Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 957

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 950

←

Archive 955

How do I know If my artist/musician biography is notable?

Hello! I just wanted to know before I get started on an article for my biography, how do I know if I am notable enough to be on Wikipedia?

My website is therealamilian.com and I have music in every store and profiles on every social site. I am very easy to find in Google search (TheRealAmilian or Amilian) and just wanted to see a biography about me as an artist on Wikipedia. I would even consider someone with your company to start the article. Please let me know what I should do and I highly appreciate any feedback you may have. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amilian6969 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amilian6969: First, a note about signatures; please follow comments on discussion pages (such as this one) with four tildes (these things --> ~). Second, this may not be what you would like to hear, but you, as the subject of the article you wish to author, you have an official conflict of interest. This isn't ideal, for many articles authored by their subjects turn out somewhat awfully; you have, however, taken the initiative to ask here, and that is excellent! The policy I linked above (on conflict of interest) is a great thing to read in order to not be blocked for conflict of interest, which unfortunately can happen sometimes.
Third, this may not be great news, but I'm not sure you meet the notability criteria for being a musician. Typically, you should have been talked about in-depth by independent sources- ie, not your Facebook. I didn't find any results from third-party sources for you on Google. Are there any off-line (ie, in newspapers or books)? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Amilian6969: I would add that you should review WP:AUTO, the policy on autobiographies. Writing an autobiography, while not forbidden, is highly discouraged. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. Essentially, to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources, sources not associated with you in any way, have chosen on their own to write about you. While technically possible, most people cannot do this. The best thing for you to do is probably nothing. If a independent editor takes note of your career and determines that you meet the notability criteria, they will eventually write about you. Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I need to remove a redirect

I just completed "Sarre Brooch". Currently, Sarre Brooch redirects to Quoit brooch. I don't believe I have permission to do this myself. I would appreciate it if someone could delete the redirect so I can create the new Sarre Brooch article?

thx MauraWen (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen. Click "Redirected from Sarre Brooch" at the top of Sarre Brooch to get to the redirect. If you want the page history of your draft to be moved to the article then you can replace the redirect with {{db-move|User:MauraWen/sandbox Sarre brooch|move draft to mainspace over redirect}}. You are the only contributor to User:MauraWen/sandbox Sarre brooch so you are also allowed to just copy the text to the redirect without giving attribution to the original page. With this solution the creator of the redirect will be registered as the creator of the page and the second edit will be your article. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Visual file markup query

I would much appreciate it if someone would look at Erie Canal#Parks and museums and tell me why the caption on the first picture doesn't display. I have looked at the help page for visual file markup and I can't figure it out. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe, You needed "|thumb". I've added it for you - I'll leave you to adjust the size etc... -- Begoon 02:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Create Page

Why I am not create a new page in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeecolors (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Zeecolors:, I see that you've created an account on 19th and you have made 13 edits, to create an article you need to have autoconfirmed rights, which you will get automatically on 23rd May. so after 23rd may you can create an article. though I would suggest going for Article for Creation or you can create Draft and then submit it for publishing in as Article in Mainspace. I hope this helps you. --Siddharth Talk To Me!! 06:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:RD1

How to request RD1 on particular edits maybe in row 5 edits, I saw someone requesting RD1 the article I edited (not created). --Siddharth Talk To Me!! 06:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Siddharth, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can request RD1 redactions ("Blatant violations of the copyright policy") with the {{Copyvio-revdel}} template. The easiest way to do this is with the User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel user script, which lets you choose the exact edits you want to see redacted. You can also request a redaction manually through the {{Copyvio-revdel}} template, as described in the copyright violations policy. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 07:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, @Newslinger: thank you for a detailed introduction to RD1 I appreciate it <3, now I'm trying it when I see something copyrighted is being contributed. --Siddharth Talk To Me!! 07:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem, Siddharth! You might also be interested in Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which is a tool that scans articles for copyright violations. There's a way to get to Earwig in one click from any article: just install the MoreMenu gadget by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, scroll down to the "Appearance" section, check the box for "MoreMenu", and click "Save" at the bottom of the page. You can then access Earwig from any article by going to Page → Tools... → Copyright vio detector through the menu at the top of the article page. — Newslinger talk 07:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, @Newslinger: I know about the Earwig's CopyVio but I used to do it via visiting direct link, thanks for that Direct gadget information :)) --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 07:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Refrencing question for Draft Sinfonia Latina

Hello I have digital copies of original news articles covering a music concert. From 1976 The publication no longer exists. However I sourced these from the Library of Congress in the USA and the national library of Barranquilla Colombia. My question is how can I use these for reference on the Draft Sinfonia Latina article I've been working on? Any and all input is greatly appreciated-Deanna Coakley 23:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you have the publication details, just use something like {{cite news}}. That the publication no longer exists is not really important, nor does the news article need to be available online. Give as much information as you can that would help a reader source the news article themself, should they wish to. From Wikipedia:Citing sources:"So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the material using an online service like Google Books; using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon; on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering); through your library; via online paid databases of scanned publications, such as JSTOR; using reading machines; or any other method.". See also Wikipedia:Offline sources, which again suggests the use of {{cite news}}, adding "Use of the |quote= parameter within those citation templates provides some context for the reference. This is especially important when using the off-line source to support a fact that might be controversial or is likely to be challenged." -- Begoon 08:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

CSD A2

Does A2 applies to Drafts? CptViraj (Talk) 17:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@CptViraj: I wouldn't think so- it seems plausible that one could write a draft not in English to get the ideas down, then go back and translate it for article space. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Simply not being in English is not sufficient for WP:A2 anyway, even for an article. A2 is only for "articles not written in English that have essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project" - so it must exist in essentially the same form on another language Wikipedia to be eligible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane and Boing! said Zebedee: Gotcha! Thanks - CptViraj (Talk) 12:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Happy to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

IBAN

What is 'IBAN'? Please explain in simple. Thanks! CptViraj (Talk) 11:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

See WP:IBAN - basically, it's a prohibition on users from interacting with each other, or (in the unusual case of a one-way IBAN), from a particular user from interacting with another user. It's a way of trying to stop disruption between users who have a history of not getting along well. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to specify context. In banking terms see IBAN. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@CptViraj: IBAN is also an International Bank Account Number. --CiaPan (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan and Martin of Sheffield: Thanks 😃 - CptViraj (Talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Who will watch the watchers?

I'd like to voice a strong concern: it seems that an ensconced group of self-described skeptics (I would describe them as vandals) have established control over substantial areas of Wikipedia content pertaining to non-mainstream medical practice. Their editorial policies (using the term loosely) have led to significant censorship of content that I wish to see. They have abandoned any pretense of Neutral POV, asserting instead that because their views are right and proper that they have the right to delete any presentations of alternative viewpoints and the responsibility to attack people who argue for those viewpoints as quacks, charlatans, frauds, pseudo-scientists, and "fringe". While I would definitely not rush to the defense of every topic listed under Category:Alternative medicine, there are more than a few viewpoints and topics there that I believe should be accorded some degree of respect. And who am I? Some random dude? Well... no, not entirely. My formal education (from real, fully accredited institutions) includes 2 undergraduate degrees (one in Cell Biology, Molecular Biology, and Genetics) and a Medical Doctorate. I have completed postgraduate training in Internal Medicine and am board-certified in that specialty. While I certainly don't claim to have "average" or entirely mainstream views for a physician, my board scores (>95th percentile on the MCAT and 99th percentile on the USMLE Step 1) might suggest that I'm qualified to think and evaluate information for myself.

What am I asking for? Help. Help in removing special editorial privileges from overly dismissive "skeptics" who don't necessarily know what they're talking about but who are extremely quick to delete or criticize content that questions their authority. What can be done?

Ken Stone, MD Slowgenius (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not what the teahouse is for. You can try WP:RSN. MarnetteD|Talk 04:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slowgenius: or engage on the article talk page, and if you can’t make your case because of entrenched opposition, try WP:RFC to bring in some neutral editors. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Slowgenius, and welcome to the Teahouse! Please take some time to read through our guide for expert editors, which explains that our articles are based on reliable sources and not original opinions. If you have a content dispute, the best way to resolve it is usually through a request for comment, as TimTempleton mentioned. Nobody owns an article to themselves, but articles must meet all of our core content policies, which are strictly enforced. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 07:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) may be relevant here. Altmed is one of the more difficult areas on WP, and editing it without a good understanding of WP:s policies and guidelines will probably not accomplish much. To quote Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's policies around this kind of thing are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. This does of course not mean that probably all articles on WP can be improved. Bring your best sources and suggest specific edits at talkpages (or be WP:BOLD), that may work, depending. Start small. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

To put it bluntly: Wikipedia covers every scientific topic (including medicine) from the point of view of mainstream science (see WP:RS). I would assume, based on that thread from five years ago, that you disagree. Your credentials are irrelevant: even in a content dispute, we get by what reliable sources say and not by what expert editors can deduce, but here, it is a policy dispute rather than a content one. If you want to get the policy changed, feel free to open a thread at WP:MEDRS or such, but your chances of succeeding are close to zero.

Notice that relying on scientific mainstream means (for instance) that if Wikipedia had existed in 1400, it would have said the Sun revolves around the Earth (arguably that is an anachronistic example since "science" as we know it is a 17th-18th century construct). That is by design: mainstream science is sometimes wrong, but there is no other source that is less wrong ("the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses."). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Slowgenius: What would help here is if you will identify specific articles that in your opinion are being 'controlled' by a cabal of editors. And mention whether you have raised the question of bias on the Talk pages of these articles. It appears that you joined signed on as a Wikipedia editor in 2008 but have done fewer than 30 edits since then. David notMD (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything like a 'Not to be confused with...' template for articles?

Hi - I got a bit confused when looking at Maria of Enghien and Mary of Enghien, who have nearly identical names, and who were both born in the 1360s - at first, I thought it was two articles about the same person. Is here any sort of 'Not to be confused with...' template, that could be put at the top of the page, in case someone trying to research one of them ended up at the wrong page? CheersGirthSummit _(blether) 12:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: See {{Distinguish}}. :) CiaPan (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
There are also various redirects (see a LIST) with {{Not to be confused with}} and {{Did you mean}} among them. --CiaPan (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Lovely - that'll do nicely! Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits disppear

I made edits to the Christopher Wood(Biology) page. However the page is back with the original format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadellsr (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nadellsr. The reason it was taken off is as follows: Your addition to Christopher Wood (biologist) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Material is copied from: https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~woodcm/Woodblog/wood-bio/ Wikipelli Talk 22:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC) --XTMontana (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

my second article

Hey, I have recently created my second article on Wikipedia can someone review it and update class in WikiProject on its talk page? or if the article is notable or not? I'm sure it's notable enough because I have found the reference for every information I had on the subject and I have cited it. all are reliable and Passes WP:RS so here is the article Manish Goswami --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 18:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Confused whether the source is acceptable to refer the information

Hello,

I cam across an article on dailymail.co.uk discussing about the issues of limerence and a solution to that. A guy researched on this topic and provided some valuable information. So, can I update the Wikipedia page with the recent research made by him by supporting it with online references like: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6383473/Married-father-two-earns-thousands-dollars-ex-coach.html or any research journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Dharani (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain what article you want to add to, and what you want to say that you would support with this ref? We would probably want other references to support it as well, the Daily Mail isn't regarded as a reliable source for most things. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ali Dharani. Please read WP:DAILYMAIL. The consensus is that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hi - I recently created a page for the Comedian Sarge. I uploaded his bio which I wrote. You did see it on his website because I wrote it for him and had him post on his website. You have my permission to use this bio here. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me. Thanks Wendy WendyzPR (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You should follow instructions on WP:DONATETEXT. Ruslik_Zero 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

WendyzPR If you are his PR person, you must read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Good faith misunderstandings

Hi Teahouse.

I've had a rough week starting out. There are a lot of WP policies... but they all seem to be flexible... so I have received conflicting advice about edits on a particular page, and ongoing discussions about the issue have resulted in people insulting my competency when I'm really only trying to clarify things.

I am confused, stressed, and sad. I was enjoying the process of editing until this came up. Now it just feels like I can't question anything without being accused of bad faith. I have already decided to take an editing break, but I'm here to ask: could someone out there who is incredibly patient and experienced talk things over with me (somewhere more private than here)? Someone who can operate on the assumption that I am truly trying to understand this, and I'm not trying to be disruptive?)

Maybe someone can point me in the right direction.

Thanks so much. --Anomalapropos (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Anomalapropos, I will come to your talk page. --valereee (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Urgent help please

Can anybody help me with reference "7" in article George Beauchamp (RMS Titanic)?. Thanks a lot. --LLcentury (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It's been kindly solved by another Wikipedian. Sorry for the rush. --LLcentury (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Draft submission from a user page

Can anyone help me out. I have a draft article in a user page (not in the sandbox) and I wanst to submit it. I have read the instructions on the help page, but they are no help.TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Never mind. I did something right. I don't know what but the article was picked up. TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi TheDoDahMan I have moved it to draftspace and reviewed it. Please see the review text for advice on how to improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thanks.TheDoDahMan (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

PAGE Deletion

Hello,

My name is John Allen Mollenhauer I have been working with a company to help us put a page on Wikipedia around the idea called "Performance Lifestyle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Lifestyle

We got this message: 15:06, 18 May 2019, MER-C (Talk/Contribs) Deleted Page Performance Lifestyle G5: Creation by Blocked or Banned user in violation of block or ban.

This is an idea I and my team have been working on developing for nearly 20 years and an emerging marketplace term/sector/ big idea. We worked carefully with what we hope was/is a reputable company to make sure we followed all Wikipedia guidelines and the page was approved even though it was changed from our original content. We thought "that where we needed to start" Now the page has been deleted.

Any chance you can please advise on what has happened? Was the company we worked with blocked or banned?

Note: We are registered users, learning how to use Wikipedia the best we can, and supporters.

Warm Regards, JohnAllenJAM (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)John Allen Mollenhauer

Hello, JohnAllenJAM. It sounds as if you have the (unfortunately very common) misconception that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with telling the world about you, your big idea (or your company, your band, your non-profit, etc). It does not. If at some point Wikipedia has an article about one of these, it will not be your article, you will have no control whatever over its contents, and it should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish about the subject.

This specific deletion was not on any grounds to do with the content of the article, but because it had been created by a user who has been blocked or banned: I can't tell which user, or what they were blocked or banned for; but if you were "working with a company", my guess would be that that company had been breaking Wikipedia's policies in some way. Since promotion of any kind is forbidden in Wikipedia, many companies who offer their services for creating Wikipedia articles are either ignorantly or wilfully editing in a way that is dubious - and any company that represents to you that they can create a page to your liking is lying. (There are some companies who do offer the service in a responsible way, making the necessary disclosures; but they cannot guarantee that the page will be kept as their customer wants). For more information on the deletion, you will need to contact the admin who deleted it, MER-C.

As for the content: please read about notability and verifiability. If you and your associates have developed the idea of "Performance lifestyle", then nothing said or published by you and your associates can contribute to its notability (in Wikipedia's sense), and very little that you and your associates have said or published should go into an article about it. We require that most of the article be based on reliable published material by people who have no connection with you. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The company is banned for hard-core, highly abusive spamming and covert advertising. I explicitly refuse this request for undeletion. MER-C 19:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your insights ColineFine and MER-C. This feedback is both important and appreciated. This was not set up as a promotion, at least as we saw it.

Whatever had been created by the Wikipedia "Expert" you are saying had been banned or blocked, had been edited by Wikipedia. Even after following guidelines to the best our awareness, it had been edited, substantially by apparently skilled Wikipedia admins prior to being published, so nothing led me to believe we were dealing with an unscrupulous company.

It looks like a Wikipedia "company" whom we spent 3 months with editing this, with a keen eye on what they were telling us were Wikipedia guidelines, had a history that led to being banned or blocked. We knew nothing about this.

I think Performance Lifestyle should be on Wikipedia, but it appears that because I have an interest in the idea, it can't be me who publishes it? Is that my take away? So, someone completely uninvolved with the idea would need to publish it? How then would they even know what Performance Lifestyle is if they don't have any experience in this emerging space or with this concept?

There are many pages for specific people, IE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Fuhrman, and specific concept or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Port and then ideas like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient_density. Performance Lifestyle is like "nutrient density," I have been developing the idea, for years, along with many others who are shaping the space. I provided links to the origin, other authors, etc. If we have gone about this wrong way, then we will accept that as learning and can't dispute your point.

What do you see as a course of action from here, to make this good?

Thank you for your feedback. John Allen Mollenhauer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAllenJAM (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

JohnAllenJAM, when you say that the article "had been edited by Wikipedia", do you mean by Wikipedia editors not working for the company you paid? Wikipedia is writing and maintained by volunteer editors, not a paid staff. When you say "it had been edited, substantially by apparently skilled Wikipedia admins prior to being published", what are you basing that on? Did the company claim to be employing people who are Wikipedia administrators? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry, yes. I think I wish I had read this article before starting this whole process. https://www.legalmorning.com/rules-paying-someone-to-write-a-wikipedia-article/ I do mean Wikipedia editors. The company we were working with, whom we did pay (apparently that's not the way and now I know) because they were there to guide us, did submit original text, but that text was then edited by Wikipedia. Wikipedia Editors changed it dramatically.

Nothing in there was spammy, or rubbish. I tried to represent the space, but our fee-based guides kept cutting it down. So after we wrote up a description of Performance Lifestyle and provided links, (some of which the company edited out including language and links that referenced our own works as well, as apparently, we had bumped up against some Wikiboundares; we accepted that as we learned. So yes, the final article, was far different. In other words, no editors that were being paid by the company. These were Wikipedia Editors.

The newly edited page, linked into established Wikipedia pages on several fronts and was far from the original works. I'm certain there is no way that was done by the company we hired to guide us, and they stated that as such when I brought up the fact that Wikipedia Editors made changes. I was fine with that and liked the integration/influence that Wikipedia admins or editors had on the idea.

From that point, I was in email communication with our professional guides, only to ask how we could contribute to the page since there is so much about the concept and the emerging field of Performance Lifestyle that did not make it in the initial page. I do want to be a contributor to this page, among others. I would have started it myself If had had the Wikipedia confidence at that time. But hey, maybe this experience will change that as I am very much dialed in.

This page is very important.

I hope that answers your question. Thanks for weighing in.

I'm an administrator, JohnAllenJAM, so I can see the history of the deleted article. From that, I can tell you that only one editor made substantive edits to the content, and that was the now-blocked editor who created it. I think you might have been misled about other Wikipedia editors having worked on it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, JohnAllenJAM. I'm sorry you've had this experience. Unfortunately, something like this happens to most people who come here to promote (read: "tell the world about") something, rather than to participate in this wonderful project to create an encyclopaedia. The fact that you say "this page is very important" is an indication that that is your purpose: all Wikipedia articles are important. Why should your view prevail?

In attempting to write about your ideas, you would have a conflict of interest: this makes the already difficult task of writing a new article even harder for you; but though you are discouraged, you are not forbidden from trying. But what can make it impossible to write an acceptable article about the subject whoever writes it is if the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Since any article should be almost entirely based on reliably published material independent of anybody connected with the subject, it follows that if everything published about it is from you and your associates, then it is not yet notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article will be accepted whoever writes it, and whatever they put in it.

If you do want to have a go at writing the article, please read your first article. But if you are truly interested in helping us improve Wikipedia, you will have a more rewarding experience, and probably add more value to Wikipedia, by working on articles that you do not have so much personally invested in. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi JohnAllenJAM. Wikipedia has articles about topics that are notable in a special sense, already well-known as shown by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. The references that can been seen in in Google's cache of the deleted page do not seem to satisfy this requirement:

"Performance Lifestyle - Live Like a Pro". studentathlete2day.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
"Getting fit not just for the Holidays - but for life". vegsource.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
Airton, Dawn (10 November 2017). "Ten Top Tips to becoming a Performance Lifestyle Advisor". eis2win.co.uk. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
O'Laughlin, Red (11 December 2016). "Review of John Allen Mollenhauer's 7-Day Water Only Diet". redolaughlin.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
"Performance Lifestyle". eis2win.co.uk. 11 December 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
"Entertaining program prompts attendees to break free from "energy debt" and recharge". hbanet.org. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
"Move Over Diet And Exercise It's Time For Regeneration". regenuscenter.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
Schatell, Jackie (19 November 2010). "Former Livingston Football Captain, and Author, John-Allen Mollenhauer, to Hold Book Signing at Sams". patch.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
"John Allen Mollenhauer: How To End Performance Anxiety-Ep.96". popenskyfitness.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
"The Rise of a New Lifestyle Part 2". performancelifestyle.com. Retrieved 20 March 2019.

Significant means more than mentions or a link to your website. Independent means not written by you, not an interview with you, not a republishing of a press release. Have people not connected with you written about Performance Lifestyle? StarryGrandma (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, StarryGrandma, and ColinFine, you are all clearly pro's and I, unfortunately, the greenhorn who meant well in every way, is coming up short here. I appreciate the ideals of who can write an article, but truth is, I am uncertain there will be an article on this any time soon as it takes a great deal of knowledge and awareness to pick up on this space this early in the game. I thought I was doing a good thing. That said, there are many people outside of me, that have written about performance lifestyle, many of those links which I originally submitted were cut out by our paid editor. I was genuinely representing the space, and if I could do that all over would do a much better job at it. I don't care if I'm in it at all, but I am involved in the space and have added many developments to the Performance Lifestyle space. I mean a healthy lifestyle has a page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_lifestyle so why not a performance lifestyle? If that means we take everything related to me off of it, so be it. Unless someone else ads us in, and then perhaps one of you publish it, who are now aware of it, then who will do it? If not me, who? JohnAllenJAM (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What I mean to say, is this: Can we start again and fully represent the space? I CAN, in fact, represent the space. I am committed to space, I don't need it linking to me. I just want it out there in a good genuine way. Any thoughts on that? JohnAllenJAM (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I am committed to Wikipedia, and it's ideals. That's why I am a supporter and link to it and learn from it often. The good thing about this experience is that it dialed me into Wikipedia from an operations point of view and into how the community works. I want this to be a great source of wisdom and not be compromised. I approached this wrong indeed. Just looking to see what can happen from here. JohnAllenJAM (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot see how Performance Lifestyle gets to be an article, as it does not meet the Wikipedia criteria of notability, i.e., the ability to reference sources not written by people affiliated with the company. You, trying to "represent the space" have a basic conflict of interest. Unlike Healthy lifestyle (which, by the way, redirects to Self-care, a weak article) there does not appear to be any consensus on what a 'performance lifestyle' is, outside your NJ-based business. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

JohnAllenJAM, could I ask you to forward any e-mails you have from the company to info-orangemoody@wikipedia.org? That address was set up to help with the investigation of paid editing scams and any information you have about the editors who promised to create an article for you would be gratefully received. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for contributing to this post thus far JohnAllenJAM (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, yes, I can get you those emails. JohnAllenJAM (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

David notMD, there is no consensus on what a healthy lifestyle is either, as it's most "often associated with... but not defined specifically, and almost anything can pass for it;" actually most definitions are weak in the lifestyle area because they are not complete concepts, fully illuminated or mired down in interests. Who published the Healthy Lifestyle article? Even in Pages referenced above like "Nutrient Density", there is extreme disagreement on what makes a nutrient dense food, "nutrient dense," as I know first hand there are factions and they all war with each other. But to your point, there are notable references. I can provide those, and my company happens to be just one of them.

There are several people publishing on Performance Lifestyle (PL) now, we happen to be the leaders in it and we can fully define it and have it illustrated. It cost us over two decades and a lot of money to do it, but I could upload that graphic as part of our contribution to the idea which does illuminate how to live a healthy lifestyle successfully as it's contextually correct. Most of that content was cut from our work with the consultant who we simply hired to help us understand.

I agree an article on Performance Lifestyle must have notable references not published by our company?

I've always looked at Wikipedia as a progressive platform for established, and up and coming ideas. If we were willing idealists about how this should be published; I would like to find a way to do it. If that means someone else does the research and submits it great. But who's going to do that, if they don't even know the concept exists yet, or is in some way involved in the space; someone has to be first. I'm on the same page, and as a community member, I"m exploring how this can get done right, and not leave this open-ended with no solution. JohnAllenJAM (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, JohnAllenJAM, that Wikipedia does not publish new, up-and-coming ideas. Wikipedia articles are based on existing publications that are independent of the subject. No original research, and no new ideas that have not yet been discussed by others. I understand that this is a bit frustrating, but it is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. When you ask who would be able to write about this concept, since only those sho are involved in it know about it, you are pretty much confirming the fact that the concept lacks [[WP::N|notability]] according to Wikipedia's definition. --bonadea contributions talk 18:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed Bonadea, it is frustrating, as I don't know how anyone can write a credible article who has no knowledge about the subject or who are not dialed in to notice this space. I've spent nearly my entire adult working life understanding this subject and the concept of lifestyle and thought it was a significant contribution to have it published on Wikipedia; especially, when I see all kinds of people who have profiles on Wikipedia, individual and company (about them and what they do) such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APM_Automation_Solutions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roto_North_America, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rosellini, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMILUX_Heinrich_Strunz_Group for example. These must have all been paid for pages on Wikipedia.com. Are you saying a random third party just thought Roto North America was a good company to write about because the references were so significant? I ask that question with complete genuineness.

What I meant by "up and coming" ideas is that Healthy Lifestyle is by far not a completely understood idea for most people, it has just references. Why is it there, and who published it? Probably some person with some knowledge about what a healthy lifestyle is to start. no? I can make a much better case for Performance Lifestyle because it's defined in the context of human performance and that's cohesive. So who writes about what a Performance Lifestyle is, and brings together the notable references (which exist, beyond our alone), other than someone who's knowledgeable about the subject? Those references probably would include at least one reference to our own development (not for promotional purposes, but just because we are notable in this effort. I do hear you, but by your definition, there won't be an article on Performance Lifestyle for a long time to come, or until someone decides to notice all the emerging references in the space and decides to publish it. Correct?

Thank you in advance for answering my questions, as this keeps going back to Wikipedia ideals, and these questions are not being addressed. I would really like to know.

We had planned to originate the article because we are capable of producing the type of article with references that Wikipedia requires. I acknowledge that all these references to us were not the way this needs to be. But we had planned to have this page updated, further referenced and developing. It was not going to stay like that and it was going to cite ALL notable references on the subject. As stated there were more originally that just got cut by our paid editor.

It's still possible to do this right. How does it happen is all I'm asking. Other people know about Performance Lifestyle (PL), but while we are way out in front defining this, if a healthy lifestyle is still not fully understood by a general article writer, no doubt PL will not get published for a long time, until it hits mainstream understanding, or at least closer to it. So someone with an interest could publish an article a lot sooner. JohnAllenJAM (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

JAM - Wikipedia does have a mechanism to suggest articles that should be written, but honestly, it does not function well at all. If your company is "...way out in front defining this [Performance Lifestyle]" then people outside the company have not written about the concept, and it is too soon for the article. So your conclusion - PL will not get published for a long time - is likely true. David notMD (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Jam - In your sandbox or in draft, you can attempt to create an article "Performance lifestyle." Will need to declare a conflict-of-interest on your home page. Cannot use as reference anything from Performance Lifestyle (your company, including anything written by company website listed advisory panel). Submit to Articles for Creation. My guess is your effort will be declined based on insufficient referencing. Keep in mind that if such an article is ever accepted, it would be open to editing by all editors. David notMD (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

How to nominate someone for an article?

My deceased father is quite notable in his field for his research and contributions to Air Crew Coordination and Aviation human factors. He held a doctorate in experimental psychology, worked with the US Army and Navy, travelled the world as a guest speaker, was a teacher and author of a textbook still used at Embry-Riddle today. I wonder if he would meet the requirements to have an article written about him and how is this done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stattales (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stattales: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like your father had an impressive career, I am sorry for your loss. Potential article subjects would merit a Wikipedia article if they are extensively written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. You can request that others write such an article at Requested Articles, though there is a large backlog there. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, @Stattales: your father sure sounds like a useful fellow, but there are rather strict rules (many people think too strict and weird) on subjects of articles. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) can give you some idea. Probably better not to try, but rather mention him in articles on fields in which he made important contributions. Go easy; if someone undoes your work, discuss it in the article's talk page. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stattales, you can get more topic-specific advice and assistance from WikiProject Aviation, simply post on the project's Talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Stattales, a quick Google search can help you assess notability. You should be able to determine if he has sufficient coverage from reliable sources. I sometimes write pages from the list of Requested Articles and I usually choose items there that can be easily sourced. It is frustrating for a writer to create a page that will only be deleted or attract controversy due to lack of- or contentious sources. Also, it will be useful to those interested in helping if you have stated the name of your father. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Inserting an article section into an existing article

I have edited an update consisting of several sections that I need to insert into an existing article. Will the references resolve themselves automagically or do I need to do certain things before I just do a copy/pasta? Thanks in advance.TheDoDahMan (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi TheDoDahMan. The references should just work once they are copied in. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. I will proceed.TheDoDahMan (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Name Changes

How can i change my user name ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Mclemont (talk • contribs) 02:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, to change your username globally you need a confirmed email address, if you have the confirmed email address you can simply submit your request here Request Username Change let me know if this works --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 07:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia

We don't have to pay anything as such to access Google from a web browser , yet google has offices around the world and thousands of paid employees .How ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.16.212 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for the question but this is not quora :p, anyways I'll answer your question! you said you're not paying to access google from browser right? well you're paying to search on Google from the browser because the Internet is not free, and Google provides Advertising brands, business or an Individual can buy ads from google to show them on google home page and video ads in YouTube videos, that's where Google is earning from, Google is a Multinational company, there are a lot of ways google is making money and thats why they can afford office :D hope this answered your question at somewhere. cheers <3 --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 07:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This page is for asking questions about how to edit articles on Wikipedia, not for speuclating about corporate finance. You can find some information on that at Google#Finance.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The place for questions like this is the Wikipedia:Reference desk. But see Google#Products_and_services. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This question would have been more relevant to the Teahouse had it asked how Wikipedia manages to offer free encyclopaedic information in multiple languages to the whole world, without selling any advertising space to third parties. The answer would then have been that we rely entirely on volunteers to collate the content, and purely on donations from people like you (see how to DONATE HERE) to maintain the infrastructure and outreach services. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed info

I added some correct information on the Red Velvet Wikipedia(group) page, though it later got removed for no reason. I’m wondering, what did I do wrong? Is there something that needs to be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LingLingRocket (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A few technical points:

Please sign all edits in talk space by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your contribution.
Your user page is a bit extravagant in its claims, and you should not put your email address there. Every spam merchant, troll and vandal in the world can read it.
Your user page implies you are also editing as "Fasse King The Weeb". I can't see that username, perhaps you'd clarify if this is a real world or Wiki pseudonym?

Moving on to Red Velvet (group). I can't see any record of you having edited there in the past. It would have been helpful if you explained what "some correct information" was, then other editors stand a chance of understanding your complaint. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

LingLing added * RBB - The 5th Mini Album (2018) without signing in, so appeared as a contribution by an IP. The right place to ask is on the Talk page of the article. And yes, remove your email address from your User page. David notMD (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @LingLingRocket: If, as I suspect, you were editing Red Velvet (group) whilst not logged in, and made this edit in an attempt to remove R&B from the list of genres, then you did it rather carelessly. As well as failing to leave an 'edit summary to explain why you/The IP editor believed it was OK to change the genre list, that edit accidentally destroyed the page structure, and ruined its appearance. Had it not been spotted and reverted 45 minutes later, it would have made the page look like this. In future, whether or not you are logged in, please take care 'Preview' your edit, using the button next to the 'Publish changes' button. Or at the very least, go back and check that your edit looks OK. We get a lot of minor vandalism done by IP editors, and the way to avoid being accused of being one of them is to provide an edit summary and to check your edit either before, or immediately after, it is published. If you need to self-revert, just go to the View History tab, find your edit, and click the 'Undo' link. I would agree with Martin of Sheffield that publishing your email address is a bad idea and that the claim on your userpage that "LingLingRocket is the greatest user of Wikipedia to ever live. He has years of experience helping to make Wikipedia the great website it is today." is just a little bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: @Nick Moyes: oh, sorry I really didn’t think it through before editing, and made some bad changes. Though, what is said about me attempting to remove R&B from the list of genres on this edit is strange, since I didn’t want to do that. Well, I’m new to this so hopefully this won’t happen again.

About editing

Please check the Stowaways on the Ark and The Magic Voyage articles I've edited. In their "home video" section, I've put releases for a lot of territories. Is whatever I've put there necessary, or I need to only wirte about the better-known ones (UK, France etc.)???
Can I put the conductor's name on "artist" on the album infobox and on "music by" on the film infobox?
If a film spawns a video game, and there's not much info about it, can we put its contents (infobox, reception etc.) on the article for the film, instead of making a new page?

NickBlamp (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Problem with data sort value

Hi,

I am currently half way through the process of adding data-sort-values to List of Formula One polesitters#By driver however I have come across a problem with the last pole entry for Kimi Räikkönen. Currently when you sort by last pole it puts him at the bottom whereas he should be second bottom (I haven't added sort values for Bottas or Leclerc yet). I've had a look and a play with the code but can't work it out it. Any help would be appriecated, thanks in advance, SSSB (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's treating "2018-14" as a "date" which it can't understand. You could try sort-data values like "201814" and "201901" which might work better - the numbers will still be in the right sequence. No promises, but it's the first thing that crossed my mind. -- Begoon 11:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon:, Thanks, it worked. Although I don't understand why it would only consider that one a date (if that what it did) because there were ones were they were xxxx-15 and higher which worked fine. Maybe this is a problem which should be flagged somewhere (not sure where this should be done though) SSSB (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look at Help:Table#Sortable tables, you can use things like:

! scope="col" | Alphabetic
! scope="col" | Numeric
! scope="col" | Date
! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Unsortable

to control the sorting method(s). That might help. -- Begoon 11:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@SSSB: The sorting apparently interpreted 2018-14 as a date 2 months after 2018-12, so it became 2019-02. The sort keys are race numbers and not dates (except the year part) so the proper solution is to write data-sort-type="text" in the column heading per Help:Sorting#Forcing a column to have a particular data type.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

New name change moved to draft

Good day my wikipedia name was Jordan Mclemont however i decided to change it to my Artist name Mento ,i would like to move Mento Dah Hermit from drafts to public page A.S.A.P Its a bit complicated to do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Mclemont (talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jordan Mclemont: welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like you are talking about two different things here, and mixing them up a little. Your user name is Jordan Mclemont, and if you want to change that you need to go to the page Wikipedia:Changing username and read the instructions there. User names are different from Wikipedia article names; you created a draft page at Draft:Mento Dah Hermit and then you moved it to User:Mento Dah Hermit which is a user page intended for information about that user's activities at Wikipedia and maybe some brief personal info. Since there is no such registered user, that page was removed. If you change your user name to "Mento Dah Hermit" you can create a new user page there, but note that you can't use your Wikipedia user page to promote yourself as an artist - it is not a "profile page" like those you can create at social networking sites. Please also note that you should not create a Wikipedia article about yourself, since you have a conflict of interest, and autobiographies are strongly discouraged (much more information about these things on the linked pages). Hope this makes sense. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor—without discussion—merged another article into a sub-section I edit, then reverted my edit of merged text

The section title pretty much says it all; I don't think I should name the article here. I'm pretty sure that totally eliminating the article that was merged in, without any prior discussion on the merged-in article's Talk page (which still exists) is a violation of some Wikipedia rule.

My continuing problem is that the merged-in article was IMHO a mess, containing obsolete statements buttressed by a few 2011 references that turn out to be from authors who were obviously marketing software products that no longer exist. Yet the other editor insists on keeping the text basically as merged-in; he/she just reverted 5 hours of work I did revising that sub-section.

How do I go about complaining about this to someone who can restrain and/or punish the other editor? I don't want to get into a reversion war; I just want the sub-section to remain in the valid shape I left it. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You should start by discussing the merge with the merging editor on their talk page, explaining why you think it was a poor idea. Maproom (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

From Draft to Main space before review

Hello everyone!

I recently submitted my draft page for a review. I rewrote the page with the help of one of admins/editors and submitted for a review almost a month ago.

Is it against the rules to put it into the main page before a review? I wouldn't do that if I weren't already advised on the article by another knowledgable Wiki editor, but since I was and I rewrote/removed all the parts that might not pass on a review, I think I might do this.

That's my first article and I want to continue with writing other articles but I'm a bit afraid I'll do it in vain. So, it would be great to move this thing forward. Of course, if I'm allowed to do so! I don't want to risk being banned or unable to contribute further to Wikipedia.

Please advice me on this! Thank you! Supraphonic (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Worst that could happen is that it appears on main space and is nominated for deletion. While being considered for deletion, you would have time to fix what was described as deeply flawed. However, given this is your first article, the general advice is to be patient. The draft Draft:Anita Andreis will be reviewed, and either approved, or declined, with reasons given. If the latter, you can then address the shortfalls and resubmit. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"thank" from user Requita8684, unable to find?

I got a "thanked you" in my "Notices" from "Requita8684", but they don't appear ~~to be a User that I've found~~ ... ? X1\ (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, X1\. That user does exist (see Special:Log/Requita8684), but doesn't have a user page and has never made an edit, which is perhaps why you are struggling to find them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @X1\: The user Requita8684 actually thanked you – see the log.
But what do you mean by „a User that I've found“...? --CiaPan (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Ok. Thank you Cordless Larry and CiaPan. X1\ (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Created their Talk page and added a Template:WelcomeMenu. X1\ (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Community portal

How do I treat a wiki page as if it is a talk page?--Blue7850 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blue7850, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know what you mean by treat as if it is a talk page. Please say what you specifically want. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

User:PrimeHunter- I want an article on my wiki to have the topic buttons.--Blue7850 (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Blue7850: if you mean an article on a Wiki other than Wikipedia, this is really not the place to ask. If it's a Wiki that uses the MediaWiki software, then try mw:Help. Otherwise you'll need to ask at that Wiki.

If you mean something within Wikipedia, then you'll have to be clearer what you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Blue7850: "the topic buttons" is still vague. Are you referring to talk pages looking like mw:Project:Support desk? It uses mw:Extension:StructuredDiscussions (previously called Flow). I haven't tried configuring it but mw:Extension:StructuredDiscussions#Enabling or disabling StructuredDiscussions says: "To enable it on a single page, use Special:EnableStructuredDiscussions. This requires the flow-create-board right". StructuredDiscussions is not installed at the English Wikipedia so Special:EnableStructuredDiscussions is not recognized here. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

hello I need help

i love one artist and he has no Wikipedia page so as a fan i want to make his Wikipedia. How can i make it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.183.238 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Start with taking the time to read Wikipedia:Notability (music). If you conclude "Yep, I have those sources, no problem", continue with Wikipedia:Your first article. If not, edit something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)