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

Articalthat I have Created

Can someone help me with this Articalthat I have Created I dont understand whats wrong with it thanks God Bless--Amanda.useta (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Amanda.useta, your draft was rejected because it did not demonstrate the notability of the school with reference significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Worse yet it said hardly anything about the school. —teb728 t c 01:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I am creating an article about a celebrity in Africa. How can I improve the article and to make it appear on google. Vasiliades

Welcome to the Teahouse Vasiliades, your article was speedily deleted because it did not indicate why he is important enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. —teb728 t c 01:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Twinkle

How do I add Template:uw-subtle1 to Twinkle? I can't seem to find it, and I'm not sure how to add it on the Twinkle preferences page. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anonymuss User. Welcome, and thank you for your question. I'm sorry you've had to wait a couple of days for a reply. I have investigated, and you'll see that I've just successfully left a test warning template on your userpage (feel free to delete it!). So, how to do it? Well, in addition to adding custom welcome messages, you can also add custom warning messages that aren't already available by default. You'll need to open and edit your Twinkle preferences at Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences - (which actually modifies your own twinkleoptions.js file). Scroll down to the 'Warn user' section and click 'Edit items' next to 'Custom warning templates to display:'. There, in the 'Template name' section, simply add the template name without curly brackets, (i.e. Template:Uw-subtle1) and click 'Add' and then 'Save changes', and then save the changes to the whole preferences page. I think you can add further templates if you wish. Give it a try - you'd be very welcome to leave a test warning message on my user page if you wish so you can see that it works. It's important that you don't template editors inappropriately, so this'd be a sensible way for you to ensure it functions OK without upsetting anyone. Hope this all makes sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've just realised that the descriptive text that you can add which will show in the drop-down warning list will also appear in the edit summary you leave to a user - so choose with care! Nick Moyes (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New entries

Relying on publications may not be the ultimate wisdom. In a particular (german) case I had endless discussions due to the fact that Wikipedia would rely only on published sources, and to those rather blindly, but not on "common sense". I realize that taking what has been written may be easier than thinking, arguing, investigating, even judging oneself. But in this age of fakes and of articles that nearly always have a bias and like to emotionalize the readers, cool personal judgement of the reviewers might be needed.
In the present case I wondered why I didn’t know what this thing was that I saw advertized on TV (on a harmless Bollywood channel, Zee one), and that "guaranteed orgasms". So I googled this womanizer: Lots of promotions, ads etc.. But Wikipedia had nothing on this subject, neither the German nor the US version. So I thought, maybe it’s too touchy a subject. Turns out "vibrator" is explained at lenght and without restraint. Now if you look at newspapers etc. these sex toys aren’t featured ("covered") as often as, say, cooking recipes.
I would have liked to ask: Is womanizer on Wikipedia’s index, taboo? But then I tried to write an entry, I took time, produced a very factual short explanation, and still: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." What do you expect in a case like this? Or is it really better, not to mention the device? – In short: Please rely more on your own judgement, if something is important to know. This is a lexicon for the public, for those who want to know (quickly) what’s what, not a scientific, proof-fast thesis. And let us have a quick way to check if there is a chance for a specific entry. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fritz Jörn. Almost all Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, and very occasionally parts of it change, as people make proposals and persuade enough other editors that the consensus changes. You are welcome to try to change this policy: the place to propose it is at WP:VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Colin, for your suggestion. The rejects I got naturally came from one person, with a lengthy standard statement. Naturally disappointed I will try no further: I know what a Womanizer is, having researched elesewehere; if the useres of Wikipedia want to know too, is now less important to me, I’m afraid. And to change a well accepted and proven Wikipedia policy I would not want. I argue for sensitivity and common sense with new subjects that may not have "significant coverage". –~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz Jörn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about commons and translation

I have been working on the Army of the Interior article and have found an useful organisation graph image on the fusion and name changes of this French army in the French Wikipedia article, and have added it on the English Wikipedia version of the article, but its text is in French. I now have a translated file, but I am confused about what course to follow to get it uploaded, whether it is necessary, and whether I am allowed to do such thing by guidelines and license, as well as how to properly attribute in this case. Sadenar40000 (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sadenar40000, welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry you've had to wait some time for a reply. My advice (for what little that may be worth) is to upload the translated file to Commons, noting that it is derived from this file which itself was uploaded from fr.wiki, and should be credited to Papier K who originally uploaded it under a CC-BY-SA 2.5 licence. Had I changed the appearance/design of the file so that it was more my own work, I would still have felt it appropriate to attribute it to Papier K. Please don't take this a definitive answer; others here might do differently. It'll be interesting to see. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If an image no longer exists, can I assume that it has been removed due to a copyright violation?

Earlier today, an image of the new 2020 Supra was available. However, now there is simply a red link in its place. Syntaxlord (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I viewed the talk page of the user who uploaded the file and my assumption was correct. However, I am still curious about the criteria for deleting an image. Syntaxlord (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syntaxlord. Common bases for deletion will be through the speedy deletion grounds found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Files, or you can peruse file deletion discussions held at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. As to your question, the assumption would often not be correct or not quite correct (many times image deletions are copyright related, but the reason is not because the page was a copyright violation), and there's no need to assume because you can find out the reason any file was deleted more directly than, as you did here, going to the user's talk page to look for a warning related to the image. For local files, clicking on the red link will then take you to a page showing you its deletion log entry. Try it: here's the same red link you saw earlier today: File:2020-Toyota-Supra-9.jpg, click on it and you should see its deletion log entry.

If there's no red link to click on, you can paste the name of the file into the search field and the resulting page will provide to you a red link you can click on next to "You may create the page..." You can also copy the name of the file and paste it directly into Special:Log/delete. Of course, many files we use here are from the Commons. You can access the deletion log there also by going to Special:Log/delete while at that site. Commons' speedy deletion bases are at Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, and their deletion discussion forum can be accessed through Commons:Deletion requests. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the image, but if it was a copy of Toyota's publicity shots then Toyota own the copyright. If someone took the photograph themselves (and haven't sold the copyright), then they can upload it to Commons as their own work. Dbfirs 17:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello Tea house team,

I'am a Brazilian journalist specialized in writing about Latin American fine-artists and visual artist. I recently tried to write an article about an artist that is receiving a good amount of international attention and is very known in Brazil, but my article was tagged as P.R. I would love to hear your thoughts and feedbacks on why this happened as I tried to be very neutral on my writing. I'm planning on writing more articles about latin american artists, but since it requires me a lot of time to gather references, books, magazines and newspapers, I would prefer to know what have I done wrong and if you have any thoughts on how I Could fix this. I did read the 5 pillars and the recommendations and I honestly though this article followed it.

This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gustavo_Chams

Please let me know. Thank you, Mirela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirella Silva (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The critique looks like a translation of a copyright article. Is it intended to be a quote? 20:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)User:Dbfirs|Dbfirs]]

Hi User:Dbfirs Yes, it is intended to be a quote.

See Wikipedia:Quotations. Dbfirs 21:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mirella Silva. I salute you for wanting to fill a gap in our coverage.

It is hard to determine how reliable the sources are, since you have not generally named the publication; but I am not hopeful. As far as I can tell the first citation simply credits Chams with the pictures in the article: this is at best a primary source. The GGN reference appears to be an interview, so it is not dependent. I didn't examing them past there, but the question you need to ask before writing an article is, What have people unconnected with the subject chosen to write about the subject, and been published in reliable places? That is what almost the whole of the article should be based on.

