Wikipedia:Teahouse

Template:Teahouse protected

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

RudolfRed, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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.

Help Wikipedia

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 length 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)

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)

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)

Hi Fritz Jörn. I have read your draft and did a quick research. I think it would have helped if you first developed the article further, outlining its distinction to a vibrator. This could entail reference to its inventor or origin/development and how the device works (e.g. how it stimulates through suction and pressure waves or how it mimics oral sex). A Huffington story also cited a study that showed the device can address orgasm disorder for menopausal women. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fritz Jörn, and welcome to the Teahouse! Just a quick note: The suggested HuffPost piece (here) was written by a non-expert contributor (RSP entry), and should not be used in the article because it is questionable. The line "I learned of the study when I was contacted by a Public Relations firm" also undermines the credibility of the piece. While the contributor piece would not count toward notability, Lifehacker's review is a little bit better and is usable in the article.

Please refer to the Referencing for beginners guide for an overview of how citations should be formatted. In most articles, the only link that should be in the "External links" section is the subject's official website. Reviews should be in placed in citations, instead.

Also, in Draft:Womanizer, the sentence "The womanizer is expected to replace the vibrator as sex toy for women." is uncited and promotional, so please remove it. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! ​​ — Newslinger talk 08:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

​Regarding your comments on the notability guideline, one of the reasons we require at least 2 independent reliable sources with significant coverage before a draft can be published is to prevent companies from using Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for run-of-the-mill products. If a product is unable to meet this requirement, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but please feel free to write about it somewhere else. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin & Fritz Jörn, interesting discussion. In an era where fake news is quite a prominent part of our daily lives, Wiki's policy of sourcing seems a tad sweeping. Why should anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel, especially in controversial news that has little educative value, which I presume is the primary motive of Wikipedians? Wiki is across the board a space of knowledge and inspiration and anything not pertaining to that must be flagged and removed by Admins, I feel. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayaki75 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me reassure you that Wikipedia policy is not that "anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel", Nayaki75. Sources need to be evaluated on their merits and information cross-checked across sources. See WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your friendly replys. They warm my heart. But please understand that from afar I will not try to improve the entry with more citations (I just don’t have them in Germany), and to work on an entry that might end in the wastebasket. If I have triggered an entry for someone else to write I’m already happy, and your users will find an explanation of the rather unexpected use of the word womanizer. At first I just had tried to add it in the womanizer disambiguation with a short mention, but the system wouldn’t let me without a full-fledged Wikipedia entry. (I think it might be nice and politically correct to describe the harware piece completely chaste with a twinkle.) By the way I have no contact to the inventor nor do I work for a company any more, see Joern.com. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Fritz Jörn Welcome to The Teahouse (and welcome to the Wikipedia Runaround) I fully concure with your distain and flustration. Wikipedia tends to have a snobish "we know all, you know nothing" facade that gets irritating when hours of editing gets deleted with zero to little feedback, and what little feedback is given turns out to be generic "one or two keystroke" form responses that require additional hours of reading only to come to a WTF moment where you understand that no one understands your POV, but further you feel like Sisyphus because no matter how hard you try you end up no better off than before you first tried

I also have hit the conclusion that this site is next to useless.

sure there are many honest editors on this site but this site rewards activity with increased access to tools. which in turn allows those with ulterior motives to get faster promotions by "gaming" the system. I have no idea if you have encountered anyone who is trying to infiltrate Wikipedia upper eschilon but a way to leave a trail of these abusive edits (along with the real ones) without accusation one way or the other so patterns will be easier to find. They need a place inbetween "full published" Wikipedia and the incinerator called "revert"... i suppose some may think a sandbox does this but as you pointed out there is little access and no reliable way to disperse sandbox articles (you virtually need to contact every person before they find out where / what is in article) most bug report sites allow search of all articles written but if sandboxes are ignored there theoretically could be thousands of people writing about this womanizer but you have no way to connect with them since you cannot even link to a disambigous page.

you might want to persue a "sub wiki" that would retain your article with other rejects that includes infoboxes as why rejected, editor who rejected, those who concure, and those who help improve article, thus weekend editors could come to the (lets call it) Wikincubator to nurse their baby to health.

but I'm afraid i can only promise to support as i too have encountered the the quick click reverts personally and even saw one guy's article deleted because English was a second language for him (a few misspellings and many gramitical errors, the editor deleted the article instead of doing what a Wikian EDITor is supposed to do, EDIT!!!

so much for my rant, i hope you will persue further, if you do try then write on my "wall" or whatever it's called, I should notice in a month or two (i stopped visiting more often after my 3rd or 6th all-nighter was again reverted /or/ deleted) Qazwiz (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Qazwiz, know that you are not alone in this view as I have similar experience and frustrations. I hope, however, that these do not deter you from contributing and helping improve Wikipedia. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry but my observations in the last few weeks seem to be unfortunately deviant from what you say. My issues are the following:

1. 1. In an educational resource like Wiki that children of all ages use, why use yellow journal style material like Sexual Harassment allegations on any person's page no matter how well they are sourced or not? How can children be benefited by these 'information'? Certainly, Wiki is not to be used as a space by Admins or Editors for allowing these to be posted. They must be flagged and removed instantly. Those interested in gossip can find the relevant allegations in so many other online sources but they should never be part of Wiki.
2. 2. Why delete well sourced material that I (among several others) had personally researched and cited adequately in some pages like N Ravikiran with absolutely no effort to check the sources or point out specific sentences that may have needed citations?
3. 3. Why delete sections like awards without due diligence from any of the Admins in his page? Even a cursory google search would by anyone would have revealed that many of the deleted ones did not merit deletion at all.
4. 4. Why delete a whole page of Chitravina N Ravikiran - which I and presumably others used to researh into his compositions? I even pointed out that they be renamed as N Ravikiran Compositions. Any objective person would have needed only a couple of minutes to note that that page contained at least 30-35 citations from reputed media. Similarly it would have been obvious that barring one or two sentences that was similar to N Ravikiran page, the rest of the info was not only distinctive but study material for scholars about Indian classical's most prolific composer today. Yet, there were insistent moves to delete that page.
5. 5. I protested and was asked to transfer relevant content there to N Ravikiran page and when I did it, it was immediately summarily deleted even within a minute or two. How could anyone reasonable not see that the information was well sourced and contained facts like list of a composer's works?

The above points out to personal bias and a desire to undermine a prominent figure rather than objectivity which I am afraid is not healthy for a site of immense value like Wiki. I hope that my concerns are addressed seriously and sincerely by all Admins in good spirit:-) Nayaki75 (talk)

Looking for music articles to work on

Relatively new to Wikipedia and just getting back into the swing of things. Can someone here who works on music articles give me some guidance on ways I can help? Sorry if this is a stupid questions. Grimothy29 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This one looks like a good starting point, and here is a page that may be helpful; it is an interesting walkthrough.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You might also take a look at the WikiProject Music. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding Grimothy29 so he sees there are replies. Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tamanoeconomico and Schazjmd: Thank you, I will check it out. I apologize I am working on learning the Wiki systems and am getting into the habit of replying properly. Grimothy29 (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Undefined Rejection

Hello,

I recently submitted two separate articles for publishing and both were rejected for an undefined reason..

Could you please help me to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor talbot (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In each case the reviewer left a comment on the draft page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

And you are actually three for three on declined. Bluntly, your references are not good enough to confirm these businesses or people as notable by Wikipedia's standards. A couple were one-sentence mentions, when what is needed are longer, more detailed publications about the topics. One was a interview with the subject. What a person says about themselves or their business is not a reliable source. For Draft:Jersey Champs in particular, your 2nd and 3rd refs are both to the same interview. Your 1st ref is just a company financial profile. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Professor talbot, I am sorry but I have deleted your drafts as unambiguously promotional. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

OP now blocked as a sock. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted contend

Hello!

My entry was deleted because there was copyrighted contend in it. I think the relevant content is a table. The owner of the original article asked me to put in there. So my question is if there is a way to upload the table with his permission even though it's copyrighted? If yes how could he give this permission?

Thank you! Gianna — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 07:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The process for him to release the copyright, if he wishes to do so, is at WP:Donating copyrighted material. Otherwise, you will have to reword things in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thans for the quick reply! Is there also a way to find out if there are other copyrighted phrases in the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Anything that has previously been published elsewhere is copyrighted (whether or not specifically labelled as such), unless specifically defined as free from copyright or released under an appropriate licence. There is further explanation at WP:FAQ/Copyright. The simple answer is to write the article in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

On your User page, you will need to declare whether your connection to the owner/author of the table is paid. If not paid, you will still need to indicate a conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

User:GiannaHenkel - I have several comments. First, the draft reads as if it was copied from a book, so it likely is copyrighted. You are responsible for ensuring that anything that you submit to Wikipedia is free of copyright. Second, the owner of the copyright needs to be aware of what is meant by donating copyrighted material for use in Wikipedia. It does not just mean approving the publication of the copyrighted material in Wikipedia with a copyright notice. (That is a reasonable misconception.) The owner of the copyright has to release the copyright for use subject to the Creative Commons copyleft by anyone in the world. Most copyright holders do not want to do that. Third, it isn't necessary to create three copies of the submission, as you have done. It wastes the time of the reviewers and annoys the reviewers. Please request that two of the copies be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Robert! Thank you for your answer! First of all: how do i delete submissions? I can't even find one anymore... (sorry that's my first time drafting something on Wikipedia). <-- i think i found the solution and deleted two of them! Secondly: the actually text I submitted is written by me and the author of the original articles about personal initiative. It is kind of difficult to find broader sources because until now he and a few other researchers at his department (most co-authors) are the only researchers in this field. That's why the submission is quiet close to the original articles. How could we solve this problem?

Thank you un advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Koreans in Uzbekistan. What should I do ? How to deal with the statistics of dictatorial regimes that can be distorted?

I have a problem. There are official statistics of the Republic of Uzbekistan. However, it is clearly distorted. It does not reflect the mass exodus of Koreans from this republic between the years 2001-2016.

