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

Requested articles

Are the topics listed in the Requested Articles page all notable? Is there someone evaluating their notability after they are listed there? The reason is that I am interested in helping write some of them but it would be frustrating if someone tags it for deletion after an article is written. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darwin Naz: That's a good question and the answer isn't immediately obvious. If you go here to the history of the "music band and performers" RFC page, you can see several deletions on the grounds that three or more independent sources were not provided along with the request. If you go to the page its self you can see that it has guidelines for submissions and that the list is curated according to whether these submissions have been met or not. If you go to this link and look at the submissions for business and economics, you'll see similar curation efforts, but with slightly different terms. Each category provides its own guidelines and standards for notability, which makes sense really because notability isn't a standard measure in every category. Athletes are notable if they enter competitions. Artifacts are notable if their discovers publish information on them. Public figures are notable if they receive press coverage.

My advise would be to ask this question on the talk page of a category which interests you and become familiar with the conditions for inclusion on that particular list. the short answer would be no, there is no guarantee that a list entry will be notable for the simple reason that as an editor, when creating an article, it is ultimately up to you to establish the notability of that subject. The conditions for inclusion on AFC lists are naturally lower than those for entry into the encyclopedia. Edaham (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Edaham for the reply. It is certainly difficult since I discovered that editors could have different interpretations of notability and it does not help that the guidelines also leave room for such multiplicity. I am taking note of your suggestion particularly about notability as not a standard measure in every category. I think that there are safe Requested Articles but there are those I am unsure of but are interesting for me to write. As some would probably agree here, writing is a bit tedious and interest is crucial in completing an article. Discussing it in the Talk page sounds good. I just expected that contributing an entry in this list would be, well, a less roundabout process. Again, thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darwin Naz: Leaving it up to editors to interpret guidelines is actually a core component of the values on which Wikipedia is based. Some policies have varying flexibility. What does that mean? It is an inflexible policy that notability must be established. Everyone follows that one and it isn't likely to be changed. It is a flexible policy with regard to what constitutes notability. If disputed, establishment of notability can be based on consensus. The flexibility, or multiplicity as you put it, sometimes results in debates on talk pages, which are protracted and difficult to resolve. These debates however are a part of how successful^{[citation needed]} crowd sourced projects work. Were notability policies inflexible (For example, a requirement that they must be mentioned in a scholarly journal), we would quickly find that they unduly exclude subjects which are not able to meet the required guidelines. For this reason the differing interpretations and ensuing debates are the lesser of two evils. Edaham (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edaham the difficulty in resolving debates is partly the reason why I am turning to the Requested Articles list. I am hoping I could avoid such protracted process with the expectation that entries have been vetted by others. Anyway, you made excellent points and I would be keeping those in mind. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading a photo to page in creation

Hello, and thank you for the friendly help. How do I upload a photo into the draft I am creating? Thank you! Zuzuroo (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carole Basinger. Since your subject is a living person, the photo must be uploaded to Commons. If you took the photo yourself, you can upload it using Commons:Special:UploadWizard. If it was taken by someone else, have the photographer upload it there. —teb728 t c 19:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to User:teb728 Must the photographer be a Wikipedia User? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carole Basinger (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carole Basinger. I just noticed your follow-up question. No, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. —teb728 t c 21:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, teb728! Another photo question: My article is currently in my Sandbox, as I am still working on it. At what point should the photograph(s) be uploaded by the photographer(s)? Once it is in Draft, or before? Thanks again Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carole Basinger. A free content image (which is probably the only kind you would have on a biography) can be uploaded to Commons at any time. A non-free image like say File:Guster - Parachute.jpg (which would be used like only in an album article) can be uploaded to Wikipedia only when the article in which it is used has been published to article space. —teb728 t c 21:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you teb728! I would like to contact the photographers to upload images, but will wait until it is published.Zuzuroo (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls approve the article asap!

Hello everyone,

I received a message that I should connect all the articles with the sources of Draft:Benjamin Schnau . I did that already on my last change.

What are you still asking for?

User Whispering is saying it would be OBVIOUS I don't do anything to make the article better which is an assumption he is doing which is offensive and rude and completely not the case.

I did what was asked for before already and now get that as a reply. Very unsatisfying.

Pls review the page its all connected.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklin187: The article is probably not going to be approved right now because:

Many of the sources you cited are not reliable.
I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent.
It's unclear what sources support what article material.

I've left instructions on your user talk page that explains the simple way to write articles that will not be rejected or deleted. You just need to summarize at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of Schnau but still specifically about him. That's it. Writing unsourced material and slapping on dozens of questionable sources is a waste of your time and ours.

Also, why does it need to be approved immediately? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say immediately I said as soon as possible which is different.

I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent What do you mean by that statement 'independent'. All these articles are independent created based on the work he did.

It's unclear what sources support what article material.

If you check the articles and sources you see the titles and the movies he was working on which is what the article is talking about??

https://www.stern.de/panorama/gesellschaft/benjamin-schnau--ein-deutscher-und-sein-harter-weg-nach-hollywood-7860132.html http://www.manilaupmagazine.com/issues/vol3-8/mobile/index.html#p=80 https://christoph-ulrich-mayer.com/unkategorisiert/von-den-besten-lernen-speaker-made-in-hollywood-2-2/ https://www.astrid-arens.com/the-german-oscars-2018/?lang=en

All these sources for example above are independent journalistic resources. I clearly don't understand what the problem is with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklin187: What you need to do is provide in-line citations. There are two in the article, which are insufficient. Also, both of those sources are IMDB, which is not a reliable source. IMBD is written by its users, not professionals.

As I've already explained here and on your user talk page, all you need to do is summarize three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of and unaffiliated with Schau. These should be in-line citations.

If you get on that as soon as possible, the article can be approved as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling we are talking about different things here.

I'm talking about the external links you look at the reference field.

I added the journalistic sources to the reference field. Is that better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft still doesn't cite any sources. Until it does, it certainly won't be approved. Maybe you need to read Help: Referencing for beginners? Maproom (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Franklin187: My first post says I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent because you dumped the majority of references in the external links. It's unclear what sources support what article material points to the fact that you're not using enough in-line citations. Many of the sources you cited are not reliable addresses both sections.

It isn't an either/or problem, both are problems.

The work you have done so far has been a waste of your time because you did not do it right. If you just follow the instructions I left at User_talk:Franklin187#How_to_write_articles, you will have this over with as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Franklin187. It might seem strange to you, but the only thing you should put under the heading References is {{Reflist}}. Each actual references goes immediately after the statement that it supports, and the system inserts a reference number and lists the references where you put {{Reflist}}. I hope this helps you to understand how Wikipedia does references. Dbfirs 22:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfirs: thanks for the info. That means I just put

right under the word 'References' and thats it? Thanks in advance.

@Dfirs: Hi, Could you pls check again now, I connected everything between sources and text of the article. Pls let me know. Thanks for the effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin187 Do you work for or represent Benjamin Schnau? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Franklin187: You've just replaced the text with external links instead of adding in-line citations to the end of the supported material. If you would just read the 8 simple steps I left on your user talk page, you'd get this over with sooner instead of wasting your time (and ours). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin187 I converted the first of your references to a ref as an example of what should be done with the rest. —teb728 t c 23:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@teb728 Thanks for this example, that helped a lot. I did what everyone told me. Pls let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did what everyone told me. Except you didn't, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.Thomson: I'm assuming you are talking about point 4, 5 and 6 in the link you sent me? What do these 3 points mean. Even reading them doesnt fully makes me understand what to do? If I'm assuming wrongly, I would appreciate if you would let me know what exactly you are talking about. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin187 I will ask again; do you work for or represent Benjamin Schnau? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot: Yes I do! Why are you asking?

You will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest policy as well as the paid editing policy and formally declare that on your user page or user talk page. The latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement for paid editors. Thanks 331dot (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No this is a misunderstanding I don't get paid for that. What are you talking about? I do this in my free time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs)

If you are employed or hired by him to be his agent/representative/public relations person, you are a paid editor and must declare it. We have no way of knowing if you are on your free time or not. If you are just editing at his request and are not paid or employed by him, it is still a conflict of interest that you must declare. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys can someone pls do me a favor and just tell me know what is still missing on this article beside that. I got this link to this article explaining the steps of how to create an article but have no idea what that means? I added in-line citations, what else is missing. I don't get it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no deadlines here; feel free to take all the time you need to learn about what you have been told and make the needed declarations. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for Schnau you must create a User page and declare that. Even if you are not being paid to create a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin187, after you have posted the required declarations, there are still points outlined in the post on your talk page that you have not addressed. The most important ones are a) citing sources properly, b) showing the person is notable, and c) removing promotional phrasing. You have gone some way towards a) by placing some of the URLs to your sources within <ref></ref> tags, in the relevant places, but there is still a list of unidentified URLs (not connected to any part of the article) in the "References" section, and you do have to cite the sources, that is, clearly identify them so that a reader can understand what the source is, and potentially find the information even if the URL should go away. The link to the information about that (which is also in point 4 in the list on your talk page) is Wikipedia:Citing sources. As for b) it doesn't really look as if you followed the advice in point 2. on your talk page - the sources in your article are still basically the same as they were before your draft was rejected, and as far as I can see without spending too much time looking into unidentifid URLs, there is really only one (Stern) that is independent and talks about Schnau in depth, as opposed to mentioning him in passing. This is what is required. (There are also several inadequate references on the page, including but not limited to links to Netflix, YouTube, and Wikipedia itself, which do not meet the requirements for "professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources".) As regards c), the draft is not entirely promotional, but it is also not neutrally written. That is often difficult when writing about topics where there is a conflict of interest, but it is not impossible. But again, before you look into these things you have to address the conflict of interest issue. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@bonadea: First of all thanks for your comments and feedback. Very valuable. I appreciate it. I addressed the conflict of interest on the user page. And would now work on the points you made in your comments. Is that ok? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't work for him, what is the urgency in getting the draft approved? 331dot (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin187 has declared COI on User page. I cut and rearranged a lot, but still needs work, especially on referencing. And I also ask, what is with all the urgency? David notMD (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot There is no urgency at all. Sorry if it came across like that. I just want to figure out what I still need to do to be all correct. @David notMD thank you very much for rearranging and cutting, I appreciate it. As mentioned to 331dot, there is no urgency, sorry if it came across like that. I just like to figure out stuff as soon as I can. I will rearrange the other references as you did and let you know once I'm done. Thanks for starting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC) @David notMD I rearranged all the other references. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance Hi everyone, I hope you are well. I just wanted to follow up on my last changes. Can you pls let me know the status. I'm assuming I finished what David notMD has started. ThanksFranklin187 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Franklin187 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)-[reply]

Making a page

Hello, I am trying to publish a page for the Sudanese protests which happened this month. I sent a draft but I haven't received any notifications for it. Can somebody help me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeThisFor2018 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2018_Sudanese_Protests I found the draft. Can someone help me publish it. I will edit later because I am very busy and I do hope someone helps out — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeThisFor2018 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a backlog for such requests. So, please, be patient as this can take several months. Ruslik_Zero 20:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MadeThisFor2018: It's never a good idea to submit a draft article for review if you aren't willing or able to work on it yourself. If, as here, it's a developing news story, its quite likely that someone else will create a page on it themselves, leaving reviewers little choice but to turn down your draft. That said, this sounds like a significant topic, so I have added three references from internationally-respected news outlets, and have left a request for interested editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sudan. Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed some information to your draft as well. Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original Sources

Good day: I am in process of writing an article about the Service History of Porte-class Gate Vessels, East Coast, Canada and Great Lakes 1971 to 1975. The sourced material is contained in the Fonds of the sea captain who commanded these operations. Commander F.R. Berchem died Mar 2018. As Executor of his estate, I have been directed to place these materials in a suitable museum/archive. Until that task is done, I hold them. These form the source material upon which I base the article, and they are not yet catalogued in a public archive. I am in the process of scanning the documents should your editors wish to see them as part of your publishing protocol. See the beginning of the draft: User_talk:Zimmerman,_G.L./sandbox/Canadian_Gate_Vessel_1971_to_1975

How do you advise I proceed? George Zimmerman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmerman, G.L. (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zimmerman, G.L.: If the sources are not published in any way, they're not sources as far as we're concerned. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is, at the present time an article Porte-class gate vessel in Wikipedia. Perhaps you have access to some published material concerning the topic which could be added. Newspaper articles from reliable sources could be added, provided the page # and date is included (?) The question mark is for theseemingly mutable nature of what constitutes a "reliable source" here in Wikipedia. User:Ian.thomson is absolutely correct in reminding us that things like personal diaries, even of notable people are not a correct source, unless they have been further published by a reliable source. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Thank you for inviting me I want to ask how can we check a source is credible or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReginaMills007 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITE for help. I'm also about to post some advice on your talk page. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Header

I'm currently creating a page header for my user-space. How do I create a magic link that links to the talk page of whatever page the header is on, so I can use the header as a template and then link it to whatever talk page that header is on. I'm looking for something along the lines of:

If you have any questions feel free to put them on the [Talk Page Link | Talk Page] for this page [Page Name]

Is there a magic link that identifies the page and the talk page. I've seen it done in some templates, but I've spent an hour raking through them and can't find the specific code.