As to the formatting: the important bit of a reference is the bibliographic information that enables a reader to see where it is from, and to obtain it if required (eg through a major library): the link is a mere convenience. I recommend using citation templates, though they are not compulsory; but in any case, please look at WP:REFB.

In my view there is a problem not so much with advertising, as with the tone: it is appropriate to a magazine article, not an encyclopaedia. A Wikipedia should not use judgmental words like "notoriety" unless it is quoting an independent reliable source. The tense is inappropriate in "he would sign his first fashion cover. Which would later grant him access to work with Brazilian local celebrities". This "future in the past" is used in magazine articles, and prmotional sites, to establish a chatty, story-telling feel; but in an encyclopaedia article it would be better in the past: "He became a photographer, and in 20xx produced his first fashion cover, for YYY magazine. (If you don't tell us the year and which magazine, why is this even in the article?)

"The common thread that characterizes Gustavo's work is a sinuous homogeneity that explores the most profound aesthetic of human essence" is either advertising puff, or (if it means anything) original research: you can directly quote a reliable independent source that says this, but it does not belong in an article in Wikipedia's voice. (I've just realised that that is what Dbfirs' question was about). --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Dbfirs I have updated it following the requested suggestions. (also added another references) any other thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirella Silva (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Violates copyrights

114.31.115.138/ns1.rtat.net 216.218.228.119/ns2.rtat.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roufique07 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roufique07 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I'm a bit unclear about what you're trying to say and what help you need. Perhaps you could elaborate further?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 21:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rtat.net seems to be a Github project created by Roufique07: no idea what it is. They have put a couple of links to it on Talk:Public domain for no obvious reason. They have previously put links to it, and to a travel company, on a number of other pages. They appear to be here to promote something, and had better stop, or they will get blocked. --ColinFine (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write an updated English version of a Swedish article

There is an article in the sv.wikipedia (Swedish, right?) I would like to update and add to the English wikipedia. The Swedish version is at https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slator_Lake. About a month ago I searched for Slator Lake and was taken to the Swedish page. That search now fails.

Anyway, can I just start an English article with the same name as a Swedish article, or do I need permission?

Thanks brian.slator Brian.slator (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brian.slator. No, you don't need permission; but if you create the article by translating the Swedish, then you must credit if (see Translation. I suggest treating it as a new article in English, even if you do translate it, because the article in the Swedish Wikipedia may not be appropriate as it stands: different Wikipedias sometimes have different rules, and in any case, the existence of an article in a Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean that it is a satisfactory article (we have many substandard ones on enwiki, unfortunately). I suggest reding your first article as well, and creating a draft with the WP:AFC process. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian.slator: You may wonder why the Swedish Wikipedia but not the English has an article about a small Canadian lake. Millions of Swedish articles were created by Lsjbot, an automated Wikipedia article-creating program by a Swedish editor. The article has never been edited by a human. The English Wikipedia has different policies and far less bot creations. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mario Fever theme in Puyo Puyo Tetris

According to ShiroBrawl, the fever theme was also used on Puyopuyo Tetris, even though Sega owns Nintendo's intellectual properties/licensed rights. I DON'T KNOW WHY IF SEGA DID ON PURPOSE? ACQ322Acuity (answer me) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Apollo C. Quiboloy fans. What is your question about editing Wikipedia? That is the only kind of question appropriate here. It's possible you might get somebody interested enough to answer you if you post your question at Reference desk/Entertainment. --ColinFine (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove a photo

I tried to add a photo to a page, however, instead it was created as a solo link. I cannot find an undo, remove, delete button.. Help please — Preceding unsigned comment added by REA79 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REA79, I added the image for you WelpThatWorked (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi REA79. I'm not clear on what you are seeking. Can you please advise whether you are okay with the deletion of this image file? If so, I will delete it under CSD G7. If not, and what you were seeking was help with adding it to Michael Andrew Arntfield as WelpThatWorked did, please note that I have removed it from there, and marked it for deletion (see the message at your talk page). As I stated in my edit summary accompanying tagging it for deletion under CSD F11: "The mere fact fact it is a "publicity photo" does not imply it is in the public domain, and you have not provided the actual source you got this from, so no way to check whether the source actually provides a release into the public domain or licenses it as such (a TinEye search was not frutiful)". It may be that it is, in fact, in the public domain, but the information you provided at the image page was insufficent to check and implied a possible misunderstanding of what makes something public domain. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to add the photo to the wiki profile. Instead, I somehow loaded it as an individual photo not on his page. I have no idea how to delete the photo and add it to his wiki profile.. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by REA79 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My First Denial

How can I get my draft to be accepted despite the fact there arent enough sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwpom (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cwpom: I will assume the article in question is Draft:Chaleb Pommells. The first thing to do is to read the comments the reviewer (SamHolt6) left when it was declined. There were two main problems: the article does not establish that the subject is notable (in Wikipedia's special meaning of that term), and the tone of the article reads more like an advertisement. Read through the links provided by the reviewer to understand these issues, and if you have specific questions about how to address them after that then please come back here are ask. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: Can you define what specifically makes it seem like an ad because the intention is to be a bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwpom (talk • contribs) 01:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one thing that makes the draft seem like an ad is that it talks about a 14-year-old middle-schooler's "career." In four years he may be eligible to run for the legislature; if he is elected then, it will be time to start talking about a career. —teb728 t c 05:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwpom: In answer to your original question, you can't get a draft accepted without references to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. What references your draft has provide none of that: Neither the Teen Council page, the legislature page, nor even his company page even mentions him. The Pines Telegram page only gives him bylines, and his tweet only mentions him as the tweeter. So there is no indication at all that he is notable enough for an article. —teb728 t c 04:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope what I have written above does not come across as harsh, Cwpom, but I don’t want you wasting your effort on something that is not going to be accepted. It is very rare but not impossible for a teenager to become notable enough for an encyclopedia article. (Malala Yousafzai became notable at 15 as a result of her attempted assassination and David Hogg at 17 as a result of his activism following the MSD shooting.) Wikipedia is looking for the kind of subjects that they write whole articles about in newspapers and magazines. Have The Miami Herald or the Sun-Sentinel written articles about Chaleb? (They certainly have written about Malala and David.)

Your draft was nicely written for a first article: I hope you will accept that our standard of acceptance is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and devote your talents to such subjects. —teb728 t c 09:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Https and Http

Hello. I have been seeing a lot of online references that use insecure http. So I was wondering if it's okay to edit the links from http to https. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SharabSalam. https is preferred per Help:Link#http: and https:. Check that it works before changing. Some sites only allow http. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--SharabSalam (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello

let me know exact perpose of this page..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umeshkumar9540 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Umeshkumar9540: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for new users to ask questions about editing or using Wikipedia. If you ever have a question about using Wikipedia, please ask it just as you asked this question. You may be interested in using the new user tutorial(click those words to get there) to help you learn about Wikipedia. Again, welcome. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you put "Aaradhya Enterprises, karad. FMCG Distributor firm in karad city." on your User page. The purpose of a User page is to explain a bit about yourself and your intentions as a Wikipedia editor. It is not a social media page for you or your business. See WP:User pages. David notMD (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where should i upload my images to?

(R38R32R10MTAOTT (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Please see this help guide for more information. I will also post some info on your talk page. Can you provide us with more context? RhinosF1 (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Wizard may be what you're after. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Formatting

Hello, I have a question that I've been wanting to ask for a while regarding citations:
Is it required to have the access date if it is the same as the date the article was published?
Syntaxlord (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wise to do so, as that confirms which date the ref has been confirmed as supporting the text. The access date gives a good guide as to where to look for an archive version if necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Syntaxlord, "The date the article was published" is not very meaningful. A Wikipedia article is never finished: there's nothing special about the date when it was first created, and in any case, a particular reference might have been added much later. --ColinFine (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine, I believe that Syntaxlord was referring to the date that the article used as a reliable source was first published, not the date the Wikipedia article was first published. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, Yes, I was referring to that. I'm sorry that my wording was confusing. Syntaxlord (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Sorry for my misunderstanding. --ColinFine (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know if my sources are sufficient?