So from Uzbekistan 52 thousand Koreans returned to South Korea. However, in the state statistics of Uzbekistan this outcome is not recorded. The same statistics do not reflect the religious discrimination of Koreans in Uzbekistan - they are Christians of different denominations, and Uzbekistan is an Islamic country with a dictatorial regime.

The estimated real value of Koreans in Uzbekistan is 78 thousand. But official statistics show almost 100 thousand more.

What should I do ? How to deal with the statistics of dictatorial regimes that can be distorted?Hatchiko (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Hatchiko. Do you have published reliable sources for the correct statistics? If so use that —teb728 t c 02:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I see you have raised this issue at Talk:Koryo-saram#Figures_for_Uzbekistan, where you will probably get answers from more knowledgeable editors. Maybe wait until you get a reply there? Also, you should maybe make clearer that the issue is with the infobox number, not with any content of the article text. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I should say, that there should almost never be information in an infobox which is not already discussed and explained in the article itself. The infobox is a summary of the article text, and anything listed there should be in the main body of the article where it can be given context and expanded upon sufficiently. Infoboxes are not good places to do that, and especially where information is disputable or needs clarification. It may be in the infobox, but it should always be in the text before one puts it there. --Jayron32 19:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible future admin nomination

How long does it usually take for someone to get admin nominated? I previously was nominated (but failed) on Wikivoyage. I know I have a checkered past on both sites, so if you tell me how long I should wait to apply, make it about double the normal time. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libertarianmoderate/Archive suggests you had/have sockpuppets, at least at Wikivoyage. You were also blocked, then unblocked in December (description you deleted from your Talk page). Highly unlikely you will ever make Admin. David notMD (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you spend the next three years (at least) making only constructive edits, and no silly comments. Also avoid creating or using any sockpuppet accounts, and show that you have a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies, then you might consider applying, and some editors might vote for you. I've been editing for more than ten years, and do not yet feel that I have a thorough enough understanding of some policies to apply for adminship. Dbfirs 09:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits like this [1] would suggest that you are not serious about editing here let alone gaining admin rights. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong - I think that editors like the one in question are always serious about wanting admin privileges, even if they are not serious about collaborative editing. That is why we need to be careful about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not give a chance?

Hello everyone, I find a friendly atmosphere here at Teahouse so I am encouraged to join.I created an article "Draft:Alliance School Kermanshah" a few days ago and I put "in use" at the beginning. It was put in draft just as i clicked the first publish button.The person did not give me a second to continue. I wish to know what the problem is and what I can do. thank You Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Alex-h. As the message on your user talk page said, the article was moved to draft space to give you an opportunity to prepare it for article space. When you believe it is ready for article space, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button, and if the reviewer accepts it, they will move it to article space. —teb728 t c 15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me add Alex-h, that the purpose of the {{in use}} tag is not as an excuse for entering an unreferenced page in article space (if that is what you are thinking) but rather to alert other editors to avoid edit conflicts by not editing the page concurrently. —teb728 t c 16:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Alex-h. I'm really sorry to hear your frustrations. You did almost everything right (apart from where you started from), and teb728 makes a good point about the template. Perhaps I can invite you to look at if from the other perspective? As soon as you put content into the mainspace part of Wikipedia, we all expect a minimum standard of quality, content and references. So despite the 'in use' template, there really wasn't enough there to start with, and so the best place to construct an article from scratch would have been in Draft or your personal sandbox. I must say, you did do the right think by very politely questioning Cabayi on their talk page. I'm sorry you didn't get the courtesy of a quick reply there, but hopefully our response here will satisfy you. So, as teb728 says, you are still absolutely free to continue working up the article as you were hoping to do. I believe criteria for school notability have got a bit stricter in recent times, so do read WP:NSCHOOLS and check that you are able to supply references that demonstrate notability is being met before you expend too much time and effort on a page which would stand no chance of making it.

But speaking personally, I would never risk creating a brand new article from scratch in the main part of Wikipedia. It's inevitable that they start out dire. I always work on pages in my sandbox to ensure they're at a reasonable standard before moving them into 'mainspace' (i.e. the proper encyclopedia part of Wikipedia). Sometimes I can take over a year to get one ready; other times I do it in an evening! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:@Teb728:, Hello and thank you for your warm response. I am glad I put my question in Teahouse. First for I have received your valuable guidance which I will use in my future work,Second, because I have found friends like you. Thanks again. Alex-h (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fredrikson Stallard

Hello, I have passed my 100th edit on this article and think it is now ready for publishing. Would someone please help?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise lost 90 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As the template says, just be patient and it will receive a review soon. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Goodness, Paradise lost 90. I'm sure you've made more than that! This was your first edit to Draft:Fredrikson Stallard, and only the fifth edit this account name had ever made. It added 22,350 bytes to the new page; not bad for a beginner. Are you sure you haven't edited here before? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: Conversation has somehow moved to my talk page at User_talk:Nick_Moyes#Question_from_Teahouse Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused new user

I am working on creating my first Wikipedia page. I have created an account. When I first started to create a page, there was no SAVE button - only Publish. So, the content I have written exists - but I'm confused on a few items.

First - on business pages, there is a right column on the page where company info appears. How do I create that on a blank page?

Second - how do you insert photos into the text so that the text wraps around the photo?

Third - when the page is done, how do you submit it for review and comments and (hopefully) posting?

Thanks Ken Crowhurst — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse KJ010110. The infobox on the right is created with a template like {{infobox company}} (click on that link for the parameters). See Help:Files for how to upload and use photos. When your draft is ready for review, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top. —teb728 t c 16:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your userspace draft, KJ010110, I need to comment that Wikipedia is not for promotion: articles must be written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 16:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Ken. Many people confuse Wikipedia with a business directory, or advertising medium. I suggest you will find it helpful to replace "create a business page" in your mind with "write an encyclopaedia article about a business". Wikipedia has little interest in what you say or want to say about your business - all it is interested in is what people who have no connection with your business have already chosen to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded a Poster Image to Wiki Commons and it keeps getting kicked back saying that it is a possible copyright violation.

Hi Guys,

I've uploaded a Poster Image to Wiki Commons and it keeps getting kicked back saying that it is a possible copyright violation. Firstly, it is my work, secondly, it has been in the public domain for 20 years, please help! here is the link to the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beyond_the_Pale_Release_Poster.jpg

And here is the link to the page where the Image currently resides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Pale_(film)

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbotstown (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Abbotstown, Thanks for your question. Your image might be protected by copyright laws. Please don't upload in Commons instead upload in Wikipedia using File Upload Wizard or other tools. Please follow the guidelines and instructions there. Thanks
Sincerely,
Masum Reza(talk) 16:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 looking into it... RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I can actually see it was uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free media and was deleted as it wasn't being used on any pages which is required for this. You can see the relevant deletion criteria here. I'm going to ping the deleting admin as I'm unsure if there was any other issues and will leave a message regarding image policy on your talk page. (pinging @Explicit:) RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Abbotstown. The issue in Commons, you need to take up in Commons, not here; but I notice that there, you assert that is it PD, but give no evidence of that; and the IMDB source specifically claims copyright. Unfortunately, whether it is your own work or not is not relevant, unless you own the copyright.

If you successfully contest the deletion in Commons (presumably by adducing evidence of its PD status) then there will be no problem using it in Wikipedia. If you cannot do so, then in order to use it in Wikipedia, it must meet all the criteria in WP:NFCC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Distributing your own photograph of a copyright poster is illegal, so it would be wisest to delete the image from the article and from Commons, then reload a low-resolution version to Wikipedia and use it in the article under a WP:Fair use rationale. Dbfirs 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Hello Abbotstown. On Commons you said the poster was in the public domain because "The image was released to all media as part of publicity for the film." The fact that it was released to the media does not mean that Maiden Voyage Pictures does not hold a copyright on it: it just means that the media are permitted to use it for publicity. Wikipedia and Commons require greater permission than that. See Masum Reza's advice above for how to use it as non-free content. —teb728 t c 17:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

New page creation

I am new to Wikipedia and whilst I've attempted to ensure that content is true and neutral, the page have been instantly deleted. I believe that the content is of interest especially given the move towards lightweighting within the automotive sector. The title regards the introduction of this new technology - not the promotion of a specific company or product. It would be helpful if those issuing speedy deletions could provide more assistance rather than placing threats on my admin ability or future edits.

Please help Graham M Jelfs (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Graham M Jelfs. Not being an admin, I can't see the deleted article. But your wording above sounds as if your purpose is to tell the world about something. That is precisely what we mean in Wikipedia by "promotion" - not all promotion is commercial. It might sound paradoxical, but Wikipedia is emphatically not for telling the world about things: it is only for summarising what the world has already been told about things: this is why we insist on subjects of articles being notable. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Graham M Jelfs. I hear you when you say you attempted to be neutral, and yet the article was about as close to pure advertising in tone and content as I've ever seen. It was filled with what I would term corporate ad-speak – praising HFQ in glowing terms to convince the reader of its wonderful virtues ("The multiple benefits enabled by HFQ® Technology ... HFQ® Technology enables investment reduction... adopted across a vast range of applications and markets... involving major players across the global ecosystem to offer a compelling full-service proposition..." and so on. The fact that it sounded like a commercial follows from the fact that you copied and pasted much of the content from external sites authored by HFQ, where it's promoting itself. I've noted the copyright violations in the deleted page's log history. I will leave a message at your talk page about that issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Guidance for publishing frequency.

Greetings,

I had a question regarding the frequency of publishes an editor should be performing on behalf of an article. For example, in my past five edits I made two changes within 1 subheading. One edit was regarding the current title of a board member. For a second edit, I listed a factual and relevant statement regarding board member going on leave of absence.

As a best practice, and aid to future editors, should the above actions be a single or double publish?

Thank you for your time. Vcpecon (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Entirely up to you, Vcpecon. It's a good idea not to do too many changes in one go, but if it's just a couple, you can do them in a single edit, or in two. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Business page creation

Hi.

In response to a question I posted earlier today, I just received the following response:

"Looking at your userspace draft, KJ010110, I need to comment that Wikipedia is not for promotion: articles must be written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 16:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Indeed, Ken. Many people confuse Wikipedia with a business directory, or advertising medium. I suggest you will find it helpful to replace "create a business page" in your mind with "write an encyclopaedia article about a business". Wikipedia has little interest in what you say or want to say about your business - all it is interested in is what people who have no connection with your business have already chosen to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)"

I now fully understand the criteria that needs to be met for a page to be accepted.