Thanks in advance,

Jake Symons (Talk) (Contributions) (User Space) 19:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jake Symons: You can find all the magic words over at Help:Magic words. The one you're looking for is {{TALKPAGENAME}}; the full wikimarkup for the link would be [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|Talk Page]]. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a friendly heads up that you have an extra colon at the end of your userpage link in your signature :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll fix the colon and I've bookmarked that page, I should have done a search for Magic Words :) Jake Symons (Talk) (Contributions) (User Space) 21:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

submitting a revised page after first one was declined

hello! i wonder if there is a step by step guide to how i go about deleting an old submission which was never approved and replacing it with a new and improved submission addressing the reasons for the declination before? it's the schools for chiapas/sandbox page and i have a new submission all ready to go in Word. can i somehow just copy it all with the new references, etc. and paste it into place for submission? if so, can anyone help with directions on how to do that. i have tried with simple cut and paste but that does not seem to work. thank you for any help you can provide! kimberly rosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by SfC-EpC (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should make all changes on the same page as the original submission rather than a separate page/document so other editors can help. Then click the resubmit button. There's more information in the article declined box on the page. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Could you link to the article? RhinosF1 (talk)

hi and thanks for your reply--i was trying to make the changes on the same page as the original submission, by copying and pasting from the revised document that i have in Word. do i have re-type the whole thing into the wikipedia page? and if so, how do i include the endnotes/references? it's signficantly different, so it's not just about adding or deleting, etc. we've include updated information and then with many more endnotes/independent references, which was the reason it was declined the first go-round. the original is located at User:SchoolsForChiapas/sandbox. not sure how i can attach the new/updated article here? kimberly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.198.58.105 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend just following this set of instructions on how to write articles instead of addressing every new problem as they pop up. If those instructions are properly followed, an article will not be deleted or rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties Dealing with Another Editor

I asked about how to deal with what I feel is bias in the Incapacity Benefit article on the Request for Comment page, where the editor and I was told that it was too early in this dispute to ask for an RfC and I was sent to here. I have posted here in the past about a different issue.

I have been editing a number of articles relating to welfare for people with disabilities in the UK, including Employment Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Work Capability Assessment and Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment. While I have been editing these articles, I have come accross an editor name Dr Greg Wood. Dr Greg Wood appears to have some very strong feelings about the Work Capability Assessment. While I was editing the article on Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment, I looked at a section describing a doctor who used to work for Atos- the company who used to administer the Work Capability Assessment- who made some allegations against Atos in the media. The doctor wasn't named in the article. I looked at the references and found out that this doctor was also called Greg Wood. I reported this to the conflict of interest noticeboard, and another editor has dealt with this. I have noted this here for context.

In the Incapacity Benefit article, I removed a lot of what I felt was irrelevent content. The article mostly seemed to discuss the Work Capability Assessment. For those who are unaware, the Work Capability Assessment is used to determine eligibility for Employment Support Allowance. Employment Support Allowance is the benefit that replaced Incapacity Benefit. He reverted my edits. In the summary, he gave the reason for putting the content back as "undo deleterious change". I admit I have made mistakes; I could have explained what I was doing a lot more often. But I still think several of the articles Dr Greg Wood has worked on are problematic and he doesn't seem to accept there could be a problem. He doesn't seem to cope very well with editors disagreeing with him. After I edited the work capability assessment article, he re-classed it on the quality scale as a "D", and wrote in the essay summary that it was "Nowhere near a B now" (I know there is no D. It showed up as unassessed, so I changed it to a C.) Previously, he had assessed the article as a B.(I know this doesn't really matter, but I think this shows Dr Greg Wood's approach to editing Wikipedia). On his talk page, he has accused me and another editor of having conflict of interest. (I'd just like to say here for the record that I do not have a conflict of interest. I myself claim ESA. I do not and never have been paid or asked to edit Wikipedia by anyone. I have never had a job at all, so I have never worked for any organisations involved with the UK benefits system. Nor does anyone in my family or any friends).

How can I deal with bias in the articles Employment Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Work Capability Assessment and Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment? I'm fully prepared for someone to say that Dr Greg Wood is right or that the articles aren't biased, but my personal feeling is that if Dr Greg Wood doesn't stop changing articles to fit his personal viewpoint, the articles on these topics will remain biased and the article on Incapacity Benefit will continue to have a large amount of irrelevent content that I can't remove without being in trouble. It looks as if only me and Dr Greg Wood have edited these articles recently, so it's unlikely that another editor would give their opinion.

I have read about dispute resolution, but I was under the impression that this was for more serious issues (for example, threats of violence, contact off Wikipedia). I also don't want to end up in trouble myself for trying to deal with this if I'm in the wrong here. What can I do? CircleGirl (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

factual correction reversed

I am told that an alteration I made to the page of Abdul Minty has been reversed. The only alteration I recall making was to correct his date of birth but I do not know how to get in touch with Shellwood to find out why he altered it back. The date he quotes appears in a number of places but it is not correct https://commonwealthoralhistories.org/2017/interview-with-abdul-minty/ "4 May 2017 - Biography – Abdul Minty. Born South Africa, 1939. Graduate University College London. Appointed the Honorary Secretary of the British ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.46.176 (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These changes were made nearly two months ago but I'll ping Shellwood as he might be able to give us some insight although as you've said if many sources show the incorrect information without anything definitive showing othwrwise it's likely he thought you were incorrect. (pinging @Shellwood:)

Also, remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ RhinosF1 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 82.5.46.176, the source used in the article says 1933, but you seem to have found an other one stating something different. I feel I'm not in any position to judge which of the sources is most credible and leave this up to you. May I suggest that you in order to avoid situations like this in the future add the reference when you make changes like this. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various articles about him give the different dates of 1933 and 1939, but I knew him when he lived in London and can confirm from my own knowledge that the year of his birth was 1939 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.46.176 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to an article

Can you please add a picture of Smenkhkare's coffin as the article picture? The Pharoah I mean.

Yep. That's all I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egypt Freak (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Egypt Freak. The article in question is Smenkhkare and that article says that there is no scholarly consensus that the coffin and the mummy are actually of Smenkhkare. Some experts believe it is Akhenaten. Accordingly, I do not believe that the photo of the coffin belongs at the beginning of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the box office collection of hebbuli

Courtesy link: Hebbuli

Box office = 56 crore Soure= ttps://bestoftheyear.in/movie/hebbuli/ .Some really good guy did edit the page.and someone removed it.It really is a reliable source. no one can find a source which says'the movie has not grossed 55 crore.' There also needs to be some editing in the page'list of highest grossing indian films '.(k annada).

I really want this to be updated please. T

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchitya (talk • contribs)

Already done ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 05:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help troubleshooting infoboxes

Hey all,

I came across the page for Susan Crown, and the infobox is all messed up.

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

I tried figuring out how to fix it myself, but just couldn't get it to work in the preview. I'm sure I'm missing something simple, but is there a chance someone could tell me what that simple thing is?

Thank you! Capromeryx (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out Capromeryx. I fixed it thus. The link to Yale University was closed with only a single bracket. —teb728 t c 09:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's perfect. Thanks again, have a nice day. Capromeryx (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to edit under an IP range, constructively?

Hi. So, I'm having a small doubt which may or may not relate to sockpuppetry. Just a general (maybe yes) query. Before asking this question I want to know whether or not you all respect IP editors. I have been editing constructively which seemingly comes under a CIDR IP range of 182.58.0.0/16, you can see most of my edits under species-related articles such as Rana tigerina or Hoplobatrachus tigerinus 1, 2 etc., reverting vandalism and text insertions via original research (synthesis of original statements).

So I have a doubt over it, since may be it can get used on other ranges as well and can get misused under vandalism charges. Likewise there was a significant amount of original research and a aggressive Point of view insertion with pure personal analysis 3. I'm afraid that I may be attributed for that, because my range is pinging a lot and changes drastically in that given range. I personally help by giving a hand in reverting vandals and solve misinterpretations. In case I'm, in my humble opinion, not getting the connection (if in future) for the sock-puppet cases. My question is am I allowed to work on an account and contribute (like this) constructively for privacy issues? That is, not as a sockpuppet but for legitimate use. Please help me! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an account would not violate policy as long as you did not defend your IP. If you're worried but an alternative account disclosure on your user pages. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOCK RhinosF1 (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK so can I use my IP and my account together for legit purposes? 182.58.170.239 (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, stick to 1 account. Stop using the IP once you create the account. RhinosF1 (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But only for legit purposes like editing constructively and reverting some vandals. 182.58.170.239 (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid conflicts, per WP:SOCK use only 1 account at once unless it's for certain purposes. for more info on editing while logged out see WP:LOGOUT RhinosF1 (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you need anymore help, let us know. RhinosF1 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I need some help, if I create a account and contribute constructively by following rules and all and in some cases I adopt WP:IGNOREALLRULES, with which I use one account and one IP address (or say IP range cause it deviates a lot), if I do that and contribute in a constructive manner via reversion of vandalism constructive fully (published academic sourced) cited and referenced contributions, without any conflict of interest in any of the aforementioned articles. Can I still continue contributing one with the IP address and the second with my account?