Dear all,

I created an article about an Austrian physician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harald_Stossier). When I submitted the draft for review it was declined with the note: "I'm inclined to think notable but sourcing needs to be improved vastly."

Since all statements are referenced by at least one source, and in my opinion all sources are reliable according to the wiki guidelines my question would be: Do I need to add more sources, or are the included sources questionable?

Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yet another IT guy (talk • contribs) 14:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it's better to take up such a question with the editor who declined the draft, Yet another IT guy, but looking at Draft:Harald Stossier, I can see that, while the sources are probably reliable, not a single one of them is independent of Stossier. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says about themselves, or what their employer, organisation, or associates say about them: an article should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have written about them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yet another IT guy. I agree with ColinFine's assessment of the shortcomings of the current sources. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to measure notability?

Hi, I came across certain people that are famous in Sri Lanka. But there is no wikipedia page for them. How do I measure their notability? and why is notability not measured at all for certain people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luewia (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Luewia, and welcome to the Teahouse. Notability (as Wikipedia uses the word) is fairly well defined (though applying the definition isn't always clear-cut). Please see Notability. In most cases it depends on whether several people, unconnected with the subject, have chosen to write at some length about the subject and been published in reliable places (places which have a reputation for editorial control and fact checking). The sources do not have to be in English, or online, though it is easier for editors to check them if they are. Neither fame, popularity, importance, or influence, necessarily makes a subject notable in Wikipedia terms, though of course there is some correlation. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about tables

Hello,

I was wondering when creating a table on a page, how to center align the content. Also, how do you add coloring to the boxes and their text as well?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhawks1998 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question relating to Tom Kenny (Actor)

Hi I've just been reading up on Tom Kenny (voice of Spongebob Squarepants) and noticed his Biography does not mention his recent work as the voice of Police Chief Randall Crawford in the first series of 2018 Netflix series Paradise PD.

As Tom is a well known artist I didn't want to risk my novice editing skills on his page.

I would be grateful if you can ask one of your experienced editors to include this at some point.

Many thanks

Mark Stevens England, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.252.73 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't feel comfortable making such an edit yourself, you should post on the article talk page(Talk:Tom Kenny) so that editors that follow that article see it and may be able to help you. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How or who can edit the Pope Pius IX page, because there is an error on it?

Dear Sirs, Summary: In 1824, Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Leone XII, in 1847 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX and in 1849 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX. In the Pope Pius IX article on Wikipedia and in reference to Ubi Primum there is no reference to the pre-existing Papal Encyclical written by Pope Leo XII. That was confusing to me.

References: In reading the Wikipedia article about Pope Pius IX, I discovered an error. The error is that the Papal Encyclical Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pius IX while Ubi Primum is written by Leo XII and again later by Pius IX. I have just noticed that the vatican.va lists alternatively Pio IX and Leone XII as the author here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xii/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-5-maggio-1824.html as Leo XII ... and here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-2-febbraio-1849.html as Pius IX... and here: https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-ubi-primum-17-giugno-1847.html as Pius IX.

I applied to do an edit. Because of the Kwysinski dog rapper problem, I had to wait. Still I am not allowed to edit after about 24 hours. Anyway to avoid any confusion can someone add into the Pope Pius IX article that more than one Papal Encyclical has the title Ubi Primum and that Pope Leo XII is another author?

Summary: In 1824, Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Leone XII, in 1847 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX and in 1849 Ubi Primum is attributed to Pope Pio IX. In the Pope Pius IX article on Wikipedia and in reference to Ubi Primum there is no reference to the pre-existing Papal Encyclical written by Pope Leo XII. That was confusing to me.

Regards, Mr. Michael Griffin p.s. The edit could say: "Ubi Primum" (note: three versions of the Papal Encyclical Ubi Primum exist including Ubi Primum authored in 1824 by Pope Leo XII). The edit could also say something like "Ubi Primum dated 1847," or "Ubi Primum dated 1847 and/or 1849." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FD00:51C0:89F2:2121:9602:E0A5 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pebbles (band)

Anyone up for doing an entry about this great garage band? facebook.com/pebbles.web/— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambapaannex (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sambapaannex: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that you use the term "garage band" strongly suggests that the band does not meet the notability criteria for bands written at WP:BAND. There has to be significant coverage in independent reliable sources, sources not associated with the band at all, for a band to merit an article. YouTube videos, which anyone can post, don't count. It doesn't matter if this band's videos have 10,000 views or 10 million views, if no independent sources write about them, they do not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sambapaannex: There is actually an entire (humourous) essay on this topic - Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sambapaannex. I replaced the YouTube links you added with a link to the band's Facebook page. People often upload videos to YouTube that they don't hold the copyright on and such links are not supposed to be added to Wikipedia pages per WP:COPYLINK, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:ELNEVER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is referencing a governmental website a case of bad self-published referencing?

As an example, is it a case of self-published reference to use census data from the website of the Ministry of Municipal affairs, Regions and Land Management of Québec to reference the number of inhabitants of the towns of Rimouski, Matane and Rivière-du-Loup in the article Bas-Saint-Laurent? The guideline on this is confusing for me. Sadenar40000 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadenar40000: It depends on the nature of the source and what you're using it for. I'm not aware of any controversies in Quebecois census surveys today, so in the example you specified it seems fine. If you were instead relying on census reports issued by say, Myanmar, Syria, or another country actively in the midst of a crisis in which the government is complicit, or if there's another credible reason to cast doubt on the government's reliability (e.g. the Egyptian government's published estimates of the sizes of various religious minorities in the country vary greatly from both the estimates released by the communities themselves and from independent sources), I would proceed with caution. Whether or not the source contributes to notability is a separate concern, but for inhabited places like the ones in your example, that's not an issue per WP:NPLACE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to change back edit in non programming mode

Hey all,

I was able to edit without coding, but now it says "Edit Source" and requires real coding. How do I go back?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guestofaguest (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guestofaguest, click the pencil symbol in the editor and it should come up with a menu letting you switch to visual editing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Guestofaguest. Adding to what Emir of Wikipedia has helpfully stated, if you go to your Preference settings, and then the 'Editing' Tab, you can change how the two different editing tools are offered to you. Personally, I think it's far better to always be offered both editor tabs, but you can choose whether it remembers (and offers you) your last-used editor. I hope you find this helpful. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article - Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

I've been doing edits for a few months and have a question about an article that always bothers me.

Without getting too far into it, the wiki title of the article that follows is incorrect !

Catherine Middleton/Kate Middleton/Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge

The format of her title as "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" is the one that would be used if she was the divorced former wife of a Duke. (see Sarah, Duchess of York below). This rule is explained in section 3.3 of the wiki article "British Princess" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_princess . She is properly titled Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cambridge (having a The in one's name is very important in british royalty !) therefore the article should be titled "The Duchess of Cambridge". It would not matter so much if the style chosen for the title were not one that specifically suggests the woman is divorced.