However, I have a question for you. A competitor of ours is called OtterBox. They have a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtterBox

Is their page allowed due to the numerous references (i.e., listing in Forbes, article in Reuters, etc.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@KJ010110: Welcome to the Teahouse. You have hit upon one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia, that articles need significant coverage in reliable sources in order for there to be an article written about them. We even have a guideline for the notability of articles about businesses. Media sources like Forbes and Inc with a reputation for solid journalism are a great way to establish notability. I would also note about the OtterBox article that it is written from a neutral point of view that states facts rather than tries to tell a story or make value judgements, which can be difficult to do if you have a conflict of interest in regards to the company (and if you do, you must disclose this fact, see WP:PAID). There are several problems with your draft, as ColinFine pointed out in his decline notice, and it needs to be rewritten from scratch to comply with our guidelines. Right now it reads like an advertisement. Hope this helps, shoy (reactions) 18:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Lost sandbox file

Hello, I’m still a newbie. I tried to update an existing page and all of my updates were rejected for mostly good reasons. So, OK, I decided to create a new page that I could tweak and test before trying to replace the old wiki entry. I created a new file called User:Gretchencotter/sandbox. I have now entered data twice but every time I come back in order to add more data, the file no longer exists. My slow, tedious typing efforts have vanished. I don’t think my file is being actively deleted, I just don’t think it is being saved when I use the Publish button.

Any help would be appreciated. I am trying to recreate the biography of Liv8ng people for Shimon Gibson (at his request), but so far with zero success.

Thank you Gretchen Cotter User:Gretchencotter Gretchencotter (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Gretchencotter/sandbox appears never to have been created. If you typed something there, then you don't seem to have clicked on "Publish" to save it. You should not recreate an article with the intention of replacing an existing article, but instead make valid changes to the existing article. You have a WP:Conflict of interest, and possibly WP:Paid status, so you should suggest edits on the talk page of the article Talk:Shimon Gibson instead of trying to edit the article directly. I see that you have already used that page to ask about the photograph. Wikipedia has no interest in whether the subject of an article likes the page, and no permission of the subject is required, but if there are inaccuracies, then you need to find WP:Reliable sources that report the correct information, and post those on the talk page. If there are existing statements that are untrue and unreferenced, then please let us know so that we can remove them. Dbfirs 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: I thought the issue was that they pressed the button but it didn't save it. @Gretchencotter: what message were you shown after you clicked the button? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If they did, then it didn't work. I occasionally click on the publish button and nothing happens, but I blame my ancient computer and slow internet for that. Dbfirs 20:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gretchencotter: On the bottom left there's a blue button that says publish changes. You have to click it when you are done. Per above, if you have a conflict of interest, you can always ping me by leaving a comment on my talk page and I can review your changes and see if they are properly sourced and neutral. I also left you info on Dr. Gibson's talk page about uploading a new photo for the article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Biography Page

Hi I am Kelsey Murrell and I am new to wikipedia and I would like to get help with creating a biography page. How do I get started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelzmurrell (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kelzmurrell: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want to write about yourself, I think that you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Autobiographical edits are strongly discouraged per the Autobiography policy written at WP:AUTO. Not every person merits an article here. If you meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and merit an article, you should allow others who take note of you in independent reliable sources to write it.

If you mean that you want to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use, you do have a userpage where you can do that, but it is not meant for you to give your entire biography; please see WP:USERPAGE for what is acceptable user page content.

If you mean something else, please clarify. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If your intentions are not to write about yourself, may I suggest that you spend a couple months editing existing biographies prior to creating a new one? Our criteria for new articles is called notability, and it is a rather difficult concept for new editors to master. There are literally dozens of ways to show notability and most are dependent on who you are writing about. Notability is not a factor in adding information to existing articles. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the page Changtu, Liaoning should merge into Changtu County

There's only one place called Changtu, which is a county in Liaoning. Changtu County is the original entry; while Changtu, Liaoning is partly another entry that describes the same topic. I think Changtu, Liaoning should merge into Changtu County, but I don't know what to do.Honoka55 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's info about how to start a merge Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. FWIW, I think you're right. Tieling is the prefecture-level city in the Liaoning province that includes Changtu County. I don't think there is a city named Changtu in Changtu County. The hard part will be sourcing this. I'd start a discussion on both talk pages per the merge instructions. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Honoka55: forgot to ping user. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Honoka55:, @Timtempleton:: I've opened a merger discussion at Talk:Changtu County#Merger proposal and tagged both articles. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Getting full Wikipedia on a mobile device

Is it possible to avoid the ".m." version, and get full Wikipedia on my mobile phone? The constraints of this "mobile version" are driving me crazy. The latest example is that I wanted to look at a page's edit history. That is so easy on the desktop that I figured "how hard can it be?" I can't find it anywhere on the mobile site. Worse still, when I select the option to use the desktop site it doesn't! The layout is slightly improved, but it still uses the ".m." site, with no history. Even when I manually edit the URL to remove the ".m." it automatically puts it back in to prevent me from being able to use the system. I have gone through the mobile editing instructions and I just can't find a way to force it to do the right thing - any pointers? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Here may be a solution.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tamanoeconomico: thanks for that. Wow, that is so complicated for something that seems like it should be so simple. At least it makes me feel better about not finding a solution myself. Not knowing anything about Java, it makes me a bit nervous - is that process safe? Have you tried it out?--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: For what it's worth, for me there's a link at the bottom of Wikipedia pages that says "request desktop version" or something very similar, and that works. I'd be more definite in the details but my cellphone's out of charge. (Iphone, using Chrome.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: thanks, I tried that. It displays a somewhat improved layout, but it still forces constant changes over to the ".m." version of the site, with no option to see the article's history.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

hmm, here's another technical article that makes no sense to me;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

For myself, I'm very glad we have plenty of folks that understand that stuff, so I don't have to. Here's what I do, Gronk Oz, and I edit almost exclusively on an android device.

Use your browser to navigate to Wikipedia (I use Chrome), whatever page you usually start at and sign in (I use my watchlist). Scroll to the bottom of the page and select desktop version. This is the important part....once you are on whatever page you like to start with, signed in (with the stay signed in box checked) and on the desktop version, use the three dots thingie on your browser and set a desktop shortcut. From then on, at least until you sign out or are signed out, the desktop version of that page will open from the shortcut, and any link you open from that will be desktop version. Works just fine for me. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Works for me, too. I do most of my daytime editing on a small iphone in desktop view. Apart from the lack of the keyboard there is no difference. But then I do have the advantage of being able to dictate what I write, as I've done here. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I do the vast majority of my editing on an Android smartphone, and I always use the fully functional desktop site on my phone. I ignore the mediocre mobile site and the apps, except for occasional testing. I have been recommending for years that the misleading term "desktop site" be abandoned, because it implies that you need a big expensive heavy computer to use it, and that is false. It works perfectly well on modern mobile devices and should have a better name. It should be the default for all users, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I thought I was the only one - thanks for the moral support. I am trying to follow John from Idegon's directions on my Android (Samsung S9+) using Chrome, but I am experiencing technical difficulties - the mobile site is fighting against me all the way. First, there does not seem to be any way to get to my Watchlist (never mind, that would be nice but not vital). Then trying to log in, I enter my userid and password. There is no checkbox to "stay logged in". I press the Login button. But it pops up a window insisting that I choose whether to perform this action using the Wikipedia mobile app, or Samsung's internet browser (there is no option to continue using Chrome). I chose the latter. This takes me to a "Central user log in" screen, which displays the following error message in red: "No active login attempt is in progress for your session." I have no idea how to proceed from there... P.S. I was typing this message on my desktop while trying to get the mobile working, and the mobile crash described above also logged this desktop session off. I will have to copy what I wrote, log in, and paste it back here...--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be solved! The missing step was to force Android to use Chrome as its default browser, instead of Samsung Internet (Android Settings > Apps > 3 dots > Default Apps > Browser App > select Chrome). Then after rebooting the phone to clean everything out, I was able to follow John from Idegon's directions! Now, time will tell whether it keeps working - but since so many of you are able to do it then I'm sure it will be okay. Thanks, again, everybody! --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad you're sorted and you're certainly not alone. I agree with Cullen328 about the poor choice of wording for 'desktop view' - maybe 'full view' and 'mobile view' would be more helpful. Isn't it time we made noises to WMF to get it changed? (As a complete aside - but relevant to browser choice - anyone trying to edit pages using Puffin browser will get a rude shock when they suddenly discover they've been blocked. It panicked me at first, but relates to the browser using a proxy server to access Wikipedia, and that's not allowed as it enables untraceable vandalism.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Art pop genre of music

Why isn't artists of this genre get enough airplay here on mainstream radio in SA but the other side of the world knows about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ana jerie. The Teahouse is generally a place for asking questions about Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem as if your question has anything to do with editing Wikipedia at all. You could try asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment; however, if you really want to why radio stations in SA (maybe you mean San Antonio?) don't play the music of certain artists or certain types of music, you probably should try directly contacting the radio stations themselves and asking them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant was why doesn't Wikipedia have audio samples of what an ARTPOP song sounds like just a 30sec sample sorry for the misunderstAnding A.jerie 10:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs)

Ana jerie I've transferred your post here from the Teahouse talk page(which is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse, this page). Please keep follow up questions here. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ana jerie. The article Art pop has three fair-use samples. Two of them are clearly precursors (The Beach Boys and the Beatles), but the caption to the sample of Kate Bush says "According to The Concordian, "Running Up That Hill" was part of the most distinctive and revolutionary works of 1980s art pop, containing "darting drum rhythms" and Bush's "dogged vocals". So it looks to me as if the answer is that it does have a sample. If you think it should have more, or more recent, the answer is "because nobody has put them there": anybody can do so. I suggest you identify a significant track, and post a request on Talk:Art pop. Remember that the criteria for fair-use on Wikipedia include "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"; and also that "multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", so it is possible that a new sample ought to replace one of those already there. (Actually, I'm wondering whether it is justified to have both the Beach Boys and the Beatles clips there. But I know nothing about the field). --ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Help with a site thats up for deletion

Hi

The will gray wiki page as been flagged up for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Gray

I've been talking to one of your hosts and he wrote/suggested the below and to get in touch with yourself if there were any questions or help needed.