Actually I'm confused upon that only otherwise I'm good. @RhinosF1: 182.58.170.239 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An observation: I have come across editors that declare on User page that they have more than one account. Caveat is that they never use the two accounts to edit on the same articles. You are specifically asking if you can use an account and an IP "...together for legit purposes." The answer to that is "No." David notMD (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK But Why? 182.58.170.239 (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Wikipedia model works on Consensus, and as such it's important that we know that each participant on a particular page is a distinct individual, as otherwise one person using multiple accounts or IP addresses can give the impression of consensus when none exists. You won't get in trouble for genuine accidents, such as forgetting to log on, but if someone regularly refuses to follow our rules on this without providing a very good reason for doing so, we'll eventually conclude that they're someone who's here for the wrong reasons. ‑ Iridescent 11:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I know the fundamental model of working and passing the context is through WP:Consensus but if I follow it and participate in the discussions with only one account and no IP address at all, can I still use my account and IP for similar legit purposes and not to converse in my existing articles rather the different ones? I'm quite confused about this, I'm only going to follow a strict proposal so I need some dire help. Can I really use if I do not engage in inappropriate actions or rulings like exchanging votes and deceiving others by forged votes, commissions of legit and totally legit contributions. Please help in this! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is anyone here 182.58.170.239 (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO @Iridescent: @David notMD: @RhinosF1: @!: ANYONE HERE HELP ME! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've had the answer explained to you, repeatedly. No, you can't use multiple accounts unless you declare the link between the accounts; yes, you can edit logged out if you have an account and you won't get in trouble if you sometimes forget or be too lazy to sign in some of the time, or may be unable to for technical reasons, and therefore make IP edits; no, you shouldn't do this routinely without good reason as unless you actually have a reason for using multiple identities it makes it harder for other editors to view your editing history, and consequently constitutes disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. ‑ Iridescent 11:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK but I don't want to prove a point instead I'm saying can I actually edit with one account and consequently edit with my IP address without being disruptive as I'm always here to collaborate and seeing my edits isn't hard at all. Please say if I'm given the permit to work under two accounts or not, thanks. 182.58.170.239 (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me over this! 182.58.170.239 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Is that clear enough? David notMD (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NO ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 12:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

seriously ........... 182.58.245.48 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for help not repetitive no's seriously I'm having a seizure and was hesitant to post a reply .... 182.58.245.48 (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First- as per decorum- please allow me to welcome you to the WP:Teahouse. I can appreciate your concern, it is quite understandable. I am not an expert on the security measures of Wikipedia, so I cannot address your question directly, nor do I wish to press you on why editing "anonymously" under an IP is a necessity for you. I can offer you a personal example where I myself in the past hesitated to enter a password on a strangers computer on various occasions while travelling... There are a variety of reasons, of course. I could also give examples where IP editors have made contributions to the project that I took the time to thank them for, and I invariably encourage them to establish a user account, and use it exclusively, when they have the abilty to log into WP in "safe and comfortable" circumstances. I encourage you to do the same here, in this space. Good luck, and happy editing! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I was teaching in China, there were a few times I edited while logged out because the school's "security" software is regarded by all other countries as invasive malware (like hell were they getting my password). In my edit summaries, I identified myself by my account name, edited as though I was logged in, and avoided any situation where having a second account could be (dishonestly) advantageous. For example, I counted any reverts I made through that IP as reverts made under my own account for purposes of 3RR (not that it mattered because I didn't go near edit wars). Some other users create a second account for situations like these.

If, when editing from an IP, you identify yourself by your account's name and if you go on to make a log of the IPs you use on your user page, that will discourage (otherwise perfectly reasonable) concerns about sockpuppetry.

If you never connect your account with the IPs but your edits from when you're logged out do not overlap at all with those from your account, that will also further discourage (otherwise perfectly reasonable) concerns about sockpuppetry.

If you edit from an IP and from an account in the same article without connecting the two, there will be concerns that you're trying to appear to be two people, which gives you two voices, which is dishonest to the point of bad faith if issues of consensus comes up.

If you edit in the same area with an IP and an account but otherwise treat the two as one entity (e.g. you as a person never carry out more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, for example only doing one revert with the IP and two with the account) -- it's just going to be obvious that you're editing while logged out. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For me I'm losing the will to help you, you've not as far as I can see made a single edit outside of Teahouse, you're ignoring what we've said and are asking the same question multiple times, you've made a blatant attack against us in a edit description [1]. I've linked clearly to the policies and multiple users have explained them. Please don't make attacks against us but if you were having siezures then I hope you get better soon. Other than that, rant over, thanks RhinosF1 (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarifying, RhinosF1 is talking about the IP, not me). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to confirm, I am referring to the IP. You seem to be a great help at Teahouse Ian RhinosF1 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to read that you had a seizure. I hope you have recovered. My brother died from an epileptic seizure at age 34, so you have my sympathy. The answer is still "No" for multiple accounts. You appear to be editing articles as IP 182.58.206.149, starting earlier this month, and state on that Talk an intention to not register an account. That is your prerogative. You also declare that you will not sock puppet. Nice to read. Other editors choose to remain IPs and their edits are treated no differently from account editors. David notMD (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see what he's posted there, as long as he follows the rules (and based on that he doesn't want an account so that shouldn't be an issue) then there should be no issues. Sorry to hear about your brother @David notMD: RhinosF1 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm not making a attack or such I was terrified for that answer of so many no's so I just opined whether y'all are trolling or not... also I'm thorough with the rules already I think I can stick to one IP while editing different articles which are above my interests from my now new account (not to be disclosed obviously) and I too know that Checkuser's are'nt established for fishing purposes, so only strong evidences can pull this matter. Thanks for getting those rules and I'm sorry for your brother's loss @David notMD: I was near than terrified to see multilevel multiple no's pop-up on my screen so I was scared about that. I got some points (additional ones) and got to know about multiple accounts rule may be I'm underestimated over that so-called-attack but that was just a wondering opinion as to how you take it seriously no issues though. I'm good on my way and I'm going to create only one account. Because I know when time comes, it comes due.. no one can escape.. except honestly my accounts are just connected to one account and one IP. I just hope that I'm not caught in a sockpuppetry act and I'm not going to anyways. Because I'm now thoroughly known to the rules. Also the CheckUser might need evidence for suspected sockpuppetry he can't directly run a CheckUser on me unless it it looks like a duck quacks like a duck walks like a duck swims like a duck then it is a duck and for my case it is implausible as I work on two different streams (or article in different categories) to avoid confusion and questioning between two entities (or people) on same topics. I think it is best to restrict discussions in my IP account and move on with my newer account. Although it needs proofs to prove sockpuppetry I guarantee the proofs will be inconclusive and the case will be closed. My account will be present and I'll work through it to help other editors with discussions and of course a final agreement with which we all can agree upon. Again guys thanks a lot for this precious help I'll be more than happier to work through this community. And hope to avoid some unavoidable games here :) 182.58.245.48 (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hope you stick to your promise of not sockpuppeting but I recommend for the avoidance of doubt that you CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY state on the user pages of both accounts that you have a legitimate alternative account (like I've done for my bot account). Saying, you were terrified of our response is ridiculous we were just getting frustrated, but you're edit description seems to me like an attack against us, accusing someone of being a troll is NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES just 'questioning'. Anyway, enjoy your editing. RhinosF1 (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK it isn't a attack I was having a seizure while watching so many no's come across my screen that seems to be ridiculous when asking for help... it's just your opinionated description.. not even correct I'm just saying "trolling" can be described under many circumstances like saying so many no's and following with a big no is to me a trolling behaviour if you're all frustrated... that's your job to keep yourselves calm and wait for the perfect moment to counter or such (as you did right now to defend yourself) I don't think it's adequate enough to reflect the frustration also I don't think you've taken it all correctly and only got dependent upon one word .. 'troll'.. you dropped other words... that is just biased in my humble opinion.. if you decide to help like that by repeating certain characters then best of luck... just found one flaw in Wikipedia... attacks may be defined in many ways and.my wordings are neutral to display the equivalent of frustration as I needed help... thanks for the help though and bye.. also don't comment more.. my questioning and comments were right and your approach as "blatant attack" was wrong ... seriously if you take this as an attack when someone has a n opportunity to give such a reply by giving so many no's is just not good.. thanks again I learned many things from here I also learned some people do come to defend themselves if their flaw is detected or determined instead just accreting it.. my god just too much... anyways thanks again guys I learned all the fundamentals and core principles of maintaining this vast encyclopedia will stay more like AFD CSD etc.. :) 182.58.245.48 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP editor... I feel your frustration... I do. From firsthand experience. This Teahouse forum is supposed to be (and anyone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong) a polite, and welcoming place for editors to ask questions. Just as you have done. I do not understand either the frustration that certain editors have displayed here. As you say, there are fundamentals and core principles of the project, and so to are there very basic rules of engagement for the editors who choose to help here. They were, to my eye, largely ignored by the several of the "helpers" to engage you. They did try to help, in their way, but I felt- even though I am not equipped with ready answers to your questions- that I should attempt to engage you with a spirit of WP:AGF.

I am going to let you in on a little Wikipedia secret... Almost nothing that editors manage to do to it, cannot easily be undone. Some dink can come along and put some heinous words in an article, and you can be sure that within minutes it will be gone, editor blocked, maybe page protected and the whole thing put up for discussion at any number of notice boards.

I made a point of welcoming you, because the helpers to this page have essentially taken a vow of "politeness" and the expectation is that we should exercise extreme patience. And if we do not, part of our pledge is that we will accept the criticism where we have erred in that respect. For the interested editors who have commented here, in abrupt, rude and in a way which any other editor could see were nothing short of inflammatory. I am as impressed as this IP editor with the quality of your responses. Please rethink your commitments to this page if you cannot exercise an extreme measure of civility and polite discussion. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying IP, firstly, I am guessing the Barnstar is from you so thanks a lot, next, I can see that you didn't mean to come across as 'attacking' anyone in your edit summary. I know I got a bit frustrated and it may be better if we BOTH wait at bit and think before we speak as I've said before I hope you get better soon and the seizures stop. Enjoy editing, RhinosF1 (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my article delayed in publication?

Hi. I wrote the following article for Wikipedia some months ago, but it has not appeared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronald_J._Allen

Would you please check on its status? As far as I can tell it conforms to Wikipedia's requirements for content, form, etc.

Thank you. Ronald Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald J. Allen (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronald J. Allen - and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you've never submitted it as an article. Second, it's not in Draft form (which is where it would need to be to be submitted). What you have done is written an article on your Userpage. Please take a look at WP:YFA, which will help you understand how to submit an article. It will also help you understand some of the problems with the way you have it currently formatted. WP:CIT and WP:CITE are also good to understand how to use and format citations and footnotes. Hope this helps. And don't be afraid to ask questions if you need further help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's now in your Sandbox User:Ronald J. Allen/sandbox. What you have written is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. For an article about a person, what is needed is content based on citations written about that person, by other people. A selected bibliography of work published by the person can be listed as part of the article, but none of that is usable to reference what the person thinks or says or does. Right now, everything following "A church theology" rests on what Williamson himself has written. To help a little bit, I created real sections and added one reference. Good luck in your endeavor. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I put html onto a page?

How can I include a html code into a page?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillbot17 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dillbot17, welcome to the Teahouse. Because we have our own 'wikimarkup' here, only a few html elements are enabled. Please see WP:HTML for more information on those you can use.

Could you also sign all future talk page posts by typing four keyboard tilde characters at the end, please. This adds your username and a timestamp. Speaking of usernames: unfortunately - and you really weren't to know this - your username violates our username policy because it contains the word 'bot', which is a restricted word, suggestive of automated accounts. Could I invite you to simply abandon this account, never use it again, and create a new one with a different name, please? The shortcut to read about this is WP:USERNAME, and the section within it on this matter is at WP:MISLEADNAME. I'm really sorry about this, but its better to deal with it straight away before you embark on your Wikipedia journey. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add a citation

Hi, what am I getting wrong that when I attempt to add a citation, i get "error not saved" after entering the CAPTCHA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phbm9684 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Phbm9684, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard to tell what the problem is, without more information. One possibility is that you are trying to add a link to a site that is blacklisted. What is the citation you are trying to add? --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to upload pictures or attach photos

Please how can I add pictures to my edits on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsley kofi Sam (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Kingsley kofi Sam:: You may want to look at Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1, as that is an extensive tutorial on image usage. Remember: Wikipedia prefers images that you made or that are free, and that non-free images should preferably be used only once. Feel free to reply with additional questions, and be sure to reply with a signature (~~~~ at the end at your reply). –eggofreason^talk 19:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate an old article that goes to a redirect

Hi,

An article, Elissa F. Cadish was created in 2012 and a year later was condensed down to a redirect because of a failed judicial nomination. While the subject was a failed federal judicial nominee, she has since been elected to a state supreme court, satisfying WP:BIO. How do I remove the redirect to reinstate the former article for this person? Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snickers2686. One possibility is that you edit the redirect directly, to turn it into an article: after following the redirect, you pick the link at the top that says "Redirected from ...". But unless you are very confident of creating an acceptable article on the first attempt, I suggest it is better to start it as a new article, and worry about putting it over the redirect at a later stage. If you use Articles for creation, then when you submit the draft for review, the reviewing editor will sort out where it should go. Alternatively, when the time comes, you can ask an admin to move your draft over the redirect. --ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for help to write an article about me as an MC, "Audio-Alpha"

Is there anyone who could help me put together something that won't get rejected when it comes to an article about me as an MC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audio-Alpha (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Audio-Alpha: Writing about yourself is a really bad idea -- see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

As for writing an article that won't be rejected, I've written a guide for that. Eight simple steps that covers all the issues that new users usually face when writing articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how long does it take for a draft to be published

how long does it take for a draft to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.87.192.253 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However long it takes the author to cite at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that provide in-depth coverage specifically and primarily about the subject but are not affiliated with nor dependent upon it.