For instance, the wiki article on the divorced wife of Prince Andrew of York is correctly titled "Sarah, Duchess of York" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah,_Duchess_of_York

Best source possible: the official website of the Royal Family have titled their page about her "The Duchess of Cambridge" ^[1]

I do see that there has been a good deal of discussion of this on the Talk page, but I'm unclear how to bring the topic back up on the Talk page, and on who has the power to unlock the article title. So - how do I make this change happen, or at least re-open the discussion? Who do I have to communicate with ? The page is semi-protected. LigaGila (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, LigaGila. Wikipedia already has an article Duchess of Cambridge which discusses the title and the three women known that way. Therefore, her first name is added to the biography of the current duchess, to disambiguate the person from the title. This was a very controversial article naming decision at the time of the marriage, and you really ought to read the entire lengthy discussion before trying to reopen the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen328 I did read the whole discussion there, but it just peters out with no clear decision, or even a clue as to who can make the decision (ie has access to editing the title field). Can you tell me who is the "owner" of the page (please excuse as I suspect that isn't the correct term to use)

LigaGila (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there is no "owner" and we have no such concept on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected, which means it can only be edited by accounts over four days old and with over 20 edits. You have 19 edits so you are very close. The article is also move protected which means only an administrator can change the title. No sane adminstrator would change the title except to implement a clearcut consensus on the article talk page. You are welcome to start a new discussion on the talk page, but I have a very strong hunch that there will not be an agreement to change the article title. It was discussed extensively by many people in the talk page archives. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: When did the autoconfirmed criterion change from 10 to 20? Would you be able to change WP:AUTOCONFIRM with an appropriate reference? --David Biddulph (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Biddulph, I will blame my upcoming 67th birthday for my memory lapse. You are correct. The standard is four days and ten edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LigaGila. Nobody is the "owner" of any page in Wikipedia. Almost any editor can change the title of an article by moving the article (but in the light of what Cullen says, nobody should move that one without achieving consensus on the move). --ColinFine (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC) --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now that consensus must be achieved, so I'll do some further research to make a convincing argument for such. Thanks for the advice Cullen328 and ColinFine! -- LigaGila (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.royal.uk/search/the-duchess-of-cambridge

No picture for famous person yet

What can I do if nobody is going to add a pic for G. T. Bynum? Nobody has responded to that IP’s request and there is no pic for a famous mayor. Can you find one please? I don’t want to do copyright. Thanks! 2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A photo is nice to have but not at all necessary. If you feel it is important, you could ask his office to provide a photo as described at WP:COPYREQ, or you could go to Tulsa and take photo yourself. —teb728 t c 03:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i want to see my wikipidea in anothers mobile but im not able see can you can any suggestions

after 1 or 2 edit it is not accepting another edit in any case of urgent how can we edit our wiki and how can we upload a picture of the particular Im not sure about WIKI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamakura raju (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about whether you're involved with the subject which would mean you need to read the WP:COI and WP:PAID policies. Your account can not be used by multiple people and your Username seems promotional. Please address the issues above before continuing to edit then read the getting started guide. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chamakura raju I'm sorry to say that you don't seem able to communicate well in English. Are you aware that there is a Telugu Wikipedia (and several other Indic Wikipedias). You might be more comfortable writing there. —teb728 t c 07:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with teb728's comment. People who want to write in the English language Wikipedia are expected to be competent, but not sent away. In this instance looks like the draft is at User:Chamakura raju/sandbox and may be autobiographical and is clearly not ready to be proposed for review. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David notMD, I didn't tell the OP they were unwelcome here: I just suggested another outlet they might not have been aware of. I checked their global contribuions, and they were only on en-wiki. Did you think they were competent in English? Their sandbox was not just unready for review: to me it was only about half-comprehensible. —teb728 t c 02:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of my Draft

hey everybody, I working now for more than a week on my first article to be published. Unfortunately it always gets rejected as it sounds apparently like an advertisement. Of course, I do not want it to sound like it. So I edited several times and orientated it to other similar articles. But it still hasn't been accepted yet. Therefore it would be great, if someone could have a look at it and give me some advises on how to improve the article. I have already looked at all the standardized wikipedia help sites and tried to implement their advises. The link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eclipse_Theia Thanks in advance ChristinFrohne (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ChristinFrohne. "the Theia project counts RedHat, IBM, Google and ARM as contributing companies". Wikipedia is not interested in what the project counts. If this is a demonstrable fact, state it as a fact. "Theia has a flexible layout" - this is not a neutral description, but an evaluation. See PEACOCK. "Based on a growing ecosystem of over 60 available language servers, delivering intelligent editing support for all major programming languages" is again not neutral. "Furthermore" is editorializing. What you should be aiming for is wording that both its supporters and its detractors would find accurate: neutral statements of documented facts about the software, not evaluative words and slanted claims. (I am not disputing the claims, just saying that they are inappropriate in an Encyclopaedia). --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine thank you very much for your feedback. Now I know how to edit the article. ChristinFrohne (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine I have made some changes to the article. Could you have another look at it? Thanks in advance ChristinFrohne (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ChristinFrohne, I think the tone is much improved. Be aware that I haven't done a formal review (I am not a regular reviewer for AFC), but I think it is worth your resubmitting it. --ColinFine (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/* History */ removal of outdated table

Hi I have twice removed an outdated table from the Perth College page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_College_(Western_Australia)), however, my amendment has been overridden by someone else. Perth College do not wish to highlight ATAR results in this way and hence we have not updated the table for the past couple of years. As a result, it is now very much out of date. Can you advise what our options are. Many thanks. Ctrlaltk (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ctrlaltk and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you disclosed your WP:Conflict of interest here, and your WP:Paid status? You need to be aware that the article belongs to Wikipedia, not to the College. Wikipedia would welcome an updated table, but it is other Wikipedia editors not involved with the College who will decide what content is appropriate for the article. It would be best if you express your concerns on the talk page of the article where you can discuss the changes with other editors. Dbfirs 08:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to change (or request a change to) a large amount of links?

Hi, I've been working on the Unisound and Unisound Studios pages and currently, albums produced by Unisound Studios link to the Unisound page incorrectly.

Based on Special:WhatLinksHere every page except the following should change from Unisound --> Unisound Studios.

The ones that link correctly are:

List of unicorn startup companies
Unisound Studios

As there are over 50 album pages, what would be the best course of action to update (or request an update) to these links?

Thanks :)

Redwards21 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post the job on WP:AWB/Tasks - X201 (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have posted there, thanks @X201. Redwards21 (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove pages or challenge pages that do not show any citations or references

I see a whole list of wikipedia pages in Sri Lanka that have no citations or references at all, and no one seems to have challenged. I could point them out to you if it is out of my lead but would be great if I could know how it is done? Let me list bellow some pages that have zero references

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luewia (talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you say "no one seems to have challenged". Each of them is tagged, as far as i can see. THere is advice at WP:Notability (high schools). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie

Hi I'm new to Wikipedia, can anyone please give me any ideas how to contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thabiso Mabaso (talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Thabiso Mabaso! You might want to start with The Wikipedia Adventure, which walks you through different editing tasks to familiarize you with editing on Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gibb as surname

Wikipedia asks for people to edit content when they have more relevant and correct information and then deletes anything that they do not like without any discussion. I have published Ten edits in regard to the origin of the name GIBB with proof's thereof. I cannot find anyone who will actually discuss this or answer for their actions and constant denial will not change fact. The entire Wiki system appear to me to be set to stop any edits not promote them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Gibb (talk • contribs) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read the edit summary for this edit? You were told that your text had been copied to Draft:Gibb (surname), so that you can work on it there and eventually submit it for AFC review when it has been properly formatted. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, and Welcome to Wikipedia. I have replied on your talk page to your concerns, but let me assure you that Wikipedia wants any constructive edits that meet the standards of the encyclopedia that you can contribute. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have, @NoCOBOL:. I think you posted to User talk:Philipnelson99 instead. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OOPS, I'm an idiot. Thank you @David Biddulph: for bringing this to my attention, I will rectify it. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are existing names lists Gibb and Gibbs (surname). Neither is a place for a discourse on the origins of the Gibb/Gibbs surnames. Richard's text currently parked at Draft:Gibb (surname), but if that ever to become an article, it will need a better title to avoid confusion. When I looked at Smith I saw a link to a list of people with the surname smith and also Smith (surname) as an article on the origins of the surname. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first question would have to be why is this entire system so damn awkward and why is it apparently impossible to get a) Contact with one person and B) Assistance in what I am trying to do?

