignored.

Given that the controversy is already in the public domain (with the video views and signatures of support), alongside the above academic/subject-expert references, is there any other reason why this shouldn't be mentioned in the article?

Help and advice truly appreciated, Thanks! 78.144.198.67 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't read the huge discussion at that talk page in full, but I think it is correct to exclude this content. Robin Mukherjee (writer) may be an expert in certain things, but he certainly is not a recognized expert in who created the TV series Britannia. (Disputed edit for reference.) He is just a person who claims first-hand knowledge of this fact. So WP:SPS doesn't apply. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for response, Calliopejen1. If you’ll allow me to reply with my counterpoints:

You have said Mukherjee isn’t a recognized expert in who created Britannia. However, it cannot be denied that he is an expert in writing for television (see his list of credits on IMDB - he has written for a number of the nation’s biggest shows), ergo he is an expert in this field. Furthermore, if you read the letter he published in support of his former student (Krushkoff), it is clear he is extremely familiar with the script that has allegedly been used by the creators of Britannia to write their show. So, he is an expert in writing for TV, has specialist knowledge of Krushkoff’s script and he has publicly stated that he believes Britannia is too similar to it for it to be coincidental. Based on the advice of the WP:SPS page, his expert opinion on the matter would surely be enough (on its own) for inclusion in this article. However, it's not just him from the university who have publicly supported Kruskoff's claims.

There are a number of other tutors at Bath Spa University (including the Head of Faculty) have supported Mukerherjee’s views. Please note the course was described by an independent assessor as the ‘flagship writing course of its type’ in the country (the UK), at the time. A number of award-winning and well-known writers teach/taught and have graduated from there. So, it is not just Mukerhjee who is saying it looks like Krushkoff’s work has been ripped off. (Annie McGann, wife of TV star and former Dr Who Paul McGann, a highly respected theatre stage manager, has described it as ‘blatant plagiarism’). So it’s multiple academic views who have supported Krushkoff. Some of the referable quotes are on his website.

That 1,500 people have publicly signed a petition in support of Krushkoff’s claims, and that his video’s have been seen tens of thousands of times with almost exclusive positive responses, means the controversy is already in the public domain.

Given the above, I believe the article cannot be described as being neutral without referring to the many people (including a number of experts and professional writers), who all believe it was Krushkoff, and not Butterworth, Butterworth and Richardson, who came up with the original story from which the show’s narrative was based on. 78.144.198.67 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

None of that changes my assessment, sorry. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 Can you explain why, though? It's easy to say 'I don't agree', but until I know the reasons why, how can I change my own opinion? I'm having the same problem on the page itself. I'm presenting what I consider a valid counter-argument, yet it's ignored. FYI Bath Spa University's Creating Writing Faculty, which is where the references come from, was described as 'the flagship creative writing course of its type' at the time. The views of the faculty there must surely be of relevance. SethRuebens (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Three comments:

The lead section of an article ought to summarise the rest of the content. There is no mention of any dispute in the body of Britannia (TV series).

The clause which you added leaves it unclear what the dispute is about. Does Krushkoff claim that it was not the Butterworths who wrote Brittania? Who does he claim really wrote it?

You refer to "number of ... sources", but the only source you cited is a private letter, not a reliable independent published source such as Wikipedia requires. Maproom (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Maproom, thanks for replying. In response to your three points:

Firstly, the lead section referenced the controversy secion (which was in the body of the article for two months, before it was removed by someone who had written a number of articles about Sky's shows, and very little else).

The controversy section did explain the cause of the controversy: Krushkoff is alleging his academically submitted work was missaprirated by a journalist and adapted (poorly) and used as the source material for Sky's show. Given that his work was submitted to a leading writing faculty, he asked for their opinion and the response was exclusive: Robin Mukerherjee (highly respected screenwriter) wrote a letter of support, another of his tutors Annie McGann (a highly respected stage manager) has published her thoughts on the matter ('blatant plagiarism') and the Head of Faculty has been reported as saying 'we support these views'.

Wikipedia guidelines state the following, which is my issue here:

'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.'

This includes writing things on blogs, newsletters, etc.

As I've mentioned, I'm not trying to start an article about the scandal, which would require 'notability' of the controversy (even though I believe 1,500 signatures in support and tens of thousands of video views would make it notable anyway). I'm merely trying to add an edit into the body of the existing Britannia article. Without it, the academic and expert views, as well as those 1,500 people, clearly aren't being represented. Thanks for reading! 78.144.198.67 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The Teahouse isn't the place to resolve a dispute. The correct place is on the article's talk page. If you can't reach agreement there, read about dispute resolution. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulp ah, ok. Thanks for pointing that out, David. There is already an active discussion on the article's talk page, but I felt my questions were just being ignored (which is why I raised them here). I'll go down the dispute route tomorrow. Kind regards. 78.144.198.67 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Script size

It seems I have changed something in my preferences but I don' know what? My script in the English wikipedia is now smaller than in the Wikipedias in other languages. Before the script in the English wikipedia was the same size as in the other Wikipedias. I have searched for a solution, but it seems I need help. Thank you very much for anyone who can help. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Perhaps you changed the skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? There doesn't seem to be a font size or name setting specifically, but the different skins likely use different fonts, sizes, etc. for some things. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Could it be a setting in your browser? Many browsers let you set size, e.g., Firefox changes size by pressing the CTRL key while using the mouse wheel; change the size, and a percentage figure is displayed near the top of the screen. The size is unique to a url; thus, en.wikipedia.org is treated differently than fr.wikipedia.org . If that's the case, while viewing the English language Wikipedia, reset the size to match your other language Wikipedias. Pressing CTRL plus "0" (zero) will probably reset it to the default size. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Traveling Man:thank you very muchParadise Chronicle (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Traveling Man: Thanks for that. I didn't realize that the magnification was for each site by the browser. Learned something new!

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: and @AlanM1: Sure thing. I stumbled across it a while back - and keep stumbling over it! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There were negative and false statements written about me on a Wikipedia page

69.112.173.80 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you are the subject you have edited about- if there is incorrect information in the article about you, please make an edit request on the article talk pages, detailing the nature of the errors. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help has information about additional help options for you, as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft Questions

When I first started contributing to Wikipedia I attempted to create an article for a small indie rapper called Emay and I ran into a lot of issues because I was new to the rules. The article was flagged for deletion because I cited too many sources and a lot of the content wasn't necessary. I was able to convince the people planning on deleting the article to instead draftify the article and since then I've trimmed down the number of sources and the content. I was curious how I'd go about receiving advice as to which of the remaining sources are acceptable and I figured either someone here would help me with that or I could maybe submit the draft for review, but I wasn't sure if having the article reviewed was the right thing to do yet.

Here's the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emay_(rapper)

Thanks for your help! TipsyElephant (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, I'd just go ahead and submit for review at this point. Others can chime in with their advice and suggestions, if they have any, though. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

1619 Project

In the 1619 Project citation it is correctly stated that enslaved Africans were in St. Augustine, Fl in the 15th century. I am concerned that this gives the impression that this was the beginning of North American slavery. American Archaeology Mag. Summer issue 2020 indicates the presence of enslaved Africans in what is known today as Mexico as early as 1518. Something to consider. 68.109.38.110 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have suggestions for improving an article, you should start a discussion on that article's talk page. Or, be WP:BOLD and make the change. A note though: 1518 is the 16th century, so it is after the 15th century reference you are concerned about. RudolfRed (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

how do i add reference to the content ?

Rishabhmukherjee.work (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rishabhmukherjee.work. Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a good question, and an essential skill for anyone to learn if they are tying to write an article from scratch, as you are. You will find guidance by reading though this page: Help:Referencing for beginners. Nothing about a living person should be added to Wikipedia unless supported by a citation. These have to be independent, detailed and reliable. See WP:RS for an explanation of what that means. You might also wish to undertake our interactive tour of Wikipedia called The Wikipedia Adventure, and then read Help:Your first article. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Rishabhmukherjee.work Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Information on citing references can be found at this page. I would note that if you are associated or work for the subject of your draft, you will need to read and formally comply with the paid editing policy and the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be about Draft:KaySukumar. which is only article Rishabhmukherjee is editing. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, User:David notMD, I had an IRC discussion with this user and they told me that they were associated with but not paid by the subject. They also sometimes need some direct explanation instead of just pointing them to policy. Just a note so you guys can help this user. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the draft, Rishabhmukherjee now shows proficiency in creating references. David notMD (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Striking a deadname from my user page's edit history

Hiya, folks! I have a bit of an unorthodox question- I'm aware that edit histories are generally permanent, as that's the point of them, but quite recently I re-examined my identity and came to the conclusion that I'm trans-feminine non-binary. As such, I've changed my name to suit this identity, and because of this, I now consider my deadname to be rather sensitive information. This is a big deal for me, and this is the only time in my life I've ever changed my real name, so I hope there's no worry this will become a regular occurrence for me or anything! I understand if there's no way to do this, but I would really, really prefer that the edit history of my userpage doesn't contain any revisions with reference to my deadname. I'm willing to jump through whatever hoops it takes to achieve this! Thank you for your time <3 Mexxmer (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mexxmer: Userpages can be deleted upon request. User talk pages can't be. Are you just referring to your user page? If so, do you want all but the current revision deleted? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mexxmer. I've gone ahead and just done this in the usual manner. If you wish to delete the whole thing you can do that by adding {{db-user}} to the page. User pages (technically, pages in user space) are treated very differently from article pages and you get a fair bit of latitude with them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you guys so much, this means a ton to me! :D Mexxmer (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Christi Golden-Clark history

How do I get my name corrected and apart from other people with similar names to mine and a history of myself? 1964 Miss Teenage Detroit, Dearborn High 1965 graduate, shot by my husband Victor Robert Golden, Jr. on December 18, 1969, lead singer in local band, sang at Confetti Lounge in Dearborn 1960s, model 1960s, wrote FAMOUS LAST Words: "If I Can't Have You, No One Else Can" 2015 and FAMOUS LAST WORDS: "I Will Survive" 2020. Founder and Director of Overcomers of Domestic Violence and Asheville Writers Reign. Book signings at Barnes and Noble book stores, Interviewed by WLOS, Asheville affiliate of ABC and 96.5 Magic Radio by Bill Clement. 174.80.249.107 (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Christi Golden-Clark

This is a place for Wikipedia-related questions. Are you referring to existing articles with names similar to yours? Because I do not see any Wikipedia articles with similar names. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the poster is searching, either in Wikipedia or in Google, David notMD, and Christie Golden is coming up. Christi, if there is enough material published about you by people with no connection with you, so that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then we could have an article about you; but you are strongly discouraged from writing it yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

NEED HELP TO IMPROVE MY ARTICLE

I have submitted my article but was rejected so i can add more references, i have a few but i recon they are not satisfactory enough, kindly advise how many reference more will be adequate in order to get this article published, just now i have added 2 references (2 and 12), can these assist my article?.

Draft:Ojay

Bethel Sandius (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Interviews do not establish notability. Nor podcasts. Nor brief mentions on music sites. This may just be WP:TOOSOON in his career for people to have written about him at length. David notMD (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Bethel Sandius, and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all you should note thatr the draft was declined not rejected. Declined means "this isn't ready yet, try gain." Rejected means "This won't ever be ready, stop wasting your time and ours."

It is not a question oif how many sources are cited as it is of their quality. To pass the general notability guideline and WP:BASIC there must be multiple sources (usually three to five), each of which is independent and reliable, and each of which contains significant coverage] o9f the subject. This usually means several paragraphs about the subject, not a brief p-assing mention. It also means that the coverage cannot be based primarily on an interview with the subject, nor on a press release. Also, links to online searches do not qualify. WP:NMUSIC offers some other ways to demonstrate notability, but but significant coverage in multiple sou7rce is the most commo9n. Let us examine the currently cit3ed sources:

Punch Newspapers. This is an interview and so does not count toward notability
Soundreloaded This has only trivial coverage, and has signs of being based on a press release. It does not help.
Eastern Mediterranean University. This is a site search and so not a valid reference. It should be removed. In any case a page from EMU could do not more than confirm the subject's education, which does not help with notability.
Galaxy seems to be an interview, and so of no value.
Naijaloaded (2018-09-08) seems to be an interview or a show in which the subject participates, and so of no value.
Naijaloaded (2018-12-17) seems to be an interview or a show in which the subject participates, and so of no value.
Naijaloaded (2019-06-14) seems to be an interview or a show in which the subject participates, and so of no value.
Naijaloaded (2020-02-05) seems to be an interview or a show in which the subject participates, and so of no value.
SoundCloud seems to be a recording of one of the subject's performances. This is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. It should probably be removed.
Soundreloaded "Money Hanger seems to be a video for one of the subjects songs. This is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. It should probably be removed.
NAIJAOXYGEN seems to be another video of the subject, or perhaps another link to the same video. This is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. It should probably be removed.
Soundreloaded "Ojay - Silekun". This is yet another video featuring the subject. This is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. It should probably be removed.

In short none of the currently cited sources are of value in demonstrating the subject's notability, and several of them should be removed from the draft.