You can find detailed instructions on how to write a draft that will be approved almost as soon as anyone sees it here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Bouchelle; musician biography

I have repeatedly attempted to update the Lisa Bouchelle bio, however while appearing on the Preview....the change doesn't show up. It concerns her latest video on You Tube for the song, 'If You Could Read My Mind,' which has over 113,000 views officially documented. What needs to be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ediththeelephant (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ediththeelephant: I'm not seeing anything blocked in the edit filter nor any edits since the 8th. You're hitting "Publish changes" after hitting show preview, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived Flyspecking Editors ... Is This Normal?

There seem to be two types of people on this side of Wikipedia. There are those neophytes (like me) who focus on the subject-matter (the meat) of any given article. They are generally very intelligent people with significant (sometimes highly technical) information to share ... and then there are those who focus on the 'process' of article-writing. They often act like cops, blowing their whistle and leaving public announcements with big red iconology and terse formats on talk pages. There is no discussion, No detail. No specificity. They zip in out of nowhere, act unilaterally, seemingly harass, and generally relish the unique power and responsibilities they have been given. And then they disappear.

They seem to be on a power-trip at times.

I am a serious editor who wishes to write substantive informational articles, but the way it is done is like a small taser every so often that feels like Skinner Box training ... always leaving a 'scarlet letter' in my in-box. Is this normal? I would think it could be done better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecttype (talk • contribs)

Hello, Architecttype and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for your observation - not normally the type of question we receive here, but I understand to some degree where you're coming from. I'll try to address it from my perspective, if I may (i.e. an expert in a limited range of topics with an interest across many areas, and with a desire to see this encyclopaedia develop, and to help others, yet not be damaged by trouble-makers). Be aware that I started to draft this reply to you before I realised you had rather unhelpfully deleted two edits from your talk page which would have allowed me to understand the context of your question far better. It is unreasonable to expect us to be mind-readers, though I do address the two concerns about your editing later on in my reply.

Wikipedia is currently the 5th most visited website in the world, with over 5.5 million encyclopaedic articles on English Wikipedia alone, all free to be edited by anyone at any time. We welcome knowledgeable experts, like you, who want to contribute in a really positive way. But on the opposite side of the spectrum we have a minority who love to disrupt, damage or deface articles. In between, we have keen editors who do not understand our rules and policies on such matters as copyright violation, promotion, ensuring a neutral point of view, or only using Reliable Sources. Keeping up with ensuring that experts, like you, only add content that is supported by Reliable references and in conformity with our Manual of Style and other policies, whilst also ensuring that vandals and puerile school kids don't damage our content - whilst also trying to create content of our own - can be a daunting task for any committed editor here. A wide range of relatively experienced editors try to help out by managing how content is added, and guiding today's newcomers to ensure that they become the content-creators of tomorrow. To that end, some of us volunteer to help newcomers in this Teahouse; others help elsewhere.

The problem we have is that there are relatively few editors committed to keep the place spick and span, and we encounter so many contributions that are not of the highest quality that we are supplied with a suite of easy-to-use template messages to help us welcome, guide, berate, warn or even report those editors who do not contribute as we require them to. Inevitably, these messages may appear to recipients as terse comments, dropped seemingly randomly on your (or others') talk pages. I don't think any of us are bully-boy cops - we try to support, guide, encourage, welcome, warn or, if necessary, report new editors for repeated bad actions. And we're always here to be questioned, challenged, or even reported on our actions, or to respond to requests for clarification. But, if you want a response, you will have to ensure you address your question properly to the editors who leaves a note on your talk page. The best way is to ask for clarification on their talk page.

I do accept that a very small number of editors here can sometimes be rather too terse in the way they interact with new editors, but I hope we get the balance right here at the Teahouse? By way of just one example of how we try to help new editors, late last night I spent a considerable amount of my time delving into the contributions of just one new editor, leaving critical (yet supportive) comments on their talk page about my concerns about how they were editing highly technical medical topics in a way that wasn't ideal. I felt obligated to support another editor's proposal that one of their contributions was so poor that it should be deleted but, before supporting that deletion, I tried to tidy up their referencing and read through their sources, only to discover that the content they had added was in not referred to in their citations. Yet they clearly had very technical expertise in the subject. I spent half an hour drafting a (hopefully) gentle message expressing my concerns at their gung-ho approach to editing. I wanted to encourage them to do better, not stop them. Whilst doing all this, another experienced editor with administrator rights gave them an indefinite block for bad-faith editing and a violation of our username policy. Whilst it didn't surprise me they had got themselves blocked, I really felt sorry for the newcomer and contacted the administrator to ask them to explain why this was done, and observing that I felt a permanent block seemed rather harsh under the circumstances. I finally got to bed at 2am, having spent three hours trying to balance issues around incompetent editing by a technically skilled newcomer, poor referencing and addition of unverifiable statements, plus discussions by other editors on the merits of merging one article they had created into another.

We honestly try to help new editors here on Wikipedia, but not all of us can dedicate three hours every night to just one person when there are 5 million articles potentially being edited, and 30,000 active editors. So short, terse instructions or warning messages may be all we can sometimes leave to ensure that this fine encyclopaedia continues to flourish and grow, and that the broad spectrum of editors contribute as effectively as possible. (I could have provide diffs to demonstrate what I've said above, but that would have been invidious.) It is, however, typical of how I, together with innumerable other experienced editors here, work collaboratively to help and encourage good editing. I am genuinely sorry if your perception of how we operate has led you to conclude we like leaving short, sharp, nasty messages for people as a 'power trip'. That couldn't be further from the truth and I think we all take great pride in the work we try to do here.

If your concerns revolved around this notice on your Talk Page, it does seem fair to me. It appears you pasted copyrighted content into an article, and that is not allowed here, and all your edits were deleted by an experienced adminstrator. Users who are warned and then continue to repeat such actions soon find themselves blocked from further editing because this is, effectively, content theft. However, this unsigned warning post by Breaking sticks about promotional editing was not clear to me, either. The simple response would have been for you to have post a question on their talk page - do not expect them to monitor every page they post on if you do not yet understand how to WP:PING another editor. I'm sorry this reply became so long-winded, but I do hope you find my reply helps to address any misconceptions you may have had about how we try to support and help new users. As always, we're here at the Teahouse to help you and other new editors with any problems you encounter. (We are on your side, honest!) Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm one of the uneducated, red icon cops on a power trip, just issuing a friendly reminder to all the technically fired-up super-intelligent Neophites out there to take a second to sign your posts with four keyboard tildes (~) at the end of each post you add to a talk page. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Architecttype: Given that you just came on board this month, your accomplishments have been remarkable - over a thousand edits, two articles approved, two more in draft, major additions to two more. The one major hiccup I saw was the removal of copyrighted content from one article. Wikipedia takes copyright violations EXTREMELY seriously, and I did see that you returned to that article without subsequent copyright problems. A minor note - you are labeling almost all of your edits as minor edits. Please review that definition and tag your edits appropriately going forward. Your knowledge and efforts on Sarasota architecture are lauded. David notMD (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful input. I appreciate knowing how to 'sign' my talk entries now. Yes, I removed the 'red alerts' from my personal talk page, mainly because I had addressed the issues mentioned in them (and besides, who wants to have a permanent 'F' on their report card?). As you could see, I rewrote the entirety of the article without pasting, (as with all of the articles I have written so far ... I even did my own photography) but felt that, in the case of the organization I was describing, they would have preferred their own self-definition than to have me mangle it through contorted paraphrasing in order to avoid the wiki-cops. Perhaps I should have added quotations? In the case of 'Breaking Sticks', it seemed like a bot-type of response. I attempted to contact that person to inquire, but didn't quite know the best way to accomplish it. In any case, he/she did not respond. I can appreciate the work of 'wiki-enforcers', particularly when one contemplates the global access of wikipedia, but I wish there was a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think it's pretty clear that I have no agenda other than to improve a handful of architecture-related pages. As far as 'minor' versus major edits, when creating a new page, I do it offsite using html and import the whole thing in (except for some footnoting, where I feel more confident using the template tool). When editing existing articles, I do much of it online. Yeah, I've done lots of tiny changes and moved things here and there, but I'm a perfectionist and want the page to be great, both textually and visually. I tend to fine-tune things a bit. The only advice I would give you is that wiki-cops seem to rely on process rules far too much ... honestly, does it matter if an edit is checked as 'minor' or not, as long as the article is vastly improved? Wiki-enforcers need to have that latitude with contributors. Did they produce an excellent result? Yes? Then fine, let's not flag them for checking 'minor edit'. I know dozens of really competent people who could contribute wonderfully to Wikipedia, but they simply wouldn't tolerate the constant rap on the knuckles that you seem to dispense (sometimes with great relish. For example, the enforcer who wrote the word 'no' 97 times in a row in a discussion here in teahouse). The only people left to edit Wiki are those willing to navigate the labyrinth of process rules to do it, and I would submit to you that they are probably not likely to be the subject-matter experts you need to write the articles in the first place. Wiki-enforcers need to ask themselves ... in the end, what is most important, the process or the end result? Architecttype (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was just notified that an article I wrote was autobiographical. It is not. I am not that person, nor have I ever met that person. As a matter of fact, I just wrote another article on an architect who died a month ago. I am not that person, either, although I met him in a Publix bathroom once fifteen years ago. For the article in question, Guy Peterson, I used the already-existing article on living architect Max Strang who has a similar page, as a rough template. Strang's is without all the offensive wiki-enforcer blather at the top. His article seems to be acceptable, even though it is very similar to the one I authored. I can tell you, as a subject-matter expert, that both architects are equally worthy of articles, perhaps Peterson more-so, in terms of accomplishment and awards (Peterson fits somewhere between Strang and I.M. Pei and his article reflects this, I think). Virtually every sentence is supported by footnoting. It is just this type of uneven article treatment by wiki-enforcers that drives contributors nuts. Was it somehow in response to our conversation here in teahouse? Wiki-enforcers can be capricious like that. Please advise. Architecttype (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Architecttype. In a huge collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia mistakes are bound to be made. When they happen, it's best to try and assume good-faith and try to resolve any issues through civil discussion without labeling other editors one way or another. We as editors don't WP:OWN the articles we create and edit, and for sure it can be quite frustrating at times when we wake up and find our "work" from the night before has be changed by someone else. However, that's the nature of an encyclopedia that anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection can edit at anytime. So, while aiming for perfection is a noble goal, Wikipedia is by its very nature WP:IMPERFECT.