I am trying to correct facts about the name GIBB/GIBBS. I have cited English Heritage, The Vatican and the Royal Archive but apparently such are not regarded as Reliable Sources which I would like someone to explain that to me. If this were a proper e-mail I could send you COPIES of letters from the Royal Archive as well as other fully documented information which you would find impossible to dispute. So far, it seems to me that WIKI are not interested in REAL facts.

I am the current Remembrancer (Chronicler) of the family, a position that has been passed down to me. My predecessors over the last 900 + years never had to deal with Social Media which simply did not exist and where apparently anyone can publish any amount of nonsense without any comeback. In the past our duty was simply to keep the family history and in olden days to appear at the Court of Heralds in respect of any disputes. One of my predecessors was indeed Clarenceux King of arms who wrote the book everyone now holds up as the Guide to Heraldry Now I am getting on (Retired) and not the greatest of experts in this Social Media/WIKI subject which is why I require assistance, which I humbly request. I do rather hope that someone will kindly step forward. Apologies for being a touch terse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Gibb (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gibb, you have received assistance in the replies above, but you appear to be misunderstanding the problem. Social media is generally not regarded as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, but neither are private letters. Sources need to be published in some form, and accessible to readers either online or through a library. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to better understand this. You also need to give more detail about the sources being used, so that readers can find them if they want to. A reference such as "Battle Abbey – English Heritage" is not sufficient, because it's not clear whether that's even a publication, as opposed to a place. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gibb, One reason you can’t get one person as a contact is that we are all volunteers here, and none of us is authorized to decide on the validity of unpublished primary documents. Instead we depend on the reliability of published reliable secondary sources which in turn evaluate the primary sources. Apparently your draft references unpublished documents: Have those sources been analyzed by published reliable secondary sources? That is how Wikipedia verifies such information.

BTW, I removed the false etymologies from Gibb with the explanation that it was “unsourced.” I expect that removal to stick. —teb728 t c 23:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer Website

Hello Guys,

I understand that this is not a free web hosting service but is there any reasons that I am not supposed to have a page on wikipedia. I have seen tons of companies having own pages/articles here.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspneter (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The companies which are allowed to have a Wikipedia article are those which meet the criteria at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia pages are not for promotion. I notice also that the page which was deleted as promotional was your user page User:Aspneter, so you should read the purpose of a user page at WP:user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, OK the rules are there for a reason I believe. Thank you for clarifying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspneter (talk • contribs) 13:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and just to clarify ... no company "has" a page here in the sense that they in any way own or control the page, but if the company is notable then there might be an article about them, preferably written by someone unconnected with the company and based on what other unconnected WP:Reliable sources have written. Dbfirs 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get a Page heading changed if it is inaccurate

Hi I've just seen that this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormsley_Park refers to "Wormsley Park" but this should in fact be just "Wormsley" - how do you go about changing this? Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormsley1086 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is shown as Wormsley Park on the Ordnance Survey maps. If you think that is wrong I suggest you start a discussion on the article take page, backed up with a reliable source.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to create an article

Hello moderator and Wikipedia community,

I have used Wikipedia for most of my adult life. It is a wonderful resource and I love that it is a not-for-profit organization (and I have personally contributed many times over the years to keep it that way).

I am writing to ask about the appropriateness of building an article for myself. In addition to my day job as a banker for government and not-for-profit organizations, I am an independent author. I published my first book in 2017 - a sci-fi novel: Leadership, Heaven and Hell; and a Cybersentient Hero. Then, this past August, I decided to publish my memoir: The Inexplicable Survival of a Happily Fallible Child. (I had actually written the memoir before the sci-fi novel but published it after.)

The memoir has been picked up by a couple of major retailers: Barnes and Noble and Thriftbooks.com

I am happy these retailers found my book and are offering it for sale, but I'm unsure how they found it. (To my best knowledge, at this point, no retailer carries my sci-fi novel.)

I share this information because I believe it may be a contributing factor to my dilemma. I have been told by friends and family that they've found incorrect information on the internet about me and/or my book. For instance, if you search my book name under Google, you'll find on the right side of the page that one of my brothers and one of my sisters are listed as the author. If you click on the link, another sister is listed as a co-author. (I love all my siblings dearly and I couldn't have written the book without their input, but I am the one who wrote the book.) There are other, frankly, wacky, articles about my book out on the internet with all sorts of incorrect information.

A friend suggested I create my own Wikipedia page because that is where much of the information gathered within the internet is pulled from. I am asking if that would be appropriate.

For reference, if you search my Goodreads.com author profile. It is accurate about my books and who I am.

I attempted to include links for Barnes and Noble, Thriftbooks.com, Google search and Goodreads.com but I received error messages that one or more are listed on Wikipedia's blacklist, so I removed them all. I apologize.

I very much appreciate your time and look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

Gary C. Mele, Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garycmelejr (talk • contribs) 15:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against it, you can request articles at WP:RA. If you want to be involved also read WP:COI. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will find advice against, at WP:autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Garycmelejr. Just a tip about that Google information panel: there's a "Feedback" link beneath it that you can use to request corrections. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MetalDiablo666 Overkill (band) page

...I have several times corrected the origin city of the band...they are NOT from Old Bridge, NJ, that may be where their label (Megaforce) was based, but not them, I went to high school with Rat Skates and DD Verni in New Providence, NJ and also if you look up old 'zines, their mailing address is New Providence, NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellhammer666 (talk • contribs) 15:38, Today (UTC+0)

Hello, Hellhammer666, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem is that a reader next week in Duluth, or next month in Sydney, or in 2029 in Uzbekistan has no way of checking information in your head or "in old 'zines'". It was fine for you to to be bold and make a correction, but once another editor reverts it, making the same edit again without discussion is called edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive. You need to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, according to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. In order to persuade other editors, you will need to find a reliable published source for the information you want to add: that is the only kind of information Wikipedia will accept (and yes, we know that sometimes it is not accurate, but that is the best we can do: see Verifiability). Unfortunately, a fanzine will probably not be counted a reliable source, I'm afraid. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edits

I edited a page on Jan. 11 and its not updated. Any ideas on why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3C8:200:C3B:94EA:6E20:5394:6658 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What page? David notMD (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP user. We can't give you any definite answer without knowing what page, as David notMD says. But I can suggest some possible reasons. One is that you might not have saved your edit: many users have been confused that the button that used to be called "save" is now called "publish". Another is that your edit may have gone in, but been reverted by a bot or another editor, because it didn't appear constructive (a very common case is when people add information without citing a source). If you look at the History of the article, you should see whether anybody reverted your edit, and they should have left a summary explaining why.