I urge you not to resubmit the draft until and unless you have found three to five sources each of which is reliable, independent, and offers significant coverage of Ojay. Don't have too many sources beyond your core ones, or include a comment saying which are the best three to five. I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the insight, its sure very helpful, i will definitely look at the references again and follow your advise, hopefully will find the right references before the draft gets deleted. Appreciate your help DES

Content deletion no discussion

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

I was looking up the National Christian foundation. The wiki article has a tag saying that it reads like an advertisement. There is little content concerning the many controversies that NCF is embroiled in. There is no talk page content.There have been repeated attempts to add a criticism section but the same IP deletes them with no explanation. I am not an editor. I am a user trying to get good information. How do I contact editors to look at the article. Thanks. 2600:6C50:547F:EE05:A9C4:338B:5830:1CB8 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The next best step is to start a discussion on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at what's happened. I see your point, 2600:6C50:547F:EE05:A9C4:338B:5830:1CB8. I've asked about this at Talk:National Christian Foundation. Please feel free to participate in any discussion there. (You're likely to sound more credible if you register and edit while logged in.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

How to reply to "Talk"?

How do I reply to "Talk"? Do I just click edit and start writing? Am I supposed to start writing at the top or at the end of what the other person sent me? Thank you! 2600:1700:E120:9D80:65AB:656:2D26:FA99 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am hereby replying to you, within a page that isn't named anything-talk but is structured like a talk page. As you can see, I am replying below what I'm replying to. I am preceding my comment with one more colon than was before the message I'm replying to. As that message had no colons, I'm using one colon. And at the end of my reply, I hit the "~" key four times in a row. Hoary (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am hereby replying to Hoary. As the message above had one colon, I'm using two colons. And at the end of my reply, I also hit the "~" key four times in a row. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding a DISAMBIGUATION page and adding old article link to it, plus my new article

Jagganath69 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings,

   With so much rules to follow, I do not know where to begin to effect this change. Can anyone give me a link to where I can read the instructions ?

DISAMBIGUATION

  "AT FIRST LIGHT"

-- current article is about Irish music group -- my new article (so far) : 2018 film by Fortitude International productions.

  IMDB link: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5994166/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagganath69 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jagganath69: The relevant pages to look at are WP:DPAGE and MOS:DAB. However, I wouldn't worry too much about the disambiguation page yet since you haven't created the article for the movie yet. First, make sure the movie fulfills the notability criteria for films outlined at WP:NFILM. Then, head to the the article wizard to create a draft article. After the draft's quality is checked, it will be turned into a proper article, and then we would create the disambiguation page. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

List of templates?

I am looking for a list of templates and reasons for using them. Thanks! Thx56 (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thx56: Well, there's Wikipedia:Template index, but that page is quite hefty and there's probably a lot more templates that aren't listed there. What exactly do you want to do with a template? ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What does "Undo" mean in the page history?

Hi, What does "undo" mean in a page history? Does it mean someone has reviewed it and propose for the change to be undo? E.g. 17:58, 9 July 2020‎ 2001:b07:6442:43f4:4176:e7d:fb06:73ed talk‎ 59,977 bytes +55‎ undo Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homer&action=history Thank you! 2600:1700:E120:9D80:1D68:60AC:94C4:51E5 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In an edit summary, it usually means reversing/reverting the edit, or series of edits, that came immediately before. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

In a page history, each entry has several (blue-colored) links that are used to perform various actions. undo is used to revert (undo) that particular edit. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have received a spurious comment related to the pages which I have not edited or even I haven't ever come across

May 2020 Information icon Hello, I'm Suneye1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dulquer Salmaan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. SUN EYE 1 07:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Remya Nambeesan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Who is this Suneye!....Dulquer & Remya?....I do not know any of them...Kindly settle if any there any issue... Argsvdv (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Argsvdv: You are referring to messages that appear on the talk page of an anonymous IP address (e.g., User talk:192.168.123.45). ISPs reassign IP addresses to users at various times, so if you did not edit those articles, it was someone else who was assigned that IP address at that time. The solution is to create an account and log in, as you have now done, so anything you do is attributed to your username (Argsvdv) and any communication directed to your talk page (User talk:Argsvdv) will definitely be intended for you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Magazine publication date is not acceptable

I am sure this has been asked many times, but I can't find it - please feel free to slap me with a fish if it's obvious.

I am adding a citation to a magazine which has a publication date of "Feb/Mar 2020". That's what it says on the magazine, and I tried to be accurate in the citation and put it there. But then I get the error message "Check date values in: date=". And looking at the Help, there is no date format which seems to support this. So how can I put the date correctly into the citation? Gronk Oz (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Don't abbreviate months and use an unspaced endash separator: |date=February–March 2020. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @AlanM1: that is exactly what I needed. I tried lots of permutations, but not the right one (of course!) --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of warning notices on page and questions regarding suitable sourcing and citation

Bye everyone.

Recently I discovered someone had created a page on my deceased mother Berrell Jensen. I do not know who created the page. The text was terrible, with multiple factual and grammatical errors so I ventured to fix, and to improve with photographs and so on. I did make a couple of changes when I first saw the page, using an IP, but nothing substantial. It was only very recently, and mostly yesterday, that I made substantial changes, knowing there were more to make.

Given the immediate responses from other editors clearly I made a huge mistake in not doing a ton of research on editing Wiki pages prior. Nevertheless I feel the way everything was approached was unnecessarily heavy handed. To be honest the good feelings I've always had about Wiki are sullied somewhat. I know I went about my editing the 'wrong' way, learning as I went, I knew there was much to fix. I believe it was the increased activity on the page that brought the page to the attention of certain bots and editors. One did write a friendly note on my talk page for which I am grateful.

And, if I had left well alone I am sure the page would have remained in its original state with multiple factual errors. I will endeavour to find citations and so on, but I suspect the page will be deleted by then.

However, I hope this is not the case.

Here are a few issues I'd like to resolve:

1. The notice on the Talk:Berrell Jensen page.

It states that "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons".

Berrell Jensen died in 2015. How do I have this notice removed?

2. There are two warning notices on the actual page and I'd like advice on how to deal with them so they can be removed.

a) The first warning is regarding notability and that citations are needed.

There are dozens if not hundreds of newspaper articles about Jensen's work, mostly from 50-60 years ago in South Africa and so far I have found none archived online, not unless I pay for a service. Can I upload scans of the articles to wiki commons and use these as citations? I notice this has been done on other pages.

Given Jensen created 22 large scale sculptures in metal, commissions for public buildings, including for Jan Smuts International airport (as it was known then) and the Johannesburg Municipal Library (which I can in fact find a citation for but I don't know if it's suitable - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4pe5AAAAIAAJ&q=Berrell+Jensen&dq=Berrell+Jensen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizo6Xyz-jqAhXhUBUIHRp2BnQQ6AEwAnoECAYQAg) and 14 of these commissions were created at a time when most white women in apartheid South Africa were absolutely not welding, I am very surprised that such full-on interrogation and opposition has been given to this issue of notability. Some of the South African newspaper articles I have in my possession attest to how unusual her work was at that time by very language used in the article (highly sexist language).

I believe that one of the reasons behind this notability issue is the lack of recent articles about Jensen. The primary thrust of Jensen's work spanned only 13 years, from 1960 - 1973.

b) The other warning is: This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. I was told by an editor that whoever originally created the page has been blocked. I presume it must have been someone paid by a man who has kept an online archive of South African Artists. He is in his 80s and I can only surmise he was unable to do such a thing himself, probably he hoped to have many artist pages on Wiki and paid someone to do so. I don't know this for a fact but given some of the citations link to his online archive, it seems likely.

Given I have nothing to do with whoever did create the page, how can I have this notice removed or prove that I, myself, am not being paid?

3. COI issues.

I am aware there are COI issues and I have stated this on my talk page and by using my name not an IP. There is no one, to my knowledge, who could update this page rather than myself. They are all over 80 or dead.

All help much appreciated regarding how to deal with the three warning notices mentioned above and if scans/pdfs of articles uploaded to wiki commons are suitable forms of citations and sourcing. Sandra Anne Jensen (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

To answer one of your question: content - old newspaper articles - do not have to be available on line to be cited. Scanning to Commons is the wrong way. All you have to do is create a reference that lists the title of the news item, newspaper, date, page, and if there was a byline - the name of the person who wrote it. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed the PAID tag, which was inappropriately added just recently, and replaced it with a COI tag. Your User page and the Talk page of the article establish what your COI is (article is about your mother). The tags are not so much warnings as article status indicators to readers of the article. If you add valid references, an editor (not you) can decide to remove the first tag. The second tag stays until enough editing is done by other editors. Again, not for you to do. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD Thank you so much for this. Huge help.

@David notMD: I've mentioned this on my user page but perhaps this is a better place to do it. A user has offered to assist with citations. It will take time, but it will be done. In the meantime, another user has edited content in a way that makes notability tag added by Unforgettableid even more concerning by removing two mentions to important exhibitions (citations are needed yes but that was not why they were removed, the reason stated is "unencyclopedic") and has rendered one section of the text non factual, an error made before, and one of the reasons why I originally went in to fix the page up. Ireland is not in the United Kingdom - and the history of the countries makes this a very grave error. This is exactly the kind of thing that if seen by anyone would make them think Wikipedia is totally unreliable. Because of all the attention I've received on this page I'm very nervous about going in to fix it myself. I've let them know on their talk page but no response. It feels to me that there has been a lot of focus on what I have done wrong, and yet users are going in and doing this kind of thing so it is confusing for me quite honestly. I would also like help in understanding why there has been so much focus on this page and my actions on it. Is it because the page is thought to be created or edited in return for undisclosed payments? If so, I can probably find out if this is the case as I can contact the person who would really be the only person to consider making this page due to their years of digital archiving information on South African artists, including Berrell Jensen, and some of the original citations and information on the page refer to his website. SandAJ (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anne Kabagambe

Hi there. I've had an AfC submission (Draft:Anne Kabagambe) pending for nearly 8 weeks now; I understand there is a heavy backlog of pending submissions at the moment but there hasn't been any signs of a reviewer looking to pick it up. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 10:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You'll see from Category:AfC pending submissions by age/7 weeks ago that there are nearly 300 pages in that category, but fewer than 100 have had to wait 8 weeks, so hopefully you won't have too much longer to wait. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"Strength in numbers, is strictly a material condition" -Carl von Clausewitz-

74.138.140.251 (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleting birthdate

I have been requested by Mr. Arie Vardi himself to remove his birthdate, which I made several attempts but everytime his birthdate would reappear two days after. Please advise me on how to make this edit permanent. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arie_Vardi 47.184.205.107 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are editing on behalf of an article subject, you will need to review the conflict of interest policy. If you are being compensated in any way(not just money) to do so, you must read and comply with the paid editing policy. A Wikipedia article summarizes information that appears in independent reliable sources. Very little on Wikipedia can be made "permanent". If his birth year appears in independent reliable sources, there is not much that can be done to keep it out. If his birth year is not widely published in reliable sources, it may be possible to remove it. You should discuss your concerns on the article talk page, and avoid directly editing the article. You may format your comments as a formal edit request to draw the attention of other editors. One user gave some helpful links in an edit summary here, that you might find helpful. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you the same editor as User:Poonchuifun? Poonchuifun has repeatedly removed the age information from this article, has been warned to stop on Talk page. The year-of-birth information has been in the article for many years. David notMD (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

IP editor: I believe you are under the mis-impression that the article Arie Vardi "belongs to" or is controlled by its subject, Arie Vardi, as it might be on a social media platform like Facebook. That is emphatically not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a social media platform. It has articles (i.e., that belong to the encyclopedia) about notable subjects, summarizing what reliable, independent, secondary sources (like books, newspapers, journals, etc.) have said about the subject. What a subject says (or wants to say, or wants to "un-say") about themselves has very little to do with what the article contains, with the exception of provably incorrect or non-neutral point-of-view information. As has been said above, make your case at Talk:Arie Vardi, where editors interested in that article can discuss it with you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline specifically covering situations like this, about the presumption in favor of privacy. It says at WP:DOB "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth... err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." That is what is currently in the article. So unless there are extraordinary circumstances, it is probably appropriate to leave it as it is. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking reviews on pre-submission page draft.

I have created a draft in the article wizard for Draft:Mary McEnerney Woolley and am seeking additional opinions on reference validity, format, section breakdown, and any other details that would weaken the caliber of the page. Additionally, I have omitted family information because I do not have independent references to corroborate, but see that many pages include this information while it is only partially cited. What is the best practice here? I am currently working on obtaining copyright privileges for a headshot, so it is not yet included. I am a wiki-beginner and welcome the feedback of the experienced community. Thank you. VonEisenMark (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

VonEisenMark, I suggest you press the submit button, and simultaneouslylook harder at your references. The first several are primary sources. That's kind of ok as lomg as you are sparing with them.

Are all the awards you quote significant awards? If so I think it is likely to be accepted. if not it will be declined, which means being pushed back for further work.

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 15:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wanted Help to Review My First Article

Hello, I have created my first article using Afc wizard. The draft Draft:David Friend is pending for review. Please help me review and learn how can I improve my article further. JakePeraltaB99 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

JakePeraltaB99, The first improvement is to understand that a fact, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. "in a $1.42 billion deal.[4][5][14][15][16]" makes the draft unreadable, and is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

Things like this prevent readers and reviewers alike from reviewing the draft or reading a finished article in this state. Legibility is fundamental. I anticipate that this will be declined, which means pushed back to you for further work.

I have not been able to make a judgement on Notability yet because I have no idea which references you will redeploy or drop, For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Fiddle, thank you so much for helping me out. I will make the modifications to make the article better and then reach out to you when I need further help. Thank you again.--JakePeraltaB99 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

JakePeraltaB99, always keep improving a draft even after you press submit, even when it is an article. Fiddle Faddle 13:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Fiddle, sure. I will keep on working and improving the draft/article. I have removed the excess references as you had advised. Wanted to check in terms of notability, what can I improve here. I read the articles on general notability and biography notability but I am still not completely clear about it.

According to my understanding, if a person is well known and has any significant accomplishment, it makes that notable. Please let me know where am I going wrong. Thank you so much for helping me out. It's helping me a lot.--JakePeraltaB99 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

JakePeraltaB99, notability is an awkward mix of objective and subjective. When I look at this chap though my jaundiced eyes now it is legible I see someone who's made a slew of cash starting companies up. Me? I see those folk as commonplace. They are notable to their staff and those who love or hate them. So there has to be more.

His products do not make him notable because he cannot inherit notability from anyone using them and when he makes them they are his products. It becomes a circular argument.

I can spot one item in here, the huge gemstone collection gift.

But this is me. Others here wil have different views. Some will be more stringent others less so. That brings me to my brief when I review a draft (I'm going to let other reviewers review yours since I've helped you). My role is to accept if I see it having a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate nomination for one of the deletion processes. I think you can spot that I am at around 48-49% sure at present.

Why would I hesitate?

Because having an article deleted or discussed for deletion is unpleasantly stressful for the creator, and places a strict time deadline on improvements. Even then an improvement may not save the article Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

JakePeraltaB99, And I failed to answer what would improve it! Something special about Friend would do the trick Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Fiddle, Understood. So I have to give and highlight the points which makes him different from the herd of common people who just run the companies and try to make big bucks. In the following case, I tried to focus on the following points:

1. He made donations to Yales Peabody Mueseum.

2. His synthesizer product was used by well known artists and also close encounters and R2D2(I think this is very significant as Star Wars is legendary and R2D2's voice wouldn't have been what it was without it.).

3. Boston Mayor gave delcared David Friend Day.

Should these be sufficient for a person to be notable or should there be something more apart from these. If yes, can you provide some kind of example for me to understand better.--JakePeraltaB99 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

JakePeraltaB99, Examples are too hard to think of right how. You see I'd have to study him to be able to find the key thing. R2D2's voice would have just been a different voice, you know. We have many articles with less than this one. I argue they should not be here. Others argue that everything should be here.

Since I'm starting to waffle I've realised that my own use to you is probably at an end. I hope someone else will chime in, or that the draft will receive a very precise review, or acceptance Fiddle Faddle 15:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Fiddle, okay. Thank you for taking the time out to assist me. It was really helpful. I will wait for a more detailed review to understand better.--JakePeraltaB99 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The alternative accounts

Hello fellow editors,

If the main account was blocked (for a certain period), but the legitimate alternate secondary account is still available to edit, Can the user ask a review of that block at "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" by this secondary account? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Follow the appeal instructions in the talk page block notice of the blocked account. The appeal should come from that account. The block applies to the person. There should be no editing from any alternative accounts. RudolfRed (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: The blocked account is generally still able to edit their talk page to request a block review. Which account is this about? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed and AlanM1: Neither Goodtiming8871 nor that user's declared alternative account Goodtiming1788 are currently blocked, and unless I have missed something, neither has ever been blocked. This seems to be a purely hypothetical question, unless there is a third account involved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike Peden Biography

This biography has be written about me and most of it is wrong or out of date. The page has been locked for over 10 years. How can I change this can someone help me with this? Mike Peden Edinburgh360 (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Edinburgh360 If you are Mike Peden, please confirm your identity with Wikipedia by following the instructions at WP:REALNAME. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to state about article subjects. If you have independent reliable sources with more current information, you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Mike Peden, detailing any changes you feel are needed. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed much of the unsourced content at Mike Peden as you say it is wrong, feel free to provide correct content with reliable sources on the talk page and it can be added to the article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike Peden Bio

Thanks for updating my bio. Because it is locked and I don't know how to edit this page I have attached an updated Bio. I'd be very grateful if someone can upload this for me. Bio attached.

Mike Peden is a British producer/remixer/composer best known for his work with the Lighthouse Family.

BIOGRAPHY Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, Peden began his career as a bass player and as a member of The Chimes. With over 25 years experience in the entertainment business. Successful writer and musician went on to become one of Europe's foremost and in demand record producers, producing the likes of Daryl Hall, David Bowie, Estelle, Will Young, Lucie Silvas, and Shakira. Mike was responsible for multi-million selling albums Ocean Drive and Postcards from Heaven by The Lighthouse Family. Mike's career also took him to Warner Records and Jive Records UK as a senior A&R executive director. Mike has recently founded a new Film and Media company, Mike Peden Productions Ltd. Edinburgh360 (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Edinburgh360: As stated above, the place for suggested improvements is at Talk:Mike Peden, supported by published reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Why my article draft

Technoto (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Technoto Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about your draft? 331dot (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

When and how will this draft article be made

Technoto (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to read the advice against autobiography, and you also need to read about notability. If you still want to proceed, you'll find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Listing a new Company on Wikipedia?

Its been a few years since I had to list a company on Wikipedia. Can someone explain the process in a step-by-step fashion? Tbchristel (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse. If it is about your own company called "emuso" I strongly suggest you don't. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Tbchristel Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You, like many, seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. It is not a place to merely tell about or "list" a company. This is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Significant coverage goes beyond brief mentions, press releases, announcements of routine business transactions, the company website, or any primary source. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself. For these reasons, not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field. In addition, "new" or "startup" companies rarely meet notability guidelines. A company must already be known to merit an article.

Since you say you "had" to list a company, I gather that you work for or represent the company you wish to "list". If so, please review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(compliance with the latter is a Terms of Use requirement) 331dot (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to "Editing a page or adding information cant get the format cite right with the arrows Please help I dont know where to put the summary nor the citation"

Bloopersbetty (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Which part of Help:Referencing for beginners, or the pages linked therefrom, don't you understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bloopersbetty. I don't know how you're managing to do it, but you're putting the reference in the edit summary box. The details of what's happening depend on what editor you're using and on what device. Editing on a computer, I get a popup with title "Save your changes", and buttons "Publish changes" (at top) and "Review your changes" and "Show Preview" at the bottom; it has a field labelled "Edit Summary", where you put a description of the purpose of your edit. That is quite separate (at a different stage) from anywhere you might insert a reference. I mostly simply type the reference out using a citation template such as {{cite book}}; but I have sometimes used the WP:ProveIt tool, which I give a URL to and it works out most of the other parameters, and inserts them. I wonder if you're somehow confusing these two stages? --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Article for Submission - Dr. Harinder Pal Singh Ahluwalia

Good day,

I submitted an article "Dr. Harinder Pal Singh Ahluwalia" but it was not accepted.

I am a new user to Wikipedia and would appreciate specific guidance in helping revise/rewrite the article so that it is acceptable for submission.

Any assistance which you can provide in this regard would be most welcome.

Thank you! HA1755 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You presumably haven't read the advice which you have already received on your user talk page. The words in blue are wikilinks to specific advice, so go away and follow those links. The most important is that you have no references, so you have not tried to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Less significantly, you have misplaced bold text, contrary to MOS:BOLD, and misplaced external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No references = Declined. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Need direction or support with draft

Hi there! I have been trying to add a living person biography for this acclaimed Doctor and realized I am not following the correct formats/templates. The document I was given to work with has the short bio I included, but then an extensive list for each of his accomplishments. I have edited pages successfully but never created a new one and I find myself at an impasse. I either need a ton of guidance or referral to a writer who can do this correctly if I provide the content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Masood_A._Khatamee,_MD,_FACOG Leslie Mark (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Leslie Mark: Welcome to Wikipedia, thanks for wanting to add to it. Writing a new article is not an easy task, so you may want to instead just continue to work on existing articles. Some quick feedback: An encyclopedia article is not a CV. Start by cutting out the continuing education, societies, appointments, honors, and presentations sections. Then, you can use the guide at WP:YFA for creating the article. RudolfRed (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

SO MUCH OF THE CONTENT needs to be deleted, and then references provided for the rest. For example, a list of continuing medical education programs he has taken part in has no part in the article, and same for the LONG list of presentations. I suggest you find existing articles about academics and model on those. David notMD (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Leslie Mark: The way you worded your question suggests to me rather clearly that you may have a close connection with the subject, or are being WP:PAID to write the article for them. If so, you should declare any Conflict of Interest and, if an employee or otherwise paid to write this, you are obliged under our terms of service to declare who is paying you. Please read both WP:COI and WP:PAID to understand what to do before continuing to edit. At the moment, what you have written looks just like a self-promotional LinkedIn page, full or trivia, and definitely not a succinct encyclopaedia article about a Notable Person. Nobody cares about all the trivia, and everyone needs references to independent, reliable, published sources which show how this "acclaimed doctor" is noteworthy. This matter should be addressed as a priority. Remember "less is more". Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Leslie Mark: Your User page should declare by name every article you are being paid to edit or create. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Image uploading

Question if a image is copyrighted and you want to upload it is listing the company site and saying that they are the Arthur enough for it be on Wikipedia or do you need permission? BigRed606 (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BigRed606 and welcome to the Teahouse. Permission for use of a copyrighted image is neither needed nor wanted, unless the copyright holder has released it under a free license acceptable to Wikipedia, such as CC-CY-SA. If that has been done, the image may be uploaded to commons, from which it can be used on all Wikimedia projects.

Otherwise it is a non-free image and may only be used o Wikipedia through a claim of Fair use. In that case all of the non-free use criteria must. This policy is intentionally more restrictive than US copyright law requires, to favor free content. You would certainly need to list the source of the image, but the various other criteria would also have to be complied with. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

How much coverage is required to be notable?

I'm working on Draft:Rishi Kumar. He is a congressional candidates, city council-member, and Democratic Executive Board member who recieved 38,000+ votes in the jungle primary. It was rejected due to notabilty. How much national news coverage do I need to find to meet the notability threshold? PoliticalEddy (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi PoliticalEddy. Since this is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rishi Kumar, it’s probably better to ask your question there. You might also want to take a look at WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NPOL and WP:TOOSOON since those pages seem to cover the main issues others are having with the draft. I also suggest looking at WP:OWN, WP:PROUD and WP:COI (in particular the section WP:LUC) because if by chance an article is created about Kumar, neither he nor anyone connected to him will have any sort of final editorial control over it and he (or they) might find out the hard way that there can be a real downside to having a Wikipedia article created about you. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, PoliticalEddy and welcome to the Teahouse. This draft is now being discussed for possible deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rishi Kumar and that is the place to make any arguments for retaining it.

As a general rule, under WP:NPOL candidates for office are not considered notable simply for being candidates, and campaign-related coverage must be quite exceptional for it to establish notability. Winning am primary election (in the US, other countries have different systems which may be treated differently) is also not considered to establish notability.

Therefore, Rishi Kumar is likely to be found an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article only if:

He wins the election and becomes a member of the US Congress, or
He has sufficient coverage, unrelated to his candidacy for Congress, to clearly pass the general notability guideline. This will require multiple high-quality independent published reliable sources, each of which contains significant coverage of Kumar No press releases, supporter's pages, routine coverage, interviews, or passing mentions will count for this. The number of votes obtained at a primary will not be relevant. Note that being a member of a city council or a party official will not automatically confer notability, and routine coverage that anyone in such positions would expect will be of limited value at beat. Purely local coverage is likely to be rejected also. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Publishing an article on a blacklisted name, Aziz Feyzi Pirinççizâde

Hi Teahouse, I have a question. I created a page for Aziz Feyzi Pirinççizade, a minister to the 3rd Turkish Government and also accused of being a perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide imprisoned in Malta and recipient of the Medal of Independence from the speaker of the Turkish Parliament. The article is rather well sourced. The links to other pages already exist, the article also exists in Turkish, but the title is blacklisted. I tried to publish it as a draft for review, but failed. What to do? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Paradise Chronicle, and welcome to the Teahouse. So far as i can see Aziz Feyzi Pirinççizâde is not subject to creation protection on the en.Wikipedia. ("Blacklisting" is for sites that should not be linked to.) It may be that the name is restricted on the Turkish-language edition of Wikipedia, I wouldn't know. But each project is separate and makes its own determinations in such matters.

You have successfully submitted User:Paradise Chronicle/Aziz Feyzi Pirinççizâde for review through the Articles for Creation process. A reviewer will probably6 move it to Draft:Aziz Feyzi Pirinççizâde, and draftspace is the usual location for AfC drafts, but you don't have to do anything abo9ut that. While waiting for a reviewer to get to this draft, which may take a while as there are many drafts waiting and none too many reviewers, you may continue to improve the draft. Some of the referencing style is no9n-standard, and you may wish to read or re-read Referencing for Beginners. Birth and death dates (or years) if known, would be helpful. The "Biography" section might read better if split into separate paragraphs. All but one of the currently cited sources seem to be by just two authors. Finding additional sources by other authors might be a good idea.

What made you think this title was "blacklisted", Paradise Chronicle? Did you get some sort of message about it? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel, I've tried to publish the page as Aziz Feyzi Pirnççizade and also as Aziz Feyzi Pirinççioğlu. Both names didn't work. Both names were mentioned as blacklisted. I've mainly two sources, but both of them are well known and as far as I know rather respected and often mentioned in the academic world in the field.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to send you (DESiegel) an email with a screenshot of the denial of the article, but it wasn't possible. Maybe also due to my fault.I also tried to publish the article on the name you redlinked, and was also refused and shown that an article on this name (mine) was in the draft space.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle I did not get any email from you. I don't know what held things up, but I am confident it wasn't because the article name was restricted. Was the message you saw one that starts:

Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article. We recommend that new editors use the Article wizard.

If so that was not a notification that the title is protected, it is just the normal "think twice" message, because people creating an article from scratch in mainspace are often gpoing to cause themselves problems, and creating a new article when there is already a draft by the same namr often wastes the time of one or both editors involved.

However, I am glad that you did not bypass the AfC review by just creating the article in the main article space. You can do that, but i8t is usually a bad idea. It can lead to a far less friendly discussion at Articles for Deletion. Instead, IO urge you to wait for the review as patiently as you can. If the reviewer approves the draft, the reviewer will do the move to mainspace, getting admin help if it should be needed, which I don't think it will be in this case. In the meantime you may work on improving this draft, or start another draft if you choose, or both. Finding additional sources for this draft might help, it. You could also work on improving existing articles, which is a good way to develop your Wikipedia editing skills. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at an article?

There’s an article with a lot of misinformation and unsourced information about living persons. I tried deleting the edits but other editors told me not to edit the page because I made too many edits and rolled back all of my edits. I understand this, but there are still many edits on living persons without sources which can be reached or any other form of information. If someone could look and possibly work with me or point me in the right direction, that would be great. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: To which article are you referring? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, as a bit old. So, again, which article? David notMD (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1 has the right one, it’s the 2016 Trump Endorsements. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So AlanM1, could you please look at it or point me to someone who will? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lima Bean Farmer: The place to find editors interested in the article is on its talk page. If that doesn't work, try the talk page of the WikiProjects mentioned on the article's talk page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, where do I find the article’s wiki project? Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Link: List of Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign endorsements

@Lima Bean Farmer: WikiProjects mentioned on the article's talk page i.e., you go to the article's talk page. At the top of the page, there are yellowish boxes with various messages, including one for each WikiProject to which the article "belongs". In this case, because there are several, they are inside the collapsed "This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects" box. (You don't need to copy my whole marked up sig when pinging me – just {{U|AlanM1}} will do. Thanks.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

For Wynford Vaughn Thomas why dif you not include The splendour falls: The story of the castles of Wales Hardcover – 1 Jan. 1973 by Wynford Vaughan-Thomas? :)

2A00:23C4:8486:A300:81BA:CB7C:BEC3:79F4 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 2A00:23C4:8486:A300:81BA:CB7C:BEC3:79F4|2A00:23C4:8486:A300:81BA:CB7C:BEC3:79F4. It's not really clear what your question is, but from the title of this section perhaps it has to do with Wynford Vaughan-Thomas, in particular Wynford Vaughan-Thomas#Works. Sometimes such sections are not intended to be exhaustive and include everything ever written by the subject of the article; rather, they are only meant to include the subject's most notable works or at least in this case only those works which have Wikipedia articles written about them. I'm not sure what the inclusion criteria are for that particular section, but if you think the The Splendour Falls: The Story of the Castles of Wales should be added to it, then you can be WP:BOLD and do so yourself. Just make sure you leave an edit summary explaining why if you do. If another editor disagrees with the edit and reverts it, please then try and follow WP:BRD and discuss things on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Issues with archiving references in Wayback Machine

Hi, I'm not sure if there is a fix for this, but it would help to know if what I'm seeing with Wayback Machine is common, maybe depending on the websites themselves, or if it's due to some particular setting in my browser maybe.

I try to archive every website URL that use as a source to avoid future broken links, but the process is very hit and miss for me. I have the Chrome Wayback Machine extension add-on and just click on it to "save page". Most of the time (maybe 75% of the time) it works fine and I the archived version opens in another tab from where I can just copy the URL.

However, sometimes it just doesn't work and I would get the message: "Hrm. The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL." Then it gets a bit circular, because it tells me (under the previous message): "This page is available on the web! Help make the Wayback Machine more complete!" with another button to save, which sometimes results in a message of "Done!" but the link generated only takes to the same error message, and sometimes trying to save again results in a message of "This was saved a minute ago" (something along those lines).

The latest URL where this is happening is this one (this happens to be in Spanish, but I've seen this behavior for a variety of websites in English too): https://www.salamanca24horas.com/texto-diario/mostrar/926553/danos-milenario-verraco-estatua-lazarillo-puente-romano

So two questions: - Has anybody seen these kinds of issues with Wayback Machine archiving? - Is there another way to archive source URls?

Sorry for the long rambling message and thanks for the help!

--Alan Islas (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Alan Islas (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Alan Islas, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia, of course, has no control over the Internet Archive or its Wayback Machine, and cannot tell when it will or will not successfully archive a URL. However you should knowm that a script User:InternetArchiveBot (IABot for short) attempts to automatically add new sources in Wi8kipedia articles to the Wayback Machine. The prime developer of this script is in fact paid by the Internet Archive and so should know any best metjods for submitting pages for archiving. Its instructions say You can use this bot yourself by viewing the revision history of any page, and clicking on the "Fix dead links" link in the "External tools" section at the top of the page. so that is an alternate method for creating archives of pages used as sources in Wikipedia articles. Other t5han that, just keep trying. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been having the same problem trying to get e.g. https://www.discoveryuk.com/series/wheeler-dealers/?ss=12#episodes archived ... are there any alternatives to the Wayback Machine? Louis Knee (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Alan Islas and Louis Knee, I often encounter that same problem with the Wayback Machine. As an alternate archiving option, I use archive.today. I have not had any problems with it. The linked page shows an extension for Firefox. I have a bookmarklet for archive.today, but I don't remember where I found it. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel and Teblick. It's good to know that there is a bot fixing dead links, makes me feel better when I'm not able to archive all sources. On the other hand, archive.vn worked for that website that was giving issues with Wayback Machine! I think that between these two options I will be able to archive most standard websites. The help is very much appreciated! Alan Islas (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

My account appears to keep resetting

I've gotten a congratulations for my first post weeks after I got a similar mail that was actually my first post. More over, my notifications keep getting cleared out and the Contributions link doesn't contain any entries. Any idea what's going on? It's hard to keep track of what you've done when you have no record of it. Any help you could offer would be appreciated. Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gettinwikiwidit: Is it possible you are editing without logging in? Does this Teahouse edit show in your history? You are obviously logged in now since we see your name. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Hmm.. Are wikidata.org and wikipedia.org accounts separate? I don't recall creating two accounts, but I may have. I can see different sets of contributions in both, so I feel less like I'm going mad at the moment. Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gettinwikiwidit: You'll have different editing histories for each, but don't have to log in separately. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Timptempleton: Thanks very much. It was very frustrating even finding this conversation when looking through my wikidata.org notifications. Gettinwikiwidit (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Need Help!

So I’m a fairly new wiki editor and I keep stumbling across out of date information/lack of information. I looked up Univ Texas at Permian Basin (UTPB) for my own use and a massive overhaul is needed. As an public college that still exists the most recent info about the school itself (new buildings etc) seems to be something from 2008. I added what I could but I’m not expierenced enough to do it as in my opinion it needs an overhaul and I’m just an editor. I didn’t know if there was someone who could help me walk through how to do it. If so thank you very much! Huskermax5 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Huskermax5. We are all just editors so to speak which means if you think you can improve the article by updating it, then you can be WP:BOLD and do so. Any mistakes you might make can pretty much be fixed by another editors; so, as long as your mistakes are being made in good faith, things should be fine. If, however, you're not very familiar with editing articles (particularly article format and syntax) or if you want to completely overwrite the article, then it might be best to be WP:CAUTIOUS and propose things on the article's talk page first. You can also try seeking help at a WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas or Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education since those are two places where you'll likely find editors familiar with the general subject matter who might be able to give you some more specific advice. One thing to keep in mind is that just because article content is a little out-of-date doesn't mean that it's no longer encyclopedically relevant. In other words, article content shouldn't be removed just because it's old. So, if you're adding new content, then also consider ways to revise the existing content so that it better fits it will the most recent version of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean the info still holds true but it needs a lot of more recent additions. Its like talking about a sports team up until 2008. The info is true but it needs more info. But yeh I'll likely try the higher education page. Thanks! Huskermax5 (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As I posted above, you can be WP:BOLD and try and improve the article. Just remember any new content you add should be verifiable and properly supported by citations to reliable sources, should be written in a neutral manner and not be undue, and should be something actually relevant to general readers of the article, not just people familiar with the univeristy. As long as you make good-faith attempts to improve the article and are will to follow WP:BRD if someone disagrees with your edits, you should be OK. If nobody says anything than you can assume WP:SILENCE until somebody does. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

About hotstar not support android4.4

Dear, sir, I have a question about hotstar is or not android 4.4? Can you help me. 101.32.47.129 (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I'm afarid we can't help you here - this is a help forum for people having difficulties actually editing Wikipedia. You might be better off searching Google for the relevant terms yourself, or perhaps asking at our Reference Desk where a bunch of editors do try to to answer various questions from folk. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

concept mapping

I need help with concept mapping for the steps in the assessment process and the evaluation process for Individual and Community Health Assessment, Communications, and Interdisciplinary Collaboration for Improved Outcomes

Doliverdell (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Doliverdell, unfortunately the Teahouse is for answering questions on how to edit Wikipedia. We have a seperate page at Wikipedia:Reference desk for asking factual questions. However, since the question is phrased like one from an assignment, I doubt that you'll find much help there either as the question requires you to think the question through and draw connections on your own. That's the point of drawing a concept map in the first place. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Redirect / Disambiguation

Hello, All. This is my absolute weakest link here at WP. I just cannot seem to wrap my head around searches, article names, redirects, disambiguation pages, when it comes to moving an article to the main space when there are other names already at play.

For instance, I type in Jake Day and it gives me the page for Jacob R. Day but with a disclaimer at the top: (Redirected from Jake Day). Of course, when I type in Jacob Day or Jacob R Day, nothing comes up but a list of searched words in common. Yet when I type in: Jacob R. Day, it takes me to the original created page. First, how does one make it so that when a name such as this is created for an article (with multiple ways of search entries), that it leads to the page?

Why I am asking is: I have created an article for main space on the Disney animator Maurice "Jake" Day. Now, I do not want to put in Maurice "Jake" Day, because anyone searching for this subject, will have to put in the exact writing that I put in to move it to the main space. He was known as Jake Day more than Maurice Day or even Maurice Jake Day. So here is the dilemma:

1) Jake Day redirects to Jacob R. Day, but Maurice Jake Day is far more well-known a subject and should obtain the search title (as you can see, there is a template about possible notability on Jacob R. Day's page). 2) How does one go about creating a redirect link (page) for Maurice Jake Day when someone types it in without the " " marks? or some form of the name as a whole? Obviously, I will be placing the full name on the disambiguation page for Maurice Day. But that too is a conundrum to me. 3) How does one even create a disambiguation page?

Lots to ask for in one post; but I should really know my way around these corners by now. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again Maineartists. I gather this is about the text now in User:Maineartists/sandbox correct? What article title did you want for this? I will be happy to help move it and create useful DAB and/or redfir pages.

As to your questions:

A draft can be moved over an existing redirect by an admin (or a page mover).
A redirect that did not previously exist can be created simply by searching for that titloe, clicking the red link and inserting #REDIRECT [[Target Article Here]] and saving. That is all there is to it.

