Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 547

Archive 540

←

Archive 545

Archive 546

Archive 547

Archive 548

Archive 549

Archive 550

Draft: Jim Brett

I reviewed Draft:Jim Brett and declined it, saying that it was not written in a neutral tone. It had been written by a paid editor, User:JNorman704. (I moved the paid editing template from the draft to the draft talk page.) It was then extensively rewritten by a more experienced paid editor, User:BC1278, and was then declined by User:Theroadislong as not establishing notability. User:BC1278 then posted to my talk page:

I redrafted a draft for Draft: Jim Brett you reviewed and turned down for violating NPOV. An inexperienced editor did the original draft. I have written extensively for Wikipedia, although I have a COI here, so all my work on this article must be independently reviewed. I re-submitted it and another reviewing editor now raises notability as a reason to turn down the article. I agreed completely with your original NPOV assessment, but I disagree on challenges to notability from the new reviewer. There are multiple in-depth articles about Brett from AAA reliable sources. You didn't raise notability on your review, so I'm guessing you didn't see that as an issue either. And I've added more sourcing since your first review. The other reviewer seems to have a very subjective grasp on the concept notability, as they questioned the notability even of West Elm, a subject a simple Google search shows has been written about in many hundreds of reliable sources. I wonder if you could take a look and weigh in. I am happy to keep working on the article, redrafting until there is consensus on NPOV, but I want to be sure notability is addressed first.   

I am bringing this here to the Teahouse for the opinions of other experienced volunteer editors, and will admit up front to my bias. I don’t like paid editors, consider them a plague to Wikipedia, and so may not be fair in my assessment of their work, and don’t like being asked to insert my judgment in place of another reviewer. I know that I have in the past sometimes highlighted tone issues about an article, and other experienced editors have seen notability issues. I still see tone issues. Having said that, and admitting that I am biased, I am willing to let other editors express their opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"You didn't raise notability on your review, so I'm guessing you didn't see that as an issue either" shows a misunderstanding. Many drafts submitted for review have multiple defects. A reviewer's job is not to list all the defects, only to decide whether to accept the submission, or reject it giving a sufficient reason. Maproom (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

As the reviewer requested a substantial re-draft based on NPOV, it seems unlikely they would have asked the editor to engage in a time-consuming, futile exercise if they found the sourcing inadequate to establish notability. Notability is the threshold issue.BC1278 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)BC1278

I don't see notability as an issue here, and would decline a deletion request were it to be moved to mainspace. Sources like [1] and [2] clearly demonstrate that Jim Brett himself (as opposed to his employer) has been the subject of continuing non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. There's potentially a tone issue, in that the article doesn't include any criticism of the subject; I don't know enough about him to determine whether that's because the article is a whitewashing or if he's genuinely so respected among his peers that nobody has anything bad to say about him. (It does happen.) I'd personally say that I see no issue with allowing this to be moved to mainspace; we don't expect new articles to be perfect, merely adequate, and this does a perfectly acceptable job of informing the reader who Mr Brett is and what he's known for. ‑ Iridescent 09:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent Hi. As you're the only one who has weighed in here, and the conversation is now archived, would you mind moving Draft: Jim Brett to the mainspace? I'm not supposed to do it because I have a COI here. Thanks, EdBC1278 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)BC1278

Removing AfD notices from own user page

Hi I recently started using the new pages patrol as I added a PROD tag to a page and the creator of the page removed the notification from his own page. I reverted his removal as i thought that it was something that you're not allowed to remove but i think i may be wrong finally. Domdeparis (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Domdeparis. Users can almost always remove content from their own talk. Besides, the PROD notice is more of a heads up than anything.

As for removing a PROD from an article, if anyone, including the original author, removes the prod tag, then the prod is contested, and the article would have to go to AfD if it is ineligible for speedy deletion. TimothyJosephWood 14:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

thanks for that ! I'll revert and apologise!!! Domdeparis (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

just another question it states that one can't remove speedy deletion tags, does this refer to speedy deletion of the user's page or an article that he has created and then appears on his page? --Domdeparis (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

A editor may not remove speedy deletion tags from a page that he has created, but he is allowed to delete a notification (about the deletion nomination) on his user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

David Biddulph Thanks! --Domdeparis (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing any notice from one's own talk page is considered a silent way of acknowledging that one has read it. Some types of notices on articles, such as speedy deletion and AFD, may not be removed while the process is in process. (CSD may be removed by an admin declining the deletion. AFD may be removed by an admin if the result was Keep.) PROD is special, because it may be removed by anyone. Cleanup tags on articles should not, in general, be removed without discussing them. Does that make everything perfectly unclear? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Page was rejected - can someone help me review?