"Except, that is, for the rather select membership of the Inner Magic Circle. It's just possible that that might be deemed suitable under WP:ANYBIO. That could potentially be a clincher, so can you supply any evidence of this membership other than the Will Gray website? Newspaper articles etc?"

I have two PDF's one which is the letter from the president himself congratulating Will on being promoted to MIMC which is an outstanding accolade and one of the Magic Circle minutes where it is mentioned in the secretary's report.

Would they be best to be put on as citation links or just links. Should I link these myself while its under discussion or can these be linked by another host or author.

I did put a citation link to Will winning 3rd at The Magic Circle Close up Comp which is no easy task either.

I'm really hoping it doesn't come down to deletion but do understand why these things happen any further help would be great.--Vanishingrabbit (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid neither of those sources will do, Vanisgingrabbit. All information in Wikipedia articles must be available in a published source. It doesn't sound as if either of those is published (and uploading them would not change that, as well as probably being a copyright infringement). Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin I'm not sure what to do then, I'm sure you're aware how private the magic circle is and doesn't allow anyone thats a non member to see their membership list or private section of their website. When you say published do you mean somewhere on the internet or in an article i.e. magazine or a photo of the actual certificate. --Vanishingrabbit (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A source needs to be possible to verify. It need not be free, cheap, or easy to do so, but it needs to be possible. A private letter or private meeting minutes probably would not fall under that category unless it is published somewhere publicly available. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Four of your sources make no mention of Gray, all sources MUST support the actual content they are placed after. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you I see now thanks for the help, I've corrected three of them which now go to an independent news page which mentions Will winning the awards there next too. I have copyright to a photo of Will actually being presented his MIMC would this help verifying that if on the page.--Vanishingrabbit (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing links

Hello I was trying so many times to click on this previous page but couldn't get through was idoing something wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. What page were you trying to go back to? This sounds like a browser problem though. Maybe you openend a page in a new tab or you didn't open anything before this page. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mercury

That's how life would feel like if there was no earth because there are so many planets but only earth can have life has one ever thought about how life would be like living in mercury just try and think about it if there's proof that mars can be our earth surely you can Believe that mercury is more than capable than being our third world everyday something changes but we as humans on earth don't realise it but as you think about it maybe the realisation that mercury can be a world where we can live without a shadow of possibility everything and anything isreally inevitable so think about it mercury as our third world maybe it is possible but not unthinkableA.jerie 12:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs)

Others planets were life is possible and may exists.. Maybe there's some planets that are way more advanced than we are. We don't know, and we can't be sure at this moment. Maybe life is just a computer simulation??? It's not possible to check if we do or don't live in one. Can we? TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ana jerie: Please don't spam. It's NOT a forum. --CiaPan (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ana jerie: What CiaPan means is that you are welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse about editing Wikipedia, but you may not post random thoughts, musings or personal observations either here or on any article talk page (which you have been doing rather a lot of!) This must stop right now as you are, unfortunately, now dangerously close to being blocked from editing for repeatedly leaving such trivial comments. Just try and appreciate that we are all here for the serious task of building an amazing encyclopaedia about notable subjects. None of us are interested in what any individual person happens to think. So you really must not leave comments like these ever again. Best wishes and good luck with your Wikipedia journey. If you have any questions about how to edit, feel free to ask them here. Did you manage to access the Wikipedia Adventure in the end? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing page contact and adding references

Hello all,

I have never worked in Wikipedia before, I am trying to make content changes to some existing pages and I need to add references for the content. I have been typing the new content in sandbox, do I post the content first and then add the references? Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivanlab (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. It's probably best to cite your sources while writing the text, instead of doing it after you published the text. If you publish a article without citations to the main article space (not your sandbox) it's very likely to be deleted within a couple of hours, see WP:NRSNVNA. If you want to know how to cite a source see this tutorial: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. If you have any further questions feel free to ask. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

PS. Please sign your posts with four ~~~~ next time.

@Sullivanlab: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit history indicates that edits have been made from your account since December 19, but you say that you haven't worked here before. Please clarify. I would also note that if "Sullivan lab" is an organization, you will need to change your username(instructions on how to do that are at WP:CHU). 331dot (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. As requested, to clarify I am new to wikipedia entries and every attempted edit has been rejected since December. Regarding adding the references, thank you for your advice-after I have edited the existing text how do I add the references? Do I simply number them and type them under the edited text? I am working on a small section of an existing page where other authors have contributed their content and their own references exist on that page. I do not want to mess up their references. Thank you wikiaccountssa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccountsa (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please read this tutorial on how to add references (see the part about the refbar it's the easiest way). Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused! Is Sullivanlab the same person as Wikiaccountsa? Neither username sounds like that of an individual, though it might be? Dbfirs 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you started in December adding content to articles (under one name) - all reverted because you did not provide references. Then, you deleted large sections of two articles without providing reason - also reverted. Now, you are attempting to create a new article as a draft (Causes of ADHD) when that topic is well-covered in the ADHD article. Your User name change is OK as long as you stick with the new name and never use the old name. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to work on a section of an article, one way is to copy to your sandbox, work there, then replace what is in the article with your revised content. That is different from creating a draft. Whether you are editing in place or sandbox and back, if you are using the proper procedure for references, yours are inserted into the list of references, and all references following are automatically renumbered. David notMD (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I will continue to work on my edits.

Could you update the number of Oscar nominated movies for Film of th e Year, since you have teh new ones at teh bottom of the page

The new number of Oscar nominated movies is eight more than the total (546) you have on your site. The number is now 554 movies have been nominated for movie of the year, and the new winner (the 91st) will be announced on Feb 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:36DD:8000:0:0:0:44E9 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit Revert

Hello,

My name's Ajani and I recently made some updates to Photographer Chris Buck's Wikipedia page as some of the information on it is outdated or grammatically incorrect. The changes I made were reverted twice. I'd love to know why this may be as thy were minor changes. Perhaps it interrupted with the Wikipdia guidelines? If so, I'd like to know exactly how and work towards updating those changes.

If I can hear back as soon as possible, that would be fantastic.

Cheers, Ajani— Preceding unsigned comment added by AjaniD (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ajani Take a look at the edit history for that topic. The editors who reverted your changes explained the reversions in their edit summaries. Both of them suggested you use the Talk page to discuss the major deletions that you want to make. Get consensus on the Talk page for your changes, and then you can make the edits without being reverted. (Edited to add:) Also, a "minor" change is fixing a typo or punctuation; your changes were not minor.Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As User:Darren-M has told you, you are removing sourced edits and editing against the WP:MOS. I'm trying to get in touch with him to see if he can explain better. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding photographic content

I've used Wikipedia for years, but have only recently created a login so that I can contribute. My primary interest is adding photographic content where it is needed. How do I discover articles that would benefit from photos? Thanks, -Ilgamoot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilgamoot (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ilgamoot: Category:Wikipedia requested images should be helpful. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the pointer. That's quite a list. I noticed that there are "wikiprojects" that might help me filter or constrain the list a bit by my location. Unfortunately, when I searched for "San Francisco Photography" etc within the projects, I didn't find anything relevant. Can you suggest a better way to find a group working on photos in the SF Bay Area, US? --Ilgamoot (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ilgamoot, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject_California/San_Francisco_Bay_Area_task_force but it is a bit dormant. You could try the parent California wiki project, or go to commons:Category:San_Francisco_Bay_Area and see what is missing. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ilgamoot, just found this, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the San Francisco Bay Area to see requested photos for the bay area WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Update Biography Photo

I would like to replace the biography photo of my wife Deborah Chase Hopkins with a more current photo. How do I do that? THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopflys (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hopflys, You should read the WP:COI policy first then use {{request edit}} on the article talk page. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Hopflys, you need to be aware of copright issues. Wikipedia requires that most pictures be licensed in a way that anybody can reuse them for any purpose. If you, or your wife, or somebody associated with you has (i.e. holds the copyright of) a suitable picture, and is willing to release it, it would be most welcome. They should go to the Upload wizard, and upload the picture to Wikimedia commons; then it can be used in an article. See donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hopflys, if you take a photo of yourself, you could release it under an appropriate license. Usually professional photographers do not release their photos under a license acceptable to Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 19:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Who has access to make needed updates to a page?

The Eldorado, Texas page needs to be edited. Who can do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.83.34 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. Link: Eldorado,_Texas. Anyone may edit that article, including you. You can Be Bold or discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Any changes you make must be supported by citations to reliable sources. You might want to start with WP:TUTORIAL. RudolfRed (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

William Sherrill

Can an admin please tell me what was here? I don't like to overwrite things. I assume it may be about a non-notable person with this name in the contemporary film industry or possibly the Minister from North Carolina? Thanks. I am about to redirect to William L. Sherrill FloridaArmy (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It was a biography about someone nonnotable from the 18th century. Based on the text I think you are safe to create the redirect. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Port of Key West Essay to Encyclopedic style

Hello. I am wondering what needs to be changed about Port of Key West. I know thee is something wrong with Port of Key West but I do not know what it is. Whether I am told or a more experience editor fixes the problem, the problem is fixed. Please fix this. And notify me (or perhaps not the latter!) Also, a rating on the Importance Scale may be helpful. (Mr. Holup (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

Edit summaries, and minor edits

How important are summaries? Should I always write one as a rule?

Also, what exactly constitutes a minor edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson21101805 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nelson21101805 Welcome to Teahouse. It is a good practice to leave a edit summary to briefly inform (a way of communication) other editor of the nature of your edit as Wikipedia is a collaborating work among many editors. An minor edit is defined the edit is superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions such as bold a word. However, it is always encouraged to provide edit summary even if it is a minor edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nelson21101805. Help:Edit summary suggests always leaving a summary, and tells you what to do if you forget to leave one. Help:Minor edit explains what we mean by "minor edit", usually typographical errors. "Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit." Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

stopping inappropriate content

Could someone tell what to do when incited content and bad links get reverted over and over again?Stevenvieczorek (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Stevenvieczorek Welcome to Teahouse. I believe you were referring to Bluestone by an IP editor. You would give warnings to the editor (disruptive) using Wikipedia:Twinkle. The IP editor has received their last warning - see Here and if they continue to edit the same fashion as before you could report them to WP:AIV. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the best way to work with users who repeatedly remove verifiable content?