I hope that is helpful.DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah! DESiegel to the rescue AGAIN!!! I would like the text in my sandbox to be moved to a main space as Jake Day. I think the tag at the top should be correct for Jacob R. Day. I just don't know how to make that page its own title (Jacob Day - or - Jacob R Day). Then I will place a link in the disambiguation page Maurice Day. Thank you for the rest above explanation. I'm understanding more now. As always, you are a lifesaver! Maineartists (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the sandbox, added a hatnote to Jacob R. Day, and added an entry to the DAB page. Only the move required admin rights. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE

I have made 10 edits, does this qualify me to write articles on a new topic? MayenNelson (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That, and having been a registered editor for four days, so, Yes. David notMD (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@MayenNelson: Could I just add to what has been said, in that that is a minimum requirement before you may put a new article onto Wikipedia yourself. It does not reflect whether you are actually competent to do so. Creating a new article from scratch is the hardest task anyone can perform here. Many, many newcomers fall at that first hurdle and leave utterly disappointed as they simply don't have the understanding of what Wikipedia is, or what its requirement are. (Think of it like having a provisional driving licence. You may drive a car with it, but you might also crash if you set off too fast, or ignore the road signs or what other drivers are telling you) You are better drafting an article via our New Article Wizard at Articles for Creation page, but even better off spending quite some time doing simple editing first to get the hang of things. Do have a go at our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure, and then read this page, too Nick Moyes (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

MayenNelson, I'll echo the advice of Nick S Philbrick (Talk) 13:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Caedmon College

88.108.161.172 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC) The Viking was the school's magazine when it was named County and the Grammar. I have a copy of one of the magazines NUMBER 68 and the year is 1956/57. My question is ---- what was the NUMBER of the last Viking issue? The 50 year Jubilee edition was printed in 1962 and I have a copy of this. Thanks 88.108.161.172 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The Teahouse is a place for asking questions about the processes editing Wikipedia. We cannot help you research sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia referenece desk might be able to help with this question. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Question on the Referencing Web-Based Video Game News Outlets

Hi, I'm currently writing an article about a video game website, but my submission was declined due to a lack of proper sources. I was wondering which of the following websites I could cite as a credible source, and how I can check if websites meet the notability guidelines. Here are the websites:

Eurogamer
CNET
Polygon
NME
Game Rant
Launcher, The Washington Post Video Game Outlet
BGR
Mashable
Gamesradar
Sick Critic
HappyGamer
Nintendo Wire

Which of the above can be considered credible, if any? And how should I go about finding credible websites to cite (bearing in mind that this kind of thing isn't present on JSTOR or Google Scholar)?

The article I'm writing is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nookazon

Thanks in advance. Squid45 (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Squid45, and welcome to the Teahouse. This isn't field I know well. I am sure that CNET is a generally reliable source, and I suppose that the site affiliated with the Washington Post would be. One way to tell is to look in a sites "about us" page (or whatever the site calls such a page) and look for an editor and indications of separate reporters supervised by the editor. This may indicate editorial control. You also want to consider the reputation o0f the source, and whether its coverage seems to repeat PR from the subject. If multiple sources have near-identical coverage, that is a red flag that all of them are based on the same statement from the subject. You can also ask at WP:RSN. But remember that you don't just need reliable sources, you need significant coverage a passing mention in a reliable source does not help with notability, although it may support a particular fact.DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I did some looking around and I found that the Video Game Wikiproject had a "Sources" section that was able to link me to various helpful websites, so I have now managed to find a list of generally notable and reliable websites. Thanks for the assistance :) Squid45 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with citation format

In Joseph Rockwell Swan (politician)#Writings you'll see that the first reference is messed up. There's another one messed up in Joseph Rockwell Swan (politician)#Ohio Supreme Court.

I've looked at Wikipedia:Citing sources and still can't figure it out. I don't use this citation style. }}< Please don't just repair it, but explain where the mistake is, or I'll do it again. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: the article has <ref name=rand/>[[#rand|Randall 1912]]: 138</ref>. I'm not sure what you were trying to do there, but <ref name=rand/> is complete, so the end tag </ref> is unmatched. I tried <ref name=rand>[[#rand|Randall 1912]]: 138</ref>, but this defines the ref named "rand" more than once. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I took out </ref> twice, but it's still not right. The problem is the page numbers. deisenbe (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe could you explain more precisely how what now displays i8s different from what should display? The "ccite error" message is now gone. I see that the ref to "Randall 1912:" is used several different times (six at the moment). Did you want different page numbers on the different uses? If so {{RP}} can be used for this purpose. Or if that was not the issue, please explain what is still wrong. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What I want to do is make references like the system I know and have always used. Please look at the code for this:

^[1]^: 6

^[1]^: 8

^[1]^: 10

In other words, how do I cite the item plus the appropriate page reference? deisenbe (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b ^c {{cite book
(Here goes all the publication information)

}}

As you've shown in your example, use {{rp}} for the page numbers. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I NEED HELP WITH ADDING MY COMPANY ON WIKIPEDIA

MayenNelson (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MayenNelson. Please stop posting in all capital letters. Please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything for reference. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@MayenNelson: Wow! Did you genuinely mean to release for free the Sujimoto logo for anyone to use or modify as they wish, just as you've done here and here? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Edting page names

How do I edit page names? 2601:248:681:25A0:D89C:4ACE:8E7A:1298 (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

To change a page name, you would have to ask for a requested move. If you follow the directions on that page, it will start a discussion about it. It will then be closed when the discussion is done, as either rename or keep at current name. Hope this helps! Ghinga7 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Needed help with review of new article

Hi, I wrote this article about this Indian television show Draft:Dil_Dosti_Dance in June and it's been more than 6 weeks now that the article is still pending review. Will any of you kind folks please help out with the review of this article so that it can get published?

Many thanks! SarahR2 (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

On the draft it says "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,047 pending submissions waiting for review." Is there any good reason why the review of your draft should take priority over the others? While you are waiting you can address points such as reference punctuation and reference reuse. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello - got a welcome and mad message with it

Hi I am a higher graduate from INCORE with a distinction in The Troubles. I got this message when I was trying to add senior academic (Professor/Author) level text and back it up to wiki standards, and so Im totally bemused. Can anyone explain in plain English and politely what it means. I certainly didnt "threaten" anyone, let alone "other editors" but some tabloid journalists, agenda-writers and Irish republicans are making the Ulster Defence Association page well, censorship of the UDA's true nature and history. What I add is academic from the world's number one Conflict University in NI Troubles, there is no agenda but to add what I learn. I have worked on the peace process 20 years, I dont think its right that editors come on and accuse me of "threatening" when I am chilling out in my spare time for free, trying to help improve wikipedia which in my community many say reads like one group mainly tabloid writers' propaganda of good, legal until the end of the war, people. I am trying to be the editors' friend not threaten them, by improving a page and pages. Please explain, for I am baffled and have no sides or agenda but to explain the truth about the past. Thanks.

Might be an idea to read this before issuing meaningless threats to other editors -----Snowded ^TALK 14:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 2.28.135.179 (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@IP you aren't exactly better. Please dont run to the admins yust because you didn't get your way. There are other methods to come to an agreement first. @Snowded: for your notice Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - This editor is warring against three other editors and has ignored the 1RR Troubles warning notice - no engagement on the talk page. This edit summary contains the meaningless threat -----Snowded ^TALK 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Creating first article

I'm sure you've been asked this a zillion times. I've created my first article. It's in my sandbox complete with all references, links etc. Nothing controversial. No copyright problems. I'm getting lost in the process for uploading. Derekguthrie (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, I have moved your draft to Draft:Alastair Little and added a submit button for you, I have also edited for style per WP:MOS, before submitting it will need some editing for neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Derekguthrie: welcome to the Teahouse. Although I'm sure the subject is certainly notable, as has just been said, there are quite a few problems, not the least of which is a combination of copyright and/or extraordinarily close paraphrasing. You need to write the content entirely in your on words, not just change a few words here and there in some bits. Also, it reads like a promotional chapter in a book, and definitely not like a neutral encyclopedia article. By way of example, it drops all sorts of random quotes from newspapers for no apparent reason, such as this classic: He is well-educated and studied social anthropology and archaeology at Cambridge: "about as common as a footballer with A levels". But, that said it's not a terrible start, and I would urge you to continue working on it, cut out the unnecessary stuff (less is more on Wikipedia!) and also to look at other articles here to see the style of writing used within them before you do submit it for review at Articles for Creation. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Table: Centre align text for just a single column

Hi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dave_F63/sandbox

I wish to align the text for the 'CRS Code' column to 'center'. I know how to align it for the whole table & each individual cell, but is there a 'this whole column has this style' option? Could you provide a link to the page I must of missed, which specifies it. Thanks Dave F63 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Dave_F63, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm personally not aware of any wikimarkup that does this, but you might take a look at {{Aligned table}}, which may provide the functionality you are looking for. CThomas³ (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussing splitting a article

I have proposed splitting the article Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present) and added a notice to the page, as rfc pages are not for discussions about splitting articles and the article's talk page isn't very active is their any way I can draw greater attention to the proposal? Llewee (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Llewee, and welcome to the Teahouse. By placing the notice on the top of the page, you have already added the article to both Category:Articles to be split from July 2020 and Category:All articles to be split, which are maintenance categories watched by other editors. Another thing you can do is post a notice on the discussion pages of the WikiProjects this article falls under, all of which appear to be at least reasonably active. CThomas³ (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Cthomas3: Thanks, will do :)

Review of the Draft

Please give me feedback on what I can do to make this page acceptable. I am new to wikipedia. I was trying to follow the format given by you all. I don't know where I have gone wrong. I am very willing to make efforts and changes that will satisfy the editors at wikipedia. Please advice where it went wrong. Thank you. Fazlul683 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Sri Lanka. Per the reviewer's comments, the references do not establish notability and most of the content of the draft has no references. David notMD (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Fazlul683, and welcome to the Teahouse. The trouble is that you have followed the format, without being aware of much more important issues. Please have a look at your first article — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Fazlul683, draft copied from organization's website and must be speedily deleted.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What edits does ClueBot NG revert?

What types of edits does ClueBot NG revert because I have gotten 2 edits on Fremont,California and Devon Island reverted by ClueBot NG? User:Anilgaming2007

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anilgaming2007. Cluebot as in automated programme which attempts to assess and automatically revert bad-faith edits. It isn't always right. But your very first edit here was this one which was quite unsourced and purely opinion (as far as the bot is concerned). You might just as easily have said "Fremont is growing fast in peanuts", so the program looked at the newness of your account, your statement and lack of citation and decided, on balance, that it was probably not a good one. I accept that it might well have been, but I would also have reverted it as an unsourced statement. (But I don't think it was vandalism - not that I know anything about Fremont). Then your second edit here was pretty iffy, too. No supporting citation, just a bit of opinion. You might be quite correct - I've no idea - but it's not exactly the kind of encyclopaedic content we're looking for. So the bot reverted you and left a second 'templated' notice on your talk page. Again, I don't think this was intended with bad faith, but ClueBot does its best at assessing damaging edits and generally saves us editors a HUGE amount of work in automatically reverting bad faith edits from thousands of editors every day. You next edit to Cheddar Man was pretty needless as it was both tautologous and badly spaced, but this time it was reverted by a human. They assessed that they had no need to give you any warning because it was clearly well meant, if a bit misguided. Anyway, bottom line: Don't worry too much about the past warnings, but do please only edit an article if you have something really valid, worthwhile and well-sourced to add. Feel free to come back and question anything else in the future. BTW: Have you checked out The Wikipedia Adventure? There are 15 different badges to collect as you take this interactive tour. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually grew up in Fremont. I saw the graph and wrote that it was growing fast for population. The second edit was if you were stuck in Devon Island and if you are stuck in Devon Island,the closest humans to you are in the small town of Resolute. Thanks for telling me that they weren't vandalism but wasn't right. User:Anilgaming2007 (User talk:Anilgaming2007) 23:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I add a Twitter link if the subject posts there often, and doesn't have a home page?

Hi there! I'd like to add a Twitter link in the External Links section for James Hamblin (journalist) to his Twitter profile.

Is that kosher? I believe it would be suitable because:

He does not have a personal home page.
He posts a LOT on Twitter, all original content.
People seem to like his Tweets, and he gets a lot of engagement - meaning it's not just recycled PR content or BS stuff.

I'm asking here because I've seen Twitter profile links get removed when the author had a home page or other website link. Feels like the "No social media hub" policy would be OK here as this is unique content, and really his only home online. Thought I'd err on the safe side and ask permission here! Nickgray (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nickgray. I think the Twitter links you might've seen removed probably had more to do with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL than "No social media hub" policy. An "External links" section isn't really intended to be for posting links to all of the websites associated with the subject of an article and Wikipedia's tries to keep "official links" as minimal as possible. Ideally, one link to an official website should be enough for Wikipedia readers since they can then go to that one website if they want to find out whether the subject has other websites or has social media accounts (e.g. Twitter) where they interact with the world. If the subject has no "official website" per se and their Twitter account is basically being used by them to serve that purpose, then it might be OK to treat it as the defacto official website per WP:ELOFFICIAL. You can WP:BOLD and add the link; just leave an edit summary (and perhaps a follow up on the artcile's talk page) explaining why. If anyone removes the link, follow WP:BRD. You can also seek some more input at WP:ELN if want as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked Edit

Hi, This is new to me. I just created an account and was given a suggested page to edit. When I add info, I found a list of villages and so I added the section, and then added the names of the villages. Then after a while, it says that the bot has detected something that no longer allow me to add info. I'd appreciate some guidance in this matter.