If your edit did get reverted, and you still want to apply it, you should open a discussion about it on the article's Talk page before you try and edit again. --ColinFine (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist Format

Hi,

I'm doing a copy-edit of Strand Road, Kolkata. I've gotten as far as the History section. I need to figure out a convenient way to format the reference list, particularly when a section is referring to the same source and different pages within that source. Hoping someone can give me some tips. Thanks! RandomGnome (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a new page - rejection

Hi - I am trying to create my first Wikipedia entry for my department at The University of Sheffield - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:School_of_Health_and_Related_Research I'm aware of academic boostering and am trying to create an objective, informative page about our esteemed department and building as part of the wider university page. I have other information to add, including links to other Wikipedia entries relating to some of our previous academics. Before I went too far I thought I would start basic and see whether I could get it accepted before expanding too quickly. I got the message below and don't know how to act upon it - apologies for not understanding, I'm keen to learn and do this properly. Any advice would be greatly appreciated - thanks, Andy

Welcome to the Articles for creation help desk! If the white boxes below are empty, please complete the following, otherwise skip to 2. below: First, copy and paste the following code in the header bar: 17:23:56, 21 January 2019 review of submission by Scharrlib Then, copy and paste this code in the big input box below that:

Scharrlib (talk · contribs)
- No draft specified!

Below that, explain why you are requesting assistance, take as many lines as you need and make sure to remember to sign your post with Scharrlib (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give it up. Wikipedia is no place to advertise. I've took a look at your draft. Furthermore, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

An IP editor has said on my talk page with edit summary Words of encouragement. Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_English Why did you undo my correction of the Glottocode for New Zealand English? How was it "unconstructive" when it's entirely factual and up to date? I see you've been in trouble with Administrators before - I wonder why. But fine: have it your way; keep your little fiefdom; I couldn't care less. and I replied Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I am sorry if I undid a constructive edit. I have reverted your edit to New Zealand English. Hope that helps. Should I be concerned? Mstrojny (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. You've come across an obnoxious editor, editing from an IP address. It's not worth a second thought. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello Mstrojny, welcome back again to the Teahouse. Should you be concerned? Probably not, but that depends what you mean by 'concerned'. You certainly won't be taken to WP:ANI for that, and you did absolutely the right thing both by asking here for feedback, and for reverting your edit. Maproom was right - the IP editor did come across rather unreasonably to you, though I can understand why to some extent. I looked at the sequence of events, and I do think you made two, possibly three, mistakes. So, yes, you should be concerned to understand what you did wrong, and how to resolve any problems you might have caused, just as any good editor should. The trick - as in the real world - is to appreciate what those mistakes were, learn from them and not to repeat them, and to understand that wrong decisions and unjustified warnings can really upset others (after all, there's a real person behind every IP address. But they should have responded in a WP:CIVIL way to you, which they did not.). Let's break it down, shall we?...

...First off, the IP editor made this valid edit which improved the page. (Admittedly, like you, I'd never come across 'Glottolog' codes before this question, but by following the link in the Infobox, it was easy to see it's a legitimate language database (we even have a Wikipedia page about it. see: Glottolog). It's really important not to jump to conclusions about IP editors - the vast majority of their edits are just as constructive as those of registered users. OK, so you saw their edit (maybe at 'Recent Changes'?) and reverted it with Twinkle without leaving any edit summary, and you then took up Twinkle's offer of templating the IP editor, and gave them a level 1 warning for vandalism on their Talk Page. That was quite unjustified and your second mistake. You really should have spotted that wasn't vandalism. So, not surprisingly, they came to your Talk page and expressed their frustrations with your actions. They did not cover themselves in glory in the way they went about addressing you. You then did the right thing by reviewing your actions, reverting them, and apologising to the IP editor. So that was great. Well done. I think you could still go one step further and go back to their talk page and remove your templated warning, leaving an edit summary along the lines of "removing warning template - I added it in error, sorry". Not removing that template was your third mistake, and you can still correct that one if you wish.

I do think it was a little unfair of the IP editor to highlight your past problems and block - though perhaps understandable under the circumstances, though the 'obnoxious' way they did it was not OK. It certainly looks like you're really doing your best to now be a constructive editor - and that's absolutely fantastic, and what we want to encourage. You certainly don't need to be concerned if this is a one-off error, and you have to learn not to be upset when people aren't polite. Just be careful not to make too many more. i.e. err on the side of caution, especially avoiding accusations of vandalism and not reverting or rollbacking edits without leaving an edit summary. But unless you do stuff here, you won't be helping; and whenever we do stuff, inevitably we sometimes make mistakes. I certainly do. The trick is to try to recognise when we've made an error, rather than rush on to resolve the next issue. Stay a while longer and consider whether your actions were justified.

So don't be concerned that this single, genuine mistake will affect your ability to edit. You dealt with it OK. You do seem hasty in placing some of your higher level warning templates, (like this level 3 notice, and this level 2 one). And in future, don't quote other people in bold - either use italics or, better still, the {{tq}} template, which puts quoted text in green like this.

Finally, and on a completely different note, what I would suggest is that you remove the WP:REDIRECT from your Userpage to your Talk page, and simply place there a few honest lines about yourself and your past mistakes for which you were blocked, explaining what you're now trying to do to make up for it, and the type of editing you're now doing. That way, when someone comes to ask why you've done something, they'll see a positive statement about your current approach to editing, rather than lots of old talk page messages just highlighting past issues. I hope this (rather long) explanation serves it purpose, and that you go on to serve Wikipedia well over the years ahead. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making your own article.

Can someone please tell me how to start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B023:3231:F45A:F9CE:D0D9:4A74 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Your first article. Choose a topic that's WP:NOTABLE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a reliable source

I am creating my first page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ramon_Rivas_Musical_Artist_Audio_Engineer#External_links but I cannot find a good third party source for an indie album. I can only find it on sales sites like "spotify". Any suggestions would be welcome. Is there an "Allmusic" type site for Indie music? Wanderingfreeman (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wanderingfreeman. Before looking for that source, have you considered whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I'm concerned that the sources you've cited in Draft:Ramon Rivas Musical Artist Audio Engineer might not yet establish that Rivas has been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources, which is the standard that needs to be met for an article to be published without risk of subsequent deletion. Are there any other newspaper or magazine profiles of him? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrikson Stallard

Hey I’ve written a post titled ‘Fredrikson stallard’ but it has neither been verified or reviewed - could someone please help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise lost 90 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise lost 90: You asked this a couple of days ago and received a response here, which still applies. (I don't see how that draft could realistically be accepted, I'm afraid - it is almost entirely promotional, and a lot of the information is unsourced. Some of the text that has a reference isn't actually supported by the source either, which is also problematic. But it will be up to the reviewing editor.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined the draft again as it still reads like an advert, it is stuffed full of marketing trumpery….“pushed the boundaries of art and design”, “famous 'Momentum' collection”, “famous London gallerist being pivotal to their meteoric rise”, “exhibit inside the grand reception at The Mandarin Oriental Hyde Park”, “packaged in a weighty rock glass with a luxurious patinated brass”’ “driving a program of creative collaborations”, “often collaborate with leading commercial brands”, “most tangible expression of contemporary design”, “filled with the apparatus of a cutting-edge studio”, “starting a conversation between their work and the observer”, “industrially crafted and yet emotionally engaging” etc etc. none of which is the neutral tone which we expect to see in an encyclopedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Hi everyone. Could you pls review the article for Benjamin Schnau after I made last requested changes

Hi everyone. Could you pls review the article for Benjamin Schnau after I made last requested changes. Thank you --Franklin187 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MARK ZUNINO

Hi, my recent article submission for Mark Zunino was rejected due to a lack of reliable resources, specifically secondary sources. The rejection also stated that IMDB is not a credible resource for Mark's designs in films and TV shows. What would constitute as a reliable source and what is meant by a secondary source?

My article submission can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Zunino

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakkarysmith (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakkarysmith: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please click on and read WP:RS for information on what reliable sources are, but in short, reliable sources have a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Those are usually media outlets like newspapers, but can be other forms of sources. IMDB is not a reliable source as it is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

Hello. How do I change the name of the wiki article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Author Kharisma (talk • contribs) 23:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Author Kharisma. You get somebody who is WP:AUTOCONFIRMED to WP:MOVE it for you. BTW, if you are thinking of moving your draft to article space, it is not ready for that yet. —teb728 t c 23:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praticing Artist of 11 Years Page

Hi there,

I noticed you rejected the page I was placing together without subsequent reason. Lists of works have been including externally. I was in the middle of editing. I would appreciate a revise so I can continue to build.

Kind regards,

Mennie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drycontext (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drycontext. I am actually unfamiliar with the rejection you received (though I took an almost year's long break recently). I've never before seen an AfC decline template that did not have a button allowing the draftee to resubmit for review. In any event, there's nothing stopping you from continuting to edit Draft:Rue (Artist)—hopefully citing in a transparent manner to reliable, secondary and independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail (not just mere mentions) to verify the information content and demonstrate the notability of the subject, without copying the words used—and when you are finished, adding {{subst:submit}} to the draft to resubmit it for review. Be aware that the standards I referred to, citing sources and the like, are what's needed to write and article that will "stick". If the types of sources I mentioned don't exist, then no proper article will be possible. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drycontext, I took a look at the versions of your draft, and you did something in this edit that changed your article from "draft" to "submitted for review". So, a reviewer looked at it and declined it. You have to be very careful not to move or change anything in that template until you're ready to submit your article for review. You can check Preview to make sure the templated review message continues to show as "draft". Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: The AfC rejection template is a new feature, different from a decline, that is meant to discourage resubmissions. CoolSkittle (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MLK day

Someone please change the info on the MLK Day page, its extremely inappropriate!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7A00:1902:9122:13C2:76B7:6E81 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse. The image has been removed, and the user blocked. You can report vandalism quickly here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got a message someone is talking about edits I may have made on the Admin notice board?

I don't know where to read about it. I just received a message but I don't understand how read it. It says: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. How do I view this? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:E006:34:1124:5606:3E04:189A (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Administrator's noticeboard is here but Moxy removed the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style Question on "Signing" Posts in the "Talk" Section

[This Section] shows what I'm talking about. As I learn to use/edit Wikipedia, certain details become more important to me, and in this case it's about how to structure the text I've written so that it's beginning and end are clearly delineated.

I've learned to use the full colons to indent the beginning of the text to show that it's in response to the one immediately "out dented" above it, and so now the ending of the text I've posted is an issue. I don't like to "sign" (with the 4 tildes) at the very end of a line of text; particularly if that causes the signature to get hung at the right side of the page. So what I've learned to do is use two carriage returns and enough colons to throw the signature part one line below the text I've posted, and indented to the same "level" as what I've posted. I like this because it clearly shows the end of my text, which then implies that anything after that, is the beginning of someone else's, which I think is a good thing since sometimes people just throw their text in any old way and sometimes it's hard to see where one person's texts ends, and another person's begins.

I'm posting this here to make certain that this isn't going to be a problem. There's an extra line between the text and the signature, and it's blank. Maybe someone will have a problem with that, and then I'll hear all about it. Better to get ahead of this potential problem and ask the question. Also, in a more general sense are there any policies or conventions that regulate the syntax of posts/text in the "Discussions" that I (or anyone else) should know about?

Tym Whittier (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tym Whittier. Welcome to the Teahouse. Having skimmed (skum?) through Wikipedia:Signatures, I didn't find anything there which says you must not separate your signature from the end of your post, but I do think it's a really bad idea, and not something I like to see at all. By convention, we all place our signatures immediately after the last paragraph we've posted. It strongly associates our name with our comments. By doing your own thing and by adding an extra line makes me think someone else has just posted their signature, and that the posting itself is unsigned. I find it confusing. If we all did it, that would be fine, but we don't. It also spaces out the discussion more than is needed. Maybe others can find a policy which says you "must" do it that way. WP:SIGAPP states not to add an extra line by means of the break command ( <br />). I would simply urge you to follow the convention that virtually all editors follow, irrespective of whether you like it. You have, yourself, also been prone to missing out the indent when you sign in that way, as you can see on this discussion on your own Talk Page, and that is always going to cause confusion, especially in complex discussions.

I also note that in our "Missing Manual" we have this very clear advice: "Don't start a new line or paragraph when you sign your comments. At the end of the body of your comment, just add a space or two, or a dash or two, or both, for separation, and then add the four tildes. (Extra lines for your signature just take up space on a page, and adding them is the mark of an inexperienced user.)"

Regarding syntax and guidelines, I'd suggest you browse through: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Help:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page layout. Does this give you the answer you sought? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice, and the fact that I've messed up the formatting on some of the things I've posted is a primary reason why I'm paying attention to it now; trying to refine "the Method" I'm going to use.Tym Whittier (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

An editor, User:SounderBruce continues to remove my content. Initially Neighbors Against Greenhaven, was admittedly not neutral, and a separate article, however, it was whittled down and then was told to add it to the Greenhaven article. After multiple edits it was whittled down to one sentence with a verifiable source. I thought it was settled but they took down my content because I inadvertently left a citation, they removed my entire content, not just the citation.

I removed the extra citation and they removed content again saying it was a duplicate content, but it wasn’t. Multiple times I was told to discuss on the Talk page of the article in question, but they never discuss there. I posted on their talk page but was told I was edit warring.

Please advise TravelinFool 02:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravelinFool (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TravelinFool. There is already information in the article about two community groups that oppose the formation of the proposed city of Greenhaven. You have repeatedly been trying to add information later in the article about one of those two groups. So the other editor is correct that you are trying to add duplicate content. I have reviewed most of your edits, and have you complained several times that people are removing your "approved" content. That word indicates that you may not understand how Wikipedia works. There is no such thing as approved content because when it comes to content decisions, all editors are equal, as long as what they propose is in line with our policies and guidelines. We have no content approvers here. You need to convince other editors on the article talk page that it is a good idea to discuss this opportunity group twice in this fairly short article. Gain consensus, because that is how we make decisions. You must stop edit warring, because that can lead to a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine what became of a submission

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia writing and am trying to understand what became of an article I submitted on 16 December 2018. Initially, there was a question raised about a photo that I included then the photo was reinstated after I sent additional information. However, I am wondering if I did something else incorrectly as I have not seen any followup. It may just be due to the huge backlog of submissions awaiting volunteer editors but if it is an issue relating to how the article was written or submitted I would like to fix it ASAP. The article concerns a gentleman who is now 95 and we were hoping to be able to post the information while he was still alive and could answer questions if needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shosh2/sandbox/Louis_Rosenblum

Thanks so much for any advice that can be offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shosh2 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shosh2, welcome to the Teahouse. Nothing has become of your article - it is still in your sandbox, exactly where you created it/pasted it in. In other words, you haven't yet submitted it for review at Articles for Creation. If you wish to do that, simply add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article and save your changes by clicking the big blue 'Publish changes' button. Unfortunately, this name tends to confuse new editors who sometimes think it means a page is put forward for inclusion in the main part of Wikipedia. (We are unable to do anything about this recent global name-change, sorry). There is a long backlog of articles awaiting review, so this can take some time. You are well-advised to remove anything from the article which cannot be verified from published sources. The "Early life" section, for example, is completely unreferenced, and this isn't OK. Maybe Mr Rosenblum can point you towards sources that talk about his early life. What we don't accept is Mr Rosenblum's own words about himself. Everything here has to be provable from sources that someone in a library or on the other side of the world can check out for themselves. "If in doubt, leave it out". You might also wish to reinsert the previously deleted image you referred to. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Refimprove" vs. "more citations needed"