Hello my page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:JJ_Food_Service_Ltd - was rejected despite having many third party references and what I thought was a neutral tone. Can anyone offer advice for changes please? ElitRowland (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

You say that there were many third-party references. I see three references. Two of which are by Microsoft, and I would not consider them independent because their real purpose is to advertise how well Microsoft software works for their customers. One of them is to the Guardian, which is a reliable independent source, but it isn't about JJ Food Service at all, but only provides information on machine learning. If there are other third-party references, maybe you need to add them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops. You had included many references, but other editors deleted them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I do have a question. You refer to "my page". Experienced editors often react to references to "my page" as having to do with article ownership. However, since the only edits you have made are to that draft and to this discussion here, do you have a connection with JJ Food Service? If so, please declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest guideline. If not, welcome to Wikipedia, and you are encouraged to help us not only with one article that we don't have but also with the five million plus articles that we already have. Creating a new article is the hardest task in Wikipedia, and it is unfortunate that some new editors think that is the right way that they can get started contributing to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

When intellectual content can be considered advertisement?

Hi all! I'm Luca and I am new to wikipedia. I joined because I noticed some contents related to Urban metabolism (a branch of urban design) were extremely superficial and I decided to update them.

After that, I decided to create new pages for the research designers I mentioned when I updated the page. When I tried to upload the first page, it was immediately banned as advertisement, despite the practice described was already mentioned in other wikipedia pages and it was awarded with extremely prestigious prizes (like the prix de Rome Netherlands).

Considered the intellectual and cultural relevance of the practice, I was surprise my page was considered advertisement, when there are many traditional architecture office currently displayed on Wikipedia. I wonder what kind of commercial benefit can a research office get from a wikipedia page.

Can anyone clarify how the process works please?

Thanks! Dstluca (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you mean your deleted FABRICations article, it lacked any sources, and didn't contain any criticism of any kind. Wikipedia isn't a business directory; a Wikipedia article on a company or organisation needs to be sourced to reliable sources which both serve as a place where readers can verify the facts in the article, and demonstrate that the topic is considered significant by other sources. Wikipedia articles also have to be neutral, and not just present the positive aspects of their subject. It's well worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article to explain how to go about writing a Wikipedia article, but bear in mind that article creation is probably the single most complicated thing you can do on Wikipedia, as our rules on sourcing are much, much stricter than those of most other user-generated websites; basically, for every fact you include in a Wikipedia article you need to be able to provide a source independent of the article subject which can verify that fact. ‑ Iridescent 09:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

For further clarity, this is an edit by the above account that I deleted as promotional in tone: [3]. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

How to add a citation

I recently looked up "Wheel" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel) and found a citation needed that I would like to add. I am having trouble figuring out how to do it - I don't know how to write the code or how to add it to the correct place in the text and the footnotes. In what I believe is the 10th paragraph of the History section, I would like to add a citation. Here is the paragraph in question:

Although they did not develop the wheel proper, the Olmec and certain other American cultures seem to have approached it, as wheel-like worked stones have been found on objects identified as children's toys dating to about 1500 BC.[11] It is thought that the primary obstacle to large-scale development of the wheel in the Americas was the absence of domesticated large animals which could be used to pull wheeled carriages.[citation needed] The closest relative of cattle present in Americas in pre-Columbian times, the American Bison, is difficult to domesticate and was never domesticated by Native Americans; several horse species existed until about 12,000 years ago, but ultimately became extinct.[12] The only large animal that was domesticated in the Western hemisphere, the llama, did not spread far beyond the Andes by the time of the arrival of Columbus.

A good source for this is the book Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond, p. 237. ISBN 978-0-393-31788-8. Please feel free to add the citation yourself if you prefer. Thanks in advance for your help!Nm47867 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nm47867 and welcome to the Teahouse. Adding citations is an important skill to learn for editing Wikipedia. You already have the ISBN, so the rest is easy. I have posted some helpful links on your talk page, or if you prefer there is a two-minute video showing how to do it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPuXchaSS08. Let us know how you get on, and especially if you have any problems with this.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

how to create a wikipedia page, which can be approved.

I submitted an article on a newly proposed statue of Ulgulan in the state of Jharkhand of India, which will be the tallest statue in India at present. I have mentioned several references but it got rejected. What should I do to make it approved. It is a verified news which every one will want to know about. Please guide me.Vinaykr1609 (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Vinaykr1609: for your proposed article to be approved, it will need to cite reliable independent published sources, with significant discussion of the proposed statue. Can you provide such citations? If not, you will need to wait until the statue has been built, I expect there will then be suitable sources about it. Is Ulgulan the same person as Birsa Munda? Maproom (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the page in question, which read in full Statue of Ulgulan is a proposed 150 feet tall statue of Bhagwan Birsa Munda, a tribal freedom fighter from Jharkhand. The statue will be built on NH 33 Ranchi-Jamshedpur highway near Bundu. The announcement of Statue of Ulgulan by done by the Ex-Deputy CM of Jharkhand and AJSU President Shri Sudesh Mahto at the Birsa Jan Panchayat held on 15th November 2016, the birth date of Bhagwan Birsa Munda at Ulihatu Village, Khunti after the unanimous approval by the Jan Panchayat. Birsa Munda’s kin Sukhram Munda has been made the convener of the Statue of Ulgulan committee. The committee will go to every village in the region to apprise people about the statue and collect a stone from every household. The land for the statue was donated by Ramdurlabh Singh Munda. The statue is expected to be built by 15th November 2018. While articles on proposed projects can be notable, it's generally only the case for big infrastructure projects like roads and airports where the proposal has a significant impact on an area. In this case, you need not only to demonstrate that the proposal exists, but that multiple, independent, reliable sources consider it notable. ‑ Iridescent 11:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ulgulan was termed as a movement for freedom from English Empire started by Birsa Munda. In memory of Birsa Munda, a statue is proposed which has been given a name "Statue of Ulgulan".I am again drafting an article with citation from several newspaper.Will that be a notable and reliable published sources?