This is a page suggested by wikipedia that needed editing, and I did the research and found some info.

I don't want to be considered a violator of your rules just as I am starting out. Any pointers or explanation would be very helpful. Thank you! Bcdone1112 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Bcdone1112, your edits to Bada Malhera are still there. I can see no evidence that you've been given a warning for anything - there's nothing on your talk page, which would be the normal place for a warning. Why do you think you are no longer allowed to edit articles? Maproom (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bcdone1112: I imagine it's about this edit filter violation; it thought you were using "Indo-Aryan expletives" in your contribution. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bcdone1112, Maproom, and AlanM1: Apparently villageinfo.in is on the spam blacklist -- I have no idea why. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Publishing Status Please

ReyanshGaur (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I had created an article REYANSH GAUR . I want to know about my article status. please Guide and Help ReyanshGaur (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy - draft is in this editor's sandbox, not submitted to Articles for Creation: User:ReyanshGaur/sandbox. The editor's User name is the same as the subject of the draft (a young boy). MANY! of the 'references' are images of newspaper pages, and thus copyright violations (?). David notMD (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh thanks alot sir, Yes i noticed that admin and article are same "REYANSH GAUR". I by mistake created editor account in the of reyansh ( of which i want to publish article ). i have created my new account. can it be possible to get this article publish from new account (my name shishir gaur). please guide.

please help and short out this — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReyanshGaur (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Now Draft:Reyansh Gaur. Not submitted. If submitted, highly likely Rejected. May contain copyright images and references (screenshots of newspapers). David notMD (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP has been indeffed for promotion and NOTHERE, and the draft has been G11d. Java Hurricane 07:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Gert

Hurricane Gert was a Category 3 But it says 2. It Should say 3 (Lolasaffy (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC))

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lolasaffy. If you have a really good, 'reliable' source, you may either edit the article in question, or post the link on its talk page and suggest the change. I realise you are currently trying to tread carefully, so perhaps the latter suggestion is most sensible. Then, if nobody disagrees, after a week you could go ahead and WP:BEBOLD and make the change. Either way, check out what existing sources the article is using, and always plan to work collaboratively with other editors to agree what's best for an article. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Too late - user blocked. Disruptive editing; WP:CIR. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

For other readers: the above account was WP:NOTHERE and was attempting to change tropical cyclone intensities from the official ones to those given by a certain website called "Force Thirteen", an unreliable website/YouTube channel run by a self-declared meteorologist with no credentials. Java Hurricane 07:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A quick fix on a page

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Conley It reads Brian Paul Conley (born 7 August 1961) is an English comedian, television presenter, singer and actor. Conley has been the host of The Brian Conley Show, as well as presenting the Royal Variety Performance on eight occasions. In his 40-year television career, he has starred in multiple award-winning television sitcoms including Time After Time and

The link to the show "Time After Time" is not the right tv show at all. I don't know how to change it and thought I would tall someone so they could. Ezz9 (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ezz9, link removed. It appears there is no article for the UK version of Time After Time. Thanks for bringing it up. If you want to know how to use links on Wikipedia, I suggest reading WP:CHEATSHEET which has all the basic formatting of Wikipedia. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia In Search Results

Hi all,

Recently, an article I created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nookazon) was approved for creation in the Articles for Creation scheme. However, my article, despite being approved, does not show up on Google search (I searched for Nookazon, nookazon, Nookazon wiki and Nookazon wikipedia).

Is anyone able to explain to me how articles appear in search results? Is there anything that I need to do to get it in search results? And finally, does this need me to add a redirect to the page?

Any clarification would be extremely helpful. Thanks Squid45 (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Newly created articles are NOINDEXed until they have been reviewed through the new page patrol process (or 90 days have elapsed if not reviewed by then). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Intuition Systems was declined

Can you help me to fix the issues and repost? Asaianand (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Intuition Systems declined, edited by Asaianand (creator), and resubmitted. Asaianand should declare on User page nature of presonal connection to company, if any exists, as conflict of interest or paid. Product section should be deleted. David notMD (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

subject where is my 53 deleted videos and emails

I will get a suppeno if I hath to I want my 53 deleted video and email back with sofialynnadkinsrobertson from jimsnedegar 184.13.62.145 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. This is a forum to help new users edit Wikipedia; I'm afraid your question is incomprehensible to me. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Their 53 deleted videos are on Comet Neowise, and will not return for millennia. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

My explanation makes as much sense as the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

LOL Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that "suppeno" is "subpoena", and what we see above is technically a legal threat. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah - I worked that bit out - but the rest was complete gobbledegook. It would be churlish of me to block (per WP:NLT) when I've no idea what they're on about, nor have the will to find out. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Appears Sofia Lynn Adkins Robertson is a real person (Facebook, etc.) but still does not resolve the mystery of this query . David notMD (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Updating Cover songs

-Daniel Boaventura Hi I am a fan and would like to update Daniel’s album listings. However I was told only covers that are significantly noticeable can be added. But he is very popular in Brazil, Mexico and even Russia, isn’t it enough? Or any other ways I can eventually move towards my goal?? Pls help.I am new to Wikipedia and all my work today went down to the drain as I wasn’t aware of the rules.The discography I updated the other night was also deleted.... don’t know why...can anyone tell me? Thanks in advance. Boboxoxo0412 (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The revert was by an automated program that was designed to remove the Youtube link you provided but reached back to also delete the discography table (which you have since restored). The text of the article needs better refs. David notMD (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Boboxoxo0412 Album cover images are pretty much always protected by copyright. Therefore they can be used on Wikipedia only under a claim of fair use, and must comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The sticking point her would probably be criterion 8 Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.} This is often interpreted to permit an album cover (or book cover) in the article about that specific album (or book), but not elsewhere unless there is specific critical discussion, cited to a reliable source, of the cover in the other article. That would be unlikely in an article about the musician.

If you just meant that you want a cover image in an individual album article, that should be OK if all the criteria are complied with, and if the album is notable enough for an article. It would mean writing up a fair use rationale for the image, but that can be done. Where and when were you told that the cover had to be significantly noticeable? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Or did you mean cover versions of songs, Boboxoxo0412? that is a very different issue, and much more of a judgement call. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Move Draft to an Article Page

Please someone move my Draft:Karangsambung-Karangbolong to an article page. I have made improvements to this article based on the review of several administrators. However, one of the administrators advised me to ask here so that the process of moving the draft to the article could be completed immediately. I need your help. Thank you Amon18 (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sure that you have misunderstood what the administrator told you. The box on your draft says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,077 pending submissions waiting for review." What is the reason for your draft to be approved immediately and be given preference over the other three thousand? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason is that I have corrected the article according to the writing guidelines on Wikipedia. The second reason, because this article contains the national geopark in Indonesia which has been officially recognized by the Indonesian government. I think that's enough to turn this draft into an article Amon18 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are your reasons for why the article may be accepted, but there is no way for articles to get prioritized for reviewing. It is not a queue. Reviewers pick what they want (with perhaps keeping one eye on the oldest drafts). Be patient. David notMD (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

How do I get content approved that's flagged as copied but is actually original?

Hi,

I'm totally new to contributing to Wikipedia so please excuse my ignorance on this.

I've created a page and added content but received a message that it looks like it's copied from somewhere else on the web and can't be posted.

this seems to be a piece of AI that's a little over-critical?

is it at all possible to get a human intervention to look at it?

thank you!

Templar Wales Templar Wales (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Templar-zapf-wales, looks like this has been answered on your talk page. :-) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"D" is the queen of copyright infringement. Not an AI. It appears you created content on May 28 and it was removed May 29. D identified the websites it was copied from. Is it possible that this is content you created for Honoris, and Honoris now holds the copyright? That would mean you cannot add it to a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Company page Sadas wih new references

Hello, I would like to create a company page for Sadas, an Italian multinational computer technology company. I created a trial page in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox and I am following some suggestions received in previous topics. I kindly ask for some feedback before the publications in order to respect Wikipedia best practices. In meanwhile I keeping updating the trial page with new references for each paragraph. Thank you for collaboration }} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Giuseppe Ardolino: It rather looks like your employer and CEO has already most of the work for you over on Italian Wikipedia (see https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Roberto_Goglia/Sandbox), and that you've simply copypasted a translation into your own sandbox without crediting him. You've even left in some of his original Italian headings, wrong bold formatting and promotional bullet links. Which three sources do you feel will best meet our notability criteria outlined at WP:NCORP, and why isn't there yet an article on this company on Italian Wikipedia? Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes (talk) thanks for your feedback. The account of CEO has been created 3 years ago, while I created my own account some months ago to create ex-novo the page. The trial page in my sandbox is the result of numerous updating following feedback of Wikipedia collaborators (not the simple translation). I updated my page by eliminating the bullets as you suggested (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giuseppe_Ardolino/sandbox). I am keeping for collecting new references. You don't find the Italian page, because, as a company choice, it's more important English Wikipedia in order to boost the internationalization of the company. I will read the criteria outlined at WP:NCORP, I will update you on these topics in the next days after reading WP:NCORP. Thank you so much}} Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Cannot get SPECIFIC information from editors as to what is the problem with my article

I am adding a bio to an existing page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_Academy_High_School#Notable_alumni

The article I am trying to get approved is this:

Text of proposed article.

MICHAEL ROBERT PHILLIPS

Born: March 18, 1937 (age 83) Philadelphia, PA Alma Mater: University of Illinois, BSGE

Hometown: Chicago, Illinois, U.S.

Military: Major Infantry Retired

Children: 5 7 Grandchildren 4 Great Grandchildren

Music History Produced and released First Digital Recording in the U.S.

Michael Robert Phillips (born March18, 1937) is an American music, video and concert producer who in 1978 produced and released the First Digital Recording in the U.S. - A Tribute to Ethel Waters featuring Diahann Carroll and the Duke Ellington Orchestra under the direction of Mercer Ellington.

Early Life and Education:

Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Varena Hill Phillips and Louis Bernard Phillips who managed an office for Quaker City Life Insurance Company. He was raised on the west side of Philadelphia until he was eleven when he moved to Chicago with his parents when his father was transferred to manage a new office.

Phillips attended Hyde Park High School in Chicago in 1952-1956 (1) that had over3600 students where he lettered in three sports  – Track, Baseball and Basketball, and in 1954 Hyde Park took the Basketball City Championship. Hyde Park had a number of notable alumni who went on to fame and fortune such as Tonight Show Host Steve Allen, Hollywood Movie Producer Ben Manaster, Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award recipient Mel Torme, R & B/Soul singer Minnie Riperton and the great Jazz pianist Herbie Hancock who performed in the school’s yearly Variety Show that was produced by Phillips.

Phillips attended the University of Illinois in Champaign/Urbana. After a tour in the Army he returned to the U of I and while working on a research grant he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering in 1963. He began his MBA the following year at Roosevelt University in Chicago but did not finish as he was recruited to go to Phoenix to begin a new position as a Quality Control Engineer.

Military

After two years of ROTC at the University of Illinois, in 1958 Phillips enlisted in the Illinois National Guard as  a Private (2). After completing basic training at Fort Leonard in Missouri he was shipped out to Fort Ord in California where he completed Advance Infantry Training receiving the Soldier of the Cycle Award. Upon serving in the ranks for a number of years Phillips was sent to OCS and was commissioned as a 2nd Lt. After duty with the California National Guard to include commanding an Infantry Company, Phillips retired in 1978 with a rank of Major.

Personal Life

Married and divorced twice Phillips has 5 children, 8 Grandchildren and 4 Great Grandchildren.

Music/Entertainment Career

Phillips began his career in the recording industry in 1975 as a record executive and producer. Co-founder of Crystal Clear Records in San Francisco, this direct-to-disc record company revived the art of live recordings being transferred directly onto the master capturing the actual sound of a live performance.

In 1977 Phillips started Orinda Records in Orinda, California. The following year he was GRAMMY nominated as a producer in the category of Best Engineered Recording for A TRIBUTE TO ETHEL WATERS featuring Diahann Carroll and the Duke Ellington Orchestra under the direction of Mercer Ellington which was the FIRST DIGITAL RECORDING RELEASED IN THE U.S. (3)

Phillips produced over 30 albums in the Jazz, Pop and Classical fields and has lent his services to a number of live performances, shows, concerts and videos. Although his first love is being a producer, he has added strength which is maintaining strong P&Ls, developing logical business/promotion plans and maximizing ROIs, a trait that artists embrace.

Special Note: As part of the fun side of his personality, Phillips liked to bring up to the residents of Orinda how the town was named after his recording company (i.e., which it wasn’t). Needless to say, reactions were mixed, sometimes downright mean – smile!

REFERENCES

1. Hyde Park High School- Hyde Park Academy High- located at 6220 Stony Island Ave., Chicago, IL school records between 1952-1956. Enrollment records and Wikipedia info for Hyde Park Academy High.

2. 201 Files of the United States Army - Illinois National Guard – Arizona National Guard – California National Guard.