What is the distinction between {{refimprove|date=November 2008}} and {{more citations needed|date=November 2008}} (or whatever date applies)? I occasionally see the former changed to the latter by editors, and I don't understand the difference. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teblick. Please take a look at the documentation at Template:More citations needed. That is the name of the actual template. {{refimprove}} is a common redirect to the master template, and I was surprised to learn just now that there are no less than 32 different redirects to the main template. Functionally, both chunks of code perform the same, but some editors enjoy reducing unneeded redirects, and that is a useful thing. It makes the encyclopedia run a bit more efficiently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deleted product infobox

Hello, I recently added an infobox @ pennsylvania bluestone and @ flagstone. Bluestone Flagstone is a product so I used a product infobox to display a picture of the product which was missing from the article. That seems correct to me. The infobox includes a link back to a blog post with a description of pertinent high quality information regarding the subject. I was told by one editor that it was commercial in nature though I don't believe there is anything there to justify that assumption, particularly if one is assuming good faith. Another editor mentioned that the blog might non-WP:RS. The information is just not likely to be refuted or viewed in a skeptical fashion because it is completely neutral. The fact is there are no books on the subject. Being an expert in the field I want to share with and educate those interested in the product. Furthermore, the site currently has no references that speak to the pages content, sadly. Thanks for any input.Stevenvieczorek (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stevenvieczorek. As a general rule, blog posts are not acceptable as reliable sources. Two exceptions come to mind: First are blogs under the direct editorial control of published newspapers and magazines that are themselves reliable sources. Second are blogs by recognized experts in a topic area whose work has been widely published by reliable sources. Other references to blog posts should be removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your welcomeCullen328. Have you looked at at the the actual edit in question? It is not a contentious issue nor is one where someone would be likely to challenge. It simply a picture of a product. The blog it links to has industry insider information which is useful. Have you read: "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" at WP:RS? Wouldn't you agree that that applies here? I would very much appreciate consensus here. The information is good. I will check out Let's discuss it. Thanks again for your input!Stevenvieczorek (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait time before making major edits

Hi! I made a couple of suggestions for edits to pages that I figured should be discussed first. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait before I change the article? No one has responded to my comments, although it has only been 5 days. Thanks! CLPond (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond[reply]

Hi CLPond. There's really no "set time" so to speak, so if you feel the edits should be made you can do so. It might be a good idea to add a link to the talk page discussion as part of your edit summary just so others can better understand why you made the edit. Editors can be WP:BOLD or WP:CAUTIOUS when editing. If you do the former and nobody reverts your changes, then perhaps you can assume WP:SILENCE. If you do the latter but nobody comments in response, you can also assume SILENCE and make the edit. In either case, you should consider the change to be OK until somebody undoes it or asks for clarification, but once that happens you should try to follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion, unless the revert is completely contrary to relevant policies and guidelines.

Usually, when you make a change to an article with lots of page watchers, you find out fairly quickly (sometimes within a few minutes) as to whether anyone disagrees with the change. Some articles, however, might not have lots of page watchers, which means that comments posted on their talk pages might go unnoticed or unresponded to for quite a long period of time. If you really want input from others, you can try asking a relevant noticeboard or on a WikiProject talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

new info

hi. can i start a page on a music artist with new info updates? ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.88.108 (talk) 06:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 60.241.88.108. If an article about the artist already exists, then you might be able to add this new information to that article yourself per Wikipedia:Bold as long as you do so per Wikipedia:Five pillars, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people if the artist is still living. If you're not sure how to add the information youself or whether it's OK to do so, you can always start a discussion about it on the relevant article's talk page and ask others for help or feedback. One thing to try and remember is that articles are not really intended to include every piece of true information about their subjects, even if the information can be properly verified.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to create a new article about an artist, then you should probably take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (music) first in order to assess whether the artist would be considered Wikipedia notable enough to support a stand-alone article. If you then feel they are, then you might want to look at Wikipedia:Your first article for some general advice on how to write articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Robert Guibe

It is very clear to me that Wikipedia is total nonsense as are the people involved with it. To suggest that English Heritage, The Royal Archive, the Heralds, Burkes peerage and the Vatican are unreliable sources of information is frankly insulting to anyone with one working brain cell. Fact and Reality as well as common sense are clearly something Wikipedia cannot deal with and by the way, your page on Cardinal Robert Guibe is WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.27.147 (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 78.147.27.147. It's not clear which article you're referring to because your edit at the Teahouse is the only one listed in your contribution's history. If by chance it's Robert Guibé, then you can be WP:CAUTIOUS and start a discussion at Talk:Robert Guibé about any problems you feel need fixing or you can simply be WP:BOLD and try and fix them yourselves. Nobody has edited the article since July 2018 and it appears to be fairly stable for the most part without any disputes over article content or sources, so maybe you mean a different article.

As for reliable sources, reliability often depends upon the context in which a source is being used, but if the sources you mentioned above satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, you should be able to cite them in articles. If you'd like more specific feedback about a particular source, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: This may be related to the section #Gibb as surname above. It would be wise for Richard Gibb and the IP to read WP:Referencing for beginners to understand how to cite the sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it would also be wise for them to rein in their frustrations and not to insult all and sundry here. Every editor contributes voluntarily, and through the best of intentions. It can be a challenge to understand how things operate but, as in life, a little diplomacy can go a long way in getting the support or guidance one needs. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with getting my article approved

Hi guys

I have just finished a draft of an atricle i want to add to wikipedia. It is simply a rock band from the 1960s.

It has given me this is message at the top of the draft now:

"This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies."

I really don't know what to do from here.

Im happy to show someone from the Wikipedia volunteer team my draft and if someone can please assist me on what I need to do with it to be approved etc

I hope to hear from someone soon,

Gino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegman81 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thegman81. The notice was placed on Draft:Daisy Clover (band) by GSS, who also placed a longer message on your User talk page, suggesting that you may have a conflict of interest. GSS has not, as far as I can see, given any reason for believing that you may have a conflict of interest, or be a paid editor, so the appropriate action is to ask them why they say this. You can do this in any of three places: the talk page of the draft article, their own user talk page, or on your own user talk page, replying to their message. I have just pinged them above, so they will see this message and, I hope, respond.

One point you might not be aware of about Wikipedia: we are a huge collection of volunteers, all more or less equal. Anybody may put a message on an article like the one GSS put on Daisy Clover, if they think it is justified; anybody may remove it if they think the issue has been resolved. However, given that the message relates to your contribution, it would be a bad idea for you to remove it without discussion. I confess I am puzzled why GSS has put such a message up without giving any explanation of why they think it is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response Colin. Yes well I'm new to all this, I'm not even sure how to reply to you here. I'm hoping this is it?

Ok I will try and reach out to user GSS nd see what I can do.

Thanks again.

Gino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegman81 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How long will it take to Publish or include my first Draft page in Wikipedia?

Hello Team Teahouse,

I have recently created a Draft page for a person and the draft seems good with all the links and all. I wanted to ask usually how long does it take to get draft page approved to become a Main page on Wikipedia.

Also Creating a new page is also covered in Editing to become Autoconfirmed User?

Here is my page's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ajeet_Kumar

[1] ttps://www.royal.uk/search/the-duchess-of-cambridge

[1]