I think most experienced editors try to aim to be WP:HERE as much as possible; so, if they add a maintenance template, etc. to an article (such templates are generally helpful and are not offensive at all in my opinion) or a user warning template to a user talk page, then they are usually doing so in good faith. While your knowledge about things architecture is an asset, another important part of editing is simply learning how to work collaboratively with others. Being an subject-expert is not going to gain you any special privileges as explained in WP:EXPERT and article content is still going to need to be determined through WP:CONSENSUS.

As for the minor edits, it might not be such a big deal as you say, but at the same time there's really no need mark an edit as such unless the edit is really minor. Some editors mistakenly check "This is a minor edit" when probably they shouldn't, but it's not the end of the world. Such a thing usually only tends to be an issue when a person is marking all of their edits as minor, is advised not to do so by one or more other editors, and then continues on doing so despite the warnings. Like anything on Wikipedia, making a "mistake" once or maybe even twice, is generally not a big deal; however, repeating the same "mistake" over and over again after being advised not to is usually when things start to be seen a disruptive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. It would seem to make sense that subject-matter experts should exert greater influence over their subject-matter than random Wiki-contributors. I know nothing about the Kardashians, and you will never see me edit their articles. I believe I have stripped the article clean of anything insightful, and think it has reached the appropriate state of superficiality. I assume that's what it needed. With such changes made, I've pulled the banners ... and didn't check 'minor edit'. Wikipedia can, and should, be so much better than this. Sad. Architecttype (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. When I was a younger editor, I felt exactly the way you do, with my first edit. This clearly violated policies against original research, although it could have been discussed at the mathematics refdesk. I felt especially perturbed because mathematics is a field with outright facts, unlike say, English. The culture on Wikipedia can take a bit of getting used to, but policies have developed for a reason, and, as you keep editing, you will generally come to appreciate them! They do help maintain the quality of articles, although they can be intimidating at first. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read WP:OWN and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is a collective effort. Separate from content, there is an intention to adhere to Wikipedia style. Once you have created an article it is open for others to add, subtract, etc. If you disagree with changes, the place to address that is the Talk page of the article. Wikipedia is not a place for editors' insights. Many an editor - myself included - has been reverted for adding original research, insight, synthesis, etc. Is what it is - an encyclopedia - not a place for experts to share their wisdom. David notMD (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bellezzasolo. FYI, I'm pretty sure I'm older than you.:) I think what offended some wiki-enforcers in my article was the quote, taken directly from an interview with the subject (and properly footnoted). It was not original work on my part, but it was 'insightful' to the extent that it relates to his philosophy as an architect. Somehow this was mistaken for POV or being autobiographic, but clearly was not. There is a fine line between the necessity of preventing POV, etc ... and sanitizing articles until they become nothing but footnoted checklists of facts. It's not my intention to be antagonistic, but when I read the user pages of some of the wiki-cops who browbeat (sometimes gleefully) potentially valuable contributors it creates a sense of cynicism and resentment for the entire process. I can see why many worthy contributors throw up their hands and walk away. The haranguing simply is not worth it.Architecttype (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that, not because it was original work on your part, or accused of being autobiographic (that was a different editor's error), but specifically because it was from an interview with the subject of the article. Interview content is not appropriate. What people say about themselves - interviews, their own blogs/websites - is not usable content. It's not personal, it's just Wikipedia (to loosely paraphrase The Godfather). David notMD (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Architecttype: Continuing to refer to others as "wiki-enforcers", "wiki-cops" and "wiki-bullies" and assume they are only interested in browbeating others or are acting in WP:BADFAITH like here and here is a WP:BATTLEFIELD type of approach that is not helpful at all. You might feel the way Wikipedia has been set up is sad, but all of us have to learn to try and edit according to its policies and guidelines, which include Wikipedia:Behavioral guidelines. If we deviate too much from these guidelines too many times to the point that it starts to get disruptive, then the community may decide that whatever specialized knowledge we are capable of providing simply doesn't outweigh the problems we are creating. The community may then decide to tell us its time to either slow down and reassess our approach or to move on altogether. New editors are expected not to know everything Wikipedia right from the get go and good faith will be assumed when they make mistakes; however, as per Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact, the community does have its limits on assuming good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Architecttype: Sadly, I have to agree with Marchjuly's comments above. Having taken a fair bit of time yesterday night to try to explain to you how we operate, and why sometimes messages left for users who breach our policies can seem a little terse (and effectively apologising to you for that), I'm really disappointed to see you are still using derogatory terms like 'wiki-cop' and 'wiki-enforcer' in your posts. I am starting to sense that, whilst you might be a technical expert and are making great contributions in your field, you may also have an attitude problem towards other editors. Please drop it, and simply recognise the essential efforts of those who maintain this site, and stop disparaging the necessary task of those who ensure that the 5.5 million articles here are maintained in good order. OK, so you've received a couple of minor notices encouraging you to modify your editing (one of which I still don't understand), but it's time to get over it and stop being nasty about other contributors here. Being belligerent is not a nice way to deal with others - it just sounds arrogant. And that almost inevitably leads to conflict. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick Moyes. I have posted some thoughts on my user talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Architecttype) regarding my experience today. I mean every word of it and sincerely hope that Wikipedia can be made better. Regards.Architecttype (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not perfect by any means, and it has received a fair amount of criticism over the years. If you'd like to make suggestions on how it can be improved, then the place for that is probably at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), one of the general noticeboards or a relevant policy/guideline talk page. Not only will more people be watching those pages than are watching your user talk page, but also project-wide changes are best decided by the community as a whole and not by user talk page discussion. I believe what you're sincere and mean well, but at the seem time you seem quick to see things the issues your having as "a Wikipedia problem" instead possibly being a problem with the approach your taking. Even the very title you've chose for this thread and the tone you used in your original comment kind of indicated that you've decided that you are in the right and the others are in the wrong. Wikipedia, however, is not really about winning and its policies and guidelines have been established over many years with input from many different people. This doesn't mean they don't need to occasionally be reviewed and changed as needed, but it does mean that some thought went into establishing them and it was determined (at least at the time) through a consensus of the community that they are consistent with and help further the project's overall goals. Part of being WP:HERE is recognizing those goals and doing our best to adhere to them at all times. It's OK to be WP:NOTNOTHERE and propose changes in good-faith without feeling the need to attach a label to everyone who disagrees with you along the way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has become dystopian. The process has become more important than the product. Seriously, take the time to read the boilerplate written above (You're not doing it right ... there's a certain way we do things here ... you can't say that here. No, TALK pages, TEAHOUSE, and PNB are for just talking, you need to go to VILLAGEPUMP. No, you must use our NOTGALLERY and NOTNOTHERE policy. Nope, cannot BLANK pages, against policy, you actions have been reverted.) IMPERFECT.OWN.CONSENSUS.NOTEVERYTHING.YFA.CIT.CITE.NOTABLE.HERE.REDACT.API.REFB.SANDBOX.NOTNOTHERE.5P.WIN.BLANK.IUP.OTHERCONTENT.HIGHMAINT.CONLEVEL.POLICY. Wikipedia's policies and rules have become a bulwark to defend the fortress against outsiders. Thats why there is a dearth of good editors.

Is the goal to produce good Wikipedia articles? Yes. Is the Wikipedia article on Guy Peterson better written, footnoted, and documented than ninety percent of the articles on Wikipedia? Probably. Perhaps you would be better served looking after the poor articles, than shredding this one. You really need to ask yourselves why that is (I think I know). I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but my last bit advice for all of you is ... let go of the policy book (or at least apply them consistently) and focus on producing good articles. Bye. Architecttype (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed inadvertent and duplicate text. Thanks. Architecttype (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you're annoyed, I get that. You've also contributed a lot, in a short time, so thanks for that. This is the stuff we need. You look like just the sort of editor we're after.

So what's the problem? What's annoying you? What would make it better? (Apologies for not reading all above, but time's always tight on everyone (and I'm just here goofing off from work)).

I see a 5k revert on your recent edits. Now that's going to grate with anyone! But, looking at it more carefully, I can see their point. They might not be right (not my field, I don't know), but they have a good reason for reverting. If you disagree, then the next step is a talk: page - user first to clarify why, then article or project to see if this interpretation is what most of us think. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above discussion (minus the final post by Andy Dingley) has been moved/copied-and-pasted by the OP to WT:RETENTION#Case Study: Why Wikipedia Loses Editors ..., so it's probably best to continue it there to keep things in one place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I appreciate your 'ping' from the Editor Retention page, but I decided not to contribute further to this Teahouse discussion, which probably now needs collapsing. I certainly won't be contributing to an ongoing discussion that has migrated to that page. I tried to give a lengthy, considered and, I hope, reasoned response to the OP here, as I genuinely care very deeply about editor retention, and have always striven to assist or defend every user, whether young or old. However, despite some great content contributions, I now sense this particular OP has a bit of a 'chip on their shoulder' and an abrasive attitude which, despite them decrying it in others, we won't remove from them, as evidenced by their continued use of derogatory terms such as 'wiki-cops' and 'wiki-enforcer' subsequent to our responses here. If they choose not to listen to explanations given in good faith, that is their prerogative. Whilst their expert contributions are to be welcomed, their dismissive attitude to others is not. Taking that stance will not put the Wiki-world to rights, nor will their apparent reluctance to listen to other editors explaining how and why we operate as we do dissuade them from their assumptions and accusations of some sort of male-dominated cabal of petty-minded incompetents against genuine experts, all of whom should be permitted to edit here just as they please. This discussion should either be held at the OP's talk page, or continued here in a collapsed form. Moving it to a third location is not appropriate. It is for those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention to view our discussions and interactions dispassionately and to decide, independently, what issues they may raise. For example, are we, as Teahouse hosts collectively encouraging or putting off new editors with expertise, and what can be done about it and to guide us if we are? We should not move ongoing discussions there, as this only serves to confuse everyone, especially new editors. As someone who has adopted another highly professional world expert who brought none of this attitudinal baggage, I feel the concerns expressed by this new editor at the Teahouse may never be assuaged, and are probably not representative of everyone else, even if some of the points they raise are valid. I am pinging Jtmorgan who has an interest in how this forum is run. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
- @Nick Moyes: The OP is the one who copied and pasted this thread (along with several others from different talk pages) onto WT:Retention just in case that wasn't clear. I just posted a courtesy link here just to let others know that the discussion as been apparently moved to another page. I don't see any reason why this thread cannot be closed, especially since any further attempts to respond to the OP here is likely only going to lead to a fragmented discussion at best. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to attached a photo

Hello friends, Would someone please let me know briefly how to attached a photo on page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona3003 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mona3003, welcome to the Teahouse. To help us answer your question, could you tell us which image you want to add, and to which page? If it relates to Draft:Elia Youlesivanson, you are better advised to focus on adding Reliable references and establishing Notability first, and worrying about adding images later. Please remember to sign all future posts with four keyboard tildes (like this ~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related to a "new?" user writing "I began editing in 2004 and became an administrator in 2006."