3. The Recording Academy, 3030 Olympic Blvd., Santa Monica, CA GRAMMY nominations/membership records.

EXTERNAL LINKS

Orinda Records (https://www.orindarecords.com)

Tarapchak1966 (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Tarapchak1966 - Do not add an entire biography of a person to the school article. First submit the biography of the person to Articles for Creation, as Draft:Michael Robert Phillips. I have not reviewed the biography above in detail and do not know whether it will be accepted, but what you want is to try to get an article on a person. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I presume this relates to Michael Robert Phillips, rather than the school article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Tarapchak1966 the version now at Michael Robert Phillips apparently has no cited sources. The draft version at Draft:Michael Robert Phillips does cite some sources, but the citations are not properly formatted -- see Referencing for beginners. More important than the formatting issue is that none of the pages actually linked to seems to mention Phillips at all. Now I suppose that a search starting from those pages would reveal at least mentions of him, but that is not sufficient. A source citation must specify the exact place where the source supports the statement. For a book or printed newspaper article, it should specify the specific page or pages. For an online source, it should link to the exact page where the information can be found, not to the home page of the site it is somewhere on. In addition, I suspect that at least two of the current cited sources will prove to have only directory information about Phillips. We need multiple sources that include significant coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions or trivial coverage. Does that help make the issues clearer? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh I would add, Tarapchak1966, in future do not paste a copy of an article or draft here on the Teahouse. Instead just wiki-link to it. It is also not a good idea to have both a draft and an article about the same topic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

New on wikipedia - trouble in publish

Hi, I am new on wikipedia . i made an article , I don't know how to publish it successfully. It has some issues and i am unable to understand the. Please help. Nidhi raman (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am new on Wikipedia. I made an article which shows some issues and i am unable to understand them and publish it Sandhya Raman.Please help Nidhi raman (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You bypassed Articles for Creation (a formal review process) to create the article. Do you still have questions? David notMD (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And now, an editor has moved it back to Draft:Sandhya Raman because much of the content does not have references. David notMD (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

money for robbygordon

this is real. need to find how we can donate some money to robbygordon or his charaity 24.121.229.81 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the help desk for Wikipedia. We can't help with other matters. RudolfRed (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:ConfirmEmail

Please do repair: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ConfirmEmail >.

It sends nothing.

It does make these claims:

You must validate your email address in order to use email features. Click the button below to send a confirmation email to your address. Then, follow the instructions in the email. To check whether you have already confirmed, please see your preferences.

A confirmation code has already been emailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code.

Confirm email address Jump to navigationJump to search You must validate your email address in order to use email features. Click the button below to send a confirmation email to your address. Then, follow the instructions in the email. To check whether you have already confirmed, please see your preferences. Confirmation email sent.

Meaningless garbage.

Thank You,

Dhsert (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not know how the webserver got to think that my comment should be above the last one.

I do wonder whether the webserver has gotten confused.

Or, I might have pressed the wrong link or I do not know what.

Thank You,

Dhsert (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dhsert. You are addressing your annoyance to the volunteers who edit Wikipedia. Almost all of the people reading this page have no knowledge or control of the software. Please take this up at VPT. (But have you checked that you have given the correct email address, and have you looked in your spam folder?) --ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please help me in submitting a draft in Articles for Creation?

Hello, I'm an employee of Western Financial Group and have been asked to create an article about the company. There have been other pages referring our company, including Scott Tannas. Due to my COI, I'll be using the Articles for Creation tool to form a draft (notable sources included). I'm very new to the platform and would appreciate any assistance possible. Could someone please double check that I've correctly disclosed my COI on my user page before I submit the draft and provide any other help? I'm trying to keep within guidelines. InsuranceFan89 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@InsuranceFan89: First of all, I must thank you for being honest about your relationship. as far as the disclosures go, they are complete for now.

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.

I hope you find this usefull to create your draft. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

How long does it take for an article to go from ones' sandbox to approval or otherwise?

How long does it typically take for an article to go from ones' sandbox to approval (and publishing) or otherwise (denied/make changes)? I have changes ready to go to the 'Edward Peak' article I put in, and I have another article I want in my sandbox for development. TIA. Cheers, Brett BrettA343 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC) BrettA343 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Edward Peak had been submitted for review, but you can continue to edit it. s noted, could be weeks to months for review. You should be able to start a new article in your Sandbox without affecting the draft. Or you can open a second sandbox. David notMD (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, BrettA343. As it says in Draft:Edward Peak, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,127 pending submissions waiting for review." Nobody can give you any better information than that. But you are quite welcome to begin another draft, (in Draft space or in your sandbox) while it is awaiting review. If you go to you sandbox, and get redirected to the Draft, you can pick on where it says "Redirected from", and that will take you to your actual sandbox, where you can edit to remove the redirection and put new material in there. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks muchly David and Colin (I thought I'd seen a note saying not to touch it, but if I can, great!) BrettA343 (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The most illiterate article ever?

Hi there! I just came across the article on the photographer Sheila Metzner [4] and was seriously perplexed that practically not a single name cited in it is written correctly:

Diana Arbus = Diane Arbus Harry (sic!) Vinogrand = Gary Winogrand Jean Mare (sic!) = Jean Marais

As all the links in this grotesque article lead to Russian sites, I would not be surprised to learn that the author is one of Putin's bored hackers.

This is meant for your amusement only. Please don't correct the faults, because this is too silly indeed. :)))) 2.205.22.194 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a direct lift from here without even the refs - presumably courtesy of Google translate. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Book Contributor Citation

Hi! Just wondering how to/if it is necessary to cite an author's contributions to various books. For example: I'm making a page of an author who has written essays included in different author's books. How do I cite that or do I just use a typical book citation? Nutellab (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nutellab. It is rarely appropriate to cite anything at all by the subject of the article. It is certainly appropriate to include a selected list of their works (not necessary an exhaustive list); but the citations in an article should be there to verify the information in the article, and should therefore nearly all be to sources wholly independent of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Nutellab The documentation for {{cite book}} shows how to cite a particular chapter or section in a book, when there is reason to do so. It (and o0ther Cite XXX templates)can also be used to build a bibliography, although that is not the only way to construct one. ColinFine is correct that it is rarely appropriate to cite work by the subject of the article, unless perhaps to source a quotation. For a bibliography (selected publications), if you list title, author, date, and publisher, and when available the ISBN or other ID number, that is usually sufficient. A publ;ished book is its own source for its existence and contents. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine and DESiegel! You were both very helpful, I'll keep those parameters in mind as I edit the page. Thank you so much again!

edit source on talk page

I'm sure this is a dumb question, but I can't figure it out...when I go to a talk page (or post here in the teahouse), I only have the option to use "edit source" as opposed to visual edit. Is there some setting I need to change to try to fix this? I have looked everywhere and can't figure it out. Thanks in advance. Jiffy.morton (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jiffy.morton: Welcome to Wikipedia. You're not missing any settings. The Visual Editor is disabled for talk pages. See more info on other limitations here: WP:VE RudolfRed (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Not sure how I didn't see that before. Jiffy.morton (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Jiffy.morton, You can, however, get around this by replacing the "action=edit" in the link with "veaction=edit". Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Signature

Hi,how can I sign my comment in an animated;or at least,stylish way? ISL fan (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@ISL fan: see Wikipedia:Signatures for instructions!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ISL fan: See WP:CUSTOMSIG for how to change your signature and some rules. I don’t know if it’s even possible, but do not animate your signature. Some editors will find it intrusive and distracting if there’s constantly something moving in the corner of your eye. You are allowed to make it colorful though, like mine. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @ISL fan: WP:CUSTOMSIG describes the subject in general; Wikicode/HTML/CSS coding is up to you. Remember that not everyone has "normal vision", nor are they using the same display devices. Please don't go crazy with it; readers' focus should be drawn to content, not signatures. A sig's primary purpose is to identify your username accurately and provide a link that other users can use to communicate with you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible duplicate of 2 articles under Molecular Cell biology

The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_communication_(biology) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_communication_(biology) seem to be about the same concept. The 2 articles should be merged. However there are some difference in perspective, such as the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_communication_(biology) says more about communication through cell-cell adhesion and RNAi and the other article tells more about local and long distance signaling. Both articles are small in size, and it seems they should be merged. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: I've tagged the pages as such, but I don't know enough about biology to decide whether they are the same subject. The process of a merger proposal is outlined at WP:MERGEPROP. If you're certain they should be merged, you can be bold and do it yourself. If you want more input from the community, I suggest you go to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects (Biology, Molecular Biology, etc) and leave a link to the discussion (Talk:Cellular communication (biology)#Possible Duplicate? Suggesting Merge.). The steps for performing the merger is at WP:MERGETEXT. Good luck! ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thank you I would take long time to learn how to perform the merger by myself, but I think it should be discussed in the community by more people. Thank you for adding the tags on the articles. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikilink not working from simple English Wikipedia

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer. In the lead, first paragraph, the link to quantum Turing machine is red. How do I fix this? Hmanburg (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hmanburg, and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why those links are red is because the article for those subjects haven’t been written yet. We consider Simple English Wikipedia as basically another language Wikipedia, so even if quantum Turing machine exists as an article here on the English Wikipedia, you can’t reach it with a normal link on the Simple English Wikipedia. Interlanguage links do exist, but their policy is to “keep at a minimum”. A solution is to actually create the article at the Simple English Wikipedia about the subject (here’s how). ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ganbaruby Thanks! I'll probably take a shot at making that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmanburg (talk • contribs) 08:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP ME WITH MY FIRST SUBMISSION

I wrote on the topic Surabhi Prabhu . My article needs edit . Can someone help please . She has all the leading papers like The Times of India^[1] , Deccan chronicle^[2] articles on her , I have attached only two articles , there are many articles from reputed Newspapers on her . She is very popular in modelling as well . Her Tv presence in series is also well known . This was my first submission ever , can someone help me edit this topic so that I understand my mistakes and further don't repeat in my next topic . please help in my edit and bring this topic to the main space please. Google has all her credentials, I have tried to research as much as I could . please help , please add or delete whatever you feel is unnecessary from the draft of Surabhi Prabhu. PLEASE HELP !! Boatti (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Courtesy link. Draft:Surabhi Prabhu Sourcing seems too light, aside from fawning India celebrity press. This feedback is given at the draft page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Boatti and welcoem to the Teahouse. Please read the steps in the section [[#Could someone please help me in submitting a draft in Articles for Creation?}}]] above this.

The two sources you cite above are both interviews. As such, they are not considered independnet soures. To demonstrate the notability of your subject, you would need multiple published independent reliable sources each containing significant coverage. This means multiple paragraphs about the subject in each source, at a minimum. It also means no press releases (or stories clearly based on press releases), no fan pages, no directory entries or passing mentions, no wiki pages, no blogs, no online fora. Writing a new Wikipedia article is a hard job. Also, please don't write here in ALL CAPS. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply . I have all the reliable sources on the draft , kindly please read it . All the sources are from reputed papers . Here I posted only two press release , but if u go on the draft you will see many reliable independent sources . kindly review it . thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatti (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Boatti. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have jumped into one of the most difficult tasks that an editor can face on Wikipedia: creating a new article. People have given you advice, but I'm not going to wade through twenty references seeing if any of them are satisfactory, ie. independent, reliable, and substantial. Please see CSMN, and present the two or three highest quality sources here. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure , Thank you.^[1] ^[2] , ^[3]^[4] , The Times of India is like Newyork Times , it is very reliable ,independent source and reputable . Thank you for all the guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatti (talk • contribs) 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

As you have been told several times, Boatti, reliability of the source is not the only criterion. Did you read the page I directed you to? The first Times of India source might do, but it says very little about her, and will not do on its own. Also, if you look at WP:RSPN, you will see that some editors regard the Times of India as "generally unreliable" (though there is not an agreed consensus on that). Your second reference is based on an interview, and the other two do no more than mention her. If those are your best sources, you should stop wasting your own and other people's time on this article. Perhaps it will help you understand the issue if I explain that 1) every claim in a Wikipedia article should have been published in a reliable source, but 2) Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject says about themselves, or what their associates say about them. It follows that if you cannot find sources that are wholly independent on the subject and contain a reasonable amount of information about them, there is literally nothing that you can validly write in an article about them. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Correction, Boatti, the page I meant to link to was WP:CSMN. My apologies.--ColinFine (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Adding References

StrawberryHedgehog (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Hello Wikipedia experts!

I’m a middle-aged woman with no Wikipedia or programming expertise. I want to edit the article on the Lockheed Martin Shooting entry to include substantial evidence that this allegedly inexplicable act of workplace violence was actually a hate crime that could have been prevented had the company taken seriously years of reported racist incidents by the eventual shooter, including the man literally telling coworkers, “One of these days, I’m going to kill a bunch of n——-s and then shoot myself.”

I have two additional (legitimate) references I want to add, but I don’t know how to do so: when I try to add references in the editing mode, I can’t even see the ones already there.

Can someone spend ten minutes either adding the references for me or teaching me what to do? Thanks in advance for any assistance you can offer me.

Best wishes, Sonia Thacher — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrawberryHedgehog (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Or if that still seems complicated, StrawberryHedgehog, you could post a request on the article's talk page, with an informal citation to your sources. --ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Inserting photos which were now deleted?

Dear Wikipedia Team, Dear Member who deleted our photos, we have started a Wikipedia Post for our University and had added relevant photos. These were now deleted and we can not seem to find out why? These photos were taken by our own photographer and we own the copyright for them. Please could you help us to reupload them? Thank you in advance. Best regards, SRH Dresden School of Management Team SRHCampusDresden (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello SRHCampusDresden, and welcome to the Teahouse. The editors that deleted the images did leave the reason why on your talk page at Commons, which is that the images were advertisements. If you have any further questions, leave a message on those editors’ talk pages. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SRHCampusDresden, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion (which means "telling the world about something") however laudable the subject. While we loosely talk about "X's article" or "an article for X", a more accurate expression would be "Wikipedia's article about X". If we have an article about your campus, it does not belong to you, you do not have control over its contents, and generally it should not contain what you say or want to say, but only a neutral summary of what people unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you. I cannot see the deleted images, but the editor who deleted them thought that they looked like advertisements, and that is definitely not the function of an image in Wikipedia: images in articles are there to help the reader understand the subject.

A couple more points: I'm afraid that your user name is not acceptable: Wikipedia does not allow usernames which imply that different people are using them, or suggest that they are editing on behalf of an organisation. Since you haven't made any edits other than this one, the easiest thing is to abandon it and create a new account: each person who is editing should create their own personal account: they may use their real name (as I do) or a pseudonym; and they may suggest their affiliation (eg "Paul at Dresden SRH") but should be clear they are individual accounts. If these accounts are to be used to edit articles about the School, then the editors who create them should read about editing with a conflict of interest; and if they are in any way paid or employed to do so (as is implied by your "SRH Dresden School of Management Team"), you must make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor. You should create new account(s) and make this declaration before you do anything else here. --ColinFine (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there an inactivity in Wikiproject Molecular Cell Biology articles?

It looks like many of the Wikiproject Molecular Cell biology articles lacking details and remaining unimproved for years to decades. Recently I noticed an article whose title does not match with its content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_topology). Looks like there are scope of lot of improvements in many of the articles, which are not happening. Is there a deficit or reduction of contributors? Also is there a general reduction of wikipedia activities? How can we again increase activity in Wikipedia? With best wishes for Wikipedia RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: This sounds like a Wikipedia editor's origin story. Really. That's actually how I got started with editing as well, noticing that there's a gap in Wikipedia's coverage that I can fill. The thing with molecular cell biology is that it's so specialized: everyone can probably edit an article competently about their favorite sport or their hometown, but I would say very, very few people even understand how cells work, and even less that have such an understanding they can edit a Wikipedia article about it. Be the change you want to see in the world. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Statistics and Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby:Thank you. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Melinta Therapeutics

I noticed that in the brief entry on a company named Melinta Therapeutics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinta_Therapeutics) it states the company is located (present tense) in Connecticut, but to the right, the summary says the headquarters is in New Jersey. I wonder which it is. Sherlock1895 (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Sherlock1895:, Welcome to Teahouse. You can copy the reference of present address (current location) and replace the old location with citation showing new location and also brief description in Edit summary. Thank You— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)} 12:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation unorder

I'm checking what's possible, as alternative to a title-link in Citation. Trying |lay-source= does not display at all, so that's why I'm here.

* {{Citation|last1=Laurent|first1=Peter Edward|title=A Manual of Ancient Geography|date=1840|chapter=Germania|pages=163-168|publisher=Henry Slatter|place=Oxford| lay-source=[[The Oxford Classical Dictionary]] }}

Laurent, Peter Edward (1840), "Germania", A Manual of Ancient Geography, Oxford: Henry Slatter, pp. 163–168 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help)

preceding unsigned (Sechinsic) 80.62.116.87 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad-hoc solution

:* {{Citation|last1=Laurent|first1=Peter Edward|title=A Manual of Ancient Geography ([[The Oxford Classical Dictionary|laysummary]]) |date=1840|chapter=Germania|pages=163-168|publisher=Henry Slatter|place=Oxford}}

Laurent, Peter Edward (1840), "Germania", A Manual of Ancient Geography (laysummary), Oxford: Henry Slatter, pp. 163–168

preceding unsigned (Sechinsic) 80.62.116.87 (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor Sechinsic. It is not clear to me what you are trying to do here, but the above citation is malformed and would be reverted or changed in an article. "Laysummery" or better "lay-url" should point to an external page where a non-technical or less-technical version of a technical source may be found. If and only if a lawsumery link is provided, |lay-source= gives the name of the source where the summery is to be found. This should not be used as an alternative to the title link in a citation.

What is your actual goal, here? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Broken link in 'references'

William Martin (garden designer) Reference link number 13 is broken. How to remove? Kwaizzz (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Article edited, so broken ref is now #11 ("Oprah"). David notMD (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

One should not remove such links, Kwaizzz. Ideally, one fionds an archive version if available, and supplies the URL to the archive version, using |archive-url= and |archive-date= if in a citation template. Failing that, one marks it with {{deadlink}} so that someone else may do the replacement. The original URL is often a key clue to such a replacement. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kwaizzz: I googled the title "when jamie durie met oprah", which led me to an archive site. I updated the cite with the archive and author info at Special:Diff/970345360. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

How to clear search suggestions from history?

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse - I'd like to find a way to clear the search suggestions that pop up every time I place my mouse cursor in the search box. There must be a history cache of some kind that stored a list of old searches, and that remain status quo, unchanged for years. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. ProfFromChiTown (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

ProfFromChiTown, Those stored searches are not from Wikipedia, they're likely from your browser. If you have Chrome for example, it remembers your searches. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Try hovering over the drop-down list - if you gat dustbins at the end of each line click on these - or try hitting delete whilst hovering over a line - or right clicking and see if you can delete that way - failing that, please tell us which browser you are using and someone will know if they can be deleted, and how - Arjayay (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProfFromChiTown: You'll probably find something relevant here. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A bot that's stopped working

Hi, the bot called SDZeroBot seems to have stopped working - it used to update the page below twice a day but it hasn't done so in about 3 days now. How does this get fixed/notified? TIA! Page I'm looking at is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AfC_sorting/Culture/Biography/Women MurielMary (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MurielMaryand welcome to the Teahouse. SDZeroBot is run by SD0001 whose user talk page currently says SD0001 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. and whose most recent edit was on 25 July 2020. I suspect any fix will need to wait until that user's return, I'm sorry to say. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that so promptly, much appreciated! MurielMary (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason why many cities on wikipedia do not list a source for elevation?

If you go to some cities' main wiki pages, and you see elevation in the sidebar, it sometimes will not list the source.

Disoff (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Disoff. The answer is, because whoever put the elevation in, did not add the source. Ideally, everything in a Wikipedia article is cited to a source; but unfortunately, we are very far from the ideal. We have many thousands of seriously substandard articles, that probably would not be accepted if they were submitted for review today. But not many editors are keen to spend time getting them up to scratch (or nominating them from deletion if they cannot be repaired), so we are stuck with it. If you are interested in finding and adding those sources to the elevations, you would be adding to the value of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks, ColinFine

testing pingDisoff--Disoff (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Herman Cain

The herman cain death some of it were speculation of how he contacted covid 19 let's get rid of it and just post that he died from covid 19. Brad Essex (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Brad. This is something you should most likely bring up for discussion at Talk:Herman Cain since the best place to try and resolve and disagreements over the article's content. Please also note that even though Cain is dead, WP:BLP would still apply to any discussion about him since he's only just died. So, please take care of what you post about even as part of larger discussion on the article's talk page. Try to frame your argument in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and support any claims you make or try to debunk with links to independent reliable sources that support your position. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

How to Add a New Page

How do I create a Wikipedia page? Royalmarty (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Royalmarty and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new artifcle from a blank start is about the hardest Wikipedia task a new editor is likely to face (gettign an article to FA is IMO harder). Here are some steps which, if followed, often elad to succes. But it is a good idea to spend soem tiem editign existing articles first, to better understand how WSikipedia works.

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.

User:DESiegel - A minor point. The use of the Article Wizard is never essential. The use of AFC is essential for a COI editor. The use of the Article Wizard is optional for anyone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Need help to review and publish a page

Draft:Mike L. Whaley I have been working on this page for sometime and have added in links and references and citations and have not been reviewed again. Please can I get some feedback and possibly help to fix it up so it can get published?

Any advice would be welcome

Thanks Dreamskygirlsa (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Dreamskygirlsa (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Dreamskygirlsa, I just declined your draft. Please gather significant coverage of Whaley in reliable sources before resubmitting. As a rule of thumb, this is generally a minimum of three relatively in-depth newspaper articles (interviews don't count). If such sources don't exist, Whaley doesn't qualify for an article. Good luck, Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Review of Talk page

Hi, I would like to submit my Talk page article for review by an experienced editor, just to make sure that it's technically and procedurally correct and abides to all relevant Wiki guidelines and regulations. Even though it's not a regular article for general publication, can I still use the 'submit for review' function in Sandbox? The draft can be viewed here, and my conflict of interest is detailed on my User Page. Thanks in advance, Capt. Quinlan (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Capt. Quinlan and welcoem to the Teahouse.

I take it that you intend this for posting to Talk:German Gorbuntsov or perhaps for linking to from that page? I would say, do not use the submit button,. as that process is intended to drafts of articles, and this is a draft of an article talk page post or perhaps a critical essay. We don't really have a process for reviewing such lengthy critical comments, and you being a declared paid editor makes this particularly tricky. I'm not sure what to advise. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi DESiegel, thanks so much for that. I had intended to post it on the Gorbuntsov Talk page. Perhaps it might be possible to find an editor with an interest in Russia or Russian media who has background knowledge and a passion for the subject - and therefore willing to review. Or maybe I could try on Help IRC chat to find an editor willing to take this on. I appreciate it's long, and that has implications for a paid editor. But aside from my COI, it seems to me that it's patently obvious that the guy is the victim of a Russian smear campaign and that context needs to be explained. Also, it's in the interest of the community that Wiki is not used as a platform to spread lies and Russian Government disinformation (which is also against many Wiki guidelines.) Perhaps bullet points at the top, so that only those who wish to, need read the whole text? Any help moving forward would be greatly appreciated - Capt. Quinlan (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Capt. Quinlan: There is no process for review of things to be posted to talk pages. I will say that it is very verbose for something to be posted to a talk page, so much so that other editors may not care to read it. Leading with specific issues to be addressed might be more effective. Also you may want to proceed piecemeal and fix bit by bit of the article so that your criticisms are more digestible. When you're ready to post to the talk page, just go ahead and do it. To get more attention to the article, I'd recommend posting at WT:RUSSIA--not the whole text, just a short 2-3 sentence summary of the issue and an invitation to visit the article talk page. WT:RUSSIA is where users interested in Russia tend to hang out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Shadowhunters New Glaad Nomination

HI. Shadowhunters (the tv show) just got nominated for the first ever Fan Favorite Glaad Award. Can you please add the nomination in their Accolades section? Source: https://donate.glaad.org/site/SPageNavigator/GLAADTVFanFavoriteAward.html

Voting for the Fan Favorite is only on July 30, 2020. Ashleexry (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ashleexry, This has been done (not by me though).[5] Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Why was the content rejected?

There was editing on the title: "Cure", some content was undone, although it is a research study by Dr. Asad Ayub, qualified doctor. HomeoNews (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You added content to Cure without providing a reference. In addition, medical/health articles require a high standard for references, explained at WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Going further, and to be blunt, your contribution was badly-written, badly formatted, rambling and nonsensical waffle, which I'm afraid has no place in this encyclopaedia. Please take more care in future, and avoid adding opinion or uncited statements. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I wonder if this content was a garbled machine translation. Both waffle and wtf.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 19:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Enough. No piling on the newbie. David notMD (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes omitted to mention that the rejected content was also advocating a quack remedy. Maproom (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

[1] The bibliographic information is accredited to the "Guide to Research Materials" section Kim Well's website: Wells, Kim. Domestic Goddesses. August 23, 1999. Online. Internet. Accessed October 27, 2008 Archived November 22, 2018, at the Wayback Machine

[Jones-2] {{cite book
(Here goes all the publication information)

}}

[3] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/regional/movie-details/news-interviews/Surabhi-turns-an-item-girl/articleshow/11616506.cms

[4] ttps://www.deccanchronicle.com/131229/entertainment-tollywood/article/surabhi-does-kangana

[5] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/Surabhi-Prabhu-to-dance-in-an-item-song/articleshow/25000195.cms

[6] ttp://www.deccanchronicle.com/141018/entertainment-kollywood/article/surabhi-prabhu-scaling-new-heights

[7] ttps://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/roadies-fame-sonel-singh-and-surabhi-prabhu-feature-star-plus-everest-141018

[8] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/Celebs-join-Aamir-Khan-for-CID/articleshow/17241468.cms

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]