Last year, I edited the 88rising page. Since then, various users have removed a verifiable fact (Jaeson Ma is a founder) in a repeated (multiple times) and focused (often, the only edit was to remove Jaeson's name from the wiki) manner.

Several times, the edits not only removed mentions of Jaeson from the page but also removed the verifiable sources. In addition, editors were anonymous, and their edit history is only removing Jaeson's name from the 88rising page.

I've reached out to users as appropriate citing the sources and have resolved misunderstandings with some of them, but I'm at a loss for how to work with anonymous users who remove this verifiable information in a manner that blatantly disregards Wikipedia's principles.

I am escalating this to the Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) but was curious if anyone has any experience with this. If so, what would you suggest doing?

Thank you! Gcheng94 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Investigating... RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to protect it here RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected - 3 days - RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi RhinosF1, Thanks for your help! I saw the page protection is for 3 days - after 3 days, is it open to revisions from anonymous / unverified users? Just asking because I'd love to work with you and others to find a longterm solution for this issue. Thanks,Gcheng94 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can edit again after 3 days. With IPs you may be able to get a range lock on them for a bit longer. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 20:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm interested in English Wikipedia. But do not know that how I contribute... — Preceding unsigned comment added by شادان خان (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'd recommend to read the tutorial Help:Getting started, there's a bunch of links to other tutorials in there to get you started. Another great tutorial to start with and get familiar with the Wikimedia software is Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure. If you have any further questions feel free to ask. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposing an Addition to Country Info-Boxes

What is the formal process for proposing an addition to country info boxes? The info boxes are already quite amazing for quick glances relating to economics, linguistics, demographics, geography, etc. but they seem to be lacking in political science information. The Democracy-Dictatorship Index (DD Index) and the Polity IV Dataset are used extensively throughout the field of comparative politics and international relations yet their coding for each country are only available on their respective pages. Up until recently the DD Index coding was not even available in the article (I have since added it).

The info-boxes already contain the "official" categorization of each country's government and legislature but these are largely not used within the field of political science. There is however abundant information already available for economics and some international politics like GDP, PPP, Gini, and HDI. I would like to propose adding additional information to the info-boxes either immediately after the "Government" and "Legislature" sections or immediately after the "Gini" and "HDI" sections: the DD Index categorization (there are six possible) and the Polity IV ranking (both number and categorical name).

As I've said, DD Index and Polity IV are used extensively throughout the field of political science and especially comparative politics. Polity IV is updated every year and while the DD Index hasn't been updated since 2008 it is currently in active progress. I don't think this is too much of a problem as some countries have Gini coefficients from the 1990's.

I just want to know the official route I can go down to propose this? I'm a bit new to the background workings of Wikipedia but I've been editing for quite a while. Thanks --Olfbir (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Olfbir. The proper place to discuss your proposed changes is Template talk:Infobox country. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Olfbir. To some extent it depends on how broad an audience you seek; the formality you want involved; whether you just want to dip your toes, or lay out a concrete proposal with some degree of formality. I mean you could start with a post to Template talk:Infobox country, which has 247 page watchers. Or maybe you might start by asking the folks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics for some input. A wider forum though would be the proposals section of the village pump. There are also ways to escalate discussion; to seek a wider audience regardless of which forum is chosen to first raise some matter. For example, the discussion can be done through the auspices of a request for comment – and such an RfC can be made very broad by advertising it through {{Centralized discussion}}, or for some really huge issue, a site notice can be placed. (I am just give you a picture of the playing field – I'm sure you realize I'm not suggesting [nor would it be appropriate] to start at the top of the mountain). I would test the waters with a post at the template's talk page and maybe the village pump afterwards, if that garners very little comment (the fact it has 247 page watchers probably means only about 50 of them or less are active). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Changing name of cities into their official name.

I tried to change the English accent names of Karnataka state cities into recently changed official names. But my edits were reverted. What's reason behind reverting as the names were officially changed by state government itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwanath K G (talk • contribs) 08:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. When you make changes in an article it's recommended to explain what you changed and why in the edit summary, this way other editors know what and why you changed something. I think it's best to discuss the changes you want to make on the article's talk page and provide proof that the name has been changed (such as a newspaper) so your edit won't be reverted again. If you have any further questions feel free to ask (: Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vishwanath K G. The article naming policy says to title an article from the common name rather than the official name. See WP:COMMONNAME. —teb728 t c 09:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see you didn't move the articles to new titles (as I had assumed) but just changed the text. Anyway the same principle applies. BTW, I notice that your mechanical changes broke links in at least one case. —teb728 t c 10:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Information in the article on Saint Marcella seems to be plagiarised.

The article on Wikipedia on Saint Marcella seems to be mostly lifted from "Parade of Faith: A Biographical History of the Christian Church" by Ruth A. Tucker https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hb-S41iWo7oC&pg=PT106&dq=Marcella,+Jerome&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiypJ2G4JfgAhUHbisKHZc2CJoQ6AEIQjAE#v=onepage&q=Marcella%2C%20Jerome&f=false

Or is it the other way round? Could Ruth Tucker have plagiarised Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Mowczko (talk • contribs) 10:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Whilst a lot of people - and websites - do indeed use Wikipedia as a source, and some fail to credit us, I suspect in this case we have seen text copied and pasted into Wikipedia against our policies on copyvio. I say that because the really useful WikiBlame tool allows us to search for when specific text strings were first added. I searched for It was at the home of Marcella that Jerome first met Paula, a devoted and scholarly woman who would become his long-time intellectual counterpart. WikiBlame indicates that User:Holyvincent pasted in content without an edit summary in this diff dated 19th November 2011. Tuckers book online appears to be dated as epublished in July 2011. It would therefore be appropriate to speedily remove the copyright text, leaving a very clear edit summary as to why, leaving a url to the ebook for others to find. But better still, if you have interests in that page, why not write (in your own words) a summary of facts that you can extract from that book, and add it as a reference source? Thanks for raising this issue, and do please remember to sign all talk page posts with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). In this instance, because you included line breaks in your post I found it really hard to work out whether one person had asked a question and another person had answered it. Signing every post avoids that kind of confusion. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

~~~~ Thanks Nick, I'm still very new to this and unfamiliar with the protocol in these conversations. I'm not sure that I have the time to remove all the copyrighted material. From a quick look, most of the article has been taken from Ruth Tucker's book. Perhaps, the article can be reset at an earlier date (for want of better terminology.) I'll see what I can do. Marg Mowczko ~~~~

From looking at Saint Marcella, the one edit by User:Holyvincent in 2011 nearly tripled the length of the article. The content was added without an Edit summary and also without citations. There have been more than 50 subsequent edits by others, so it may be difficult to extract/reword the copyright content. To Marg, what Nick meant by signing is that when you type four of ~ at the end of your comments, your User signature will be added. David notMD (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have cleaned the copyright violations. Future reference: when you find a copyvio you should revert to the last clean version ASAP; mark the tainted portion of the page history for redaction by an administrator; warn the infringing editor, etc. I write a step-by-step guide for AfC, that can be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 1: Quick-fail criteria – click "show" to see the hidden section. Of course they're tailored for AfC review, but most of of it is generally relevant for general copyight cleanup. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How to create page for not for profit social organization ? Can I get such template ?

How to create page for not for profit social organization ? Can I get such template ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporterbihar (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Consider first if your non-profit "fits" under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If not, what you write will be deleted sooner or later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Reporterbihar. Your use of the phrase "page for" makes me think that, like many people, you have the mistaken idea that Wikipedia is a place for an organisation to tell the world about itself: it is not. That is called promotion, and is not permitted on Wikipedia (whether commercial or not). Rather than "page for" I suggest thinking of "an article about" - and remember that it should be based on what people unconnected ith the organisation have chosen to publish about it. Wikipedia has little interest in what anybody says about themselves, or what they want to say about themselves. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted a quick second/third opinion if possible

Is the title of this article suitable - University of Farmington scam, or does anyone have any better title names? (The page was created just now). Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"Scam" usually indicates illegal activity. In this instance a fake university was created legally as an undercover operation to catch non-citizens who wanted to be in the U.S. knowing that their student visas would be a sham. On a different note, Hudson University is a fictitious university used in dozens of television shows. Filming is on real college campuses, but the location always identified as "Hudson University." And on another different note, there is a real University of Maine Farmington. David notMD (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: An interesting point to note, thanks - that the fake university is legal but the immigration "pay to stay" scam is illegal. So considering this, the title is not entirely accurate. And yes, I had come across the real University of Maine Farmington while developing the article... Hmm... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This article needs to be merged with University of Farmington David notMD (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This file is missing evidence of permission.

Hi Diannaa,

You sent me a message regarding my wikipedia edit for VPP Wikipedia Draft. The file in question is for a logo fd-io_red_white.png. We use in many of our documents. I believe it was created by the Linux Foundation Marketing team and I think it is open source. Is an email from the Linux Foundation marketing team enough to get permission or is there a better way to get permission to use this?

Thanks so much for you review. Jdenisco (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)jdenisco

Hey, Jdenisco, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, an email from the Linux Foundation to permissions-en should do the trick, but just from looking at it, I'm not sure that such permission will be forthcoming. It seems that, while the Linux Foundation releases their software under open-source copyright, they don't do the same for their logos and trademarks. Their site says that: A copyright license, even an open source copyright license, does not include an implied right or license to use a trademark that may be related to the project developing the licensed software or other materials. [...] your right to use any specific trademark of The Linux Foundation is not determined by your use of software made available under an open source license. Basically, the open source license that the software might be released under does not extend to the logos and trademarks associated with that software, and several of the restrictions that their trademark policy place, such as no commercial reuse and no modification of the original image, would conflict with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Writ for the quick response. I will try and get permission. If I can't get it quickly can I just remove the logo from that box? The box has some useful information. I will also make sure I get the VPP license correct. Thanks Jdenisco (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)jdenisco

On [2], it says everything (I assume including the logo) is "© Copyright 2018, Linux Foundation". Meanwhile, on their own website, [[3]], it says "© 2019 The Fast Data Project. Copyright © 2018 FD.IO Project a Series of LF Projects, LLC. For web site terms of use, trademark policy and other project policies please see https://lfprojects.org. " I'm not seeing anything on their website about the logo being under a free license, so we have to assume the logo is non-free. In that case, the logo should probably be marked with {{non-free logo}} and {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. However, IIRC, you can't use non-free images on Drafts, which means the logo should be deleted for now, and if the draft is accepted, the logo can be reuploaded with the correct tags and explanation. rchard2scout (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Is there a setting which only shows problematic edits?Cedric White (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Cedric White, There are a variety of filters available, see WP:RC for more information. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the setting that I find useful for me when monitoring live edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nick.Cedric White (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories

Hello,

I just created Manpreet Bambra, and I was having issues with the category additions. I added the ones that I could remember existed, but I was wondering if someone could help correct/amend/add more. I’m aware Bambra is of Indian descent, not sure if that has any specific categories. She also lives in London.

Thank you!

– Joesimnett (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I think the categories are alright, you can of course add more categories as long as they exist and are relevant. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding a picture to an article

Hello, I'd like to add some pictures to an article about my father. Could someone offer any assistance ? Thanks

Ross Perry — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossAPerry (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

RossAPerry, You can use Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard to upload the file(or I can do it for you) and then I can help you add it to the article. What is the source of the photo? WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

New Article Rejection Question

Hi.

 I submitted an article on "Stanton Cohn" (now in my sandbox).  It was rejected because of a lack of inline citations.  I've added appropriate citations.  How do I resubmit for evaluation?

many thanks Meeplistener

--Meeplistener (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeplistener (talk • contribs)

References

A Fox in Space AfD

I just nominated A Fox in Space for deletion using Twinkle. The previous article I deleted (just beforehand) went through fine, but this has not created the link (red link on AfD). Did the same thing, not sure what happened. Any ideas? Thanks. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aurornisxui, do you mean that the AfD page is a red link? If so, it seems to have been created now. Often it takes a few seconds for Twinkle to process and execute everything. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

SkyGazer 512, thanks so much. I waited a couple of minutes and refreshed the page, I guess it wasn't long enough (still new at doing this). Aurornisxui (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Qualified?

Hi, I was wondering how can I be qualified to answer questions here? I recently became an "extended confirmed user". Does that mean I am experienced enough? Or is there anything I need to do? I don't feel confident enough, though. What if I answer questions wrong? James Booker fan (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

James Booker fan, There really is nothing saying you can't now. I started around 5-10 days in. I answered a question a bit wrong once, and someone else gave me a note about it on my talk page. Be wp:Bold! WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh that's brilliant. Thank you! James Booker fan (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Look at the archive of past Q&As to get ideas of what is asked and how answered. There is a core of editors who are here on schedule, but others are not prevented from helping out. Keep in mind that majority of queries come from new editors, so be kind. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear, @James Booker fan: I take my hat off to the folks who are here day after day answering questions, but it's also a place where lots of other people help out from time to time. It's good to give back to the community.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

TWA

can i restart the wikipedia adventure. Denkiden (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Parsing Meta-analyses with Medical Content

Hi Teahouse hosts! Thanks for the invite.

My question pertains to citing sources with medical content in an objective manner. Since meta-analyses often are inconclusive, or point to potential design flaws in the model of clinical studies, does this mean this content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia?

My personal view is that it would be appropriate to describe the content of well-reviewed research even if the author's conclude that further research is needed to establish scientific fact. Surely the conclusions of the authors should be a focal point, but to simply disallow the information entirely does not seem objective.

The page in question is not a medical page Withania somnifera, but nonetheless contains medical content. Given that it is topic related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), there is inevitably a high degree of skepticism - rightfully so.

I have been guided by a more senior editor on the page to analyze Journals by the impact factor as a measure of research quality, and I have culled my sources appropriately.

My question is: now that I have two sources that meet the criteria, how can I parse the substance of their analysis? Is it not appropriate to cite the conclusions of the authors that (I quote here, although I realize this would need to be paraphrased) "Given the central role of WS in Ayurveda and its promising actions in the realm of modern cancer research, it has potential to move forward as a cancer chemopreventive nutraceutical."

Similarly, the analysis by MSK has substantive points that - in my view - are worthy of inclusion into the encyclopedia. This has been previously acknowledged on the Talk page, yet the senior editors on that page continue to rollback attempts at inclusion.

Now, I would like to attempt an 'additive' edit - leaving the existing skeptical language intact but also introducing these analyses of a substantial body of research. I realize that my previous attempts may not have been perfect, however like other new editors here, I am frustrated by the rollbacks of the entire body of edits rather than engaging in a more nuanced discussion about which language is appropriate.

Any insight is appreciated.

Cheers! Digeridoodle (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

References

No. Let me explain: No. The first reference is not a meta-analysis (Palliyaguru et al 2015 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4899165/pdf/nihms757562.pdf). It is a speculative review. To quote from it: "So far, no clinical trials in human populations have been carried out with WS or WA with cancer or cancer biomarkers as end points." The quote you selected from the end of the article has no value. In things medical, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator. Hence no individual clincal trials (and no pre-clinical or in vitro). A PubMed search on W. somnifera and cancer, limited to meta-analyses and systematic reviews yielded no literature. MSKCC is not a peer-reviewed journal. Please review WP:MEDRS. Again. David notMD (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary lists?

Hello,

I have a question about some list articles that have been created. Personally, I don't see a what their point is. Examples include: United States Marshals appointed by Donald Trump—they're only appointed for a four year term at best and no one in the corresponding list has an actual article, save for a handful. United States Attorneys appointed by Donald Trump—they serve at the pleasure of the President, yes an article can be created about the person/nominee, but why the list? Political appointments by Donald Trump: How is this relevant? United States Ambassadors appointed by Donald Trump: Again, the relevance would be where? All presidents appoint ambassadors, I have yet to find an entire listing for another President. I can understand articles like List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump because similar ones have been created for previous presidents and judges can serve for a lifetime, so it makes sense. The other ones, to me, don't. If there was precedent for past Presidents and corresponding lists, I could understand but I haven't found any such lists. Others include: List of Donald Trump nominees who have withdrawn, List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations, List of short-tenure Donald Trump political appointments. Can these be merged somehow? Do guidelines somewhere state where, why and how lists are to be created? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't be sure, but I think a lot of those were because the main Donald Trump article is ridiculously long and the articles had to be split, and the others were overzealous politic nerds (or simply Trump fans) rushing to document everything they could. If you want ridiculous detail, check out some of the timeline articles (Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2017 Q4) is one such article); I commented on one of the talk pages suggesting removal of extra detail, and another editor came along and stated that the article should have as much detail as possible. I'm pretty sure there's a policy related to that, but honestly I don't know. Trump's presidential trips are also in articles sorted by year. In other words, any subject relating to Trump probably has an article about it. It might be that the political junkies don't trust us mere mortals to follow all the new exciting events. I'm not sure about guidelines, though. You could try to get the lists deleted, and I would commend you for it, but it would be quire the uphill battle to get them deleted and not be brigaded by the politic addicts. Good luck if you try. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to request for deletion of a Wikipedia Signpost article?

Does anyone know how to request for deletion of a Signpost article? I have already asked the same in the newsroom, but no reply as yet, hardly waited 30 min I know and I am being a bit impatient but I want to get this clarified as fast as possible, so asking here if anyone else has experience with the signpost and is online just now and can help out. Any help or guidance to make this process faster will be much appreciated. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Try WP:MFD. RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Oh wow! Thank you so much for directing me there and replying so fast!!.... I found nearly an exact case same as mine... thanks! Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery Thanks again. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Just one more question... according to above example... I assume that the deletion process is the same... I can use twinkle to put XFD and state my reasons... even on a current and live Signpost article? I want to do it now. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Yes, Twinkle would work, but I would recommend against what you are trying to do. I don't know what you want to be deleted out of the Signpost, but based on how the discussion you are using as an example went, you'll be pilloried for the world to see. Go ahead, do it if you wish, but I doubt the community would take kindly to it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: I want to delete my own Signpost article... "you'll be pilloried for the world to see" SIGH... I wouldn't dare delete someone else's... :( .... thank you for the comment. This is a mess, I know I maybe should be a little more patient but.... I have nominated it.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: messed up ping :/ -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry for jumping to conclusions. If it's your own article, you should be fine. I don't know how the discussion will turn out, but no pillorying should be involved. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Article rejection despite numerous sources

I've submitted an article (profile) for approval with 16 sources, including articles fully dedicated to the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Scott_McGovern

I received the following comment:

"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 (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)."

Many articles with fewer, less valid sources have been approved. I'd be grateful if anyone has any advice to offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccigang0505 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Guccigang0505 as the comment says, the refs only mention him in passing, he is not their focus. That is not enough. Try to get sources dealing with him specifically. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Guccigang0505: many articles with fewer, less valid sources exist. That does not mean that they have been approved: we used to be much less careful about this than we are now. All of them should be improved, or deleted if better sources do not exist. You are welcome to tag them appropriately, or even to nominate them for deletion if you think that is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hydraulic Entertainment (2)

Can another experienced editor please look at Draft:Hydraulic Entertainment (2) and advise User:CPOlivette about this draft? They initially submitted two copies of it, both of which were declined for not having independent reliable references, and then resubmitted this copy of it with more references which however are not considered reliable. I also think that the draft is not neutrally written, but would appreciate the comments of another editor. I also think that the filmography is too long, but that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess you are right. It has lack of reliable sources. More sources are needed to clarify the draft. Buy I don't think that it is not neutrally written except for the introduction.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 20:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

My assessment of the article is that it consists of an introduction, which is non-neutrally written, and a long list. I don't see a part to the article that is neutrally written. What have I missed? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

My assessment would be that the draft is promotional and that the references given do not show significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Several references are not independent, some are broken, some have no apparent relevance to the subject. —teb728 t c 06:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Tor.com

Is https://www.tor.com/ considered a reliable source on Wikipedia? -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable, What are you planning to use it for? WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could use this page as a reference on Generation ship. -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Rule for comma use

• Columbus, Ohio, Symphony Orchestra
• Columbus, Ohio Symphony Orchestra

Is one of these more correct than the other? I've searched for a rule in the MoS and can't find one. deisenbe (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe, I would say Columbus Symphony Orchestra rather than either. —teb728 t c 21:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Or if you really think you need to say Ohio, then "Columbus Symphony Orchestra in Columbus, Ohio" —teb728 t c 21:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: More to the point, which one of them is more wrong than the other? They're both wrong! Neither describes the correct name of the orchestra and both only serve to mislead, so neither should be used. teb728 is spot on. Alternatively, if you're using them in a list where the name is always followed by its location, try "Columbus Symphony Orchestra (Columbus, Ohio)". What do you think? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to have been unclear. I made up the orchestra example. It's the general principle. How many commas should there be in

The bank in Guadalajara Mexico was robbed.

John was born in Elmira New York in 1990.

What I'm asking for is not better wording, but whether there is a WP preference for one or the other. Articles I write have a lot of place names, and there's a little disagreement with another editor on which is more correct, if one is. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Two commas in each; see MOS:GEOCOMMA. - David Biddulph (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The case where before-after commas are not required in punctuating a restrictive is in a proper name or nickname such as the "Columbus Ohio Slugger."Tamanoeconomico (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating self profile/page

Greetings, thanks for the add HostBot‬. I do have a question but I don't want to sound bias. Is it possible to create a profile of myself or an autobiography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenfenSiah (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello FenfenSiah, and welcome to the TeaHouse. Wikipedia is not like social media or LinkedIn - we do not create profiles of ourselves. Instead, we write articles about notable subjects, just like any encyclopedia. Autobiographies are technically possible, but they are strongly discouraged due to the conflict of interest: it is just about impossible to be impartial and balanced when talking about yourself - you might like to read the article at Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, FenfenSiah. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your question. It's a good one. If by 'profile' you mean just a few lines about yourself and your interest in editing Wikipedia, and which does not promote your music, your business, or expound on some crank theory, then, yes, you can do that. You have a userpage for that purpose. See WP:USERPAGE for what you can and can't use it for, and maybe also take a look at other editors' pages to see what they've done. Just click on the link in their signatures.

But if by profile you mean a Wikipedia article about yourself, that's a very different matter. Whilst it is possible, it is very inadvisable, indeed. Even if you were Notable enough to have been written about in detail in books, journals or magazines by independent authors, how neutral would that writing be? Might you be tempted to quietly leave out the newspaper article about some scandal that affected your earlier life, or the prison sentence you once received? You might like to read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for reasons why trying to create an article about yourself is a bad idea. For that reason, you would have a very heavy Conflict of Interest which you would have to declare according to the policy I have just linked to. So no, please don't consider writing an encyclopaedia page about yourself, and most definitely not an autobiography. That would be deleted very speedily indeed! But do feel free to edit articles here that need improving, and to create a userpage for yourself. happy editing! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

1980 Catalan regional election

List WIP. The turn of events o (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Josep Benet Anton Cañellas Francisco Hidalgo

I can't seem to make those articles, can you help me? The turn of events o (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello The turn of events o, and welcome to the Teahouse, from a fellow newbie and "typos and stuff" fixer. I am not a host, but this may help someone who, like me, did not understand what the line "Josep Benet Anton Cañellas Francisco Hidalgo" was referring to.

After reading the title page, 1980 Catalan regional election, I realised that three different names were grouped on that line: Josep Benet, Anton Cañellas and Francisco Hidalgo.

I see now, in edit, that you typed the names on different lines, but the software did not recognise your intention.

I now understand that you are attempting to create a page for each of those people, similar maybe to the page for Jordi Pujol, or maybe to the shorter page for Heribert Barrera.

Although I am sure a host will come along to give you the appropriate guidance and links, this Articles for creation page may have some of the information you were looking for.

Thank you for your previous edits, and for giving me the opportunity to help, and discover some of the features of this board.

Garlic Frog (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to add this template {{Coord|40|37.23|6|N|73|56.28|2|W |display=title |type:edu_region:US-NY}} to Yeshiva Tiferes Yisroel, but each time I do so, it says that the parameters are invalid. For some reason, it lets me add the coordinates if I change them to 40°37'23.0N 73°56'28.0W, but these coordinates are inaccurate. What am I doing wrong? -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Puzzledvegetable. Welcome, and well done for finding the Teahouse. (I'm not actually sure what our own coordinates are!). Your problem, I think, is that you've managed to mix decimals into a non-decimal format. In other words, you're showing degrees, minutes and seconds with a minutes figure that you've subdivided with a decimal point before you get to the seconds bit. Can I ask where you go the coordinates from? I see you're trying to give the coordinates of a school in Brooklyn, which I'd never consider doing. But if I did want to, I'd go to Google maps, click the point where the feature is locate and copy and use the decimal coordinates that appear on screen. (If you desperately wanted them to appear as d/m/seconds you'd use the format=dms command to force conversion from decimal to degrees/mins/secs. How does that sound? Need any further help with it? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:I'm not really an expert on how to display latitude and longitude coordinates. I did get my coordinates from Google Maps as you described. That gave me the coordinates 40°37'23.4"N 73°56'28.2"W or 40.623173, -73.941177. What you see in the template was my attempt at reformatting that to fit the template's parameters. In the process of doing that, I must have made the mistake you pointed out. Now that you have the coordinates as they appeared on Google Maps, what is the correct way to reformat them for the template? Thanks -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: Yeah, coordinates can be awkward beasts to work with - if it's not in British OS grid format I can't find my way out of a paper bag, even with a GPS in my hand! Whilst I toddle off and have a play, please could you click the 'share' link on Google maps and paste in the url showing the feature you want to map. That way I can check it more easily. (it's getting late here, so I might collapse before answering. I may have to reply tomorrow, if that's the case. (I'm in UTC time here). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:Here is the link: https://goo.gl/maps/7yhHsTSeacp --Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: OK, we're sorted. For some reason your extracted coordinates were not quite correct, and put the point a little way out. I got and used the following from your url: {{coord|40.623168|N|73.941177|W|format=dms|display=title|type:edu_region:US-NY}} (though my first attempt put you in the hills of Kurdestan or somewhere like that as I forgot Brooklyn is W of 0 longitude, whereas in all the articles I put coordinates in, they're always E of the Greewich meridian. Doh! Just remember not to use decimals when working in deg/min/sec, and also that, counter-intuitively, coordinates never really define a point - they actually define the corner of a square into which your point falls. The size of that square depends upon the level of accuracy (the number of digits) in a those coordinates. I did recently try to put in coordinates accurate to 7 digits after the decimal point, but the template rejected them. So I guess there's a 6-digit level of accuracy. Does this give you what you wanted? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, those coordinates lead exactly to the school. Sorry to keep you up past midnight for something so trivial. -- Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

McCormick Theological Seminary

What's the correct template? The turn of events o (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It is {{more citations needed}}. I fixed it for youWelpThatWorked (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Flipboard, Kik Messenger, Line and Evernote's pages are in need of having a [+] added to their Stable release segments.

I wanted to add a [+] to Flipboard, Kik Messenger, Line and Evernote's pages' Stable releases segments but decided not to in fear of getting banned. How do I get pass this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vramtr (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vramtr: If you are not comfortable being Bold, then you should discuss your proposed change at the articles' talk pages. Make sure to provide reliable sources for your proposed changes. RudolfRed (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Can too many unsuccessful speedy delete request result in an indefinite block?

Hyperius1255 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hyperius1255: If the behavior is disruptive, yes. RudolfRed (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Hyperius1255 - I agree with the above that any sort of disruptive editing can result in a block, even an indefinite one. That is a strange question, especially since it does not appear that you have made any speedy deletion requests. I would think, and I would like the view of an administrator, that how too many unsuccessful speedy deletion requests were dealt with would depend on whether it appeared that they were misguided interpretations of the criteria for speedy deletion, or whether they were either random or vindictive. I would think that too many good-faith but misguided speedy deletion requests would result in explanations of why they were denied with explanations of the policies. If they persisted, the tagger might be given a more severe warning or taken to WP:ANI and possibly topic-banned from such requests. Speedy deletion nominations that were clearly just random would probably be treated as vandalism, and would soon be viewed as evidence of being not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Malicious requests would be treated as malicious requests. That is a strange question. Don't put beans in your ears. The beans might swell, and you might not hear your father telling you what to do, and that wouldn't excuse your ignoring him. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Lists

Hi there,

A few years ago, the Massachusetts state government formed a commission to list 1,000 points of interest across the state. Would it be appropriate to publish the list, and include links to articles about the points of interest? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldop1895 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Eldop1895, Probably not here, but may be nice on the wikivoyage.org project WelpThatWorked (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

CKE closing in Anaheim

Why wasn't the sunshine dinner mentioned?? Or the fact that because of the sunshine dinner carls jr had the first fast food that served alcohol. Sunshine would close and Carls jr would open. This is important info that helps sew together CKE family. Ex employee Stephanie Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C6F0:E020:1577:DA01:E115:9E09 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stephanie. Wikipedia has no central authority writing articles; dictating what goes into them or is or should be kept out; making sure articles contain what they should and should not. Instead, it has only the structure of sets of policies, guidelines, suggestions for good writing, etc., that have been fashioned through consensus; the dictates of the type of reference work it is and at its base, toiling away, thousands of different people editing what they are interested in. You ask why X is missing and Y nowhere to be found? Maybe because that content should be in it but no one has put time into the article to discover what's missing. The only person right now who seems bothered about this is you, so maybe you're the one who should add it.

Every article, every sentence here, comes from someone rolling up there sleeves and getting to work. If that's not you – if you're not comfortable adding content (or aren't, maybe, yet, as a newbie, as unfamiliar with how it all works – mayhaps you should go to the article's talk page and make suggestions for what to add, or point our what's missing and so on. It is helpful to know this much, though, if nothing else: Wikipedia runs on sourcing. Content is properly added only if the world outside of Wikipedia has already written about it. Wikipedia synthsizes what reliable sources have written about subjects. So any suggestion you might make is many time over superior, and far more likely to be acted upon, if it is accompanied by you pointing out a specific source that corroborates the proposed edit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

retrieving my Tango Cafe page

Hi and thank you for a friendly landing pad.

I created the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tango_Cafe a few years ago, now it is deleted based on "notability". I missed the discussion unfortunately. Not contesting the decision (though I disagree) but I would like the page to be viewable by me and by those to whom the Tango Café was a precious center for art, music, poetry, dance, literature and language instruction. Also, it would be great to recover all those links to sources that I found.

I haven't figured out how to make that request and to whom. I found the page but not quite sure what to do next. Select an administrator at random, and then what?

Thanks. --Notsofeo (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Notsofeo, Try WP:REFUND Hope it helps WelpThatWorked (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Notsofeo: @WelpThatWorked: no, REFUND won't restore articles deleted after a deletion discussion. The first thing to do, Notsofeo, is contact the deleting administrator on their user talk page. They might be willing to send you a copy of the deleted text. You can't re-create the page unless there is significant new information and sources that didn't exist when the article was deleted, but at least you could get a copy of the text for your own hard drive. --bonadea contributions talk 06:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you did post to REFUND just after the page had been deleted a couple of months ago. There's some more advice in the response you got then. --bonadea contributions talk 06:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just go to http://deletionpedia.org/en/Tango_Caf%C3%A9 --Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Good answer, Shantavira. We're often very good at forgetting that other systems exist outside of Wikipedia that record deleted content. I'm sure that'll help Notsofeo retrieve his deleted work. But, as was stated above, trying to resubmit the same content with new evidence of notability will only lead to disappointment. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Image Copyright permission

Hi,

I have uploaded a image from Facebook. Below is the link for File:Richmond_Town_Methodist_Church_(RTMC).jpg. I don't know what permission is needed to be updated for getting it removed from Wikimedia. Please help me by having look at the image submitted and let me know for a solution.

Thanks, Setu.V

Link TO Image: commons:File:Richmond_Town_Methodist_Church_(RTMC).jpgSetu755 (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be best asking at commons. This forum is for Wikipedia. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 06:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Setu755. Your question "I don't know what permission is needed to be updated for getting it removed from Wikimedia." is a little confusing to me. You need do nothing if you want to have it removed from Wikimedia Commons. It will happen very soon. This is because you uploaded it without any evidence that the photographer on Facebook gave their permission under an appropriate Creative Commons licence for it to be reused. So, not unreasonably, the image has been tagged with a warning notice. Thus, it will be deleted in the next day or so unless you can supply evidence that it is correctly licenced.

To stop it getting removed, you need to provide that evidence - it's as simple as that. The evidence would either be a clear statement on the uploader's page that it is free and available for commercial and non-commercial use (e.g. a CC-BY-SA 3 licence). Seven days is often a ridiculously short time for anyone to garner such permissions, but you can also do that after deletion, if you wished. The easiest way is to approach a photographer and ask them to upload it themselves (ie they licence their own image themselves), but not everyone wants to do that.

Wikimedia also has what's called an OTRS system where a person can email in their permission retrospectively, though it's difficult to explain the process briefly here. You can go to Commons:Undeletion_requests, but that would only be an option after you had somehow obtained the original photographer's permission. Had you uploaded your own image with a valid CC licence I don't think there's a way to request deletion afterwards on the grounds that "I didn't mean to give it away" - that'd be like asking for a Christmas present back after you've given it to someone. I hope I've covered all the options you might have been wondering about. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

'Mousing over' (I'm not sure of the actual term)

Hi, apparently I've lost the ability, somehow, to 'mouse over' and preview articles printed in bold, thereby previewing the first sentence or two. I find this feature very handy and makes my experience using Wiki more valuable. Can anybody help me find how to get this ability back? Is this the place where I can ask? Thanks for helping, Freesumpin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesumpin (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Freesumpin. Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, this is one of the places where it's fine to ask questions like this. At one time the ability to hover over a blue wikilink was an optional 'beta gadget' called Hovercards that one had to personally activate at Special:Preferences, but I had thought it had been inmplemented by default for all users a year or two ago (though I might be wrong) as I've been using it ever since it first appeared. So, I'm wondering, are you using a different browser which doesn't support their use, or where pop-ups have been blocked? If not, and as an alternative, try activating 'Navigation popups' in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It's the penultimate option in the 'Browsing' section. Maybe other hosts here can offer further suggestions. Let us know how you get on. (Here's a test link for you to try: mouse.) Nick Moyes (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Freesumpin: You say "articles printed in bold". Does that mean the feature works for normal links like "Wikipedia" and the problem is only with bold text? The feature requires a link and bold text is usually not linked. Can you give an example? There are two similar features: "Page previews" (previously called Hovercards) at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, and "Navigation popups" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. You can only use one of them at a time. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

How to add company profile

How to add a company article of various industries in {{portal|Companies}}. Can I get a template for writing information about the company and where to submit this article? I researched a lot on how to contribute to {{portal|Companies}} but I am not able to draft it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Setu755 (talk • contribs)

High again Setu755. What is the page name of the article you would like to see added to Portal:Companies? Does that page actually exist yet?

From your question, I infer not. I need to explain that Portals are just a different way of presenting information that already exists about a broad subject in general and will include a selection of notable company articles. Regard them as "topic-tasters", if you like. You do not create articles there. If it is your intention to draft a new article about a company, first make sure it is worthy of having a page here. We have set criteria for allowing pages about companies, which you can read at WP:NCOMPANY. If it won't meet that, you'll simply be wasting your time and setting yourself up for eventual disappointment. Wikipedia is not here to promote people's favourite businesses, you see, and no person or company has any right to expect they an article here. You would start to work on your plans for a new article, either in your own sandbox or, better still, via the creation wizard at Articles for Creation. See also Wikipedia: Your First Article and The Wikipedia Adventure which offers an interactive tour of the basics of Wikipedia, including how to sign every talk page post, which you keep forgetting to do. (Just type four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) at the very end line of every new post, please. As I mentioned earlier on your userpage, leave at least 24 hours between asking the same question again at a different venue to avoid duplicating volunteer effort. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Translation to English of Paula Almerares pages

Hello all, My name is Sergio Almerares. I am a newcomer here. I started with the translation, from Spanish to Italian, of Paula Almerares description. Se is a good Soprano singer that lives in Argentina. And obviously we are of a same family, even if I live in Italy. After this I have updated the Spanish page with latest news about her. And would like to have translation also in English. I did it but I am not able to publish. Can someone check my translation in English and if it is OK help me to publish it?

Kind regards. Thank you so much! Sergio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alme Jr (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, Sergio. The obvious problem with Draft:Paula Almerares is that it has no citations to published reliable sources. The Spanish and Italian Wikipedia's are perhaps not so insistent as we are, but here on the English Wikipedia you need such citations to demonstrate notability. See WP:Referencing for beginners for how to provide the citations. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Further advice is available at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, appears you first worked on the draft of the article on your User page - which was the wrong place, and should be deleted as soon as possible - but than have properly copied all that content into Draft:Paula Almerares. David notMD (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Not on the actual user page, as far as I can see. Seemed to be a user subpage. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing help for senior editors

Hello. My name is Jeff, I have just retired and my nephew said I should have a go at editing Wikipedia. I have had a go at etiting a few pages but am not sure if I am doing it right and don't want to break anything. Could anyone show me how to do it please? Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Loveland 1970 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Loveland 1970 Hi Welcome to Teahouse. I have sent you a Welcome message with links (click on the blue highlighted texts) for further info. To insert inline citations (sources) pls read referencing for beginners. Do pop back here if you have specific questions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, Jeff Loveland 1970, don't be afraid of breaking anything. As a regular user, it's practically impossible to break Wikipedia, any edit you make can always be undone if necessary. Our policy on this is to be bold, others will fix things if you make a mistake. rchard2scout (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to query information on a page?

I am researching A1/A2 milk, and on the Wiki page titled "A2 Milk", the following sentence interests me:

"The A1 beta-casein type is the most common type found in cow's milk in Europe (excluding France), the USA, Australia and New Zealand.[2]:20"

I would like to know why A1 milk is not the most common type found in cow's milk in France. Highlighting the reference [2] brings up the following info:

European Food Safety Authority (3 February 2009). "Review of the potential health impact of β-casomorphins and related peptides". EFSA Journal. 7 (2): 231r. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.231r.

I have accessed this document, and it contains only one mention of the word "France", and only one mention of "French", neither of which are relevant to the above statement. I don't fully understand the link reference, ie: doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.231r, and I don't know if the ":20" is important.

Is there a way to query the statement, in the hope that the person who made it might clarify the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natubat (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The :20 means "page 20" which is the only page that contains the word "France", and in that case it is only listing the country of origin of a cattle breed "Normande". There's actually no statement in that chart, and no clear data, that supports the statement "The A1 beta-casein type is the most common type found in cow's milk in Europe (excluding France), the USA, Australia and New Zealand." I will add a flag to the reference, and if no one fixes it, we should remove the statement after some time. --Jayron32 13:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Natubat: I've tagged the statement so it shows that the source does not verify the information in the Wikipedia article, and also left a note at Talk:A2 milk. Feel free to contribute there if you have anything more to add. --Jayron32 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. I'll know how to do this in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natubat (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

remove copyright content copied from

I am working very closely with Ole Troan on the draft Vector Packet Processing A section was removed with the following error: remove copyright content copied from Intel Network Stack. I thought this link would be ok since it was properly referenced.

Would you be able to tell me why it is not appropriate and the proper way to reference a link like that?

We do have other links that are similar. I would like to make sure they are appropriate.

Also, if I want to reply to your comment do I just edit this section after your comment?

It seems like that would be hard for you to watch and I may not get a reply.

Thanks for all the help. It is our first try at submitting a page, so the help is greatly appreciated.

Jdenisco (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)jdenisco