Hi. I am not sure whether what the User:Amanverma121 is writing is accurate or not on his userpage related to being an admin and want to ask if writing something like that is alright? On xtools.wmflabs.org there is a cross besides whether the user is an admin or not. Also I checked the admin list (here full list of accounts with administrator privileges} to see if the user is in the list of admins or a former admin Wikipedia:Former administrators/full. Can't find the users name there. So now I want to ask if a user can write that they are an admin without actually being one and am doubtful how to go about such things. Have I overlooked another way to check if a user is an admin or not? (since it will be really silly if the user is really an admin somehow)
(Note: I only came in contact with this user because the user made edits to a page I also edited sometime back Kartarpur Corridor, and when checking the page to see updates, saw the users update) Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait!! Ummm, does the user mean an "administrator" in real!??? Opps? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, DiplomatTesterMan. I have removed the incorrect claim from Amanverma121's user page. This editor has very few edits over many years and cannot possibly be an administrator. This type of deception is disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, thanks for the follow up. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Creation

How do I create a page for my organization and also for the key personnel of the organization on Wikipedia? Here is the organization's name: Initiative for African Citizens. Secondly, can I make reference(s) from the organization's policy document and other documents of the organization?Stepheniyke (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stepheniyke. Any article must summarize primarily what reliable independent sources say about the organization. Documents published by the group itself can be used only for basic uncontroversial facts but these sources do not count toward establishing notability, which is your first and most important task. Please read and study Your first article and if you have any personal connection with the group, study and comply with our conflict of interest guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stepheniyke I don't get any Google hits for "Initiative for African Citizens": If independent reliable sources have not given substantial coverage to a subject, an article is impossible. And even if an organization is notable enough for an article, often the key personnel are not separately notable. Also since as Cullen says Wikipedia is primarily interested in what third parties say about a subject, references to its policy document would probably not be useful in an article, but if independent reliable sources have discussed its policies, you could reference that discussion. —teb728 t c 10:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template question

Hello, are Templates case-sensitive? Julian Khachan (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Julian Khachan: As far as I'm aware all pages are case-sensitive excluding the first letter, I'll double check though now. RhinosF1 (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCCAPS has more info RhinosF1 (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Everybody,

I have already done more than 1500 edits on Wikipedia English. Please tell me what facilities in Wikipedia is available to me and how I can improve my work. I appreciate that.Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Reviewed your user groups. You can:

Edit Pages protected as autoconfirmed (See Wikipedia:Protection policy for more details on protection)
Edit pages that are Semiprotected
Upload images
Create Articles In Mainspace
Move all pages except Files
view the detail information in AbuseLog
using the API
View and edit your preferences and Watchlist
Have one's own revisions automatically marked as "accepted"
Move Pages that are Pending Changes Protected
Overwrite Existing Files via the "Upload new Version" link
Skip the CAPTCHA's
Reset failed or transcoded videos so they are inserted into the job queue again

For The Full List for All user groups, See Special:UserGroupRights. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is added Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi sister's husband name with brief details.

Dear Tea House Have a nice day

Once again Masroor Chaudhary is with you. As per your instruction, i am providing you reliable sources regarding edit to Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi Page. I think that it will be enough for reference.

1. Bihar Vibhuti, Vol.3, Bihar Abhilekhagar-2014 2. Tarikh Ain e Tirhut by Munshi Bihari lal Fitrat-1883 3. Afkar e Milli New Delhi Spl. Bihar issue Page.254, July 2000 4. The Muslim Heroes of Bihar By Fakhruddin Ahmad, Page 34-36 - 2013

I think that with reference to the above sources, i can edit to Maghfur Ahmad Ajazi Page.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Masroor Chaudhary, it does look as if one of those might do it. You only need one - I would choose one of the more recent ones. It would be really helpful to include the Publisher, and also the ISBN if the book has one. See Template:Cite book for the information you should provide. (You don't have to provide all those hundreds of parameters, of course, but author, title, publisher, year, language, and page is a pretty good set to aim for. You can insert the information and citation directly into the article (see WP:REFB), or ask at the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text box with my username appearing in an article

Howdy. I'm hoping someone can help explain the significance of a box that appeared on an article I recently edited. I made a minor edit to the article a few hours ago, and when I returned, there was an unfamiliar message at the top of the page. I do recall adding it to my watch list, but I'm worried I might have hit another button, causing the text to appear. Can you please explain it's meaning, if it is publicly posted, and if it needs to be removed?

This box appeared above the article's first paragraph:

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MinorEnglishMajor (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 28 December 2018 (Removed terminal punctuation from incomplete sentence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version. (diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Thanks in advance, MinorEnglishMajor (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MinorEnglishMajor: no, you did nothing wrong - it is not text that appears on the article itself, only if you click a permanent link to that particular version. Right now it's the current version, but if and when somebody makes another edit to the page, the colour of the box at the top will change to pink and the text "current revision" will change to "old revision", as a warning to anyone who starts editing that old revision. (Here is what the permanent link to the revision previous to yours looks like.) Hope that makes sense! More info on permanent links here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to provide those links & your explanation. I've jumbled a section before by hitting or forgetting a key & wanted to be sure I hadn't done it again. Happy Holidays MinorEnglishMajor (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to add camouflage colors of a sports team

Hi,

First of all, I would like to thank everybody who helped in my previous question. I missed to acknowledge the first time I asked.

I'm trying to add the team colors of a Philippine basketball team AFP Cavaliers. Their jersey colors are camouflage and white, and I'm using Template:Color_box, but I don't know how to put the camouflage color because there is no other professional or amateur team I know that has a regular camouflage jersey. The sample can be found here: https://www.untvweb.com/news/game-2-ng-best-of-3-championship-match-ng-afp-cavaliers-at-pnp-responders-sa-untv-cup-season-4-ngayong-gabi-na/.

PS: They use camouflage jerseys because they are the team in the league that represents the military and has actual military personnel as players.

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elivic (talk • contribs) 13:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I insert a picture taken from a referenced publication?

Please help: Is copyright applicable to a picture from a referenced publication? if not how should it be inserted? Mtl-371 (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture is copyright, then you should not insert it at all unless you can show WP:Fair use. Dbfirs 15:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Please merge the histories of "File:The Accidental Prime Minister (Official poster).jpg" and "File:The Accidental Prime Minister film.jpg" and also rename the page as "File:The Accidental Prime Minister (film poster).jpg" without creating a redirect. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for making this kind of requests. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Where to go then? Help me. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 07:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:AN.~~ I am not sure if administrators can perform histmerge on files ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the place would be Wikipedia:Requests for history merge Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a history merge anyhow; their purpose is to fix attribution issues and I don't see any here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning @Primefac:. Added history merge request template to File:The Accidental Prime Minister film.jpg Harsh Rathod Poke me! 08:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Busy? Should I ask another admin? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were told where to go, and that your request would be denied. Why ping me? So that I can decline it for you? Primefac (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I will never ping you now. The best mistake I ever made, apologies. Waste. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 03:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit extreme, but to each their own. I'm always happy to give advice, just not when it seems unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Don't take it as an insult. I said waste because I was expecting a more detailed information as to why not merge. What I learned from this discussion:

One can freely create a file page as long as it got different metadata as compared to its significant older version.
First-look poster and Theatrical release poster are different even though they are of same film. They need different file pages.

For future: I will remember this and ask for an explanation if I find someone overiding the first-look poster file page's photo with the theatrical release poster photo. My question would be if they are different indeed then why did the user override? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edit 'the list of highest grossing indian movies'

a movie hebbuli has grossed 56 crore and needs to be in the 3rd position in kannada section source=ttps://bestoftheyear.in/movie/hebbuli/

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchitya (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anchitya, as I have explained to you twice before, you need an independent, reliable source for the information. If you want the information added, you need to find the source. If you look at the history of List of highest-grossing Indian films, you will see that I found the source you mention above, and added Hebbuli to the article, and that Cyphoidbomb reverted my edit, as they don't believe bestofyear.in is a reliable source. I am quite prepared to bow to Cyphoidbomb's knowledge, and have no interest in pursuing this. If you believe that bestofyear.in is reliable, you need to argue the case on either WP:RSN or Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films, and adduce evidence that Cyphoidbomb and any other editor will accept. Alternatively you need to find a major source, unconnected with the studio or producers, and with a reputation for fact checking, that gives a number.

I also observed that you have ignored all three of the pieces of advice I gave you about administrative matters: you did not sign your post above, you did not wikilink the article you were referring to (and did not even quote its title accurately), and you unnecessarily and unhelpfully mangled the URL above. This is the last time I shall bother replying to you, unless you show some evidence of actually reading my advice. --ColinFine (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, you're doing a good job. Indian films are perpetually the target of bullshit figures and problematic sources. The entire industry is based on estimations, but every random editor who comes by has a strong conviction about what the absolute value of budget or gross should be, when multiple sources across the entertainment landscape will have different ideas. A significant percentage of new editors will push editors unfamiliar in this area into swallowing published figures, when most non-Indians have no idea what is or isn't a reliable source. Wikipedia is very often used as an extension of the studios' marketing departments. If someone can establish a higher value, and maybe a lower budget, they will, to make the profits look better. TL;DR: Don't trust any absolute value of Indian film financial data, be it budget or gross. WP:ICTF#Guidelines on sources or WT:ICTFFAQ may be helpful here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, fellow Wikipedians!

I'm here because I want to create a wiki page, and sadly, I think I should make it so you guys don't try and decline it.

I work hard on these sorts of pages - I get more upset every time you try and delete someone's hard work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkJamesBF (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MarkJamesBF: While we welcome everyone to try to write pages, we do strongly discourage users from writing about themselves or anything they're affiliated with (click those links for more info). There's also the issue that we require topics to cite reliable sources that are independent of the topic but provide in-depth coverage of it. All it takes to make an article is to summarize, paraphrase, and cite at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the topic but not affiliated with nor dependent upon it -- that's it. I've left more detailed instructions on your talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine.

I'll just put my page in my userpage instead. That should stop ya from trying to delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkJamesBF (talk • contribs) 16:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkJamesBF: Actually, we do have a policy that Wikipedia is not a webhost, and that is one of the criteria for speedy deletion. You are allowed to work on an article draft there but if you're never going to do the one thing you need to do to make it an article (cite three independent reliable sources specifically about the topic), it's going to be deleted eventually. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

interaction with editors

Hello recently I was involved in a debate if I can put it like this about editing the content of a wiki page.

I would like to know more how to use the talk page and also how to interact properly in the editors discussion page, like what symbols must I use at the end of my postings and how.

Sorry in advance if these questions seem to you elementary level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidewings (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tidewings: You sign your posts by putting four tildes (for example ~~~~) at the end of your post. New posts go below what they're responding to. You can edit an existing section by looking for a button to the right of the section title. You use colons ( : ) to indent. You can find this and more in this guide I wrote on a variety of issues new users face. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: like this Ian? Also, how should I interact for editing a post. If another editor doesn't accept my view? Or if I do not his/hers? They told me about the talk page. But then there how is a consensus accomplished? I can provide my citation and he/she the other position. how a consensus is accomplished?Tidewings (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tidewings. If you find it difficult to reach consensus with other editors, dispute resolution tells you the various things you can try. --ColinFine (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to enter now in a talk page to discuss with another editor to edit a page. How do I do it?Tidewings (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Tidewings! You go to the article and at the top there will be a tab that says "Talk". You click on that and it takes you to the talk page. Most wikipedia pages have one, even this one! Ironic that a talk page has a talk page. Hope that helped, Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page published in October, but still not visible online

Hello, We have created and published a page on Wiki, but it is not visible online after 2 months. The title of the page is "Micropore particle technology (MPPT). What needs to be done to activate global publication?Fsd25 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. I searched for pages matching that title and couldn't find any records. It's likely to have been deleted if created in Mainspace, but I couldn't find a record in deletion logs. It looks like you may have created it on User:Fsd25. That's the only thing I can find under your contributions, although deleted pages won't show there. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding publication, you should follow the Articles for creation process, where independent reviewers will ensure that the article compiles with our policies before publishing the page to the article namespace. It may be best to move your userspace draft to Draft:Micropore particle technology (MPPT) to this effect. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found it in his contribs. It's called Draft:Micropore particle technology.--Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fsd25. You have not submitted your draft for review. If you want it reviewed, then click the blue button at the top that says "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A problem: for medicine-related articles there is a high standard for what are accepted as citations (see WP:MEDRS). This means no pre-clinical, no case studies, no conference abstracts and no clinical trials (really). Are there published review articles that address the use of MPPT? If not yet, this may be just too soon. David notMD (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help! And yes, there is a published review article in the November issue of Wounds this year. The articles are peer-reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsd25 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the first ref (which I just changed to proper format). The problem remains with the other refs, as they report on pre-clinical work, a clinical trial and case studies. Does not matter if published in peer reviewed journals. Minimally, refs 2, 4 and 5 need to be removed, along with the sentences supported by these refs. You could try resubmitting with the clinical trial ref, but odds are strong that a reviewer would rightfully reject that as primary research, and then decline the entire article. P.S. Sign your comments by typing four of ~ a end. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Messages on my talk page

I was invited to the teahouse and I see it’s a place to ask questions, so I figured I would ask: who is leaving messages on my talk page and why do they have a problem with my contributions? I hope it’s not because I am a female editor... I’ve heard the culture in Wikipedia has had issues with being hostile to women before, but I hope that’s not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B14B:B317:44A5:9C60:56C5:CBB3 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not seeing any contributions within the past week on your range that resulted in a talk page message. If you register an account, you'll be better able to keep track of messages you've received (and you'll know they're for you and not someone else on your IP range).

Also, something to consider: before this post, what indication did anyone have as to your gender? Not saying that you should or should not identify yourself however much you're comfortable with, but just bear in mind that we only know as much about you as you reveal (and it's strictly against policy to try to reveal anything beyond that). If people aren't here to help, we try to get rid of them, so please try to assume non-malevolent intentions where possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiogrophy

Hello, If I'm writing about myself, do I still need to include references? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona3003 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mona3003: Yes. All information, especially in articles about living people, must cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, and there must be at least three such sources that are specifically and primarily about the topic but not affiliated with nor dependent upon it. I'll leave more info on your user talk page.

Also, autobiographies are strongly discouraged for a variety of reasons, including our policies on conflicts of interest, Wikipedia not being a social media site, nor a webhost, nor a place to promote oneself or one's career. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video game reception

I would like to ask why we use ‘generally favourable’ instead of ‘positive’ when commenting on reception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinetyNinja34 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, NinetyNinja34. I believe that "generally favourable" is a Metacritic classification - see Metacritic#Metascores - and articles about games/music/films often quote Metacritic's summary of the subject's critical reception. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Idk what I’m doing. Help me pls lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOIWONTNOMATTERWHAT (talk • contribs) 21:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NOIWONTNOMATTERWHAT, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for removing your own "Pie" graffiti from the article. You may use the Wikipedia: Sandbox for test edits. You might like to try the Wikipedia:Adventure to learn about genuine editing of the encyclopaedia. Dbfirs 22:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

How can I add a picture of Arthur Morgan from google search results to his page — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinetyNinja34 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait to see whether the article is going to be deleted before adding a picture, but, in general, copyright pictures must not be added except under the very restrictive WP:Fair use conditions. Dbfirs 22:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with article expansion

Hello. I recently created the article Claudia Lössl. I came here seeking help expanding it. It isn't a "stub", but if people with more experience than I could help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Lafayette Baguette (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add stories (novel) in language other than English.

Hi there,

Hope you are doing fine. I am a new user and like to be a regular contributor. for now, I wanna ask that if i could add short stories like novel etc. or book reviews in language other than English.

Regards: Fresh Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by SADIA RAHAT (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SADIA RAHAT: welcome to the Teahouse, and to English Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you are asking, but I suspect the answer is No. The only content in a Wikipedia article should be summaries of what reliable published sources say about a subject, nothing else. We do not accept fiction, or book reviews, irrespective of the language. But we may in some cases accept an English summary of independent material that has been published about works of fiction; and this published material often includes book reviews. The subject matter (both the original fiction, and the articles or reviews concerning it) do not need to be in English, though there is a preference for English sources if they exist. If you are talking about writing in another language, then English Wikipedia will not accept it, but there are 200 Wikipedias in different languages: they differ to some degree in their rules and policies, but I would not expect that any of them accepted either original fiction or book reviews. --ColinFine (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Got it. Thank you very much!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SADIA RAHAT (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I find someone to help debug a template?

Hi, how do I find some help with a template? The Template:Infobox French constituency has fields for 2 images, but only one is showing up --- see Drôme's 1st constituency for an example.

Thanks, Newystats (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newystats. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm no expert on Infobox templates, but I see two images in the article you link to. Looking at the template structure, it seems that Template:Infobox French constituency is intended to allow one image (image = ), with the other one being intended for a predefined map (map =). In the example you gave, the image used is this one, whilst the map is this one. Both show up in the article. I have tested that it is possible to insert a standard .jpg image, rather than a .svg image in the map field which appears OK in Preview mode, though I didn't want to actually publish my test. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I don't see a problem; I see two map images. Could you be a little more specific in explaining the problem you have? Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newystats: Having taken the time to reply to your question here, I subsequently noticed that you had also asked the identical thing on your talk page with a {{helpme}} template. In future, please don't ask the same question in two different fora. This wastes volunteer time, and causes frustration amongst helpers. Only if you don't receive a reply after a day or two is it OK to repeat the self-same question elsewhere. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Newystats (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huon has changed image2 to map in the infobox Drôme's 1st constituency, so it now appears. It would be good if I could get the text in caption2 to appear, but the current state is an improvement anyway. Thanks! Newystats (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting lost in Wikipedia platform......

Hi all,

I need help. I don't understand how my talk page works.

At first, my article was rejected because it doesn't enough reference. I replied with few questions to the editor and got replied by a different person. Instead of replying back my questions, he expressed different issues of the article.

How to get around this.....

Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriela Angie Kenyatta (talk • contribs) 01:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriela Angie Kenyatta: I've left instructions on your page that will avoid all the different problems that your previous draft had. All articles must cite reliable sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I will look at your instruction clearly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriela Angie Kenyatta (talk • contribs) 02:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How Can you do a Special signature?

Hello. I am a guy that does not have a special signature and wants one. How Can you do it? Acyclonxe (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Acyclonxe. Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you might find the information you need at either Wikipedia:Signatures or Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. If you do change your signature, please consider whether those with poor eyesight might struggle to view it. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I tried to change it but it doesn’t work. Please Help! Acyclonxe (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acyclonxe: Have you checked the "Treat the above as wiki markup." option? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where? @Abelmoschus Esculentus:Acyclonxe (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Acyclonxe: I don't think I can, I'm afraid. I've never changed my signature, and don't really like many of the fancy formats that some users now like to use. I will have to leave it to another editor with more experience in this field to assist you. Not only that, it's way past my bedtime! Sorry. Re AE's comment - look in your 'Preferences'. Nick Moyes (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right underneath the field that you edit your signature. When you open preferences, the first bold title should be the "Basic Information" one (within "User profile" tab). Scroll down until you can find the "Signature" section. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article

Hey, I have been a wikipedia member for almost exactly 4 days,its technically the fourth day but will be exactly in about 2 hours. and have made 12 edits. Does anyone know when I will be able to make my own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleylouisewilliams3408 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleylouisewilliams3408: You can create a draft at any point. I'll leave more specific instructions on your user talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seven of your edits have been of photos you took and posted to Wikipedia Commons. Some of the photos are generic in nature (pond, lake, golf course, hunting scene), so don't really add to the articles. Suggest you do a bit of text editing and creation of references in existing articles before you essay article creation. David notMD (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding WP:SUSPECT

Does WP:SUSPECT recommend against posting the names/identifying infortmation of people who have been arrested in an ongoing investigation of a crime? The arrested individuals are not public figures. The particular article in question is Murders of Louisa Vesterager Jespersen and Maren Ueland. Thank you. Ruyter (talk • edits) 09:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that the policy recommends that editors seriously consider not including the names. In reality it can often be argued either way. What policy does make clear is that no guilt should be implied before a conviction. This is usually an incredibly difficult thing to achieve. There's rarely sufficient justification to include the names of individuals who have only been arrested, or suspected, who have not been charged or sent for trial. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a wikipedia page for my friend and it keeps getting declined for no reason

hi I am making a wikipedia page for my friend jordan and it keeps getting declined can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ KDYN (talk • contribs) 10:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, DJ KDYN. The messages at the top of User:DJ KDYN/sandbox explain the reasons for your draft being declined. Topics need to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, published sources to be considered eligible for Wikipedia articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in the editor's sandbox has been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. DJ KDYN, except for brief, referenced quotations, you must write in your own words. Please read and study Your first article and Conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A query about references for a new article.

Hi, I need some help please. I am trying to submit an article about and Urdu author "Yaqub Nizami". He has few Urdu books and is well known in the Urdu circle but I am struggling to find any online references. His books are listed on Amazon but the publisher hasn't made any available to buy on Amazon. could you please provide some guidance how can I get it accepted. I tried once, couple of years ago, but it was declined because of lack of references. Regards Abdul Rashid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulrashid285 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Bellezzasolo. As the author writes primarily in Urdu, it is quite likely that English references are scarce, if there are any at all. The good news is that we allow non-english sources, generally with a particular quote and a translation, to aid verification. It may help to search for Urdu, which won't show up ordinarily due to the different alphabet. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, you can get the text of Draft:Yaqub Nizami back by going to requests for undeletion. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help

this can't edit other userpages wanna call for speedy deletion for promo user spaces 182.58.198.26 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as WP:CSD#U5 RhinosF1 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done RhinosF1 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does someone keep telling me I need to have a source?

My edits don’t need sources, I’m just improving the writing style in the articles. But someone keeps undoing them and saying I need reliable sources. Can this editor be blocked please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Kweefsalot (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Kweefsalot: Wrong, all new information needs sources. Also, stating something so redundantly obvious that Helen Keller could see it from the International Space Station while facing the wrong way doesn't exactly come across as helpful. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of their edits is at such a level of redundancy ("Then, he later went on to" is triply redundant!) that I'm half-convinced they're trolling. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: Yeah, I was waiting for any response short of a 180 but I see you've already blocked them. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, blocked for offensive name, but yes, all the edits were in my opinion deliberately annoying (and reverted, by different editors). David notMD (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive user name that references female sexual anatomy + overt trolling = Architect 134. I dislike cleaning up after Architect 134 because it's always a slog to go through the checkuser data and block all the sock puppets, but you might as well ping me when these show up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit query.

I have added an edit on the Rajneesh page, from a reliable source, including information from an interview with the person who purchased the Ranch in 1981, and a member of Sheelas group who was present at all of her meetings. Her husband, in fact.

Anyhow, someone objected to it and pulled it down, because they said that I did not provide copyright from the website that hosted the interview.

I have cited the page where the interview is published , however, the creators of the website, do not have a copyright policy, and allow their articles to be reproduced by anyone.

However, I can get permission to use part of the text if neccesary from the editors of the site.

So , what I want to ask is, should I rewrite the gist of some of the interview in my own words , withou t using the text original interview, or should I leave it as it is , when the issue with copyright is sorted out?

I don`t see why the original text should not be used, as there is a lot of similar material, already on the Rajneesh page, that is qouted directly from other sources. That they are all reliable is highly debatable.

There are several sources, who were present at the same meetings with Sheela who also verify in FBI transcripts and other places that Sheelas husband was present and had knowledge of events.

And should I name the author of the article , in my edit?

Here is the content of my edit:

"Swami Jayananda, (John Shelfer) , Sheela’s husband and member of Sheela’s intimate group at Rajneeshpuram, was asked in a interview in 2011 , if he had any insight into why Sheela had Osho’s room bugged around 1983/85.

He replied that “She was resentfull of Osho choosing to communicate with other members of the community.She wanted to control all aspects of his life and the commune.”

When asked if Sheela was guilty of the crimes as ordinarily understood, Jayananda answered, “Yes, her rational was it was for the better good of the commune. In reality it was to justify her actions. It was to cement her control - remove any impediment to her total domination of the community. For example the poisoning of the Dalles- was in order to elect members of the community to the governing board of the county. This would have removed the hold on the community’s ability to issue building permits... the attempted murder of of Amrito , (also Vivek) .

She wanted through removing Amrito and Vivek to control Lao Tzu with her own people.....etc. “

“Can any of these crimes be put down to Osho’s promoting or instruction?”

“ Not a chance” .

“During 1980,81,82 I often accompanied Sheela on her nightly visits to Osho. I sat in on many of those sessions. I heard about many of the sessions that I did not attend up to the end of the Ranch. In all of this I never saw Osho’s hand of knowledge in what amounted to Sheela’s dirty tricks.” [148]

I would appreciate some advice, as there appear to be people who do not want to discuss their reasons for interfering with other peoples edits, even though I have asked them.

Eternity5090 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eternity5090. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is different from many projects in ways that you probably don't realise. The significant thing here is that Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of an article, or people closely associated with that subject, have to say about the subject. Information from them is regarded as a primary source, and may be used in limited ways, provided it has been published somewhere with a reputation for fact-checking. The bulk of a Wikipedia article should be based on secondary sources: where people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish substantial material about the subject (again in a place with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking). So the content of an interview is acceptable as a source only for uncontroversial factual data like places and dates (provided these are in fact uncontroversial). Please follow the links earlier in this paragraph for more information.

As for copyright: in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary, Wikipedia makes the basic assumption that all material is copyright. In order to use text published elsewhere in a Wikipedia article, we would require that the owner of the copyright to that text make an explicit declaration (either in public, eg where the material is actually published, or in a private email to the relevant team at Wikimedia) that it has been released under a licence which permits anybody to reuse it for any purpose. See donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ColinFine. I have realised that now, the page of the interview is indeed copyrighted, so I will ask for permission. There is no reason why some of the content should not be used, as it is directly related to the topic in question. And other qoutes have been used on the page, that are also taken from people directly related to the question. So I will ask for copyright.Eternity5090 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eternity5090. First of all, you misunderstand copyright. Everything published is by current law copyrighted and no formal copyright notice is required. The reverse is true. A website or any other publication must have a statement formally releasing the content into the public domain, or the copyright must have expired because the publication date was pre-1923, or other clear legal conditions exist, in order to conclude that material is not copyrighted. It is OK to include a few brief quotations from copyrighted material but each and every individual quote must be properly attributed and referenced. In my opinion, your use of quotes is excessive and instead you should accurately paraphrase the questions and answers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity5090 Firstly; that is far too large a chunk of text to be copying from anywhere, with too many quotes, in a question and answer format not suitable for an encyclopedia, and too repetitive even if not copyrighted. It would be far better to summarise it; however even if you do summarise it, its not from what Wikipedia would call a "reliable source". It appears to be someones self published blog,/forum with no evidence of editorial oversight. Who conducted the "interview", and when? who wrote it? none of this is clear from the website. See WP:RS for what a reliable source is. Have a look at the other references used in the article- they are all newspapers or books- no blogs.

I can see you have tried to discuss it, however, you still kept trying to put your edit in before the matter was resolved and were edit warring against two other editors, which is not a good idea. Curdle (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Where has Visual Editor gone??!!

Hello - I recently made some changes to a stub that someone else had created, about my grandfather F J Browne: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_James_Browne I did this using Visual Editor, which I found to be great. Today I wanted to add a reference, and I can't find how to get into Visual Editor. What am I doing wrong? (The only 'Edit' button or tab I can see is labelled 'Edit Source'. Why can't I see a Visual Edit button?) p.s. If anyone answers this, is it possible to get an email? Otherwise I don't see it unless I look! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzBadger (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JazzBadger:. When you click that "Edit source" tab, you can change to Visual editor from there. Look at the top right corner of the editing pane, you'll see an icon shaped like a pen, click on it, you'll see "visual editor" option, then choose it. On your second question, it's partly possible. You should go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo and scroll down to "Mention" and tick the box against it under email header. If you do that, whenever someone mentions you in an answer, you'll be notified via email. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JazzBadger: Adding to what Ammarpad has helpfully said above, be aware that in your Preferences settings under the 'Editing' Tab that there is a way to select which editor(s) are offered to you (see here.) You can choose whether to "Show me both editor tabs", "Give me the Visual Editor if possible", or "Remember my last editor" and other options. Most times when the editing tool you want suddenly goes missing, it's because you've got your Preferences set wrong. Let us know if this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Article from my Sandbox to Draft for Review

Hello Teahouse!

I have finished my article in my Sandbox, and would now like it reviewed for publication in Draft. I entered "move to Draft" but have been told it is appearing as a "blank" document. How do I correct this? Many Thanks! Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carole Basinger: You moved the mostly blank page User:Carole Basinger instead of your sandbox, User:Carole Basinger/sandbox. I'll delete Draft:Carole Basinger so you can move the sandbox there. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carole Basinger: Actually, I went ahead and moved the draft from your sandbox to Draft:Brian Rosenworcel as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ian.thompson! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carole Basinger (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian.thomson!Zuzuroo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about what is now Draft:Brian Rosenworcel. Carole Basinger, you will need to read Help: Referencing for beginners, and do some work on the references, so that the text contains actual links to the references instead of dummy links like "[8]". Maproom (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long should my Wikipedia article be?

I've written a 31 page biography of an artist with maybe 30 photos or more. Should I re-create the whole thing here, or cut it back to a few pages with a few photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RANJR (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RANJR: WHOA, hold up! It's not about length but about citing at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the topic but independent of it. All the information in there needs to be supported by reliable sources as well. I'll leave more detailed instructions on your page. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, RANJR. I am in complete agreement with Ian.thomson here. References to reliable, independent, secondary sources are like golden bricks when building an acceptable Wikipedia article. Our job, primarily, is to accurately summarize those sources. Everything else is minor in comparison to the real reason that we create encyclopedia articles, which is to summarize reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Bashkardi people?

hi all, i have received a question on my talkpage; Caddyspoked has asked why WP has an article on Bashkardi language but not one on Bashkardi people? a quick look on google doesnt really bring up much (as a non-academic/librarian that is my go to research tool), maybe someone here can help? i have also left the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to a Dab page

Looking up Heitor Villa-Lobos, I lazily entered just villalobos in the search field and arrived at Villalobos, a disambiguation page listing a surname and a DJ, a band, a municipality, a river, and a gunboat bearing it, all with the same spelling. I added

Heitor Villa-Lobos, a Brazilian composer

at the foot of the list,.

But I'm wondering:

Should I insert a subhead between the six Villalobos-es and the lone Villa-Lobos?
Should I move the composer, who is the best-known of these, to the top of the list, and if so how should I word and format it? E.g.,
"Villalobos" may be a misspelled reference to Heitor Villa-Lobos, a Brazilian composer. It may also refer to

Villalobos (Spain), a municipality located in the province of Zamora
...

--Thnidu (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thnidu and thanks for your question at the Teahouse. I'm going to stick my neck out a bit (i.e. without fully checking the guidelines) and give you a very quick gut-reply; others may wish to correct me. I would put all the Villalobos entries in alphabetical order, and then I would then add a 'See also' section in which I'd put Heitor Villa-Lobos and USS Villalobos (PG-42) although others might wish to keep the gunboat in the main alphabetical list. I wouldn't put the most visited page first -alphabetical order suits most users best. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I would disagree with you and say that Heitor Villa-Lobos should not be added due to the page Villalobos (surname) existing. There are dozens of people with the lastname Villalobos, and they belong on the page Villalobos (surname), not Villalobos (disambiguation). See MOS:DABNAME. MarkZusab (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkZusab: Yes, it doesn't take long to recognise that you are right, and I am not. Thanks for that contribution. I did say I was being hasty, but maybe I simply shouldn't have replied at all. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, MarkZusab. And when I went just now to carry out your suggestion, I found that you'd already done it. Excellent! :-)

Except that

Horacio Villalobos, Argentine photographer
Horacio Villalobos, Mexican TV host, actor, model

both link to the same article. :-(

--Thnidu (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: I fixed that by making the first link go to Horacio Villalobos (photographer) instead. MarkZusab (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkZusab: Thanks. I didn't know what the articles were named. --Thnidu (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who can help me write a notable article in Wikipedia

Hello! I recently got declined for my submission. I hope I can have someone help me write an article. I have recently encountered and then followed a personality, who I think deserve a space in Wikipedia. However, I don't know how to make my entry notable for publishing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndiMaravilla (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, AndiMaravilla. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Lloyd Luna. Your draft is lacking the most important component of an acceptable Wikipedia article: In this case, that would be references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of Luna, but devote significant coverage to Luna. Such sources are the building blocks of an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I would like to have a peer review of an article ive written prior to resubmission Deanna Coakley 04:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Deanna Coakley. You must be talking about Draft:April M. Reign. This is a highly promotional draft that can never be accepted to the encyclopedia in its current form. It must be brought into compliance with the neutral point of view. Another point is that it is completely out of compliance with our Manual of Style but there are more fundamental problems as well. Please read and study Your first article, and implement all of the advice that you find there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching a photo

Hi, Can I attach a photo saved on my computer? This photo is also on the photographer's computer. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona3003 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mona3003. Copyright is very complex so I will have an answer based only on what you have said here. In most cases, the legal copyright for a photograph that you found on the internet is held by the photographer. If so, then only that photographer can upload that image only if they are willing to release that image under the terms of an acceptable free license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the photographer is willing to do that, you can direct them here:[2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the popups about how few people donate and such

they really might very dramatically reduce how much people donate by signaling the existence of a strong norm for not donating. I would suggest listing the number of people who DID donate not as a percentage but as tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people

I took a course in behavioral economics through Toronto University and this is just one of those things that people actually do really commonly but which has the opposite of the intended effect. Mentioning low voter turnout reduces voter turnout and actually it's also been specifically checked for how it effects donating to charities and it's a very strong effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingtoph (talk • contribs) 09:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flyingtoph. That makes sense to me and reminds me of experiments I've read about where people are most likely to be encouraged to recycle if they are told that the majority of their neighbours do so. Unfortunately (other Teahouse hosts might correct me here), I don't think us Wikipedia editors have any say in the design of the fundraising campaigns, which are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (see Wikipedia:Contact us/Donors), so I'm not sure we have any way of acting on your advice. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, Flyingtoph. I think the campaign is run from the Wikimedia Foundation, rather than within Wikipedia. I think the best place to engage is at meta:Fundraising. --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi, I wish to understand more about a comment made to me on October 11. I was accused of Vandalism. How do I understand the accusation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teratis (talk • contribs) 10:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain the relevance of "Pepi the frog" in the article that you edited? ... and the false edit summaries? These are classed as WP:vandalism. Dbfirs 10:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. I think my brother was using my account accidentally. He’s a special needs individual. I suspect that he likes frogs. Thank you, Dbfirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teratis (talk • contribs) 10:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teratis see below

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is added Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi sister's husband name with brief details.

Dear Sir, Good Day

According to your advice regarding edit, i am providing you reliable sources with complete details as below:-

1. Book Name: Afkar e Milli

Author: Dr. Qasim Rasool Ilyas Title: Afkar e Milli Publication: Afkar e Milli Publication Delhi India Year: 2000 Language: Urdu Page: 254

2. Book Name: Tarikh e Aine Tirhut

Author: Munishi Bihari Lal Fitrat Title: Tarikh e Aine Tirhut Publication: Bahar e Kashmir Lucknow India Year: 1883 Language: Urdu

3. Book Name: Bihar Vibhuti

Author: Narendra Narayan Yadav Title: Bihar Vibhuti Year: 2014 Language: Hindi Volume: 3rd

I think that these references will be enough for edit. Please add below information about Noorun Nisa on Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi page. " Noorun Nisa was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah "Zamindar" of vill. Hayaghat Bilaspur, Dist. Darbhanga, Bihar"

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary