Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Read the newest questions
Skip to bottom

Most recent archives
1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243

Had article rejected

I have an article rejected Draft:Mareeg Mediaeven though it has has lot of sources from web that I have cited I have cited. The reason they are saying it needs to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However all similar site are included in wikipedia with less references? Is acceptance depend on the editors.Why firt rejection seems fair as it only asked to Fix reference errors. can some one shed a light on this to tell me the next step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warsamedhuje (talk • contribs) 2018-12-14T00:45:56 (UTC)

Do a web search for "mareeg mediaeven" and you will see why your article was rejected. Outofmario (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Warsamedhuje: What Outofmario is trying to say is a web search for the exact phrase "Mareeg Mediaeven" doesn't create any results. When the source for your question is viewed it becomes clear that you ment "Mareeg Media", but because of a missing space it displace as if the next word was part of the link. At Draft:Mareeg Media a notice appears saying that RHaworth deleted the page for being "unambigous advertising or promotion", I can't see the article myself so I can't make a judgement but it seems that RHaworth thought that your draft was not meant to be informative, but instead entirely as a vechile of advertising or promotion. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 04:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho series article

I have wrote an article on my sandbox, intending it to go on Psycho Series until I realised it is create protected. It is the only online series of its kind and has over 1 billion views; I think that is easily both A7 qualified and WP:NOTABLE. I think the reason it was create protected was because people probably made very poor articles. How do I get this article created? IWI (chat) 23:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IWI. If you create a draft article which is accepted, the reviewer can move it to the protected title. —teb728 t c 00:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

teb728, ImprovedWikiImprovment has created a draft, in their sandbox, and has submitted it for review. If the reviewing editor accepts it, they will sort out moving it to the right place. However, ImprovedWikiImprovment, although your current draft has 56 references, as far as I can see only one, or possibly two, of them are independent reliable sources - and they are both about one single incident, not the channel in general. (The two are Variety, and possibly Tubefilter, but see WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Blogs count towards notability?). Unless you find some more independent reliable sources that cover the channel at more length, I don't think it will establish notability. --ColinFine (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: ~~Actually I hadn't submitted it until teb728 instructed me to do so.~~ The article is about the online series, which inspried a Streamy Award winning documentary. It's very much a cult series, which may explain my difficulty finding sources. Also the source numbers 2 and 3 are also independent from the creator (which aren't reliable in of themselves but prove the preceding point). IWI (chat) 00:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also source number 6. IWI (chat) 00:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IWI: I said that if you create an article which is accepted protection would not be a problem; I didn't say anything about submitting the current content of your sandbox. You mentioned WP:NOTABLE; so I assumed you knew we were looking for significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. —teb728 t c 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Teb728: I do but these drafts usually take weeks to be reviewed, so I put it forward now. I’m not sure if many exist, due to the nature of the series. IWI (chat) 01:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand your comment was effectively hypothetical. IWI (chat) 01:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m completely confused as to the extent that Notability extends. I now have 11 secondary sources, at least 3 from reliable sources. When did this strictness start; there are articles on Wikipedia with one overall source that somehow make it through while a Streamy Award nominated online series (with a completely unique format) with over a billion views is rejected. If this were a TV series, there would be no argument. Another example of many user's tendency to instantly disregard anything from YouTube unless you have 67 secondary sources from the New York Times and Washington Post. Completely absurd. IWI (chat) 02:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Pinging Cullen because he is fair. IWI (chat) 11:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ImprovedWikiImprovment. In order to establish notability, you need to provide references to multiple independent reliable secondary sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. I am only seeing one source that meets that standard, the article in Variety. We do not require anywhere near 67 sources and far more publications are acceptable than the New York Times and the Washington Post. Official YouTube videos are acceptable, if issued by a media organization with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. What you describe as "strictness" has been our standard for the nearly ten years that I have been editing, and longer. The USA Today and Hollywood Reporter sources do not provide significant coverage of the topic, since in both cases the series is mentioned only as an entry in a long list. Your first job is to establish that the series is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I suggest that you find at least two or three other reliable sources comparable to the Variety source in depth of coverage. Eliminate all of the YouTube links and the summaries of each episode. Present a much briefer and much better referenced draft. If additional sources of the required quality are not available, then the series is not notable and no acceptable article can be written. Because the title is salted, any attempt to recreate the article will be subject to heightened scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to actually look at what I have written properly, unlike some others. Yes the 67 reference thing was an exaggeration for dramatic effect. I should repeat that the article was salted because very poor articles were created. IWI (chat) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, you must write a very good draft for it to be accepted, ImprovedWikiImprovment, that makes a compelling case for notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: With all due respect, I'm pretty certain this is less of a notability thing and more of a "youtube? can't be notable" thing. WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline as well (which as I don't have to tell you, doesn't have to be followed); don't you think an exception or even a complete WP:IAR could be used here since (I reiterate) it is the only notable series of its kind with one billion overall views. I've been here for four years myself and you only seem to get this much "WP:NOTABILITY" enforcement on anything from the internet; that kind of overall mentality, in my opinion, is harmful to the project, suppressing internet series and anything else from YouTube (even though this platform is one of the most popular forms of media, essentially online TV). I would understand (and agree) if this was something with 100,000 views that was completely generic, but this is the opposite. The notability guideline aims to protect the project from articles about useless things: ask yourself, is it serving that purpose here, all information in the article is verifiable and not original research. There is even an IMDb about it. IWI (chat) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: The reason there isn't significant coverage is due to the fact that is wasn't revealed the series was actually a series (i.e. it was depicted as real) until its conclusion in 2016 and so until then, it was just viewed by the outside world as a dysfunctional family and this is the exact reason why it is unique and therefore notable. I contacted the creator (Jesse Ridgway) to see if he knew of any articles, and he said, "There has never been too many articles or press written about the Psycho Series, it's still very much a cult-classic." IWI (chat) 00:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IAR, ImprovedWikiImprovment? I do not think so. There is a reason why four administrators have deleted previous versions of this article, and the notion that a fifth administrator will overrule them based on ignoring rules is ludicrous. You must demonstrate notability convincingly if you hope to create an article about this topic. Your theory about why significant coverage is lacking seems weak to me, but it does not matter. If that coverage doesn't exist, then there will be no article. Period. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Since every edit one makes should improve the encyclopedia and I am not going to get anywhere with this, I will leave it. No article. There is no if, coverage does not exist; I've looked everywhere. As Beyond My Ken put it in his Thoughts essay: "When two admins tell you that black is white, it is fruitless to continue to try to show them that black is black and white is white." IWI (chat) 00:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is deleted. IWI (chat) 00:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued donation requests

I have contributed financially to Wikipedia but I am still being continually interrupted by Wikipedia to donate. It’s a pain in the neck and frustrates me greatly to the point where I’m contemplating severely limiting my use of the platform, at the very least. Stop it! Please... I can pay no more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.167.90 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your Preferences, click Gadgets, and then turn on "Suppress display of fundraiser banners." Outofmario (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with posters like 103. As a registered and experienced editor, I've been able to figure out how to switch off the nagging appeals; and I find it unreasonable that new users receive so many of them. I've noticed that complaints like the above have become much more frequent in the last month or two. No-one here at Wikipedia is responsible for the appeals, it's the Wikimedia Foundation that inflicts them on us. Can anyone advise on where complaints can be effectively directed? Maproom (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: It usually seems to be Whatamidoing (WMF) who acts as the Wikimedia Foundation's ambassador to English Wikipedia; you could try asking her who's responsible. As someone who reads Wikipedia a lot while logged out, I can testify that the adverts this year are far more intrusive and obnoxious than they've ever been before. ‑ Iridescent 07:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent:, @Maproom: - to the extent that it has become a meme. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: how did you switch off the nagging appeals? Airbornemihir (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airbornemihir, by following random links and clicking here and there until I hit upon something that worked. It's not where I would expect, Preferences / Notifications. I'm reluctant to search any more in case I accidentally switch them on again. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Thanks, anyway. Airbornemihir (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Daily article pageviews to talkpages

Hello Teahouse,

I noticed a Wikipedia article which had the Daily article pageviews on its talkpage, which seemed like an interesting and useful way to track this information. I added the same template to the Wear it Purple Day talkpage, and it seemed like it worked. Is there a reason why this parameter isn't automatically included in talkpages? Or is it considered contentious, or do people use other pageview tools like the linked out ones in Page information?

Thank you for your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As each time it's viewed it means multiple new queries to the server, adding it to all 6,925,468 articles would cause significant performance issues. By all means feel free to add it to talkpages where you feel it would be genuinely useful, such as those that see significant peaks and troughs in readership. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Iridescent this makes sense! It does seem good for articles relating to anniversaries and such. I appreciate your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Or can you do it for us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Vardre_RFC

This page link, we are unsure on weather it has been published, and if it has we would like Tommy o know how to change the name from Draft: Vardre RFC to simply Vardre RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by VardreRugby (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is still draft. Do not submit it, as it is promotional (and without any citations). Also, your User name VardreRugby suggests you are associated with the proposed article, mostly likely in a paid arrangement. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to change title(s)

Senator John Boozman is the sponsor of the bill that is now in Congress for approval to designate the Butterfield Trail as a National Historic Trail. When the bill is approved, there will be an increased interest by the public. As a result, searches on the internet will lead some to Wikipedia. In preparation, I have recently added a significant amount to the history of Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company in Wikipedia under the heading of “Butterfield Overland Mail.” Some have used inaccurate secondary references and I have made corrections based on cross-referenced primary source references. There is a related category on Wikipedia under the heading of “John Warren Butterfield.” This is supposed to be the president of the Overland Mail Company. The name is inaccurate. About a month ago I added a paragraph to the site explaining the confusion over his name. Because of the importance for having an accurate biography for John Butterfield, considering the bill in Congress, I am about to add a comprehensive biography, which includes changing the title from “John Warren Butterfield” to “John Butterfield.” I hope this is acceptable to Wikipedia’s policies. Eventually I will be editing the categories mentioned so that the subjects will be linked by redirects. Also, will be adding much artwork in the future. There is no doubt, based on many primary source references that I have listed on the site, that his correct name was “John Butterfield.” Kirby Sanders had the Congressional authority given by Public Law 111-11 signed by President Barack Obama on March 30, 2009, to develop the Resource Study Act to support the bill now in Congress for approval. Kirby and I have discussed many of the inaccuracies to be corrected for this famous Old West enterprise, which included John Butterfield’s name. Other related subjects will also be linked by redirects, such as the history of the Overland Mail Company’s stage stations. At present, in Wikipedia, the stations are listed but there are inaccuracies including some that are not Butterfield’s Overland Mail Company stage stations. I will be correcting some of these. But would also like permission to change the titles of some of the stations to reflect a more accurate title. Many simply have the word “Station” in their title. I would like to change these to “Stage Station.” The reason being is that the Butterfield Trail followed a natural corridor through the southwest that later became basically the same route for the railroad in 1880. The train stations often took the historic name of some of Butterfield’s nearby stage stations. To distinguish the difference in Wikipedia, the word “Stage” should be added to the category of Butterfield’s stage stations.I may have been a little “long-winded” on this subject, but want to make sure I adhere strictly to Wikipedia’s policies. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert[reply]

Anyone feel qualified to be Bold enough to change the article name from John Warren Butterfield to John Butterfield, and then delete the second and third paragraphs of the lead, which would then be entirely unnecessary content added as evidence that John Butterfield is John Butterfield? David notMD (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused by your statement. I apologize if I was not clear enough in my above explanation. I have not deleted anything from the "John Warren Butterfield" site. The second and third paragraphs were added by me about a month ago under my heading of "Confusion concerning John Butterfield’s Name." Those two paragraphs give clear primary source references that the president of the Overland Mail Company was "John Butterfield" and not "John Warren Butterfield." The original entries for "John Warren Butterfield give no reference for the middle name. I provided a reference for a John Warren Butterfield that is a different person to show where the confusion may be. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert[reply]

What I recommended was a change in the article title to "John Warren" and the deletion of the two paragraphs as no longer needed. What Ian Thompson did was delete the two paragraphs (as original research) and left the JWB name intact. I will start a discussion at the Talk of that page, pinging Ian, to see if we can get this resolved. David notMD (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, the person who created the article in 2008 named it John Warren Butterfield even though the reference cited has the name as "John Butterfield." Thus, original error. IMO no evidence needed to justify a name change. David notMD (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald T. Ahnert, your two paragraphs on the name would be appropriate on a talk page (or a forum like the Teahouse), but not in an article: You combined facts from sources to reach your own conclusion which is not given in the sources. Wikipedia’s core policy of No original research does not allow that in an article. That presumably is why the paragraphs were removed from the article.

More generally, from what you say above you seem to prefer primary sources, but Wikipedia tends to prefer secondary sources. —teb728 t c 00:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I moved it to John Butterfield (stagecoach operator)--the plain name is a disambiguation page. Is it OK to use the redirect for all the references to the old title? —teb728 t c 01:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That got the job done. This was extremely important as many have used the misinformation. Just as a comment: The subject of Butterfield's Overland Mail Company on the Southern Overland Trail has not had anywhere near as much research done as the Central Overland Trail. Because of my fifty years of research and writing about the subject, I have written articles for The Overland Journal and Desert Tracks correcting some of the history based on new information. These are publications of the Oregon-California Trails Association. I have also written two books on the subject. I have been asked by historians such as Roger Dheshi, California Parks Service to correct their site and to write articles which now appear on their site. There are many others such as the Shiloh Museum of the Ozarks, the Encyclopedia of Arizona History, Dr. Aaron Wright, Archaeology Southwest, Santa Clarita Valley History site, and Linda Hodgkins, Postal History Foundation who have also asked for my assistance. You have stated that I prefer primary source references for Wikipedia. Not entirely, but in some cases there has been new information that I have recently uncovered that corrects some of the errors based on secondary references on Wikipedia sites concerning this subject. I might add that some of the noted published works also have significant errors. It is not just my opinion, but many confirmed by Kirby Sanders, who had the Congressional authority to develop the Resource Study Act to support the bill in Congress for the Butterfield Trail. I have found additional new information because of recent questions asked of me by National Park Service Historian Frank Norris. I was just developing a bio for John Butterfield with much new information to add to Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that I will have to now limit the bio as I am not allowed to use primary source references. As an example I assume I will not be allowed to quote from a newspaper account about the 1869 death of John Butterfield. Is this true? Your answer will give me a better understanding. Thanks again. Gerald T. Ahnert (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Gerald T. Ahnert[reply]

Getting the page I wrote accepted.

Hello Really appreciate the help here. I'm building up to doing a page on the 2008 mass drownings at Loch Awe in Scotland but wanted to start with something smaller first. I've done a page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robert_Moon_(author) I maybe added too many sources, because when I tried before I didn't have enough. So maybe now some are not good enough quality but I could really use some feedback here. I thought the Fulbright scholarship page would be very good as a source and 5 or 6 independent newspaper stories would be enough I thought too? I could cut it right down and remove a lot of sources if that helps? Any help appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevand357 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevand357: The biggest problem is that there are no in-line citations, just external links. A scholarship is not a source.

You can see how to add in-line citations in in point 3 of this section of a guide I wrote, and how to list those references in the last section of that guide. This section of that guide explains how to write articles that won't get rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper articles are not about Robert Moon. David notMD (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

more than a 1000 edits after my last teahouse post, I ask you guys, what should I do next. Should I become an Admin?

I really need your help guys in giving your opinion of what you want from me as an editor. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks --I love rpgs (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving hundreds of images to Commons does not make you Admin ready. Keep calm and edit on. David notMD (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't going to become an admin for at least 2 years regardless of what you do on Wikipedia. Fortunately for you, being an admin is a thankless job that you don't really want. If you want to be more involved administratively, I recommend reading pages like Requested moves, Articles for deletion, or good article reviews. You can also write and improve articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but @Power~enwiki: if admins are such a "thankless job" then why are there so many admins on wikipedia? Also BU Rob 13 became an admin in less than a year after his registration--I love rpgs [please ping me!

] 17:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 hadn't just been kicked off Commons for disruption after failing to reply to a single one of the 58 complaints on their talkpage, for one thing… ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Question

Do I have to provide a source for something as trivial as a fact or a certain number if it has already been confirmed by multiple wikipedia pages that are related to this subject. 02:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If it's truly trivial, no. However, just because the information is available on other Wikipedia pages does not mean that a reader will necessarily know about that information–be sure that the information in question is actually trivial, and if you have a source on hand, you may as well cite it. For more information, see WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi

Dear Sir,

I am Masroor Chaudhary. I am new member of wikipedia. I want to add some thing of Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi article on wikipedia page. Unfortunately it is not added and it is minor edit. How can i edit. I want to add this line - She was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah "Zamindar" of vill. Hayaghat Bilaspur, Dist. Darbhanga. Please advice me.

I am waiting to hear from you soonest.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary

Dist: Darbhanga. Bihar India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masroor Chaudhary, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please look at the message GeorgeCustersSabre left on your user talk page: the information which you have five times introduced to the article Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi has been reverted by different editors because you have not given a published source for the information. Wikipedia cannot accept any information which has not been published in a reliable source: personal knowledge is not acceptable, because a reader has no way of checking its accuracy.

I realise you are a new editor, and not familiar with the ways of Wikipedia; but I must tell you that to keep on making a change which other people revert, is called edit warring, and is not allowed. Anybody may make an edit; but according to BOLD, once somebody else reverts your edit, you must discuss the matter with them rather than simply reapply your edit.

Nobody is saying that the information you have introduced is wrong, and I'm sure that you are wanting to help us improve Wikipedia; but until you can find a reliable published source for the information, it cannot be accepted into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to creating new article?

Greetings everyone my question is how to create new Wikipedia article about internet relay design on Wikipedia? I have manuscripts prepared and I wish to transmit to article format hopefully on the morrow for benefitting all. I have read a few help channels but I am no closer to achieving this goal and I would appreciate helps. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not publish original research. Unless you have a third party source for this information it (probably) shouldn't be published on Wikipedia. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Refquest. Please read Your first article and you may also find The Wikipedia Adventure worth completing. I noticed that you are using the word "manuscripts" which usually refers to unpublished documents. Only published sources are acceptable in an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Yes thank you I have read these pages. I would like helpful guidance please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 05:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refquest, please ask a specific question. "Helpful guidance" is just too vague. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My specific question is how do I creating new article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information on how to do that is in a link which you were given above: WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David and good evening, I have read this link but I require actual guidance. Providing me with link I have reading is not helpful. Furthermore, mentioning that I was already given the unhelpful link may to be considered rude. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refquest: Your first article and The Wikipedia Adventure constitute the standard advice every new editor gets. David (not me, the other David) is being helpful, not rude. Second, Wikipedia runs on civility. Calling a helpful person rude, a person who volunteers their own time to answer questions, is - rude. Third, my guess is you want to write an article based on your own efforts ("manuscripts prepared"). That is not allowed at Wikipedia. Last, please sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Refquest. If you did not find the Your first article page helpful, and would like to immediately start writing, you can use the Article Wizard. The first steps there are reminders but it will eventually get you to your first draft. Also, I hope you have noted the suggestions of the others here just so you can avoid your efforts getting wasted. Even if you were able to write an article, it will be rejected if it did not meet the standards. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Publish an article of a company

Hi! How can publish an page about the company? I have just published but it has been deleted by Wikipedia. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolina Gomez Apache (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolina Gomez Apache: welcome to the Teahouse. A few days ago you received very detailed instructions on your user talk page. Please read those first, and make sure to comply with the instructions regarding conflict of interest. You have also received some advice at the Help desk - your archived thread is here. If anything is still unclear, please come back and ask. --bonadea contributions talk 07:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

Hi, Ive made a couple of contributions. My question is how do i know if the articles ive edited have been approved or have been rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opticaafrica (talk • contribs) 08:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Opticaafrica. You can monitor articles that you edit or are interested in by using the "Contributions" and "Watchlist" tabs at the top of your screen when you are logged in. Please read Help: User contributions and Help: Watchlist, which explain the details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Cullen328's reply, from the Contributions or Watchlist pages you can click on the history link for the relevant article to see subsequent edits, which may have relevant edit summaries if your edits have been reverted. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have made edits to two articles. All you have changed has been reverted, i.e., reversed. You can go to the articles and click on View history at the top to see that the editor after you did the revert and left an answer why. The editor also left a note on your Talk page. Think of this as a learning experience. The "good faith" part of the comments acknowledged that your intentions were to improve the articles (versus vandalism). David notMD (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

How can I post pictures when editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osarobo123 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Osarobo123 and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question really depends whether you mean 'how do I upload my own photos for use on Wikipedia?' or whether you mean 'How do I insert an existing, validly-licenced image from Wikimedia Commons into a Wikipedia page? (like the ones I've just added here for you.) Anything you upload MUST be your own copyright material, and not some image taken from another website without permission. Your best starting place is to read the guidance at Wikipedia:Uploading images, then come back here for further specific help if you get stuck. But note that if you click on either of those images to go to the Wikimedia Commons page where they're located, you will see a small 'W' icon just above the top of the image, with the words 'Use this file'. Click that, and you get a popup on screen - copy the first line of text and insert that into the top of the relevant section of an article, and click Preview, and you'll see your image now added to that page. You can add your own caption before 'Publishing changes' to save the edit. I hope this is sufficient to get you started. Oh, and don't forget to sign every Talk page post each time you leave a message. You do that by typing four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) at the end of your post. Your username and timestamp then get added automatically. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for Scenic Points

Was trying to find an infobox for scenic viewpoints like Glacier Point or Ladies View, but could not find any. Can see that the infobox help guide recommends getting consensus before creating a new infobox (understandably), but it was not clear to me where that consensus would be sought? I was trawling through the infobox help pages and could not find an area to propose new infoboxes? Would be happy to design an infobox for scenic viewpoints, but the fact that there is not already such an infobox makes me think that this is for a reason? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Britishfinance. This is actually something I myself have been wondering, so after seeing your post here I looked around a bit. I was able to find Help:Infobox#Designing an infobox, which states "Prototype your new design in your own user space. Once prototyped, propose the infobox changes to the appropriate WikiProject and gain consensus before deploying your new design in the template namespace." So if you think a new infobox needs to be created, I suppose the best place to do so would be the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. For this case, maybe Travel and Tourism will do? The problem is, if it's not a very active project, you may not get many responses. Hopefully this helps you out a bit.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that SkyGazer 512. I will check it out. I'm glad that someone else has also considered this too. I do think that it would make sense given the other travel (or geographic) infoboxes in use. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I could help.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adding to Wikipedia

I would love to add to the Maryland License plate "Specialty Plates" I live in Maryland and have been observing and collecting a database on Maryland Plates. How do I get started to ADD to the Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdvanet (talk • contribs) 15:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mdvanet. Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse.

There's nothing you need to do to get started: you've created an account (optional, but recommended) and have already edited to post this question. But if you edit an article without understanding the basics of how Wikipedia works (as opposed to a wiki in general), your edit is likely to get reverted and frustration may ensue for all.

The point here is that Wikipedia articles summarise what existing (reliably) published sources say about a matter. If you can find a book or a scholarly paper on Maryland speciality plates, you could summarise what that paper said in a Wikipedia article. But Wikipedia does not accept original research, which is what your project sounds like. I suggest having a look at the five pillars, and then trying the Wikipedia Adventure. Cheers, --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article translated from German

Hi there! I had an article about Datacolor rejected due to unreliable secondary sources. I had translated the original article from German (Datacolor page to create an English version, as this company is based in New Jersey, so this would be useful. Does anyone have any recommendations of how to correctly translate an existing article with appropriate sources so that it does not get rejected again? I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, so any tips would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Jacri11 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jacri11 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd be happy to try to help you out to explain the issues with the article and how you can fix them. The problem with the article, as you said, is sourcing. You did not provide multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and significantly cover the topic, as required by the notability guidelines for companies. Of the two sources you provided, the first one was the company's website, which is not considered independent as it was created by the company; anyone can make a company and then make a website, so this reference can't be used to establish notability. The second ref is the company's profile on Owler, which, similarly, doesn't meet the strict guidelines needed to be a good reference for notability establishing, because isn't considered reliable nor independent. An example of a good source would be a New York Times article about the company written by someone not affiliated with it. The best thing to do would be to just keep searching for good sources; if none exist, then the article may unfortunately not be suitable for Wikipedia. Getting an article accepted is one of the most tricky things for new users, so please don't get discouraged. If you have a question as to whether a source would help establish notability, please don't hesitate to ask here or on my talk page. Does this help you out some?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, different language Wikipedias have different policies on notability, so just because the German Wikipedia has an article, that doesn't necessarily mean that a translated version of the article would be allowed in the English Wikipedia. shoy (reactions) 16:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SkyGazer 512 and shoy This is extremely helpful. I will continue to search for better and more reliable sources. Thank you so much for your responses - I appreciate it! Jacri11 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Jacri11; I'm glad I could help. Good luck and again, if you have any more questions feel free to ask here. :-)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-Google integration

If a living person has a Google knowledge panel and a Wiki page, how do you ensure the two are integrated? I'm specifically asking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Bastian. I do have a COI, which is noted on my user page. Thanks! Avgalatl (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google has no connection to Wikipedia or Wikimedia and we have no control over their output. The algorithms they use are a heavily-protected commercial secret so we can't say how their information is selected (although much of the material they credit to "Wikipedia" is almost certainly actually drawn from Wikidata); for more specific information, you'd need to ask Google direct (www.google.com/contact). ‑ Iridescent 17:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted pages

What do you do if you have an important piece of information to add to a page but it is restricted? This information is quite important and could really help any people looking at the page. The page is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Sugg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollyw004 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mollyw004: welcome to the Teahouse! You can request edits like this: Go to the article's talk page, Talk:Joe Sugg and post an edit request there. Copy this code: {{edit semi-protected}} and paste it into a new section on the talk page, and then write your request below. You'll need to provide independent sources for whatever information it is you want to include. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Loose Women" and also assistance and guidance

Hi my name is Luke Jarvis, my account is lukejarvis1994

I have been doing ITV Daytime chat show "Loose Women" have been doing this for the last couple of months of the information and also to update it. The reason I am writing this because I just help for someone to help me bring back the episodes of the weeks the panellists is on and also the last 19 years I feel it would benefit for anyone to know whose on and also to keep track.

However I another thing to ask I need assistance and guidance of how to use the Wikipedia full title of talking about or URL of any page I am talking or even asking about and also the cite of the sources I am using or writing.

Finally I would like to say Thank You very much for the invitation to the Teahouse.

I would like to say it would be very much appreciated for anyone to help me and I will try and reply to anything when I can. If there is any help or support for the programmes in the UK let me know. I am very openly honest what I do and say and I am 100% of my effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeJarvis1994 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears you have been editing Loose Women and List of Loose Women presenters for months, so not clear what your problems are. Is this about how to cite? Lastly, sign your comments by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Lithuania

Is there a page where everyone on vikipedia can read and say their opinion. I want to write something on such page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan311 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan311: there's the miscellaneous section of the Village Pump. However, depending on what you want to write about, there may be a talk page more specifically oriented to that topic that could potentially be a more appropriate venue. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan311: But, please be aware we have no pages for chit-chat or for discussing personal opinions in the way that online forums (fora) offer. We only discuss matters relevant to editing Wikipedia or editing a particular article (where you would use that article's Talk Page to raise issues about the article's content). You might like to read WP:NOTFORUM to get an idea what we don't accept as part of expressing opinions. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: The user who started this section has started a discussion at Talk:Lithuania#Location, but failed to give any arguments or sources to support his claims. In the end, he started accusing and insulting me. I have written more than once that he needs to give arguments and support his claims with sources, but every time he just acted like I was the one who wanted to change something even after I wrote my arguments and/or supported them. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My advice - if this is about Lithuania start a new discussion there. I will point out that as of this moment the article reads "...is a country in the Baltic region of Europe." If this is about your opinion of other editors, the best advice is "don't." One guideline of Wikipedia is comment on comments, but do not disparage the person who wrote them. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UDP banner

Hi, we're having trouble removing this 'UDP' banner because a more senior member keeps reinstating it (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Ricks). The article has been gone over with a fine toothed comb and no one is even sure if it was paid for at any time. The point here is that this isn't a black and white issue (after researching on wiki) and that the problem (if there is even a problem(!)) is between a *suspected* paid poster and our senior member, not with the page. Recent comments seem to be ignored. Please help. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hesperian Nguyen: Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a duplicate copy of a post you placed on Talk:Jim Ricks half an hour previously. That page really seems the best place for your request to be answered by involved editors, rather than here, and we do ask people not to post in more than one place at a time as this then just duplicates volunteer effort. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes:Ok, I am only seeking help and didn't know about that rule.Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created 26 September by NeedaAnsari00, who claims to be an engineer from/in India. SAME DAY, Herperian Nguyen started massive number of edits to article. On 9 December, Genericname23 started editing, and has been a frequent editor to the exclusion of almost anything else. G was separately accused of being a sock on another article, dismissed accusation, but a cloud remains. Hard to believe that three people from far corners of the word fascinated with Jim Ricks. Not seeing fire, but smelling smoke. At minimum, I concur with the UDP and COI banners. David notMD (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts without User pages

As I read through the teahouse I see a lot of usernames, but in red. They do not have user pages. How is that a person can have a user name, but not a user:page?Oldperson (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just signing up for Wikipedia doesn't in and of itself create a user page for the user. The user in question needs to manually create it themselves and many users (not just vandals) probably don't want to bother creating one. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] When a user creates an account, it automatically comes with the potential for a user page, but no account holder is obliged to have a user page, and many do not bother to create one if they don't want to say anything about themselves as a Wikipedia editor, which is what the page is really intended for. (You may have noticed that I have deliberately remained one step further back and have never opened an account at all, despite being an active editor for over 15 years.)

It's trivially easy for the user to create their user page; they simply have to click on the red link of their user name, be taken to a message that says essentially "this page doesn't exist yet", and then type something (anything) to get it started.

Creating an account also creates the potential for a user Talk page to allow communication with them, such as welcoming them to Wikipedia, leaving useful links to help them edit, and notifying them if they have inadvertently (or, sometimes, deliberately) breached Wikipedia protocols in some way. Any other user can activate the talk page, in the same manner as previously described, to perform these functions and usually someone does. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First time contributor

I recently posted my first article, Rodent Research Hardware System. This is a set of enclosures for rodents used on the ISS. In the list of suggested improvements was "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.". The article is about research hardware developed by NASA and provides a summary of the research that has been done and that is currently planned. NASA has the final say on all research that will use the system. Almost all links I used for the article are in the NASA.gov or NASA.org domains. My effort was to provide simple factual information about the program. Much of the research that the experiments involved in is ongoing and does not have published results. It is unclear to me in this case what, "independent, third-party source" would be any more reliable than NASA. Where I did reference information where NASA was not the primary authoritative source I did make an effort to use a third party. For example in an explanation of the requirements for one mission I referenced the source document of the guidelines they were seeking to comply with - https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf. I found an older article, Scientific research on the International Space Station, that also almost exclusively references NASA sources. Can someone clarify what type of references are being sought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCO11163 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than items published by NASA about NASA, it would be preferable to cite articles written about NASA (and its activities) by independent journalists in magazines and journals edited and published by organisations independent of NASA (i.e. "third parties"), such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Sky and Telescope, Science, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, etc., etc.

Such publications are what are termed Secondary sources, as opposed to documentation by NASA (or Government grant-issuing bodies) which would be Primary sources. (Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a Tertiary source.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making a new page

I am trying to make an article on a celebrity as they did not already have a pafe but I am now sure now to fully publish it. I’m not sure whether some has to check it and see is it publishable or do I just publish it myself. I’m quite confused Mollyw004 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mollyw004 Welcome to Tea house. If you referred to Draft:Oli White and Draft:Mariangeli Collado, they are not ready to be submitted for review. Please read WP:Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to write an article and provide inline citation. If the above articles are not what you had in mind, then pls pop back here and provide the link to the article so we may help you in more specify manner. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article move to incorrect location

I am part of the Wiki Scholars program and while moving a new article live I incorrectly sent it to the wrong location. It appears to be my talk page? but as a live article? I was hoping to either put it back in my sandbox (not sure this is possible) or in the correct main space. Apologies as I am new at this and missed something while exploring Move related training and articles. Please see below.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Carol7288/sandbox2&redirect=no

Thanks for the help! Carol7288 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Carol7288[reply]

Hello Carol7288. It looks like everything has been done correctly, it's just that when moving pages, Wikipedia leaves a redirect by default, because it is often helpful for people who are looking for the page. If you want the redirect removed, you can simply copy {{db-u1}} to the top of the page (that is, the redirect page [1] and not Etta Haynie Maddox), and an administrator should be around to delete it shortly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol7288, Welcome to Tea House. You sand box is empty now. Your aticle Etta Haynie Maddox is in the pool of new page waiting in review. You still could edit the page. If you want the page to move to draft space so you would take your time to edit it as it might have a lot more for development, then I would move it for you. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Template has been placed on this article. How do i contact the placer of the same and convey that reliable secondary sources have been used

Hello My first article got published recently and I got a notification of Page Issue stating that it may not meet the notability clause. I contacted fellow wikipedians over chat and shared that the references were indeed from reliable secondary sources . Some agreed and some gave suggestions for better organization of the content and quoting of the sources. I listened to the advice and did accordingly.

But still the Maintenance template has not disappeared. What can be done to address this concern?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushrut_Badhe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talk • contribs) 04:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavankum Welcome to Tea House. The tag is removed. Thank you for your contribution and editing. Cheers CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article names and WP:COMMONNAME

Hello, someone has recently renamed this article about sports athlete from "Igor" to "Ihor". Now, according to Wikipedia's article titles usage, a "Common name is preferred" and according to English sources related to this athlete, his common name is "Igor". Here are few sources that mention him as such: http://www.the-sports.org/igor-dziuba-speed-skating-spf202823.html http://speedskatingresults.com/index.php?p=17&s=3809 http://www.schaatsstatistieken.nl/index.php?file=schaatser&code=1983121401 http://www.speedskatingbase.eu/?section=skaters&subsection=skater&skaterid=4910

There are absolutely 0 sources that mention him by the name "Ihor". So, if I understood WP:COMMONNAME correctly, the article title should be changed back to "Igor Dziuba". Or am I missing something else and WP:COMMONNAME does not apply in this case?Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom Welcome to Tea house. Yes, WP:COMMONNAME does apply in this case. I have moved the page back to Igor Dziuba. As you might know Ihor is the Ukrainian name similar that of Russian Igor. I think the editor change the name because the subject is an Ukrainian and not knowing the WP:COMMONNAME do apply here in Wikipedia. The article do need independent, reliable sources to support the notability and the content of the claimed, and those database lists which recording of the subject competitions are considered not reliable and / or not independent. Since you were born in former USSR and presumably know Russian language/Eastern Slavic language and if you could find some sources to support the content claimed and add them into the page, it would be highly appreciate. I just hate to see the page might be one day to be nominated for deletion/PROP as no sources are provided. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me to create New article

Hi my name is Jenne josp. I want to create few articles related to information . Help me please to create foresight group international article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenne josp (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you conclude "Sure, I have those sources, no problem", then continue with Wikipedia:Your first article. If not, choose something else to work on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes not reflected in the Wikipedia Page.

Hello I made some changes in my organization page (Cambridge School Srinivaspuri) on 17 dec 2018 from my id deepanshi.82, however on the next day the changes were not reflected on the page. I am new to Wikipedia and I am confused why this is happening. Regards Deepanshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepanshi.82 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deepanshi.82. Your edits were undone by Mean as custard because they appeared promotional. Please do not edit the article if you are associated with the school. It is against our conflict of interest policy. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deepanshi.82. "Your organization's page" is actually an article in an encyclopedia which anyone may edit with appropriate sourcing. You do not own it. Wikipedia is not for profit, which is why we don't "make pages" for the highest bidder. We try to amass as much notable information on a subject, from reliable sources, as we possibly can. You and your organization play no role here, unfortunately.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of adding promotional material, you could find WP:Reliable sources for the basic facts. At present, the article has no references at all. Dbfirs 08:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why "watch this page" isn't the default behavior when editing?

Let's say I edit a wikipedia page. A few month later, somebody modifies my version (not using "undo", just overwriting what I've done). By default, there will be no alert about this, if I'm correct. I find it quite peculiar. IMHO the basic setting should be to alert you, that's it to have the checkbox "Watch this page" checked by default each time you edit a page. You can still manually check this but for most users I guess they forget to check this (I've almost forgotten on this page myself...).Linuxo (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Linuxo: In your preferences there's a "Watchlist" tab where you can select the option "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist". Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 06:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful, thanks! (A bit buried in the settings also...) Linuxo (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And just to explain why it's not the default: regular editors will end up editing thousands and thousands of pages. If they were all added to their watchlist automatically, it would quickly become unusable. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They could disable it (as bonadea have noted, we could do the reverse). My idea was especially to encourage "unregular editors" to be more regular editor. I guess people editing page would like to know how it goes for their modifications. Linuxo (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe, I currently have 13,133 pages on my watchlist after nearly ten years of editing, and it is by no means "unusable". Most of those pages, such as five year old AfD debates for example, are almost never edited. I can rapidly scan dozens of entries on my watchlist, ignoring the majority that are highly likely to be productive edits, and taking a closer look at those that display one or more indicators of possibly disruptive editing. My watchlist is both usable and very useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I have a similar number and agree. But if I'd had that preference ticked, I think I would be closer to a hundred thousand by now. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I watch 20 (even though I have edited hundreds) and that is enough for me. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax problem

I'm editing an article in which I don't want a hyphenated word to break at the end of the line. I have seen some kind of "no break" syntax used on WP, but nothing I've come up with is working. Can you refer me to the article which covers this subject?--Quisqualis (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quisqualis. Try looking at MOS:HYPHEN. I think what you're looking for is right above MOS:SHY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That worked a treat. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to write an Wikipedia article

Hello, i am a newbie, and i want to write an article. unfortunately i mess up. Actually every time i try to write an article it shows me to the page where is a list of actions i can do: 1 . sandbox, improve and article wizard. please help me solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by გრინვეი (talk • contribs) 07:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi გრინვეი - please take a look at WP:YFA, which gives some good process information on how to write your first article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi გრინვეი and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have started a new article at Draft:Greenway Georgia. We can help you to improve the English, but at present the draft has no references to establish WP:Notability, so it will not be accepted. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners and add some references, preferably in English, but they can be in any language. The criteria on English Wikipedia might be more strict than those in Georgia. For example, YouTube is not considered to be a WP:Reliable source. Dbfirs 08:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Speedy Deletion

"criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a club, society or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7."

I'm creating pages regarding healthcare in the state of Oregon. IHN is one of 16 organizations that the state government has allowed to be formed (~2012) for the locoregional coordination of healthcare and is used by 50,000 people across three counties in Oregon.

I am failing to see how this does not meet criterion for a wikipedia page based on "importance."

For the second time tonight. Can someone help review or advise. It seems like there are more people trying to deconstruct than build wikipedia pages. I'm open to suggestions on how to make my page better. This is a little frustrating to newbies trying to build something.

InterCommunity Health Network

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

Thanks. Help or advice appreciated. Helios688 (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I would tend to agree with the editor who tagged the article. I can't see that either one of the references you have added mentions the IHN anywhere. Another page you just created, Coordinated Care Organization is a copyright violation since the text there is taken straight from the website you use as a reference, so that will unfortunately also have to be tagged for deletion. It might be a good idea if you started creating articles as drafts instead - that won't prevent copyright violations being tagged, but drafts are gnerally not deleted for lack of shown importance or sourcing, and that will give you time to work on the text until it does show the importance and notability of the organisation. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Helios688 - and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you're articles were tagged with an A7 notice. This tag is for several categories of subjects, all of which do not indicate the subject is important. This does not mean that the subject is not important, or even notable. Simply that the article does not indicate how the subject is important. Both times when your articles where tagged, editors thought that your articles did not show how the subject was important. In the first instance, Samaritan Health Services, the article was little more than a malformed infobox. As you developed the article, another editor removed the A7 tag, as it was no longer appropriate. The second time (InterCommunity Health Network) the article is little more than a blurb. I don't want to speak for another editor, so I'll ping HitroMilanese - and perhaps they can tell you their rationale for tagging it as A7. A way to avoid this in the future is not to develop articles in the mainspace. Rather create them in draftspace, flesh them out, then move them to the mainspace (or ask a more experienced editor to move them, if you don't have the move capability yet). Another alternative can be to go through the AfC (Articles for Creation) process, see WP:AFC. Second, A7 is only about whether an article even mentions why a subject is important. Even if a subject has some importance, that is a lower level of scrutiny than notability. Please see WP:GNG to see what Wikipedia considers notable. You might also want to take a look at WP:YFA, regarding writing your first article. Third, your third article is a copyvio. It's been moved to draftspace so you develop it, but you need to re-word in your own verbiage. Please see WP:COPYVIO. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the quick response. 1. the link on the IHN page was to get to a document. I cleaned that up by changing the link to a HTML page on the same government site that references IHN and the other 15 CCOs. 2. I thought it would be okay to reference text in quotation marks on the CCO page I created. Sorry about that. I have deleted the quote and used my own words - there should no longer be a copyright issue with that page.

I will work on using the sandbox for future pages. As I worked on each page I realized that even though these important organizations have been around for years, no one has created wikipedia pages on any of them. I'll be more careful.

Can you review them again to see if they're still problematic? Helios688 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Helios688. Your article is lacking references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia exists to summarize such sources and they are the solid gold that must be used to build Wikipedia articles. Your article purports to have two references but both are to the same Oregon state agency. Your first reference link does not mention this agency, at least as far as I can see. The second link includes a routine directory listing for this agency, which includes the type of information that someone might have found in the Yellow Pages in the past. Wikipedia is not a directory. It is an encyclopedia. The article states that this agency is involved in providing health services to just 55,000 people in three counties of Oregon. Speaking frankly, that is not a very impressive claim of notability, especially since the article states that the actual health care is provided by Samaritan Health Services instead. It appears that the topic of the article is a minor intermediary or broker agency created by some state law unique to Oregon. Unless you can provide much better references, there is no evidence that this agency is notable.

As for your supposition that there are "more people trying to deconstruct than build wikipedia pages", if that was true, then we would not have 5,769,265 articles on Wikipedia, the majority of which are halfway decent encyclopedia articles. What we actually have are more people who are trying to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia by checking that new articles comply with our policies and guidelines. Without these people, the encyclopedia would soon have 100,000,000 articles, and the vast majority of them would be advertisements, lies, conspiracy theories, get rich schemes, slander and disinformation operations. The world's #5 website would then rapidly lose its credibility and collapse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, No offence was meant. I love the feedback here. It helps me learn when the conversation is as above. Just remember that those of us who are trying to build but are not quite expert like many of you, it can be frustrating when you make mistakes and are threatened with immediate page removal. Thanks again Helios688 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is simple, Helios688. Before you move an article to the main space of the encyclopedia, double check be sure that it complies with our policies and guidelines. That's my method, and none of my roughly 100 articles has ever been deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks.

Helios688 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the main reason for my nominating this article was "no credible claim of significance" , see WP:CCS. That is why I suggested you on your talk page to create articles through WP:AFC process. An admin has declined speedy for very unclear reasons though, so it doesn't matter anymore. Regards Hitro talk 09:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent vandalism of a section of small arms articles

Hello,

For a few months, I have been edited articles about military weapons and small arms and therefore I have added them to my watchlist. It seems that a floating IP, generally from Thailand, is adding unsourced countries in the "users" section. Sometimes the reference of another user is added as the reference of a new "random" user.

Could a filter be added to the anti-vandalism bots : if someone is adding a lot of country templates without adding a new reference, he will be automatically reverted ?

Some edits (it has been for months) : [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

--Le Petit Chat (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Maghfoor Ahmad Ijazi

Hello Sir, Good Day

Once again Masroor Chaudhary (New comer) is with you. I want to say that Noorun nisa, Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi and Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah were my Grand Mother and grand Father respectively. This is solid fact that Noorun nisa was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah. There are many proof and evidences regarding this marriage but unfortunately, i don't know where these evidences are preserved. So, i cannot provide you any evidences regarding this marriage and i know that also wikipedia accept only reliable sources for editing. I hope that you will consider on this matter.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary Dist. Darbhanga, Bihar India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masroor Chaudhary, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume your question relates to Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi. You are right that Wikipedia can only accept information based upon sources that other users are able to find and confirm. It can be very frustrating to have to leave out information simply because it cannot be proven, but that is precisely how Wikipedia operates. It is far better to have a short article full of provable statements, than a longer one containing a mixture of statements, where nobody knows which ones are right, wrong, or added for mischievous reasons. Luckily, it is often the relatively trivial information that has to be left out of for lack of references, and you are best not to try to add information from your personal knowledge, no matter how close your family ties. Thank you so much for your interest in improving Wikipedia. Please remember to sign talk page posts using four keyboard tilde characters (like this ~~~~), rather than type your name manually, as this leaves both a timestamp and link to your userpage which others find helpful. And if you want to know more about how Wikipedia works, we have an interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure which you might like to try out. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk)

Lead paragraph

In this edit I think I correctly interpreted MOS:LEADSENTENCE. I don't think the statistics about the size of the market belong in the lead section. My edit was reverted by a new editor. Before I revert and leave an explanation on the talk page, I just want to check that I am on safe ground. Comments? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: Notwithstanding the fact that the article MealEnders has just been dominated for a deletion discussion, I completely agree with you. The lead should summarise only the notable topic, not wander off into background contextual statements on the slimming industry as the other editor has done, nor should it introduce ambiguity as has also happened (did this one product genuinely achieve[d] $168.95 billion in sales worldwide in 2016)? The original lead statement seems sufficient to me, and more succinct. In my view, you would be quite right to remove these additions and insert them elsewhere in the article, if required. I would have done this for you, but it's better for editors to feel confident in make the edits themselves. The article reads very much as a promotional page, despite one of the editors removing from their talk page a response to indicate that they did not have any WP:PAID or WP:COI involvement with this product. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit the reference list of an article?

When I try to add an item to the reference list of an article, I just see "

", but not the content. How can I add then a reference?

The reflist is compiled autoimatically from citations within the body of the article enclosed in <ref>...</ref> tags, but before you do that please note that citing your own work is a conflict of interest, so you should actually propose the change on the article's Talk page and let someone else make the edit if they consider it valid. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request a rollback for a certain article?

Can I do it here? The article Akan people infobox is broken due to anonymous editors tampering. NinuKinuski (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it for you, but you could have done it yourself, from the history, by comparing the current version with the last good version, then clicking "Undo". There was one unreferenced sentence that got reverted. If the anon editor can find a citation then we can put that back. Dbfirs 11:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help creating an article

Hi everyone. I was wondering if someone could offer some help in how to create an article, since this will be my first time. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B146:4D1F:CCF1:FBF:3262:4B96 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice is at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to handle a business industry page that is slanted to one company

This question is about the PEMS page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_emissions_measurement_system. While there are a handful of companies in the PEMS industry, the PEMS page reflects the products, services, and opinions of only one company. I work for one of those other companies. After having read through the help sections, it is clear this article violates two of the five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". I also read the help section on conflict of interest which states that I am strongly discouraged from editing the article myself. My questions is...what is the best way to flag or object to this article's content so that it gets fixed and is edited back to a neutral point of view?

Thanks! AlonsoWindmill (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlonzoWindmill: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I've posted some information on your user talk page that you will need to review regarding paid editing. It also mentions how you can make edit requests on article talk pages when you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi,I'm very happy to work with you guys.Thanks for inviting me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshd019 (talk • contribs)

So far, every edit you have made has been reversed. Wikipedia does not accept external links embedded in the articles. Warnings are on your Talk page. If you need help understanding the problem, ask specific questions here. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Editor

How can i create my own profile

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia does not have "profiles", it has articles about subjects shown to be notable with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You do have a user page that is for introducing yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia use, but it is not a social media type profile. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings new user. Just to add to what 331dot said, if by "profile" you mean an article about yourself in the encyclopedia then you shouldn't write such an article. There are various rules about wp:conflict of interest but rule number one is that you shouldn't write about yourself, it's just taken as a given that none of us can be objective about ourselves. For an article about you to be created you need to have done things that are documented in reliable sources such as major newspapers, books, etc. Even then it's up to others who know your work to write the article. But if by profile you mean create a user page that is easy to do and if you are going to edit, it's really the first thing you should do so people can leave messages for you, can collaborate with you, etc. If you look at the top right corner of any Wikipedia page you will see a bunch of links related to your account (if you have one and are logged in) or to login or create an account if you aren't logged in. There should be a link in the upper right corner for this page that says "Create account". Click on that and just provide a user ID and an email and you are on your way. Then you can also create your user page. But note that page is not a general page like a page for you on Facebook or a blog, but rather it describes your Wikipedia interests, what kind of pages you like to edit, what wikipedia groups you belong to, etc. For example, here is my user page: User:MadScientistX11. My page is pretty basic but some people put a lot of effort into their pages, which is fine as long as the effort is about your Wikipedia editing and not your general interests or promoting yourself. Once you have an account you also get a talk page where people can leave you messages. For example, here is my talk page: User_talk:MadScientistX11. Also, once you have an account you can automatically sign all your posts so people can notify you when they reply to something you said, there is a little squigle widget in the editor (between the Italics widget and the link widget) that automatically adds your signature which I'm going to use at the end of this comment: --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry about a page

Hi there. First of all, thank you so much for inviting me to the tea house. So, my question is how many days does it take to get a page actually approved? Please, tell me if there is any issue on this particular page to be verified, thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajiul_Huda_Dipto/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajiul Huda Dipto (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiul Huda Dipto, I see two serious issues. One is that it's an autobiography. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged here. The other, even more serious, issue is that it cites no references. If you're still determined to try to get an autobiography accepted, you'll need to read notability and Help:Referencing for beginners and then cite some reliable independent sources. Maproom (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Rajiul Huda Dipto Welcome to Tea house. The backlog for a draft page to be reviewed at the moment is 4-5 weeks. Pls visit WP:Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to write an article and provide inline citation in Wikipedia. Secondly, pls remove all the external links and only provide one or two external links - pls see WP:ELMIN. Also pls visit WP:CREATIVE for notability requirements. You could also go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk to seek assistance on AfC matter. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Account creation date mismatch

Hello folks. My first edit as a registered user shows as 26 January 2007, yet my Global account information page says I registered on 27 December 2008 - nearly two years later. My contribution history shows I didn't make any edits at all on that day. Can anyone shed some light please? Captainllama (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I registered on en.wiki in January 2006 but my CentralAuth record says 2011. I don't think this is an issue unique to you. General Ization ^Talk 18:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Captainllama. The discrepancy is the distinction between your local and your global account; your enwiki account was registered on 12 July 2006, as can be seen in the local enwiki user creation log. However, your global account is different. The concept of a single unified login across all Wikimedia sites was released in May 2008, and your local account was converted into a global SUL account in December. That's why the dates are different. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm even older than I thought! - thanks for your help Writ Keeper Captainllama (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Practical questions about publishing

Hello fellow Tea-House-rs,

Okay, I have read pretty much the whole feed on new contributors and I'm still kind of lost. I signed-up on Wikipedia about a week ago, and have completed all the suggested training (Wikipedia adventure), sandbox creation, Article Wizard, and even the beta Translation functionality. I still don't know how to write an article and get it published. I tried translating a simple article of a politician from my country and I get the message that I'm not authorized to do translations. Then I tried to create the article from scratch but it's on Draft mode and I don't know how to change it to talk mode or to take the next steps to make it ready for review. Is there a practical guide that instead of teaching us how to bold and italicize text would give us a step-by-step guide on how to effectively go from the account creation to the article publication? I believe I have not found this so far and I'm sure many of you were in the same situation when you were youngsters :)

I appreciate any time spent in answering one or more of my probably basic questions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcerrano (talk • contribs) 05:27, December 19, 2018 (UTC)

hi Barcerrano Welcome to Tea house. Thank you for interested in editing in Wikipedia. see below and hope it may help

Read WP:Your First Article an referencing for beginner to familiar yourself on how to write an article and provide inline citations.
Use Article Wizard and follow the instructions to create an article. Since you article is on the draft space, when you think the draft is ready to submit for review, just add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft.
To bold - pls see MOS:BOLD and to italicize - pls see MOS:ITALIC

Pop back here if you need further assistance. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Validation?

Hi there, I’m feeling a bit self-conscious and about the edits I posted (it’s my very first time). I’ve observed how harsh some editors can be when responding to others, and I was wondering if there were a way to request gentle criticism regarding my edits; considering I’m new, I feel rather vulnerable about receiving feedback. That might be an unreasonable request, but it took a lot of courage for me to even write this right now, so I’ve been attempting to tell myself that the fact that I am at least trying is worth something. “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sadie_Hawkins_dance&oldid=868475289” The article has been edited since then but I guess I’m wondering if I could get some perspectives on whether or not my edits were on the right track and made sense to begin with, and honestly if it’s okay that I’m asking this at all. Thank you! I hope y’all are having a lovely day/night. MsKG (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)MsKG[reply]

@MsKG:, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad you decided to come here. Your edits to Sadie Hawkins dance look fine to me - what you did was to add tags where you found that there were no sources or that the tone was a bit off for an encyclopedia article. But more importantly, you also opened a discussion on the article's talk page about the issues you found. I completely agree with your assessment of those expressions, by the way, and I think you could be bold and edit the phrasing yourself. If anybody should disagree and revert your edits you should then discuss further on the talk page. Hope this helps! --bonadea contributions talk 21:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(oh, and I had no idea the Sadie Hawkins dance was an actual thing - I thought it was something the Buffy the Vampire Slayer creators had invented for that one episode. :D Editing Wikipedia is always educational!) --bonadea contributions talk 21:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the Talk of the article I created a proper ref for you to insert into the article. And yes, be bold. No one disagreed with you opinion that the article is not NPOV. David notMD (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my draft not checked yet?

Hello. I am LPS and MLP Fan. I created a draft for a page, which you can find here. I have been waiting for a few months now, and so far, no one checked my draft. Why hasn’t it been checked yet? If it gets checked and approved, I would appreciate it if someone let me know on my talk page. Thanks LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LPS and MLP Fan:, welcome to the Teahouse. The draft you created on 4 November was never submitted for review. You do that by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the page. Before doing so, however, you should try to find some more sources that would show that the book is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. At the moment there is only one independent source, a review of the book. The other source is the author's own website, which is not independent. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shimer College

Please help us (the alums of Shimer College) communicate that the unique Shimer Great Books curriculum & pedagogy is still available to new students. I have attempted to change some of the verbs in the Wiki entry to the present tense but my changes were rejected for lack of references to existing sources. Please note internal inconsistencies within the Wiki entry. The entry IS up-to-date in acknowledgement of the current association with North Central College in Naperville, IL. To quote the current entry: "In 2016, Shimer announced an agreement to be acquired by North Central College "with the intention of a completed acquisition on or around March 1, 2017."[16] The agreement came to fruition on June 1, 2017 when Shimer's faculty and curriculum were subsumed into North Central as a department known as the Shimer Great Books School of North Central College." copied from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimer_College

The name has changed, as has the geographical location. I do not know the proper way to edit the entry. Nor do I have any source materials. This is my personal knowledge from serving on the Board of the Shimer Alumni Committee.

This is an urgent matter because the recruitment of students has been negatively impacted by the initial impression that Shimer is no longer available. I cannot count how many college counselors have insisted that "Shimer is closed" on the basis of hasty Internet searches. The use of the past tense in the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry has a detrimental effect on the continued existence of the program.

Please help.

Thank you. Mary Warner

P.S. I appreciate the complexities of the name change to "The Shimer Great Books School at North Central College" but I would imagine there are precedents for handling this type of institutional evolution that do not create the impression of death.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Know4Free (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Mary. First, I'm sorry this has been difficult, one of the values I think just about all Wikipedia editors share is that we value knowledge and learning. The main issue here is that any information in Wikipedia needs to be sourced. And just having someone say it's true, even when it clearly is as in this case, doesn't count as a reliable source. Do you have any press releases or even better articles in local papers that talk about the changes? That's what we need to do is to find some reference that counts as a wp:reliable source. I'll take a look at the page and do an Internet search and see if I can find anything, if you know of any sources please let me know and I can make the change for you. It might be worth your while to look at the article on wp:reliable source so you can better understand what does and doesn't count as a good Wikipedia source. Note: it can be a paper that is only in print, we don't have to have a link to something online. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, I found 3 sources that I think are all worthwhile. One is an article in the Chicago Tribune, one from the Sun Times, and one from the Reader. The first two just talk about the acquisition as something in process but the Reader article confirms that it has actually happened: Tribune Article, Sun Times Article Reader Article. If you want to make the changes go ahead but if you want me to let me know, I can do it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just went and made some changes myself. I changed the tense in the intro section and added two of the references. I see that someone else (are you Know4Free?) made some similar changes and they got reverted by another editor. I think with these references I found the matter should be settled unless there is something I'm missing. But before I change any more of the article, I'm going to put something on the talk page and give the other editor a chance to weigh in. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had article rejected declined

I need help in drafting my submission. Can you assist me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljmamis27 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ljmamis27; I'll try to explain the reasoning behind your draft's decline.

So, here's the deal. The main reason why the previous decliner declined it is because there is too much material not supported by an inline citation. Especially because this article is a biography of a living person, all material must be supported by a source inline. In particular, the Early life and career section does not have a source. Did you get this information from something you found offline or online? Or is it original research? If it's original research, you should remove the information, as original research is not allowed on Wikipedia; all material must be supported by a reliable source, especially for living people.