Once it get published then I would be editing about the coordinates and who is the sculptor and more news about it.Please help me.Vinaykr1609 (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have submitted another article with other citations, please check if it is approved.Vinaykr1609 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice on "The SP theory of intelligence"

There is a notice on the new article "The SP theory of intelligence" suggesting that it needs references that are less close to the author of the theory. I'm not sure that this is justified.

The theory has been under development since about 1987 but was not "complete" until early 2006 when I published a lengthy book about it. At that point, I should have concentrated on publicising the work amongst researchers. Instead, I switched all my efforts into environmental campaigning (climate change). I returned to the research in late 2012. Since then I have published several new peer-reviewed papers about the research that may be downloaded via links on http://www.cognitionresearch.org/sp.htm . It is only recently that I have concentrated on publicity.

Apart from that, there are other reasons why the research is not yet widely recognised:

• It is a view of computing that is radically different from established views. There is often resistance to radical views, witness the 70 years that it took for Wegener's theory of continental drift (plate tectonics) to gain acceptance.

• Most researchers are grossly overloaded and under constant pressure to "publish or perish". With that pressure it is very tempting to stick to what you know.

• The volume of published papers is much greater than, say, 50 years ago. This creates temptations to narrow the focus of one's research to a small area where one can keep abreast of what is being published, and to rely on magazine articles and sources like Wikipedia!

• The SP theory is about simplification and integration of observations and ideas across artificial intelligence, mainstream computing, mathematics, and human learning, perception and cognition. Apparently because of the tendency of researchers to narrow their focus, there is little interest in synthesis across several fields.

In view of these pressures and factors, it seems to me that some allowance should be made for Wikipedia articles like the one about the SP theory. All the papers that I have published recently are in respectable academic journals and they have all been peer-reviewed. I believe this should provide sufficient justification for a Wikipedia article. I don't want to wait 70 years for the theory to gain acceptance!

Gerry Wolff

Gerry Wolff (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GerryWolff. You say you "don't want to wait 70 years for the theory to gain acceptance"; apparently you are writing to gain acceptance. But that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. So a subject becomes notable enough for an article when independent reliable sources give it significant coverage. That might mean when it has already gained acceptance. Or it might be when it has already been considered and rejected (like climate change denial or flat earth theory). But a subject which has been ignored doesn't get an article because there is nothing to summarize about it. —teb728 t c 13:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't comment on, or try to compensate for, broad trends in academia, or sources generally. Wikipedia is also a lagging indicator of notability, meaning that sometimes topics that are notable in the every-day or academic sense, will not yet meet notability in the Wikipedia sense, even though they may likely do so in the future once coverage in reliable sources has a chance to "catch up" so-to-speak.

Wikipedia does allow self-sourcing, so long as the sources come from reliable third party publications. However, the article would still be greatly improved by adding coverage in sources that are independent of the topic.

Otherwise, I'm afraid I'm not much of an expert in the way of computing. It may be helpful to check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. Also, I'm going to go ahead and ping @Boson:, @David Biddulph:, and @Billinghurst:. Since they added the cleanup tags to the article, they may be able to offer more advice. TimothyJosephWood 13:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Reping @Billinghurst: to fix own mistake. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(pinged) My main concern is the issue of notability (in the Wikipedia sense). The theory does not need to have gained acceptance but it does need to have gained considerable attention. Though self-sourcing is permitted for some purposes, the sources used to establish notability should be independent of the subject. This is not a given if one person develops a theory, writes a book and several articles on that theory and then writes a Wikipedia article on that theory. I would like to see references to extensive discussions of the theory by people independent of the editor.The status of the book publisher is unclear. --Boson (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is The SP theory of intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@GerryWolff: Wikipedia is NOT to be used for publicity. You first need to gain acceptance and notability, then encyclopedic coverage. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at two of your published articles cited in the Wikipedia article, GerryWolff. This one has eight citations, seven of which are self-cites. This one has 20 citations, 19 of which are self-cites. Based on this, it doesn't seem that the theory has been the subject of secondary coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@GerryWolff: The reason we have Wikipedia:Conflict of interest applying to articles is to cover situations like yours. We understand that people have both an interest and commitment in a topic, that does not make it notable. So in situations like this the expectation is that if as ideas gain broader credibility and notability that others will write about it. That you have published your ideas in academic journals is of interest and the first step to notability. When others start writing about your ideas, especially in other sources, that is when the notability takes effect.

That you don't want to wait 70 years for your ideas to take affect is understandable, however, it is not the purpose of any encyclopaedia (let alone Wikipedia) to be an avenue for propounding ideas. That is the purpose of academic journals. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:GerryWolff - The SP theory of intelligence has been tagged as a copyright violation. Do not post copyrighted material on Wikipedia (even if you own the copyright, unless you have unconditionally released the copyright under a CC-BY-SA license). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible WP:BITE situation.

Resolved

I'm not a newcomer myself. But I'm in a small depute with an IP editor on a rotating address (2600:8801:8A00:9700:7060:3AB2:D76:97A7\2600:8801:8A00:9700:C9F:534E:688D:1408), at Talk:Greasemonkey#Tampermonkey removed from the "Equivalents for other browsers" section.

Based on his first edit to the article: I figured that he was a experienced or semi-experienced editor, who just hadn't created an account. But now, I'm starting to worry that he might actuality be a newcomer, and that I might be scaring him off of Wikipedia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

At the Teahouse, new questions are at the top. I moved this from the bottom accordingly. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Emmette Hernandez Coleman: you have invited the IP address to explain their deletion on the talk page. If they don't respond, I think you will be justified in restoring the material they deleted. Maproom (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's moot. The IP (now a registered user) responded, and he knows his way around Wikipedia: This isn't a wet-behind-the-ears newcomer who needs to be treated with kid gloves. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

update about my edits

Hey all, how do I know if one of my edits has been removed/changed? How do I find out why?

Thanks (Abbottsford (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Abbottsford. If you go to the page you edited, and pick "History", you can see if there were an edits later than yours; and you can step through them and see which ones qaffectd what you edited. Ideally, there will be an Edit Summary where the editor explained what they were doing and why; if not, you can ask them on either their user talk page (there will be a link after their username) or the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Request a translation

Hi I'd like to understand how to request a translation from Spanish to English for an existing wikipedia article in written in Spanish. The page is https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-Bust Kind regards John

104.221.25.47 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Try this link, WP:translation. Leschnei (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Who requested a user translator? Devin-Henrickson (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Wondering how to get a new wiki page to specify which person it is, since there are other people with the same name

I am creating a new page, but other people have the same name as the person I'm making the page of. How can I get his name at the top of the wiki page to specify (musician) after it, or will the wikipedia reviewer do it for me?Vaughnyboi (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vaughnyboi, disambiguating article subjects can sometimes be a bit tricky, so it's probably best to leave it to the reviewer who ends up accepting the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I know whether my edits to a page will be considered valid or not?

I have been learning things at my college and I post whatever I find good to share from my textbooks or links I find online to the pages on the topics they are related to providing references for the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnshumanKumar 97 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, AnshumanKumar 97. The general answer is, You don't, until you try it. Wikipedia works on consensus: anybody may disagree with anybody else's edit: if they change or undo it, then the first editor has the choice of leaving it as the second editor preferred, or opening a discussion with that editor: see WP:BRD. If you think an edit you want to make might be controversial, then it is a good idea to suggest it on the article's talk page first, and get agreement (or, rather, reach consensus) before making the edit.

Looking at your edits to Pitting corrosion, they seem generally good (once you realised the difference between a File and an external link); but I have some specific suggestions:

1. Leave an edit summary for every edit, explaining why you're making that change.
2. "Take the instance of ... " is not really an encyclopaedic style: Wikipedia articles almost never address the reader directly.
3. Going through an article changing all the spellings from American to British (or vice versa) is not considered a good edit. Articles that don't have a particular connection to either country or community may use either spelling as long as they are consistent. Since the article used 'localized' amd 'vapors' before you started editing it, you did right to follow that convention, and wrong to change them all later. See ENGVAR. --ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey ColinFine, thanks for the feedback.I will definitely work on making my edits seem more formal in the upcoming days.

AnshumanKumar Anshuman Kumar, Student 20:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnshumanKumar 97 (talk • contribs)

Feminaissance

I'm creating a #Feminaissance movement and just started my first Wiki page. I am writing about it and gathering data and evidence but I already received an email pointing to the page as not following guidelines. I began with this: Feminaissance embodies a movement that creates light, gives birth to new ideas, puts forth love, hope, positivity, renewal, and peace. Naming the movement began on November 26th, 2016 to oppose, rebuff, and rebuke HIStory repeating.

Why is it already being potentially rejected? DJLabrecque (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It was written by the Wiki Admin NotNotable " because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia."

It is neither about an organization NOR a company, but a movement of people around the globe.DJLabrecque (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Femaissance is a movement of people around the globe. Why has it been subjected to a speedy deletion?DJLabrecque (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, you have just stated that "Naming the movement began on November 26th, 2016..." thus by your own admission this is something you just thought up today. Wikipedia only covers topics that multiple independent sources have already covered, see WP:NOTABILITY. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DJLabrecque. I'm afraid that, no matter how worthy the subject, Wikipedia may not be used to promote anything. Wikipedia is not interested in what you think or know, or what I think or know, or in which anybody, organization, or momvement says about itself. It is only interested in what people independent of a subject have published about it in reliable sources, such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. Once people unconnected with your movement have felt it worthy of being written about in such places, Wikipedia may have an article on it. But until then, Wikipedia will not take notice of it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thanks, fellas!DJLabrecque (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

NOTNOTABLE is not an administrator. Any editor can add a tag.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to be a wiki admin in the future.

Hello, I just want to ask when can I become a Wiki Admin and how long will it take? RacheyFlies (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello RacheyFlies & thanks for decided to contribute! Adminship on Wikipedia should not really be looked upon as an achievement. It doesn't confer extra authority or status in the community, just a set of extra tools and a lot of extra responsibilities to go with them. As such, anyone can request admin tools if they have a need for them, but the request is reviewed by the community as a whole, who have very high expectations of candidates. That would typically include a very detailed knowledge of all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, considerable editing experience (i.e. several months or years of active editing) and a proven track record in the kind of 'behind the scenes' processes administrators are involved in (e.g. AfD).

With that in mind, since your account was only created today, I would honestly just put the idea out of your mind for now. Focus on improving the encyclopaedia in whatever ways you want to contribute and then think again about whether you'd like to be an admin a year or so down the line. People who set out to collect user rights rather than improve Wikipedia tend to be perceived quite negatively by the community so take care not to give that impression. Joe Roe (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RacheyFlies. I presume you mean a Wikipedia admin (a wiki is a type of website, of which Wikipedia is one). You can request to be an administrator at any time, but please read the guidance at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. You'll see that a strong editing history is one of the usual requirements for approval as an admin. I would imagine a couple of years of solid editing would get you there, but others might have other views on this. There are many things you can contribute without being an admin, though. I've been editing for ten years without needing to be one. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

How about a rollbacker instead rather than an admin? RacheyFlies (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@RacheyFlies: Rollback generally requires that you have made 200 edits to articles as well a reasonable track record for anti-vandalism work. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Maps in Wikipedia

I would like to know how to create maps that are stylized like the ones found on most articles. What application or program do you need? What skill are required? Are there tutorials?
thanks

sincerely,
Jeth888 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, @Jeth888: I'm not sure what, exactly, you want to do, but you may find the information and links at WikiProject Maps helpful. Some tutorials are linked at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Tutorials. And if you have any specific questions, I'm sure that the people at WikiProject Maps's talk page will be happy to help you. Deor (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Deor. Jeth888 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Creating new uw templates?

Hello. I was working on making new user warning templates for my own (and possibly others') uses, as I've noticed some cases where I needed a warning for something specific and it did not exist. If I finished them such that they were suitable for usage, what should I do so that I can use them on user talk pages as user warnings, and/or standardize them? Here's one of the templates I'm working on, if you want an idea of what templates I'm making. Thank you! NOTNOTABLE (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi NOTNOTABLE. You might have more luck asking this question at the Technical Village Pump. Joe Roe (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

undoing a redirect

Hi, If a page was "moved" or "renamed" and there is now a redirect page to the new name, how can an editor undo the redirect and get the "old name" back? Dimitri Karras (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Dimitri Karras. I depends on whether the article at the old name is about the same subject as the article that was moved (in other words you want to move the article back), or whether it is a totally new article. —teb728 t c 11:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed this particular case - it was the same subject. Generally, a move leaving a redirect can be undone using the "Move" tab, and any resulting double-redirects will be fixed by a bot within a few hours. It's all explained at WP:Moving a page. JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Important things on how to edit

Hello.! My name is Khan. I had submitted an article for a review, which unfortunately due to some reason got rejected. So i want to know that what are the basics and important things to keep in mind while editing. What might be the reason for my article not to be published.

            Thank you.

Regards, Khan.Khan ubaid (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Khan ubaid. The reasons for the rejection of your draft are explained in the message in the box at the top of User:Khan ubaid/sandbox. Please see Wikipedia:Notability for more information on how notability, and hence eligibility for an article, is judged on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry. I'll look into it and get back to you.

khan.ubaidKhan ubaid (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello,

I submitted the article 4 weeks ago. Might you be able to review and let me know if you have any suggestions to improve the article? Best, Laura

Laura bachrach (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Laura bachrach. There are currently 843 submissions in the queue and only a few volunteers to review them, so I'm afraid you will have to be patient. Joe Roe (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Renaming a draft page

I created a draft page, but I realized that the title of the page needs a small change. Is it possible to rename my draft page ... or should I just delete it and start over? FYI ... the draft page is currently named "J. B. Starkey Wilderness Park" and it should be named "Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Park". Paulfranklinherman (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Working Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Page renamed properly. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Paulfranklinherman (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with formatting and standards

Greetings. A short bit of background on myself before the question:

I am Klok Kaos, I am a collector of information, notably with the BDSMwiki.info

This project was created to document various information and standards/practices that wikipedia cannot take liability for, however, in some cases there are things that BDSMwiki cannot document because of our different policies. One such thing is profiles of notable persons regarding BDSM (authors, etc.). Several are listed already on wikipedia, however their information in most cases is severely lacking, and several notable folks are not present.

That said, it is my intention to bring these profiles up to date as I have a unique inside track into this subculture as one of the foremost educators on the subject (bdsmwiki.info has around 2k unique visitors a day and is remaked as being one of the best free educational resources on the subject according to peer review and search engine results). I am able to gain access to interview many of these people who in many cases are otherwise adverse to sharing this type of sensitive information given my track record of responsibly handling this kind of sensitive data in the past.

The trouble is I am very new to Wikipedia and it behooves me to have an experienced editor to talk with to help me make sure these articles are done in accordance with Wikipedia standards and practices, and also that they are formatted and cited correctly.

I would like to ask for the help of an editor that is willing to give me a good amount of time up front to help mentor and review articles at first and discuss things with me so that ultimately I need very little in the way of help outside of an occasional question here and there.

This is a bit time sensitive, as I understand someone can simply read through the hundreds of pages of data Wikipedia also provides, however, my current project list makes that somewhat impossible and there are some very important things happening soon in the kink community that require some of these things be written up before that happens as a matter of preference.

Someone that is willing to skype on central time USA, has extensive Wikipedia editing background and speaks excellent English that will help review articles is preferred. Scholarly background and pleasantness is a bonus.

I have one article in rough shape I need to go over with someone. I would appreciate anyone that is willing to help responding, but with the caveat that while this doesn't tread into areas of liability or pornography, that anyone with a moral objection to BDSM and kink lifestyles would do best to take a pass on this project.

All respects,

Klok kaos (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Klok kaos and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not going to offer my services to you, but I do want to make some suggestions. Please understand that have "a unique inside track into this subculture" is of little use in writing for Wikipedia, unless that means that you know where to find independent reliable published sources about it. Wikipedia is only interested in material which has been published in reliable places, such as major newspapers and books from reputable publishers. Material that you have as an insider, and in particular anything from your Wiki, is unlikely to be admissible in Wikipedia articles. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Klok kaos: Adding to the correct response posted above, an unpublished personal interview with a person is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. If you want to succeed at writing Wikipedia articles, then you need to do the work on your own of learning our most important policies and guidelines. Please start by reading an excellent essay called Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine (talk) I appreciate the response, however this is not what was I was asking for, and I believe you very much have misinterpreted what I meant by "inside track". To be clear, to research this field, to include publications, would require special knowledge and trust in this field because of the secretive nature of the field and this is widely why wikipedia has not done well documenting this field. I recognize that you may not understand all of the specifics of why, and that is OK. I do not pretend to think that interviews are qualified citations, I am of greater understanding than this, thank you. I clarify, mostly so that others do not mistake my silence to mean that your quick answer was the solution I was seeking or somehow enlightened or discouraged me in some way. Klok kaos (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You might want to ask for help from the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Klok kaos. The Teahouse is more of a place to ask specific questions about editing, rather than for assistance with writing articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@ColinFine:

Thank you you for the information, I will follow up that lead. It is good to know there is a department for this area as they will know how best to manage this project moving forward, being somewhat familiar with the subject matter. All respects, Klok kaos (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

New technology, how to present with limited references?

I have written an article about a new technology just invented a few months ago. I need help in figuring out how to get it published. It really is amazing and can possibly change the world in a good way. FernandoOrlando (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, FernandoOrlando, and welcome to the Teahouse.

What you're telling us is good news. Such amazing technology will get noticed by independent sources and written about. Only, then, after it has gained notability and coverage, will it be ready for a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, no; Wikipedia is not a place to write about new stuff before it has achieved some real-world status. Using Wikipedia for promotional purposes is not allowed.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. We're going to change the world!FernandoOrlando (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Page patrol of Emam Ali (Musician)

The new page reviewer user right allows users to mark pages as patrolled. I don't have this right and I can't patrol "unpatrolled" pages. Few months ago I could see Yellow pages in this list. Today I don't see any difference in Special:NewPages. I can't see the mark this page as patrol link at the bottom of any page.

My question is about pages getting patrolled with WP:Huggle. Those who have experience with Huggle, knows that, I can't edit a particular article using Huggle. Huggle can load and review edits made to Wikipedia in real time, it also helps users identify nonconstructive edits and allows them to be reverted quickly. If the article Rainbow is vandalized, then I can see the edit and revert it. I cannot edit the page Rainbow directly with Huggle.

In my talk page Kudpung told me not patrol pages with Huggle. See User talk:Marvellous Spider-Man.

As, I don't have the new page reviewer permission, then how did I patrol the page Emam Ali (Musician)? --Marvellous Spider-Man 11:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: You didn't mark Emam Ali (Musician) as patrolled but you did use Huggle to tag it for speedy deletion one minute after it was created, which is functionally the same thing. I think that is what Kudpung is referring to. If you are using Huggle to monitor newly created pages, and not monitor vandalism which is its intended purpose, then you are effectively using it to patrol new pages. As this bypasses the the new user right and processes outlined at WP:NPP it should be avoided. Joe Roe (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not using Huggle to monitor new pages. So, there must be a policy written somewhere that users without new page reviewer right should not edit newly created pages. Nominating pages for deletion don't require any right. Unless there is a policy that says that, I can't actually listen to stop nominating pages for CSD. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody can make you stop tagging new pages, Marvellous Spider-Man, but Kudpung has suggested you do so and I happen to agree with him. Tagging a page a minute after it's created is very poor practice because it is extremely likely to still be in the process of being written, creating extra work for administrators, annoying experienced editors and biting new editors. It is one of the many reasons we have a set of guidelines for reviewing new pages at WP:NPP and the new pages feed/page curation tool―unlike huggle―was built to make it easier to follow them. Joe Roe (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Marvellous Spider-Man, you did use Huggle to tag a new page and I copied and pasted the log entry to your talk page for you to see. The problem was twofold: 1. Huggle must not be used for this purpose; any one who does might risk losing the right to use it. 2. You placed the wrong kind of deletion tag on that article.

Only New Page Reviewers can mark pages as patrolled, so there's not much point in anyone else looking for new pages and tagging them. The idea behind this is to prevent wrong tagging and to reduce the work load on admins. What you did was to place a wrong tag, and an admin had to find time to correct it and explain to you what went wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with review of article submitted Draft:Ryan Blacketter

My article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ryan_Blacketter, was rejected for not having reliable sources, could someone tell me why the third party sources in my article are not reliable? They can all be verified. Also, should a writers body of work be listed as something other than a reference? Thanks!

Joyce Rowland (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joyce Rowland: Welcome to the Teahouse. Many of your sources are to publications written by Blacketter and interviews of him. These are not independent sources and are of no use in establishing notability. Others are local to Boise, and may be considered run-of-the-mill coverage. Sources reviewing his novel as opposed to writing about Blacketter as a novelist are indications that the book may have a better notability claim than the author. An author's own works should not be listed as references in a biography of that article. Instead, only their notable works should be listed, but not formatted as references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Very technical article

Hi,

I wrote the article in French called fr:Équation de la vitesse des courants ascendants dans un nuage convectif (Equation for the vertical speed in a convective cloud) that I would like to translate into English. This article is very technical and has demonstrations of the key formulae. The goal of this article is to formalise the effect of pressure deficits in cumulonimbus and the dangers associated with a flight under a thundercloud. I have a very long draft called User:Malosse/Cumulonimbus and aviation that is currently reviewed by some of my friends. This draft explains that updraughts under a thundercloud can be very smooth and can be a deadly trap to glider pilots. The explanation of this phenomenum is based on this article. What is the policy of the English wikipedia? Can demonstrations be included in articles and possibly be hidden (such as in the French article). I am sorry to ask these questions because I am a beginner in this English Wikipedia. Thank you very much. Malosse (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Malosse The "hidden" mathematical sections in the French article seem to me to be an acceptable way to format a long article. If other editors disagree with such a layout they can discuss it on the Talk page, so please go ahead and use that layout if you wish. If you would like more specialist opinions, I'm quite sure WP:WikiProject Aviation or WP:WikiProject Meteorology would be happy to assist you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What are the terms to publish a wikipedia page?

Hi

I have had heard from people that creating a new wikipedia page is not any one's cup of tea. And small business houses will get their wiki pages removed instatly.. Is this true? and what are the points we need to follow while applying for a wikipedia pageBotonduty (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Botonduty and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm seeing a few misconceptions in your query. Here on Wikipedia, we write encyclopedia articles—not business directory "pages". Editors do not "apply" for articles. They write them. If they clearly demonstrate that subject is notable, i.e. worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, write about the subject in a completely neutral way and provide multiple references from published sources which are entirely independent of the subject and which have covered it in significant depth, the article is generally kept. I suggest you start by reading very carefully Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) before even starting to create an article. If you are at all affiliated with or employed by the company in question, you need to read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and follow them scrupulously, including Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if that applies. Note that the latter is a policy with legal implications. Voceditenore (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Voceditenore , I am new to Wikipedia and a learner.. I Don't know much about the terms we use here but taking all the pointers so that i understand the process well and will make sure to be neutral in every way possible

Thanks for the helpBotonduty (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Botonduty. In answer to one of your original questions as to whether "small business houses will get their wiki pages removed instantly", it's a little slower than instantly. If an article is written as blatant advertisement, consists of unambiguous copyright violation, or provides no claim to notability, it will usually be nominated for speedy deletion by new page reviewers fairly soon after its appearance. However, a administrator will always check the nominator's description for accuracy before deleting the article. In cases where the article is reasonably neutral, not a copyright violation, and makes a claim to notability, but the sources do not adequately support the claim and no better sources can be found, editors can nominate it for a deletion discussion (AfD) which generally lasts a week. Sometimes the article is kept. Other times it's deleted. In both cases this happens after an administrator assesses the consensus of the discussion. If there is no clear consensus for either "delete" or "keep", the article is kept by default. This and this are examples of AfDs for businesses closed as "delete". This is an example of an AfD for a business closed as "keep". This page lists all the current business-related AfD discussions. If you do decide to write an article, I suggest you get it in as good a shape as possible before attempting to put it in article space. Write it in draft space first and be sure to read Wikipedia:Your first article for helpful tips. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Page creation

I wanted to create a page for he three brothers who (among many other things) host the popular podcast "My Brother, My Brother, and Me;" Justin, Travis, and Griffin McElroy. Would this fine individual be considered notable enough to have their own pages. For reference, the podcast itself does have its own page.

Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejmartin99 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Ejmartin99: and welcome to the TeaHouse. The answer depends not on us, but rather on what in-depth material has been published about these people in independent, relaible sources (see this article for more details). Only subjects which are "notable" (in Wikipedia's special meaning of the term) will be acceptable for articles. It does not matter whether they have their own web site, nor what they have said about themselves or their podcast - it matters what has been said about them by other reputable sources. So your first task is to put together a collection of good, independent references - these will determine whether it is worth proceeding. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the podcast article My Brother, My Brother and Me for convenience. Theroadislong (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit

Hello

Hi! It's me Teerta Prasad, I am 5 days older to Wikipedia. Bt I can not edit the page of Pooja Gandhi. Please let me know the reason. Please make it easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teertaprasad (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Please don't ask the same question in multiple places, as it wastes the time of volunteers answering questions which have already been answered elsewhere. You have an answer at the help desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Finding publishers

Hello,

I'm in the process of writing a draft on a book in my sandbox, although am having trouble finding the publisher of some of the articles I'm using as sources (per requirement for the cite web template). Thus, I am wondering if there is any good way to find out the publisher of a news / blog post.

Thanks in advance,
Jak525 (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jak525. News items generally don't have a publisher besides the name of the periodical itself (i.e. the published of the New York Times is the New York Times and doesn't need to be repeated). It's not a required field so feel free to just leave it out. Joe Roe (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How is my information unencyclopedic?

In the article Service High School, I added curriculum, performance, and demographics sections. The information is given mostly in tables and bullet points. A user removed my information, stating it was unencyclopedic. I don't really know how my information is unencyclopedic, and I thought it resembled an outline of high schools present in other Wikipedia pages. If you could answer my question, I would appreciate it. Thank you for reading. Funibon ✉ 08:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Funibon. The place to discuss article content is on the article talk page, Talk:Service High School. When you are reverted, discuss it on the talk page; do not just reassert your addition. —teb728 t c 08:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

But be aware, Funibon that just because another article has some content doesn't mean that this is acceptable for new articles. English Wikipedia has five million articles, many of which were written before some of today's standards were set, and would not be accepted today. Where there is an inconsistency, the answer is to improve the old article, not to allow new articles of low standard. --ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect info on COLONEL ABRAMS page,

Colonel Abrams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello my name is Wanda Abrams, Colonel Abrams (sister) The information on Wikipedia is incorrect. Birth date July 18, 1952 and date of death November 24, 2016. I update the site it but my information was removed. It is a little difficult moving around this site using the TALK. Someone needs to change the wrong information on the site if i cannot change it. What will be my next step to make this happen. Baybreezz (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Baybreezz: Welcome to the Teahouse, and please accept our condolences. The reason the changes were reverted is because all the press sources say he was 67 years old when he died, which is not consistent with the information you give above. If you can suggest a good, reliable source with the correct date then we can use that to update the article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Baybreezz. Content on Wikipedia should be verifiable. This is done by including sources for content that is changed or added. If you have a source for the birth date, it should be fairly simple to have the information corrected. TimothyJosephWood 17:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The birthdate that is currently there isn't sourced either. None of the sources say when he was born. -- GB fan 17:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have since found one from the South Bend Tribune. -- GB fan 17:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The BBC says 1949 [4] Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This BBC text is a Wikipedia mirror, click on "Show more" to see the disclaimer. GermanJoe (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I received the following response on my Talk page:

"Thanks you, I did a typo changing the year to 1951. Not sure how to go about the since that because he is my brother and we are in the process of getting all final paperwork (death Cerf, etc) Just who ever place this birth date and death date in line is disrespect to his family. Not sure what you need from me or us. Can you remove it for now leaving the birth dated & death dated open? My family is trying our best to discard what the media is showing or saying and staying focus moving forward. If you should request a number, or email address from me I am fine with that. Thank you Baybreezz (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)"

If the press reports of his birth date and age are wrong, how can we help to smooth things for the family? I have commented out the birth date from the article and referred to its Talk page. Any suggestions on how we can find a reliable source, to resolve this?--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Crave says May 25, 1949, but I found it actually searching for the date, so my search would have omitted differing dates. Searching for July 18, 1951 returns literally nothing but this page. TimothyJosephWood 18:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How to publish an biography.

Hello. This is my third time resubmitting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mohamad_Fakih . I have edited biography to be neutral and none adversing tone. I have also crossed reference to other businessman's wiki as well and I used the same format. I was wondering if someone would be able to help me figure out what is it I am missing for the article to be verify? Aliseca (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Aliseca. I'm afraid that what you are missing is that the article has not one single independent reference: every reference is either to Paramount's own website, or is an interview or press release. Wikipedia has essentially no interest at all in anything Fakih (or Paramount) says about himself, whether directly, or in an interview or press release. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with him or his company have published about him, in reliable sources. If you want to write an article about him, you need to start with the independent reliable sources, and write the article almost 100% based on what they say. If you cannot find such sources, then I'm afraid he is not currently notable (in Wikipedia's special sense), and no article about him will be accepted at the moment. --ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How much do youtubers get paid?(DominiqueM12 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC))

How much do youtubers get paid?DominiqueM12 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DominiqueM12. The Teahouse is a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia, but not the place to ask general knowledge questions. I suggesting heading over to Wikipedia:Reference desk if you can't find an answer to your question elsewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing "subtitles"

If you were to look up tungsten on Wikipedia it would come up with Tungsten A chemical compound

Tungsten isn't a chemical compound but an element, how do I change this? Or could it be changed if you need special permissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi WikipediaUserCalledChris, welcome to the Teahouse. I already replied at User talk:WikipediaUserCalledChris#Editing "subtitles?" after you removed your first post here. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)