If you found it somewhere reliable, then put a citation linking to the source after the material the source is being used to support. It is preferred to format it in a {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} template, but it's easier to just add <ref>[URL LINK HERE]</ref> as a citation instead; if you would like to use that method instead it's fine as other editors will likely come along and fill in the ref soon enough. For example, if you found an online source that supports the sentence Castro was born on October 27, 1982 in the village of Fina Sisu, Saipan to Luis Tenorio Castro (1951 - 1999) and Margarita Quitugua Deleon Guerrero (1951 - 2015) you have in the article, you would add the coding – <ref>[URL of online source]</ref> – after the sentence, of course replacing [URL of online source] with, well, the URL of the online source you found.

Remember that you should do this for all unsourced material, not just the Early life and career section; for example, much of the Politicla Career section is unsourced. This may seem quite complicated, but once you get used to it, it's actually quite easy. This page contains a lot of useful information about how to cite inline. I hope this helps and if you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask! One thing I will say; your draft seems to meet the notability guidelines, which is something that is rarely achieved for users who submit their articles via AfC, so great job on that - really, the main concern right now is the "no inline citations" thing. Cheers and good luck with your draft.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ljmamis27 - In my opinion, and I reviewed and declined your draft, Draft:Luis John Castro, the subject is clearly notable for one reason. He satisfies political notability guidelines because he was elected to a territorial legislature. However, I did not find a reliable source to that effect, and sources in biographies of living persons should be in the form of in-line citations, also known as footnotes. I declined the draft, requesting that you provide a footnote. You then submitted it again, without providing a footnote, and I declined it again. I did not find the rest of his career to be notable in itself, and did not see a case for general notability. He is politically notable, but you have to provide a footnote to say so. That is the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am puzzled, in that it seems that there were two copies of the draft on this person, and I declined one copy, but the other copy was initially accepted by User:Legacypac, but since then seems to have first been draftified and then has disappeared. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have changed the title of this thread for two reasons. First, and this is a diddle, the article was declined and not rejected. Second, the title of the thread duplicates that of an earlier thread in this forum, and that causes the software to confuse them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newb question.

I just joined up as a "helper" in this project. First let me comment on what a great addition this help room to the WP project, and I am very happy to be available to help as I can. Second, I added a photo to my "membership card" here, and I can't get rid of the parameter text in the photo box. Resizing was no problem. I copied the photo from a place where I had entered it before with no problems. Maybe something about the TeaHouse infobox I'm missing? Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamster Sandwich: I'm happy that you've joined us hosts and that you like the Teahouse. As for your second problem, I've fixed it now. Although the coding layout you used, as I'm sure you know, would be correct for putting an image in a normal article, for this particular template you should only put the bare file name without the File: prefix or metadata. This is because the template automatically puts the rest; the prefix, the alignment, and the size (even though you were able to change the size somehow); the only modifiable part left for you to fill in is the actual image name. It's certainly an understandable mistake. The only thing is I had to remove the caption from the image, as AFAIK, you can't support an image caption parameter in the Teahouse host template. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 00:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TY very much for your easy to follow explanation. I did not know for certain about editing in the template box, but somehow surmised it might be the problem. Thanks again! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I could help. Again, it's an understandable mistake; templates can be confusing to deal with sometimes.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

publishing an article

how i can publish an article in the wikipedia. i want instruction step by step in point form — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrgsbandaraa (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rrgsbandaraa - and welcome to the Teahouse. Usually it's a wise step to not start out creating an article, but rather contributing small edits to existing articles until you learn the ins and outs of WP. But the best source regarding your first article is WP:YFA. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing wikipedia article TITLE and reference LINKS.

The 1966 film Blow-up by director Antonioni is incorrectly referenced [as Blowup, minus the hyphen] all over the wikipedia article. I have tried to change some of these but failed miserably. Cannot figure out how to do it. I truly wish that I could spend the time required to learn how to do these edits, but I am in the middle of so many personal problems right now that I cannot spare that sort of time investment. Loge Reborn (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment here User:Loge Reborn, I'm sure I read that article in the past and never noticed what might be an error there. Here's what I just found out:

IMDB lists the film as "Blow-Up." [9]
WP article for the soundtrack album Blow-Up (soundtrack) conforms to IMDB entry. Here is the Allmusic link from that article. [10] The album cover shot shows the title in ALL CAPS, but the entry is recorded as "Blow-Up" there as well. It appears to be a copy of the movie's poster, but I can't be certain of that at this point.

I think you might have a good point @Loge Reborn. I'll go visit the talk page and see if there has been any discussion about this by other editors which may have already reached a consensus on the issue. That's always an important step when you want to make a big change to an article. Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See extensive discussion on this issue on the talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add to @timtempleton's comment that the talk page discussion there is pretty "mouldy" at 11 years, 7 years and 4 years gone by. The greatest volume of discussion was at the 11 year old mark and a 4 year old "Request for Page Move" that was closed as "No Consensus."

I think, based on the citations I have found, and the citations provided in the single comment by the editor in 2012 (Siskel & Ebert, et. al), might support another look at the page move criteria for this article. It may be that the evidence needs to be presented in a clearer and more concise way. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to new discussion on talk page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask: As I am new to this part of the project, is this a proper forum for this kind of "extended" discussion? My talk page? Loge Reborn's? The article page? Any comments would be useful to me. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a page/article for a not-for-profit community group.

Dear Teahouse

I'm a bit unsure as to whether i can create a page for our community group.
1. I only want to create a page with links etc, more like a website, with timeline and so on.
2. I don't want to have to learn coding to do this, as I've got a job already.
3. Can I write it up in word and then drop it into the page/edit section?
4 HELP!!

Cheers everyone.

mediahub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelaide Barmies (talk • contribs) 05:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adelaide Barmies: When written as above, the answer is generally... no. Wikipedia does not keep any pages created for anyone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it keeps articles written about people, organizations, facts, places etc. And the basic criterion for creating such article is WP:Notability. Wikipedia is not a repository of links or means of promotion. It is to publish verifiable information form reliable sources about notable subjects. See the link I gave before for a general guidelines for notability, and WP:ORG for specific notability guidelines for organizations. --CiaPan (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adelaide Barmies: Once you gather enough facts to make more than a on-liner for your subject, and you find reliable sources for reference, I suggest you visit Wikipedia:Your first article for a tutorial of creating articles. Please be warned, however, that creating a proper article from scratch is one of hardest tasks on Wikipedia, so don't be disappointed if your work is not accepted as soon as you expect. The new users are generally advised to engage in expanding and polishing existing articles first, to gather enough knowledge of writing style and technical background.

Additionally, I'm under the impession you came here just to promote your group. Of course I may well be wrong – but if I'm not, please familiarize with (and follow) requirements of our policy of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I undestand the group you mention is not a company and you're not hired by it, so the policy of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure does not apply to you – but it's worth reading, too, just to be on the safe side in the future.

I hope I didn't overwhelm you with all the notes above. I call all those rules for you to learn and consider in advance if your desired article fits rules of Wikipedia. I also hope the will help you find a 'safe' and easiest possible way to achive what you need. Best regards - and happy editing! :) --CiaPan (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the log of why domains were blacklisted?

Hi. I wanted to cite the art gallery spruethmagers.com but it is on the global spam blacklist. Where do I find the reason it was added to the blacklist please? Is the reason public or do I have to enquire at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Discussion? Thanks -Lopifalko (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lopifalko: You can check the history, most editors when placing a site leave an edit summary to explain their change and if they don't, you at least know who to ask. Use WikiBlame to find the revision easily without having to go through hundreds of entries. Regards So Why 08:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lopifalko:, additionally there is also the blacklist log once you know the approximate date of blacklisting. The log often points to related discussions (although it has significant gaps, especially in older logs). But checking both ressources - page history and logs - , you should be able to research the background for most additions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known to look at the history. But WikiBlame is new to me and very useful, and I have found the information I am looking for in the blacklist log. Thank you both. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

regarding edit

Hello TEA HOUSE, Good Afternoon

Sir, i request you kindly don't delete my edit on Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi Page because my added information about Noorun nisa is hundred percent fact. if any complain lodges against this edit then you have right to delete my added information. I hope that you will consider on this matter for encouragement of new guy on wikipedia.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.74.179 (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had a reply at your earlier question at #Regarding Maghfoor Ahmad Ijazi above. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and at your even earlier question at #Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi further above, also on your user talk page at User talk:Masroor Chaudhary. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

regarding edit

Hello Tea House, Good Afternoon

Sir i request you kindly don't delete my edit on Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi page regarding Noorun Nisa because this added information is hundred percent fact. If you get any complain against this edit then you remove my edit. This is your right.

I hope that you will consider my request for encouragement of new guy as like me.

Thanking you in advance.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary