Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

problem using the Cite Book template in Wikimedia Commons

Today I used the Cite Book template (as I have done many times before) to document something I was writing in a description for a Wikimedia Commons category (Category:Statues of Androgynous Angels). I used the |location= parameter to specify New York (the location of the publisher), and the |publisher= parameter to indicate The Free Press (the name of the publisher). When I did a preview, the New York entry appeared as Category:New York - a link which (of course) went nowhere, as the 'real' category is New York City. I couldn't figure out why the template wanted to make New York a category, so I eliminated the whole |location= parameter, and entered |publisher=New York: The Free Press, which made the entry look correct. I've left the entry with my 'kludge' modification (an early computer-era term for a slapdash solution), but it probably could be tested by editing the page and re-entering |location=New York and doing a preview (without saving). I'd like to find out what I might have been doing wrong (assuming it's not a bug in Cite Book).

Seauton (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seauton. Wikipedia and Commons are separate projects. While there's lots of similarities and overlapping content, not everything that works of Wikipedia will work on Commons. Templates, for example, used on Wikipedia are uploaded locally and unless there is an identical template with exactly the same name uploaded locally to Wikipedia Commons, the template is not going to work. Even if there are local versions for a template uplaoded to each project, the template will only work as it's been set up to work, i.e. according to it's documentation page. Template:Cite book is what the template looks like on Wikipedia, and c:Template:Cite book is what it looks like on Commons; since they're technically for separate projects, it would be better discuss the Commons one on Commons, perhaps at Commons:Village pump/Technical. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I understand.

Seauton (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sortable tables

Why aren't sortable tables sortable in mobile view? And why doesn't Help:Sorting say anything about it? --Thnidu (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you had to wait 24 hrs for this not especially helpful reply! Although I do the majority of my editing on a mobile device at the moment, it's usually in desktop mode. I hadn't noticed table sorting wasn't offered in mobile view, and it's a shame that its absence isn't explicitly noted in Help:Sorting. Perhaps you might wish to suggest a note to this effect is added by commenting at Help talk:Sorting. You might like to check out the limited mention of sorting at this subsection of Help:Table.

There is a section on MediaWiki (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor_on_mobile) which you might like to monitor, or perhaps to contribute your own observations or feedback via its discussion page. Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How to rate the importance of an article?

Hello,

I'm a member of Wikiproject Apps and one of the open tasks is to rate the importance of unclassified articles. Can someone explain me how is this done? (e.g. I would like to classify the importance of the article tvOS as high within the scope of Wikiproject Apps)

Thanks in advance, --Coel Jo (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Priority of topic lists the classes as: top = must-have, high = a depth of knowledge, mid = fills in more minor details, etc. I would also expect some consistency between articles; Microsoft Windows is presently mid-importance in Wikiproject Apps - is tvOS more important to the subject of apps than Windows? (I think maybe Windows needs to have its importance upped). Chris857 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you @Chris857. According the importance scale wikipedia:WikiProject_Apps#Importance_scale presented in Wikiproject Apps, Microsoft Windows should be tagged has top-importance. Could you please explain me how does one rate the importance of an article (and how to change the importance of an article?). Thanks in advance, Coel Jo (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Lua Error in Module

Can anyone help to fix this error "Lua Error in Module" in an article Greensole Foundation I can see this for all references. JainAllow (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I just checked again and it is fixed now.JainAllow (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

There are people working on updating citation templates. Expect the unexpected for a while, and hope for the best. I wouldn't bother until the dust settles, other errors may be incoming, or these errors could be fixed automatically later by reverting the changes that are being made, or by running a bot to fix the mess.Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 13:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi JainAllow, welcome to the Teahouse. It was a temporary issue caused by an edit to Module:Citation/CS1. The edit was reverted and I updated the article with a purge. There is currently work on error messages for citation templates and other articles may also show this or other problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank You JainAllow (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Creating a Page

Hi, I'm new (obviously). I have written a new page for Wikipedia in my Sandbox, but how do I make that a new page/article? Thanks Srcollier94 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Srcollier94, welcome to the Teahouse. You can put {{subst:submit|Srcollier94}} in your sandbox to submit your article to the articles for creation process. (There are 1,840 pending submissions articles waiting to be reviewed, so it will probably take a while.) Eman235/talk 17:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, user:eman235! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srcollier94 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, user:eman235 and great question, Srcollier94! Just a follow-up question, if I have a conflict of interest, is my only option to add a description with citations to the appropriate section of the appropriate "Wikipedia:Requested_articles" page? In other words, since there are so many articles waiting to be reviewed, can you advise on the most expedient way to get a new page/article created? (I haven't written a page in my Sandbox, because of my COI. Perhaps I should go ahead and write one in my Sandbox - with {{subst:submit|Wikirstn}} in there and a note disclosing my COI - for the best chances at the quickest page creation? Signed by Wikirstn (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Wikirstn

JUDAS ISCARIOT

There is a new book out titled "Holy Betrayal: The Story of Judas." How does a person get this new version of the Judas betrayal into the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.252.2.150 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This book [1]? AFAICT, it's selfpublished, so basically, you don't, see WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Large deletions

What do you do when large deletions are made from a page, that is personally (subjective) viewed as devaluing the article ? The content was existing for over a year and deleted onmass without any consultation, content appeared to be following concensus of the article. Can supply more details, concerned just putting back would be considered "war" personally consider deletion was unwarrented and or vandalism. Topic is contentious, but useful. Deleted matters were well referenced and legally factual, synopsis of state of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodconn (talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you writing about the article Thoughts and prayers? Mass shootings may be the trigger for T&P responses, but laws and proposed laws about gun control not necessarily relevant to the article. Talk page of the article the best place to discuss. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How to add a "section" in an existing article?

I am looking at a Wikipedia page that has no sections, and would like to insert, "Career," "History," "Education," etc. Not sure how to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianelane777 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Dianelane777, welcome to Wikipedia. To insert a section, simply type the header in between two equal signs like this

== Career == 

Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle Royale

On the Battle Royale page,can you mention some more things (Season X,guns,LTMs),as I am a big editor(Andrewg100)on that website — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ImtheOneKhaled. Aren't you a blocked user?

A notable celebrity page keeps being deleted

Can someone help? I am sick of this page and editors constantly fighting back claiming Forbes is not mainstream press, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kropfmichele2 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be about Draft:Alexa Curtis. AfC has been declined four times. Kropfmichele2 deleted the declines from the record of the AfC!! David notMD (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

An editor restored the declines. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on the page Samoa

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I want to report this IP address 107.214.239.62 It is constantly removing useful content on the page Samoa without any explanation, and when I undid his/her revisions he is undoing mine. Could you someone help resolve this? Thank you. Angus1986 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Angus1986. You need to reach a consensus with the IP first. If that fails, you can file a report at WP:AN3. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

What now, after guidance on Talk page

On the CAHPS Talk page, I first proposed a sweeping revision of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Consumer_Assessment_of_Healthcare_Providers_and_Systems&action=edit. In response, a Wikipedian greatly helped me with guidance; now I want to move forward and make edits (mainly corrections) to the first paragraph of the same article.

How should I proceed? Should I propose the changes on the Talk page (explaining the reasons for the changes) or be bold and use the article Edit box? If I should use Talk, should I go to the top and indent?

As stated on my user page, I work for AHRQ, the government agency that supports the CAHPS surveys. Bleve51 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How to add information when "Citation needed"

Good evening dear Teahouse wizards! After a break and some material research, I'm ready to continue working on my draft article. I got a "citation needed" in a line which I would love to do, but don't know how. Do I just delete [citation needed] and add references? And how can I refer to an article in a print magazine that not accessible online? Many thanks for your support! --Fmkaiser (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you have a WP:Reliable source then just delete the citation needed tag and add your source between <ref> ... ,</ref> tags. See WP:Referencing for beginners for details. The numbering is automatic, so don't add numbers. Dbfirs 19:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I did that now. I think I will resubmit soon to get a new feedback. There are a row of magazine articles I will soon be able to refer to as well, but I need to dig into archives first.

--Fmkaiser (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I have two citation and both are conflicting ,one of them is newer though what to do

Hi guys, S0091 ChamithN

this is regarding early life section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushant_Singh_Rajput

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/did-you-know/did-you-know-that-sushant-singh-rajput-scored-an-all-india-rank-of-7-in-dce-engineering-exams-in-2003/articleshow/67655280.cms

and

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Madhuri-wanted-to-learn-dance-from-me-Sushant/articleshow/18086314.cms

as per the lastest article sushant cleared DCE/DTU entrance exams with AIR 7 and not AIEEE which is in conflict with other article

In fact, DTU started admitting engineering candidates with AIEEE (JEE Main) ranks only since 2010.

source: https://www.shiksha.com/b-tech/articles/dtu-to-admit-students-on-the-basis-of-aieee-2010-blogId-1655

what to do in ths scenario , seems like there is an error in the older article itself. please help. I am new here

Advance apology for any mistakes

--Reetkr (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Reetkr. If you truly think the older source is wrong, you can be WP:BOLD and correct things based upon the newer source. Just make sure you explain why in your edit summary. It might also be a good idea for you to further clarify on Talk:Sushant_Singh_Rajput. If, on the other hand, you're not really sure, then be WP:CAUTIOUS and discuss first on the article's talk page or possibly even at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Being "newer" doesn't necessarily make one source more correct than the other, and even reliable sources sometimes contain errors. At the same time, since both sources are from the The Times of India, it's quite possible that the newer source is indeed a correction of the "older" one.

My personal opinion is that both sources look like fluff piece-type articles about Rajput; the paper itself is surely a reliable source, but it's hard to say how much editorial oversight there is with respect to articles such as these. So, it's kind of hard to say which source is more "correct" or more "reliable". The older source does, however, seem to be more of an interview with Rajput than anything else, and interviews are not always considered reliable sources because someone might talk about things as they remember them, which might not be actually how they really happened. There usually doesn't tend to be lots of fact-checking going on in interviews such as ones with entertainers because that's not really the point of the this type of interview to begin with; so, the interviewer just either assumes that the interviewee is speaking the truth or doesn't really care if they're not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct Citation Format: "dead-url=" or "url-status

Which is format is correct?

   |url-status=dead & |url-status=live

Or:

   |dead-url=yes &|dead-url=no

WP:LINKROT suggests that the "dead-url=" is correct, but Help:CS1 errors lists "dead-url=" as a deprecated parameter, and I'm seeing that now show up as an error in actual articles (see citations for ARPANET. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Henderson (talk • contribs)

Hi Carl Henderson. You should use the syntax that works. It's quite possible that the change was made and neither the LINKROT page nor the individual template page's were updated. At the same time, it appears from Help talk:CS1 errors#deprecated dead-url is causing lots of confusion at the moment; you might want to point out that things like the LINKROT page will also need to be updated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have gone in and suggested documentation updates at Help talk:CS1 errors#deprecated dead-url as per your suggestion. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Templates can be very tricky to edit, which is why many are protected. Changing even a single character can cause tons of problems depending upon how widely the template is being used. This particular change appears to be quite contentious and might not've been properly discussed before being made; so, perhaps the thing to do would be to sit tight a bit and leave the CS1 errors as is (no matter how "wrong" that seems) because things might ultimately sort themselves out if the change is reverted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How can I Published new articale

I Hope that you are doing well by the way I am recently joined Wikipedia as to contribute , So I need to know how I can Published new article

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hussein.diad (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hussein.diad: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to add to it. You can read about creating a new article at WP:YFA. This is not an easy thing to start with for a new editor, so the usual advice is to start by making improvements to existing articles instead. Check out the tutorial (WP:TUTORIAL) and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hussein.diad: As Rudolf said, writing content for Wikipedia is one of the most difficult tasks, especially for a new editor or one whose first language is not English. Just like articles in newspapers, books, and other encyclopedias (e.g., Los Angeles Times and Encyclopædia Britannica), Wikipedia articles are to be written in proper English, with correct spelling, capitalization, grammar, punctuation, and other formatting per our manual of style. Another key requirement is citing of reliable sources. Please have a look at these pages for guidance on future contributions. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I add an updated corporate logo to a page?

Hello! How do I add an updated corporate logo to a page? I've already disclosed that I'm a paid contributor and I see that the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsman%27s_Warehouse is featuring an outdated company logo that is no longer in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GDPSPWH (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi GDPSPWH. Only files uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons can be added to Wikipedia articles; so, you or someone else is going to need to upload the file first. Where you upload the file is going to be pretty much determined by how you intend to license the file. If you intended to license the file in accordance with c:Commons:Licensing, you should upload the file to Commons; on the other hand, if you intended to upload the file as non-free content, you should upload the file to Wikipedia. Most corporate/company logos are protected by copyright, which means they typically cannot be uploaded to Commons per c:Commons:Fair use; in some cases though, the logo may not really eligible for copyright protection for some reason (see c:Commons:Threshold of originality for an example of this) and can be uploaded as public domain; public domain files can be uploaded to Commons as long as they are considered to be public domain in both their country of origin and the United States.

Once you figure where you want to upload the file, you can just do so yourself per Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard or c:Commons:Upload Wizard, and once you've uploaded the file you can simply replace the one currently used in the infobox with it. Make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why you made the edit and also that you're a PAID editor. Then, it might be a good idea to follow up with a post on the article's talk page just to further clarify. Changing the logo should be a non-contentious change per WP:COIADVICE; if, however, anyone reverts or otherwise challenges the change, then you should discuss things on the article's talk page.

If the new file is going to be licensed as non-free content, another option would be to go to the existing file's page at File:Sportsman Warehouse logo.jpg and click on "Upload a new version of this file" in the "File history" section; this is usually the recommended thing to do when you're essentially just upload a slight change to the existing file (e.g. resizing or straightening), but it's not really a good idea if the "new" version is completely different because the older the older version will be overwritten per WP:F5 and no longer will be able to be used.

If you're worried about trying to upload the file yourself (particularly if it's going to be a non-free file), you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Saoradh

How can I fix the links on Saoradh quite a few of them show in red "Cite web requires |website= (help)"?

Devokewater (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Devokewater. I don't see any citation errors in the current version of the article; so, perhaps you figured things out. For reference, the {{cite web}} template is specifically used for citing online sources, which mean a link to the source needs to be provided for the template to work properly. If no such link is provided, you'll see the error message referred to in your post. Some templates ({{cite book}} and {{cite news}} are two such examples) can be used without providing an online source because they are technically citing a published work, not a specific website, and published works are not required to be available online per WP:SAYWHERE. One last thing to remember when using "cite web", you also should use the parameter |access-date=, particularly when the |date= is not used, because it gives others some idea as to when the source was last checked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly

Devokewater (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I rewrite a whole page while saddled with a conflict of interest?

Hello,

I've edited and written/rewritten several Wikipedia pages before, but on the last one where I rewrote several sections of to make the page more neutral, Digital polymerase chain reaction, someone placed a template on the top warning readers that a major contributor to this article (me) has a COI. There's another page I want to make significant edits to (ATAC-seq) to clean it up, but I don't want the same warning to appear.

I know I can request that others make edits in the talk page. But what if I've drafted a rewrite of the entire page? How do I communicate all of the changes I want to make without rewriting the page myself?

Thank you, Cglife.bmarcus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cglife.bmarcus: Post your suggested changes/rewrite on the article's talk page for discussion with other editors. Perhaps also consider working on articles where you have no COI. RudolfRed (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Publishing article for future generations

I have always wanted to have an article about my music and life to be published on Wikipedia for the future generations. How do I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosariodemarcomardesar (talk • contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosariodemarcomardesar. The quick and easy answer is that you don't per WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. The more involved answer has to do with whether you would be someone considered to be Wikipedia notable for an article about you to be written. For more information on the whether you possibly are Wikipedia notable, take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Ownership of content because you will pretty much have no final editorial control over any Wikipedia article about you; in other words, you might end up being remembered, but not exactly for the things or the ways you want to be remembered.

As for the content you've added so far to your user page, you need to be aware of WP:UPYES and WP:UP#NOT. While users are allowed to add some personal information about themselves to their user pages, a user page is not really intended to be a personal website or online profile. Your's is currently heading in the direction (if not already there) or being a WP:FAKEARTICLE which means it's at risk of being deleted per speedy deletion criterion U5; so, you might want to make sure it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines before that happens. Now, if you truly think you're Wikipedia notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be written about you, you would be better off working on a draft for such an article as a userspace draft instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to add (underlined) comment about user pages due to an edit conflict encountered before the addition could be saved. -- 07:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)]

I will add that your User page is for descriptions of your intentions as a Wikipedia editor, not a draft of an article about you. David notMD (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How to improve my draft

Hello. Please let me know how to improve further my draft:Draft:Susumu Nishibe. I just provided additional sources to the draft. Thanks.Nishibe0121 (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nishibe0121. Your draft is currently awaiting another AfC review, and it appears some others have been helping clean up some things up. One thing I noticed is that the entire first paragraph of the "Life" section is not supported by any citations, which is not really a good thing. As for other ways to improve the draft, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography for some general suggestions, and Category:FA-Class Japan-related articles for some examples of other similar articles for possible ideas that might work well in the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thank you for your advice. I will refer to them and try to improve the draft.--Nishibe0121 (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the point of user pages?

If they're not like profiles on other websites, what are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambambo (talk • contribs) 09:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Precisely what WP:Userpage says they are. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Zambambo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. User pages are a place to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. Most users talk about what articles or subjects they are interested in, what they do on Wikipedia, and things like that. As you state, they are not general social media-type pages. As noted by Usedtobecool, WP:USERPAGE describes what is (and is not) acceptable user page content. Also understand that it is not required to have anything on your user page, many long time users do not have a user page, and others simply redirect it to their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How to not get your articles deleted on Wikipedia

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia world, in terms of contributing...so I wanted to ask how to put up reference links i.e. is there any quantifiable parameter to choose a link for reference or is it random? Second, I also want to know what part of content makes an article promotional because recently, one of my articles got deleted for being promotional, whereas other articles in the same genre are accepted and comfortably live. Kindly provide an easy and understandable list of parameters that one should keep in mind. I will be waiting for your response.

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashvat Vats (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

You can read about referencing, reliable sources, and promotion. As for comparison with other articles, please read WP:Other stuff exists. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources in music articles

Hi! I've been editing a draft for The APX band Draft:The_APX and it has been declined three times. Firts in November, as it was "too soon" and there were "no reliable sources about their international tour". The tour was postponed from 2018 to 2019 and once I added the sources for the tour in 2019 it was again declined, because "Allmusic.com, top40-charts.com and broadwayworld.com are not reliable sources". I wonder why they are bad sources as they've been used in hundreads (or thousands) of other music articles. In July I added a new source, Bandcamp.com, which has been mentioned in thousands of articles but the draft was declined again. There's now 17 sources, all external to the band and I'm asked to remove "all the unreliable sources before resubmitting it for a review". Should I do that? If I remove allmusic, top40, bww and bandcamp there will be 11 sources left. Any other ideas about how to improve the draft or explanations about why these sources are so bad? And yes, I'm a paid editor and open about it. The article was created by someone who was not open and he was being blocked (for ever) before he was able to confess. Jjanhone (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: - AllMusic is reliable, GSS is incorrect. The discussions on it can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (which is a good place to find other possible sources). BWW probably is unreliable, the reliable sources noticeboard has had a couple of short discussions on it. Top40 charts is unclear. I've removed the UDP tag as I felt that most of the content had now been handled by you, and if you were a non-paid editor it would be a legitimate removal.

Trying to find a non BWW source for the tour might be a good way of proving notability. If you manage that, feel free to ping me for a review - the same reviewer is generally discouraged from doing multiple consecutive reviews of a draft unless it either doesn't change or we're requested Nosebagbear (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Author

I have a predicament. If a person has this (©), in the author name, does this mean that I cannot publish that photo in wiki media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi BigRed606 and welcome to the Teahouse. If an image is copyright, then you cannot upload it to Commons. The copyright holder can release the copyright is they upload it. See WP:Images for more detail and the restrictive "fair use" restriction for uploading direct to Wikipedia. Dbfirs 13:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@BigRed606: I'm a bit unsure as to what you are referring to, but am I right in thinking you are looking at an image on a website outside of Wikipedia, and wanting to upload that image to Wikimedia? If so, then yes - the Copyright symbol indicates that except in a few limited cases it cannot be used on Wikipedia as we require all of our content to be free from any license restrictions. It's worth noting that even if content doesn't have a copyright symbol, it is still almost always copyright and therefore not usable on Wikipedia unless there is an explicit statement releasing it for public use. Hug^syrup 13:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you for answering my question. I did not want to brake any Wikipedia guidelines and brake copyright infringement. BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 September 2019

Another question, can you use Pinterest for a picture source as long as the author has the image free to use BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 4 September 2019

You can but bear in mind that, as I said above, free to use doesn't mean absence of a copyright symbol, it means the owner has actively placed a statement releasing it under a license that is acceptable to Wikipedia. In other words, if there is no indication of whether the image is copyright or not, then it is copyright. Also, I don't really use Pinterest so I might be wrong, but I understand that it is often a collection of images found elsewhere on the web, so you need to consider whether the owner of the pinboard where you find it is actually the owner of the image or not. Hug^syrup 15:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I edit existing Wikipedia pages?

I am looking to clarify how I edit existing Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trading Technologies Marketing (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trading Technologies Marketing: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To edit an article, you click "edit" at the top of the article. If you need more clarification, please ask- but first you will need to change your username, as usernames cannot be that of a business or organization per the username policy; please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS as soon as possible to make a request. In addition, if you intend to edit about your company or its clients, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies, the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trading Technologies Marketing: Welcome to Wikiepdia. After you resolve the username issue and create an individual account, there are a couple of useful resources to look at for learning how to edit. There is the Wikipedia Tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL and also the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. Please consider working on articles not related to your employer instead. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promoting your business. RudolfRed (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trading Technologies Marketing: fixing ping. RudolfRed (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do help pages with "... additional citations needed" marking?

There are pages I see that have the message on top of the page saying "This article needs additional citations". But when I put new citations in places where I think it might be needing the same marking on the top of the page still just stays there. Then why did I went on to put new citations? Are they not getting counted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absol069 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Absol069 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That message is not automatic; it is placed there by a human and would need to be removed by a human. If you have added appropriate citations and feel that there is enough of them in the article, you may remove the message yourself- but be prepared to justify your removal should others disagree. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I create articles as a new contributor?

There's an article I want to create with the page name Institution of Textile Engineers and Technologists. I seem to find no existing page for that or even nothing relating to the same thing. Now, how do I do it. Any beginners' level advice and help would be appreciated. Thanks. PaintItColourless (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@PaintItColourless: Welcome to Wikipedia. You can find the guidance at WP:YFA and there is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. Creating a new article is not an easy task for a new editor. I suggest you start by getting experience by working on improving existing articles instead. See the tutorial and also the interactive learning game at WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE. RudolfRed (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

RudolfRed, I'm concerned that this account is a block evasion, per edits here, for instance [2]. I've asked the administrator who blocked the previous account to have a look. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:F560:C171:2103:90BF (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Android Wikipedia app displays vandalized content that has already been reverted

For the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_United page, under

"| clubname = New Mexico United",

the following vandalism still appears on my Android Wikipedia App:

"New Mexico(best team ever) Go follow my boi @saxophone.harbus on Instagram United"

This has apparently been reverted by a bot, however when I try to edit the page on my phone, I am unable to locate the vandalism in the edit page. I've tried swiping down to reload the page, clearing my Wikipedia's App cache, and signing out then signing back into my app.

Does anyone else see this? How can it be fixed.

--Leveretth (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Leveretth: If you're sure it's not a cache issue, you might be better off posting at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@TimTempleton: Clearing my Wikipedia App cache didn't work, but restarting it did. Thank you! --Leveretth (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A (Probably Silly) Question About Vandalism

So, uh, yeah, this is probably a silly question to be asking, since the answer seems so obvious, but I was wondering...

...what are the ways you can tell someone has vandalized a page?

--FunnyComedianGuy (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Look at the differences. The most common vandalism is random characters, rude words, or an editor adding their own name or a friend's name. Usually vandalism is fairly obvious, but sometimes it can be quite subtle, and then one needs to do some research to check whether the edit is supported by a WP:Reliable source. Most vandalism is reverted within a few minutes, but I once found some that had been in an article for years. Dbfirs 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FunnyComedianGuy. You can find out more about this topic by reading the page at WP:VANDALISM. Some vandalism occurs when people try to insert humorous edits into serious articles and, inevitably, your username tempted me to look at your own edits. I'm pleased to say all were made in good faith, but I could take this chance to point out a few errors in your early days of editing:

• We never include links in section headings (as you've done at Draft:Manu Carreño)
• Drafts aren't yet live articles, and need to be either moved into what we call 'mainspace' or, better still, submitted for review. (see WP:DRAFTS). I've added a 'submit' button to that draft for you to click when you're ready. In the meantime, it would be good if you could improve the way references are displayed. I've enhanced the first reference for you, and you should try using the 'Cite web' button which you'll find in the editing toolbar. With just a url you can often autocomplete the majority of the reference. (See also Referencing for Beginners).
• There is a very structured and formal approach for submitting articles for Did You Know? on the Wikipedia homepage. Unfortunately it is far more than just adding a hyperlink to an unpublished draft, (as you did here). I'm afraid I had to remove your submission. However the essence of DYK is that, once a draft is published in mainspace, you have 7 days to complete a DYK submission template. This means you have to find an interesting 'hook' which will interest readers, which must be fully supported by a suitable reference. Every articles has to be properly structured according to our Manual of Style. I really encourage you to consider submitting a DYK as it's a great way for your efforts in creating a new article to be recognised. But I'll be frank: it's not an easy task by any means (it has quite necessarily complex instructions, I'm afraid), so I'd suggest you work on understanding the basics of editing first. In other words, you could wait to submit your draft artile until it's really ready and you've worked out how the DYK process works.
• If you think an article needs to have an alternative way of being found, we have a system called REDIRECTS which anyone can create in order to send someone to the right page. I see you created Draft:Robert MacDonnell in the vain hope it would redirect to Bob McDonnell. In fact, we already have the redirect called Robert McDonnell which serves this purpose. Drafts are never used for this purpose. Someone here can give you instructions on how to request an administrator to delete it, or you can simply leave it untouched and it'll get automatically deleted after 6 months, as all unedited drafts are. If you really feel Robert MacDonnell (with an extra 'a' is genuinely justified, a redirect could be created, but I'm not convinced it's really needed.

I hope this feedback is of some help to you. You might like to try out The Wikipedia Adventure to get a feel of the basics of editing. Come back and ask anything about editing, at anytime. The Teahouse never closes! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

moving ?? a talk section

I moved material from Tulsi_Gabbard#Political_positions to create Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard (leaving a summary in the latter). I have also started Talk:Political_positions_of_Tulsi_Gabbard#Armenia_and_Azerbaijan_§ to continue discussion of issues raised at Talk:Tulsi_Gabbard#The_Daily_Wire_&_the_Daily_Caller_on_Artsakh. Is there a mechanism to move/copy/?? that section from the 'Tulsi Gabbard' talk page to the 'Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard' page for ease of reference? Humanengr (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Humanengr. It's not always necessary to physically remove a discussion from one talk page to move/continue the same discussion on another talk page. Sometimes just letting others know that the discussion has been "moved" with templates such as Template:Moved discussion to and Template:Moved discussion from is sufficient. Generally, discussion threads/comments should only really be removed in their entirety when they're a serious policy or guidelines violation such as WP:TPG#Removing prohibited material, WP:TPG#Removing harmful posts or WP:TPG#Off-topic posts; moreover, for off-topic posts, "collapsing" is sometimes even preferred to outright removal.

Copying posts made by others on one talk page to another talk page can also be confusing because there is really no record of them making the post on the new talk page; it probably can be done if proper attribution is given; unlike in the case of article content, however, some people can get pretty upset when their posts are moved around like that particularly with respect to a difficult or contentious discussions (see all WP:REFACTOR#Concerns). So, it's better, in my opinion, to use wikilinks or diffs whenever possible if you want to refer to something someone posted on one talk page on a different talk page.

One last thing to remember is that moving a discussion to a new page is a WP:BOLD move that some others might not agree with, which is why it might be a good idea to at least try and see what others think before unilaterally making such a move. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I created my Wikipedia page,how do I upload my picture

I created my Wikipedia page and I want to post it so every could easily search me and read about me. And how can I upload my photo. I page name is PuneGreatness. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuneGreatness (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

PuneGreatness Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. So what you did was edit your user page, which is not article space. Because of that, it is not searchable by search engines. You seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not social media like Facebook for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where we are interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in your case, you would need to meet the definition of a notable musician written at WP:BAND in order to merit an article here. Not every musician merits an article here. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. As such, autobiographical articles are highly discouraged. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources have said about you. As you can imagine, this is very difficult for most people to do. The best thing for you to do is to allow others to take note of your music career and write about you. If you have any contributions you want to make to Wikipedia that are not about yourself, feel free.

Also note that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily desirable. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent source. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer or prevent others from editing it. Please keep this in mind. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@PuneGreatness: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! To upload a photo, you can use the File Upload Wizard. But, you need to note that:

• Your userpage is a place where you can tell other editors a little bit about yourself. Please read Wikipedia:User pages for more information.
• I highly doubt anyone would look you up. If you want, you can make an article with the Article wizard. However, if you were to do that, you would have a conflict of interest. See also: Wikipedia:Autobiography.

I hope this helps. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

PuneGreatness, you are welcome to write a little about yourself on your user page, but it must not look like an article. Please re-write it in "first person" (using "I"), not third person as in articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so cannot be used for promotion. Dbfirs 06:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Username

I am new member, just now. The username I chose was already in use so I entered a new username. I created my account. But....My account is using the first username they said was already used, not my second choice. What's going on, please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankdadbrown (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Frankdadbrown. That's weird! You didn't say what your preferred account name is, but the simple solution is to abandon this account, never use it again (ever), and simply go back and try again with your chosen name, and just use that account name from now on. (I've no idea if this is relevant, but just recently there have been situations on Wikipedia where I've found myself in edit conflict with myself - possibly due to some sort of server lag in which one tries a second time to do something that didn't appear to work the first time around, but which did actually go ahead. The second keypress then yields a "you can't do this as it's already been done by someone else" message. Maybe that's what's happened here.) But long story short: just try to create the new account name (with a different password) and you should be fine. Come back and let us know how you get on and one of us will drop a nice friendly welcome message full of useful links on your new userpage for you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Check on Submission

How can I confirm that my submission is being reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristobal J. Alex (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cristobal J. Alex. Unfortunately you have not submitted any article for review as yet. What you have done is to attempt to write an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY in your sandbox at User:Cristobal J. Alex/sandbox. Whilst this is a perfectly OK place to work on a draft article, editors are strongly advised not to try to write about themselves as they are the least likely people in the world to be able to write in a neutral manner about that topic, and they would need to base everything solely on Reliable Published Sources. There is much in your essay which is totally unsupported by citations that would allow them to be verified. You would need to address this, whilst at the same time reading Wikipedia:Notability (people) to understand the criteria used for accepting articles on people here. So my advice would be to address those issues before submitting the article for review. Or, better still, leave it for someone less conflicted to write about you. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :@Cristobal J. Alex: There are several issues here, but the first is that the article draft was already rejected. Draft:Cristóbal Joshua Alex. It appears you recreated a differently named version in your sandbox and resubmitted it. The second issue it that the article appears to be about yourself. Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves because such articles are almost always written from a biased perspective. Language like "During his tenure at the Latino Victory Project, Alex was one of the organization's leading spokespersons" and "Alex is a native of El Paso, Texas, and the proud son of immigrants." is often unsourced in addition to being non-encyclopedic. Please read WP:COI. It can be frustrating, but with a few more sources, and more encyclopedic writing, I think someone else could make an article about this that would be approved. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I only figured this out because I tried to move the sandbox article to draft namespace and it said there was already something there. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Good spot. It's important that User:Cristobal J. Alex realises he is not permitted to edit from two accounts at once, as he has been doing as User:Cristobal Joshua Alex, as well. This is likely to be an innocent mistake, but he should make a note of the connection on each userpage, and from now on only ever edit from ONE of these account, and abandon the other. Using both in the future could result in a block of both accounts if editing does not conform to this guidance on when multiple accounts are allowed. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not a he, but a she. I am not Cristobal J. Alex. I thought I had to create a username that was similar or the exact name of the Wikipedia submission name. Thank you for your feedback. I am completely new to the Wikipedia submission world.Cristobal J. Alex (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Maria Gonzalez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristobal J. Alex (talk • contribs) 20:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Citing video as reference

On the Template:Did you know nominations/B. M. Kutty an issue has been raised by the reviewer that a YouTube video can't be used as reference. My take is that if the video on YouTube is hosted by a reliable channel (The Print in this matter and authored by Shekhar Gupta, third highest civilian award-winning and a well known journalist from India) it can be very well cited as inline reference. Reviewer also believes that as DYK hooks appear on the Main Page so they should maintain highest standards which is sort of vague point as for me all the articles of Wikipedia must maintain highest standards of quality irrespective of where they appear. A source is either "reliable" or not. So the moot point here is whether a video from this particular channel can be cited as reference especially when it is authored by a well known journalist. I am new to Wikipedia so can't claim to understand all of its policies but no where I found that there is any ban on citing videos as references. Please share your thoughts on the matter.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Deepak G Goswami. I don't really think it is appropriate to bring that discussion to another forum. The place to discuss which sources are acceptable to the WP:DYK process is firstly (as has happened) at the specific DYK template you've linked to above. If you feel further input is required I'd either ping some of the active/experienced DYK editors to that discussion (see here), or raise it more generally at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. I sense that the other editor (Nsk92) is correct in their interpretation about the need for stricter sourcing for mainpage DYK articles, but it's not the best idea to shop around for different views as nothing we can say here will impact on the acceptability or otherwise of a DYK nomination. Good luck with it, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick for your insight. I am not trying to "bring" any discussion here. My bad if it seems like that. As I am new to the platform and don't understand its working environment so thought people here would help me understand whether or not a video can be cited as reference. If I had any intention to "bring the discussion" here or anywhere for that matter I'd have notified the reviewer. A user told me how I can ask for help on this page. It's not a matter of DYK but the reliability of using a video as reference in an article.--01:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak G Goswami (talk • contribs)

@Deepak G Goswami: my apologies if I misunderstood the reason behind your question. Ignoring DYK, no, there's nothing in policy to stop you citing a good Youtube video, providing it is from a reliable sources such as recognised news channels, and doesn't breach anyone's copyright. You would use Template:Cite AV media when citing videos. There is an essay (not a policy or guideline) called Wikipedia:Videos as references you might find helpful, and then there's WP:RSN to gain opinion from expert volunteers on the reliability of particular sources. I hope this is sufficiently supportive for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I add to references at bottom of page?

I am trying to add a couple references to the bottom of this page (# 26 & 27) I can't for the life of me figure this out!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_%22Miles%22_Standish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike 'n Miles (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mike 'n Miles. You do not add references to the bottom of the page. The wiki software does that automatically. Instead, you add the references in the body of the article, right after the sentence or sentences that the reference supports. Please read Referencing for beginners for a complete explanation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mike 'n Miles. Just want to point out that it's technically possible to add fully formatted references to the "References" section, and then have them link back to footnote markers in the body of the article as explained in Help:Shortened footnotes and Help:List-defined references; such a citation style, however, isn't really common practice and can be tricky to get to work correctly. In addition, when adding citations to the article, you should also try to stick with the citation style already established for the article (including the date format being used per WP:DATEUNIFY) and avoid switching to a another citation style without discussing things first on the article's talk page per WP:CITEVAR. If you think there's a good reason to change to another style, just explain why on the article's talk page and see what other editors think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Converting a Redirect into an Article Which has been Deleted

WP:RTOA says that I could edit a redirect if I think that it should be expanded into a new article. However, if the article has been deleted and turned into a redirect, is this still the case? Do I need to discuss it with the deleter?

The specific articles I am referring to, Flusha and KRIMZ, were nominated for deletion over 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxxl2 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lxxl2. Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages is only an essay, but you might find it helpful. When a particular article is deleted via AfC, it's because that particular version of the article was deemed unacceptable as a stand-alone article at that particular time. In the two years since their deletion, however, things might have changed quite a bit and these subjects which were once considered to be WP:TOOSOON, etc. might now have received the WP:SIGCOV to now justify stand-alone articles about them. I cannot see the older articles, but if you feel you can create "newer" versions which are substantially different and vast improvements over the deleted ones, then they shouldn't end up being deleted per WP:G4.

Maybe the best thing to do would be to work on drafts for each article and then ask the administrator(s) who deleted the articles to take a look at the drafts and assess them. If the drafts are a vast improvement, the administrator may just restore the deleted articles and let you simply add your improvements to them. If the deleted articles had too many problems to be worth restoring, then maybe the administrator will just move the drafts to the mainspace as new articles. While discussing things with the deleting admin first might seem to be a unnecessary hoop to jump through, it's probably a good idea as a courtesy and also to make sure any recreation you simply add directly to the mainspace is not going to end up quickly deleted for the same reasons as before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. I don't know why the original creator didn't argue, so hopefully I will be able to get the articles back.Lxxl (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue

In one of my recently created articles, I discovered that it was the same as a existing article. If I use speedy deletion what template do I use?BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 1:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Update, I found a template. BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 2:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirect for only a citation?

Is it customary to have a redirect whose target is the author of a reference in an article? Scott Baron redirects to Leslie Nielsen, and the only mention that I see of Scott Baron is as co-author of a reference (number 20 at the time I write this post). It just seems a bit obscure. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Teblick. I think that redirects are really only use when they lead to content about the subject in the target article. The fact that only mention of Baron in the Nielsen article is as an author of a cited work is not, in my opinion, really a good use of a redirect per WP:R#DELETE. Now, it might be possible that Baron might be able to be mentioned in some other article (just only requiring a tweaking of the redirect) or even be notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:NAUTHOR, but those are different questions to be asked. For reference, the editor who created the redirect is no longer active, but their user talk page seems to show that some other redirects they created ended up being deleted via WP:RFD; so, maybe this is just another one of that type that nobody noticed before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly. I appreciate the feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

question

I am a full Professor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. I am a clinical researcher in the area of transplantation. I received an email from an individual that he will write about me for Wikipedia. Is this legitimate. His name is Saad Akhtar. How to proceed. Would appreciate your input.

Dr Sundaram Hariharan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.186.124.169 (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@1.186.124.169: Hello. I cannot tell if Saad Akhtar is legitimate or not, but if this person is requesting anything from you in exchange for writing your article, I would advise you not to do it. William2001^(talk) 03:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Key for this query is whether Akhtar is offering to try to create a Wikipedia biography article about you in return for being paid. Paid is frowned upon but not forbidden. There is no guarantee that your accomplishments meet Wikipedia's criteria for academics. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Briefly, having a successful academic career is not enough. David notMD (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal

This Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Intelligence_Distinguished_Service_Medal I tried to add Herbert E Meyer. He was awarded the medal in 1986. Here is a speech CIA director Bill Casey made during the ceremony; https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00988R000100090011-1.pdf

Can you have a more computer savvy person edit the site for me?

Thank you!

 Done. @Flushingflash11: If you want to try editing Wikipedia, please leave a message on my talk page (just click the "talk" link near the end of this message), and I'll be more than happy to help you. William2001^(talk) 03:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with multiple names

I created a page for someone that shares a name with three other pages. The pages are all named correctly but when you search Wikipedia, it automatically directs to the main page and only mentions one alternate (the geologist - not the singer or field assistant). How do you go about changing that?

• Anne_Phillips
• Anne_Phillips (geologist)
• Anne_Phillips (singer)
• Anne_Phillips (field_assistant)

Actaudio (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Actaudio. To do this, you need to create a disambiguation page. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Actaudio: Anne Phillips (geologist) and Anne Phillips (field assistant) is the same person and the articles should be merged. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic with two or more other topics allows to still use a hatnote so I have added Anne Phillips (singer) to the existing hatnote.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing page content

Hello,

I wonder if you can help me?

I've edited a page: Northern_Education_Trust

I updated the list of academies to match the cited reference on the government's website but the content has been removed?

Can you help me with this?

Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tside90 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tside90: - Welcome to the Teahouse. When there is a disagreement about content, it is usually better to discuss that with the editors involved, or at the talk page of the article, first. In this case, the editor removing your edits left an edit summary explaining their reasoning. rm two statements not supported by references given. You may disagree with that, but that is for discussion on the article talk page to get consensus either way. To me, it does appear as if your source would support the insertion of one of the schools, but not the other two. However, you also made a significant change to the structure of the article, so it is not entirely surprising that was reverted. Either way, I don't have any background on the context of this article, which is why it is usually better to discuss it there, with the other editors who are regularly working on it. Hug^syrup 10:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Crurkpound Entertainment

How to be permanently active on this site? And I want to upload an infobox, but it says "something wrong". Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzimasi123 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mzimasi123: - Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you by any chance previously used the accounts user:Zaka xans and User:Zaka Weezy? If so, by 'how to be permanently active' are you perhaps wondering how to keep editing without being blocked again? Hug^syrup 10:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, what is your connection to Crurkpound? Hug^syrup 10:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

For info of other hosts, this user as well as User:Crurkpound are now blocked as sockpuppets. Hug^syrup 10:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

'Missing' Articles.

Hi all.

Something that is commonly encountered are apparently links to pages that should be fine but for whatever reason appear to be effectively deleted, leaving dead-links. An example would be the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexahedrite Where the link to a relatively well known Scientist Johann G. Neumann is highlighted in Red, indicating a dead-link. Many times I've felt inclined to correct these anomalies but in this case described above, is it possible that the page for Johann G. Neumann to be called something else - or exist somewhere else other than its correct linking? Could this mean that a page does not exist for Johann G. Neumann? He's the scientist who found lines at opposing angles on the surface of Meteorites when ground flat, which is one of the main identification processes for Meteorites. IE Neumann Lines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neumann_lines).

Thank's in anticipation.

John C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayc242 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress and it probably means that no-one has written an article for Neumann yet. If Neumann meets the notability guidlines then feel free to either request an article, or better still start to put one together yourself. Read WP:FIRST and start by gathering references explaining why Neumann is notable. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Further to the above, editors often deliberately wikilink a name that does not yet have an article, so that the link appears in red, to draw attention to the fact that an article would be desirable. Note that we do have an article Johann Georg Neumann, but it is about a theologian and church historian who lived 1661–1709, not the astronomer who lived 1813-1882. The composer Johann Gottlieb Naumann (1741-1801) may also cause some confusion. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.210.239 (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem with category name

On Category:Former municipalities in New York (state)

the subcategory Former cities in New York City is in the wrong place. Why? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe. It's sorted alphabetically under its initial letter "F". This is the default placement in categories. I guess you want it at the top like Category:Former towns in New York (state) and Category:Former villages in New York (state), not under a letter. Those category pages say [[Category:Former municipalities in New York (state)| ]]. The space after the pipe is a sort key. Pages with a space as sort key are placed first in the category and have no heading. Subcategories have the same sorting rules as other pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't figure out how to make Former cities in New York City appear first. deisenbe (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I told the exact code to use: [4]. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Write an article about yourself

How can that be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samridhhi Mandawat (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samridhhi Mandawat: - Generally, it shouldn't be done. We frown on people editing with a conflict of interest and especially on autobiographies. And the reality is that most people who come here wanting an article about themselves aren't notable enough to meet our standards. However, if you believe you are in fact notable, and have been written about widely in reliable sources, you can write an article and submit it for review by an experienced editor by following the process at WP:AFC. Be sure to make sure it is balanced, non-promotional, and has enough high quality reliable sources. Hug^syrup 12:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hug the only true way to write about yourself while staying in the Wikipedia guideline is to write about yourself on your talk page(talk.

BigRed606 (talk • 16:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No, BigRed606, your user talk page is for other users to communicate with you, not to write anything at all about yourself. You possibly meant your User page. Lest that advice confuse you, Samridhhi Mandawat: you are allowed to write something about yourself as a Wikipedia editor on your user page. You are not allowed to write anything there that looks like a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I organise lists of species?

What is the best way to both format/organise a list of species found in a geographical zone?

Eg, is the idea to organise the species into taxologic subgroups?

Is there a template for this anywhere? I've seen a lot of variation / inconsistency with this.

• List_of_species_on_Caroline_Island
• List_of_birds_of_Tasmania
• List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia

Specifically, I'm trying to improve this: Smooth_Island_(Tasmania)#Biota

I'd be very grateful for your constructive assistance.

Vitreology (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vitreology. Great question, and some good examples there of how lists unfortunately vary considerably in their structure and content. I am not aware of any dictat which states how species lists should be structured, though all need to be based upon properly published checklists, floras or faunas if they aren't to be simply a random selection of 'stuff people have found out' via a mishmash of incomplete sources.

I'm probably a bit biased, but speaking as someone who spent 18 years collecting nearly a million plant records in order to publish a definitive Flora of the English county I live in (see here), I would always want to put the likely information needs of users to the fore. As far as I am concerned, an online list potentially offers something far, far better and more useful to the reader than any printed book or checklist list, and that's by offering them the ability to sort listed information according to their individual needs. Assuming you want to create a really useful and complete list of an area (and not just a random selection of a handful of taxa, badly arranged but with a few pretty picture), then the best way is to give users the option to sort species along the following lines:

1. Sortable in Taxonomic order (this groups closely-related species together)
2. Sortable in Alphabetical order by scientific name (allows listing by universally recognised names)
3. Sortable in Alphabetical order by common name (pretty useless, as sorting occurs by the first word - e.g. "Common", and English names vary between regions and nations
4. Sortable by IUCN Conservation status, or local status (takes more work, but can be valuable if properly sourced)

This can only be done if the list of species is created within one single, sortable table, and not split into multiple tables of separate groups (birds, mammals, insects, plants etc, albeit full of nice pictures). However, it is quite reasonable to keep these groups in separate, sortable tables if the lists really are complete and each quite long. Now, it's clear that, unless that table includes a numerical global species identifier to permit taxonomic sorting (which I've never seen deployed here), then the original display arrangement of that sortable list should always be in taxonomic order. This then permits subsequent alpha-sorting by common or by scientific name. To return to original taxonomic order, one simply reloads the page.

If it's a long species list, I would do all the preparation work off-wiki, in Excel, and all in one go, based upon the relevant checklist(s). Whilst there, I'd add the wikilinking double brackets to scientific name and then convert my list into wiki format and test it in my sandbox, and tweak the wikilinks. There are tools available to do thos convertsions - just ask. If it's a long list, or a long main article, I'd put the 'List of..' table or tables into a separate page and link to it from that main article.

Of course, one can add extra confusion by discussing which particular taxonomic arrangement is best to use (preferred arrangements do vary over the decades, as you probably know), so I'd be tempted just to utilise whatever system(s) the various source checklists/floras/faunas you base the list upon use. If all else fails, use default display by scientific names because of their universality

Summing up, I quite like the look of the list at Smooth Island (Tasmania), though it needs wikilinking to scientific name, capitalisation of common names tidying up. The one big thing that don't like is the source of the data. This seems to be a crowd-sourced website (inaturalist) which, I would possibly ignore completely as wholly incomplete and equally unreliable unless it could be shown that some academic rigour had gone into the data collection and collation. If that is the only source of data available (and I would not conclude it to be anything approaching a 'survey' as such), I would ask myself what value adding such a random list serves to an article and whether I'd be wasting my time trying to follow the approach I outlined above. I would probably conclude that I'd be better off just simply adding the inaturalist source to the 'External links' section of the article!

Notwithstanding my last paragraph, I hope this reply is of some use or interest on the practicalities of making effective species lists. My impression is that my approach is in the minority here! But here's how I approached this problem in List of species and habitats of principal importance in England. In that particular instance I followed the arrangement used by the government body who prepared that formal selection, which forms part of our national biodiversity protection legislation. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Borderline Ethics???

Hey

I have studied a very nasty disaster and I created a Hypothesis based on evidence by others.

The hypothesis was proven the only potential explanation to the disaster at the last scientific conference about the disaster. The disaster in question is highly political potent and the hypothesis is unpleasant so the explanation has been handled by thundering silence.

My wikipedia contribution will be in parallel with a blog I write on the same issue. The authorities in question has been given one month to react on the draft blog. Similarly so for the academics involved proving the Hypothesis.

I can hardly expect anybody else to add to the article in question so I will have to do it myself. As my own contribution is minor I think this will be prudent. Do you agree???

I intend to use my real name, which is unique, rather than the nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoviceEngineer (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi NoviceEngineer - please do not make such a contribution to our articles, as it would contravene WP:No Original Research and/or WP:Synthesis - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@NoviceEngineer: - Just to explain a bit further, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal, and so it only accepts content that has already been covered extensively in reliable sources. It doesn't accept new/original research, or people drawing new conclusions based on existing sources. The type of thing you are proposing, which is to use Wikipedia as a place to host your own research and ideas, is absolutely contrary to our policies and your edits would be swiftly reverted. Sorry if this is disappointing, but you would be better of sticking to writing your blog, or trying to publish your ideas in a reputable journal. Hug^syrup 15:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Waiting list

About 12 hours ago I requested a speedy deletion for a page I recently created, because I discovered that it was about the same person as on another page. But 12 hours later the page still hasn’t been speedy deleted. I also noticed everyone else on the speedy deletion candidacy when I originally requested speedy deletion, had their Article speedy deleted. But not mine, even some articles that were requested 2 hours after my request have been speedy deleted. So what’s the hold up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@BigRed606: - deletions are done by volunteer administrators who do it in their own time, and they don't always work through pages in a strict order. There is no rush, someone will get to your page. However, it probably doesn't help that your deletion criteria are confusing. You have used WP:G6, which is for non-controversial maintenance, and have used a template that is intended for a page that is 'holding up a page move', but have not filled in what the page to be moved is. And then, the reason you have actually written is that it is a duplicate page, in which case the correct criteria is WP:A10. There's probably some debate to be had about whether your page is a 'plausible redirect' but the reviewing admin can make a decision on that. If they think it should be a redirect, they'll do that instead of deleting it. Hug^syrup 15:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Should I change the tag to the correct tag? I couldn’t find that exact tag last night so I just found the closes tag to the tag that you had suggested.

BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 September 2019

Yeah, probably best if you change it. Let me know if you have any difficulties and I can do it for you. Hug^syrup 16:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No need I did it. Thanks for the help. BigRed606 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 September 2019

Page's

Can a person create a page that is about a diary?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukhozi (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Depends. Is it your personal diary, or is it a famous diary like Anne Frank's? Wordswasted (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lukhozi. Like any other article in Wikipedia, it would have to be almost entirely based on places where people who have no connection with the diary or diarist have chosen to publish, at some length, about the diary. Not many diaries meet that criterion (Diary of Anne Frank and Diary of Samuel Pepys aside.

So the question is, where have several people published books or articles about this particular diary? If the answer is "nowhere", then we cannot have an article about it. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Lukhozi. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia only of 'notable things', it's fine to have pages like Diary of Anne Frank or Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Unfortunately, the type of diary-like stuff you've put on your talk page is not acceptable. It's far too personal and not relevant to Wikipedia at all. I would urge you to remove it all immediately please, and perhaps read this advice relevant to young editors. For what is ok for your talk page, you might wish to read this guidance. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

I’m completely new to editing Wikipedia can I have some tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachy2208 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Zachy2208. I think the best advice I can give a complete beginner is to start slowly, learning how to make small edits to begin with, then finding out how to add new factual statements (which absolutely have to be supported with a reference for each key fact). You might like to visit Help:Getting started and to try out The Wikipedia Adventure (which has 15 different badges you can earn as you learn the basics of editing). Don't be put off if another, more experienced editor drops by your talk page and tells you you've done something wrong - just listen to them and learn from the experience. We all make mistakes to begin with, and the Teahouse hosts are always here to assist you with editing problems. If you don't understand something, just ask. Best wishes for your own Wikipedia adventure. It can be life-changing! I'll pop by and leave a welcome message full of useful links to our help pages. These can be overwhelming at first, so take it slowly to begin with, and remember: one small edit for man; one giant encyclopaedia for mankind. (or womankind, of course!). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Need assistance to transclude to an new category User:Mac_Henni/Cat

Thank you in advance. The category is already there. Mac Henni (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what it is you are trying to do, but the basic way to transclude any page is to put the page name inside double curly brackets, so this {{user:Mac_Henni/Cat}} would produce Copy of User:Mac_Henni/Cat

Teahouse IS MAD AT A CAT BECAUSE IT WAS MAD AT Teahouse!

this. Why you would do that in a category is what I'm not getting. If you want to add categories to a page I would strongly suggest using WP:HOTCAT. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mac Henni: The source of User:Mac Henni/Cat says | usercategory Wikipedians who see, but do not necessarily own, pets. Are you trying to make uses of the userbox add the user to a category called Category:Wikipedians who see, but do not necessarily own, pets. There is currently no such category. If you want it created then it seems a long title with limited connection to the userbox. Userboxes don't have to add a category. The correct code is | usercategory = .... If you want others to use the userbox then I suggest picking a more descriptive name than User:Mac Henni/Cat, e.g. User:Mac Henni/Mad at cat. There are dozens of userboxes about cats. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Determining official Wikipedia editor role and authority of editors coming in commenting on a persons additions

I'm quite new at Wikipedia editing (1 month), and did a few additions to articles.

Various other editors have come in making changes, sometimes small like spelling or grammer, but sometimes large, "like this violates policy x, policy y, and policy z."

In certain cases, I see the violation, and have attempted to correct. And in certain cases, didn't find the assertion of violations expressed in an imperative or non-collegial way.

In other cases, a person comes in, and makes demands of removal (in a peremptory tone). Then, when I click on the person's name, I don't find sufficient detail on what the authority level of the person within the Wikipedia authority structure is, or the person's experience level, or anything about their education, or how much they are able to comprehend technical matters under discussion. This is problematic, and is causing a lot of wasted.

The issues are coming in over work on the articles Medicaid estate recovery and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and an editor, who appears to have some authority in the official Wikipedia structure has indicated deletions of what I wrote are coming.

That deletions are coming, if they are coming from the official legitimate hierarchy of editors at Wikipedia, or by whatever legitimate consensus, is not a problem for me. But for new creators of content experiencing similar issues, the authority structure really should be exposed.

So, my question is-->

How do we found out an editor's authority level, and any other information (like what their field of study is, experience duration) so we don't waste a lot of time? (And so you don't lose a lot of content creators. That is, you try to contribute, and all kinds of people with names that don't mean anything come at you with criticisms, sometimes imperative, and you have no idea if they have authority, or they're just someone pretending to be in charge.)

Note: This is no particular complaint about the one editor that the issue is coming up with for me. The editor seems attempting to be helpful throughout my interaction. I sent, today, an email through the system to the editor suggesting he add his authority level, and other relevant information, to his page, so that people will understand the authority to give imperative-sounding instructions.

In fact, if there is no place else to get that information, I might suggest each person giving imperatively-expressed instructions should be required by Wikipedia rules to post that information prominently on their page. NormSpier (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@NormSpier: Welcome to Wikipedia. We do not operate with ranks or levels of authority. Wikipedia is built by consensus between editors. If someone makes a change you don't agree with, discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD and WP:DR for details. RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@NormSpier: fixing ping. RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No authority? The person in question really sounds like they have the authority. Thus, I had thought they had authority. (I have addressed, already, the issues extensively on the talk pages for the articles involved, so we'll see what happens.) Thank you for the helpful response.

NormSpier (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier it is confusing to most new users, but authority on Wikipedia is bottom up. There are editors called administrators that have a set of tools to enable them to carry out the decisions of the community, but they only have limited authority to use them unilaterally. I would guess that the Affordable Care Act might be under discretionary sanctions for American politics, so on that article, administrators do have some unilateral authority.

Second, what an individual's qualifications are is irrelevant. It doesn't matter. We determine content by consensus formed from arguments based in reliable sources and informed by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. One's resume doesn't factor in. John from Idegon (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• to be perfectly clear, administrators have no authority over article content. Removing vandalism or whatever is one thing but when an admin is editing an article, they are just another user, and if they are editorially involved they should not be using their admin tools at all. (as an aside, there is a user script you can use that automatically shows you extra details when you look at someone's user or talk page, such as how long they've been ending and what user rights they have. More information is at User:PleaseStand/User info) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for additional information. Can you tell me (a) how to tell if the editor in question is an administrator? (I don't see it on the user's page.) How to tell definitively if a page is under "discretionary sanctions"? (ACA apparently is: I had to wait a week and do 100 edits before being allowed to edit it, and further, something pops up for me now about it when I start editing.) I assume the other article is not, since nothing pops up, but it might be nice to know how to know for sure.

(Right now, the status is it's just me debating the one editor. No one else has chimed in. Hopefully, other people who understand the topic will come in. The editor in question has sought people from working groups, but I don't know that they'll come in.)

John from IdegonThanks for "credentials don't factor in". That's actually how I conduct myself personally, as well, never disclosing credentials unless asked. In the case in question, I just have no idea whether the editor in question understands the details of the stuff the article is about. I have no idea that they do or don't. So, a degree in economics or health economics would reassure me that the editor at least understands the technical details. It's not necessary at all (I don't have economics degree--mine is math), but it's more like seeing such a resume would be more or less sufficient, and keep me from worrying if the editor understands the subject of the article.NormSpier (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the role of Wikipedia editors. What we do is accurately and neutrally summarize what reliable published sources say about a topic. No more and no less than that. An individual editor's level of education is irrelevant. Far more important is the editor's understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. High school students who understand this can be outstanding editors and those with PhDs who fail to understand how Wikipedia works can be very poor editors indeed. There are no "authority levels" among editors working on content. Everyone is equal as long as they comply with policies and guidelines. And everyone can issue warnings if an editor strays from policies and guidelines. No special authority is needed to issue warnings. Only administrators can delete or protect pages, or block other editors, but administrators have no special powers when it comes to determining content. I am an administrator and I have never seen a userpage of an administrator that did not say that the person was an administrator somewhere on that page. Sometimes the only mention is in the categories at the bottom of the page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier You might find this useful. It describes the permissions that different editors can have. Wikipedia:User access levels TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Editors can choose to indicate credentials on their User pages, but there is no requirement. David notMD (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Background: NormSpier has made more than 100 edits to the two articles in question, increasing length of one more than 10X. An editor put template tags at the top. There are already lengthy discussions (well monologues) on the relevant Talk pages. NormSpier's position is that only experts on a topic should be allowed to edit articles on that topic, or at a minimum, should be required to first declare their expertise. Wikipedia cautions against editors individually or in cadres acting as if they "own" articles. David notMD (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, David notMD. My position is most definitely not that only experts on a topic should be allowed to edit articles on that topic, and I regret any impression I have created that I feel otherwise. Rather, it's that people editing should restrain themselves, using self-knowledge, to what they can do effectively. I'm delighted when people point out defects, and fix things, and make things better. Each person hopefully will have a natural sense of what they can do well. In the case of the particular editor giving the imperative tone, from the one person alone (with no concurrence from any other editor that it needs to be done), I'm getting stuff like "we have to take this down", "the article will be really cut down", "this has to go". The grounds are "neutrality" and "original research", which I really don't see as existing, at this stage of the two articles. (There may, however, be subtle issues that have the article needing adjusting or removal of small parts, in my mind.) The qualifications stuff is that I'm feeling the editor in question is declaring everything original research because the editor is unfamiliar with the details of the ACA, perhaps not willing take the time to learn the details (which are in references and text in the two articles), and possibly (only possibly) may not have a good head for for understanding the content technically. My guess is the editor may be declaring the stuff "original research" by looking at superficial signs, not taking the time, and possibly (only possibly) lacking the skills, to do the job properly. This is where issues of qualifications are coming up. (Thus, I clicked on your page, and I see you have a Ph.D. in nutrition. I would tend to see that as something fairly (not perfectly) sufficient, but not necessary, to indicate that you wouldn't tend to overstep the bounds of what you can do effectively on the technically involved parts of a nutritional biochemistry article.) Let me state: most definitely, I do not believe credentials are necessary to edit an article. But I do believe each person needs to have a sense of what they can do correctly in reviewing articles. (Like you, I am not an MD. If a person is sufficiently sick, with more than like an obvious cold, I have the self-understanding to send them to someone who is an MD, and I won't try to cure them myself.)

(Also, I noted on your page you indicate you have a doctorate. I'm keeping mine, so far, off of my page, because of my own feeling that there should not be rank here at Wikipedia, or in general, except where really needed. (My page only indicates that I have a mathy background.) Anyway, I think you should keep the detail you have on your page. It helps in the job of doing a better article, when generally what happens is that all sorts of fully anonymous editors come by and make deep changes and deep comments. And nothing about what there role is, what their background is, what their interests are.

Otherwise, those interested, please note that the one article I expanded by a factor of 10x, Medicaid estate recovery, when I started to expand it, said "This article is just a stub. Please help and expand it ..." It was only maybe 6 lines at the start, and I did what it said.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NormSpier (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC) 

NormSpier (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

NormSpier, PhD or no, your last comment reads self-contradictory to me. At any rate, you have said enough in it that I would want to be pinged if it was about me. So, I am pinging @Newslinger: who seems to be who this is about (just as a courtesy notification). If you think the other editor doesn't get it, tell them so frankly, and seek a third opinion, go to dispute resolution or initiate a request for comment. Talking about a user's competence here, is inappropriate. If any user's incompetence is disrupting the building of this encyclopedia, there are appropriate fora to raise the issue, as competence is required, but the Teahouse is not it. Finally, if you would keep your comments succinct and to the point, it would help uninvolved editors to be able to easily catch up and participate. On a cursory glance, immediately after this post was initiated, I had actually been impressed by Newslinger's patience in reading and replying to your walls of text. But, if you are only complying not collaborating and they are unaware of it, you are wasting both your times. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Usedtobecool.

Hi again, NormSpier. I'm sorry if my writing style is "peremptory". I tend to state things as I see them (especially when interpreting policy), but I'm not asserting authority when I do so. To be absolutely clear, I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. In content disputes, all editors (including administrators) have equal voices and work together to determine article content through consensus. Arguments are still expected to be backed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and editors regularly refer to applicable rules during discussion. There is no editor hierarchy in content discussions, and factors such as an editor's education level are not considered on Wikipedia.

I apologize for the delay in responding to your comments, but the volume of your comments is high enough that I wouldn't have time to do anything else on Wikipedia if I attended only to your edits. Unfortunately, no editors responded to the invitations I sent to the WikiProjects listed at the top of Talk:Medicaid estate recovery. If you are no longer interested in the review plan I proposed in WP:NPOVN § Medicaid estate recovery and User:NormSpier, we can resolve this entire dispute with requests for comment (i.e. asking the entire Wikipedia community whether your content additions should remain in the articles). Please let me know (preferably in the NPOVN noticeboard discussion) if this works for you. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 19:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Newslinger, ask the whole community sounds fine. (Do note that are only two articles now under discussion, ACA and Medicaid estate recovery. I removed my content from the other 4, as discussed prior.) NormSpier (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

​Okay. I'll continue this conversation at the NPOVN noticeboard discussion to keep everything in one place. — Newslinger talk 19:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Finding articles that need editing

I'm a (relatively) new Wikipedian, and would love to help out some more - but I'm struggling to find articles to edit. Could anyone point me to a list of articles that just need cleaning up, grammatical fixes, etc? I don't have a lot of knowledge to contribute but would still love to help. Thanks in advance, MrConorAE ( user | talk | contribs) 23:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome MrConorAE. You can try to find those articles via the Typo team. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

MrConorAE, Let me also suggest that you visit Wikipedia:Community portal. You will find links to articles that need improvements grouped by type of correction needed. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the most efficient way to check which articles within a category have images?

I'm looking to check which pages within the category "Members of the New Zealand House of Representatives" have images, as I have the opportunity to take photos of some of these people where they are missing.

I don't want to manually trawl through over 1,400 pages. Is there a quicker way to filter this list?

Similarly, is there a way to filter for people who are both in the above category and are marked as Living People?

Thanks! HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: How about this search? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that looks close, but to clarify I'm looking for articles that don't have images, so I can try to photograph these people. Could the search string be reversed to do that? HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@HenryCrun15: OK. This one is a little better, also not catching articles with only |image= parms (I hope – the [:word:] class seems problematic, so this new search will include articles with |image= values that start with something other than [A-Za-z0-9_]). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic, this looks just what I was looking for! HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: Production music and trailer music

I'm a composer of production music as well as its subset trailer music. I would like to make a contribution in these areas but since I have or am pursuing business relationships with various production and trailer music libraries I want to avoid a conflict of interest. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

--Shenrichs (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shenrichs: See WP:COI and the other articles to which it links. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Accidental publishing

Help! I have accidentally published a page to a talk page, then tried to move it to an article page and now the talk page redirects to the article and I am not sure how to fix it! The article is titled Judy Kensley McKie. Thank you in advance for your help! Terasaface (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC) (Note: added section header, as it appears Terasaface forgot to do so - MrConorAE ( user | talk | contribs) 04:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC))

Hi Terasaface. Most mistakes made on Wikipedia can usually be easily corrected, but simply undoing edit and trying again. In this case, I just deleted the redirect from the article's talk page to the article, and replaced it with some WikiProject banners and other templates. Perhaps Cullen328 or 331dot (both are administrators who are quite active at the Teahouse) wouldn't mind taking a peek just to make sure I didn't make things worse.

I also did some minor cleaning up of the article, but you should try and add some more categories if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MrConorAE !! I quickly flew above my skill level and didn't want to make it worse. I will add more categories, thanks for that suggestion. Thank you for your help! Terasaface (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How to get barnstars

How can i get stylish barnstars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realyemabhi (talk • contribs) 04:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Realyemabhi. You can find out more about barnstars in WP:BARNSTAR, but basically it's something that another editor might decide to give to you to show their appreciation for an edit or series of edits that you've made; in other words, it's sort of like an unofficial way of thanking another editor for helping to improve Wikipedia. There are really no specific criteria that you need to meet in order to get one and getting one doesn't give you any special editing privileges, etc. The best thing to do would be to always try and make edits that show others that you're truly here to help improve Wikipedia; if you do that, someone will likely give you a barnstar someday. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Acquisition of Apollo Munich Health Insurance by HDFC Ergo

Apollo Munich Health Insurance company has been acquired by HDFC Ergo, then what is the solution for the Apollo Munich's wikipedia page. Should the Apollo Munich's page be deleted and hence create a new page for HDFC Ergo when the merger completely happens in future or we add a write up in Apollo munich's page and then redirect people to HDFC Ergo's page initially and then later merge the pages?

Shashanksinha93 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Shashanksinha93

References

Saving Drafts

Good Afternoon,

I was creating my first draft on Wikipedia. I have yet finished my draft, but I must work on other things now. I wish to save my draft, but I do not know how, and am worried I will lose my work. Can somebody tell me how to save a draft?

Thank you,

Yours sincerely, Sterling Saini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterling Saini (talk • contribs) 07:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Sterling Saini Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you click "Publish Changes"(just as you did to make your post here) this will save your draft. "Publish changes" is equivalent to "save changes"(and in fact used to say that) and does not mean that your draft is "published to the encyclopedia". 331dot (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Volunteers wanted for article on business process management firm

Dear Wikipedians, Yesterday I started an Article (my first with this account) about Axon Ivy, a Swiss based firm, that offers business process management software and various other tools. From the moment I started I wanted there to be full disclosure: I am a PR-Volunteer and took on the task to create an article about Axon Ivy and although I tried my very best to keep the article neutral and not ad-like. Then my client made some edits and the result was unquestionably "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Unfortunately I had no say in the matter. To me this project is not about pushing the firm or their product, but about describing a publicly traded company in general terms. I looked around on the Wikipedia and found a number of articles that seem to be cut from the same cloth. Some have issues like mine - but others, such as Accenture, Appian, Forrester seem to be alive and well. Finally, my question to you guys is, whether one or more of you would be interested in going over the article, and editing it according to the Wiki guidelines. I could provide information and you can decide whether and which parts to use and which to discard - or to do some research on your end. I'm looking forward to hearing back from you, best DKNEL — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKNEL (talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

DNKEL Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was sourced to almost nothing other than the company's own website, or press releases from the company. These are not independent reliable sources and unacceptable for establishing that this company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Primary sources can only be used in certain circumstances, and not to establish notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, but in what third parties say about it with significant coverage(not just brief mentions, press releases, etc.) Wikipedia is not for "describing a publicly traded company in general terms"; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state and is not for merely telling about something.

Please read Other Stuff Exists; other inappropriate articles potentially existing does not mean yours can exist too. Each article is judged on its own merits. At least one of the ones you cite, Accenture, seems well sourced with a cursory glance. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy info: Draft:Axon Ivy AG subjected to Speedy deletion, so it no longer exists in Wikipedia space. David notMD (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request at Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice

Hey guys. I posted an edit request at Talk:The Hague Institute for Global Justice seven days ago and no one has come around to fulfilling it yet (more recent requests have been continuously reviewed and/or fulfilled). Would someone kindly be able to take the time to review and implement my request? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 10:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi:. Welcome to the Teahouse. I had a look, and it feels like your question doesn't quite tell the full story, because the edit request you posted 7 days ago seems to have been the fifth attempt, and on the previous ones Spintendo and other users responded promptly. I don't think you can be entirely surprised if people don't rush to review your request if they've already declined it what looks like five times.

The latest request does look better to me, but you'll have to appreciate you are asking for a lot of changes, so it's going to take a fairly committed editor to take the time to go through each one, decide if they should be done, and implement them. It may well be that other requests have been simpler.

Someone from the teahouse might be happy to review the request, but otherwise there's not much we can do to help except advise you to be patient. There's rarely any rush to make changes to Wikipedia, and all backlog items do get actioned eventually. Hug^syrup 10:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

how to create a disambiguation page for my page

Hi team,

please let me know to create a disambiguation page for my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laksanmd (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Laksanmd: - a disambiguation page is created much the same as any other page, although there is some guidance you should read here about how to set it up. However, first, what is your page and what makes you think it requires a disambiguation page? Hug^syrup 11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laksanmd and welcome to the Teahouse. Disambiguation pages point to articles. They cannot point to user pages. Dbfirs 14:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Create new page for Chaz Ebert

What is the process in creating a page for Chaz Ebert, wife of Roger Ebert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyrinNew (talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@MyrinNew: - you would need to follow the process at WP:AFC to create a draft and then submit it for review. The first thing to do is make sure you can find enough sources to establish Chaz's notability - that means detailed coverage in reliable, independent journals, news sources or books. It's best to find those sources before starting to write the article, and using them to write it. That way, you will be certain a) that enough sources exist before you spend time on an article about someone who may not be notable and b) that all of the content in your article is from a reliable source. Hug^syrup 12:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I would add that she would not be notable merely for being married to Roger Ebert, as notability is not inherited. She would need to meet the definition of a notable person herself(she may, I don't know) 331dot (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Increasing diverse voices with a Wiki 101 approach: Editing should be accurate and unbiased but not difficult.

Thank you for replies - and... Just saw that this is message is part of "6 hidden categories"? What does that even mean? Why would they be hidden? I feel this scene has been created by fans of Dungeons and Dragons -

USER FRIENDLY - Increasing your editing pool requires the platform become more User Friendly. If the democratic process of this behemoth makes it challenging to modify - then create a representative governing board to move things along.

Make Wikipedia editing easier. Friendlier. All this open source product is made by.... analytical people who see yet cannot explain their logic.

You will not change the product output, unless you change the mode of input

Wikipedia can become the paradigm, or part of the paradigm, that erases geographic abstracts called "countries". Currently, you are a tribe of white men. I know you're trying to change it, but the culture, and the ancient restrictions - I'm looking at my screen as I might as well be in 1980 folks.

I'm not here just going to complain - I'm going to continue to work on figuring out how to EASILY enter data into this old beast. I'm committed to improve the information provided to this incredible global resource. I'm going to start a Wiki group, with your permission, when I move up near Yale.

As for non-English speaking editors - Google Translate will eventually make it possible for people all over the world to participate in Wiki - if you let them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityfolk (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

GOAL: To increase the number of women editors, diverse editors, and non English speaking editors by making Wiki editing accurate and unbiased but not difficult.

MY STRATEGY: Make the initial process a RESULTS BASED EXPERIENCE

BACKGROUND: In the two Wiki events I attended knowledgeable, friendly editors actively walked around and made sure we were comfortable and entering information correctly. Megs Wacha sat chair by chair in the MOMA library with me as I made my first entry at the Arts + Feminism event.

THE PROBLEM WITH AN EXAMPLE: However, there is an awkwardness due to the lack of process for Wiki editing. I'm sure that now that you're on the "inside" the repetition of the activity makes you think that it's pretty straight forward.

It is not.

For instance, I worked for several hours on an entry covering a multiple-day Women Composer's Music Festival, checking in with the numerous editors at the meeting, and, as there were about 100 entries of composers, performances, and pieces over this long festival, left it partially finished. When I tried to open it to add to it later on I discovered - it had been deleted by The Unknown Editor.

Luckily I had a business card of the attendee who'd given a brief 'how to' presentation, and she somehow brought it back to life.

MY KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND FOR WIKI EDITING: I was a librarian for six years, have numerous Microsoft IT certifications, have made websites, and am a writer by trade. To improve my skills I'm taking a Super Researcher mini-course at the CUNY Grad. School of Journalism. <<I'm saying-without-saying I'm not your "Where's the mouse?" "Do I right click?" kind of editor.>>

SOLUTION: 1) MAKE THE FIRST FEW EDITS EASY EDITS For beginner editors. This can't be a "pick what you choose," unless choices are culled so the subject isn't overwhelming and in threat of being deleted by The Unknown Editor. You don't toss a non-swimming adult into the deep end: you let them paddle about and let them touch bottom for a while first.

2) HAVE A CLEAR, EASY TO ACCOMPLISH PROCESS. Note: Even adding THIS entry into "Teahouse" (I don't even know if I'm in a room with editors - but I'm assuming I am - why not call it Editor's Room or something? Why make it arcane?), when I simply want to "Bold" something I see parenthesis: why the heck shouldn't I just see BOLD text? Where's the WYSIWYG in 2019? Why make it weird? I was around for UNIX, and we used abbreviated terms because character count and bytes were computer precious. That was thirty years ago.

2) INCORPORATE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SEARCH ALGORITHMS Algorithms exist that can perform searches. Why aren't they used? Can we collaborate with a large A.I. company to assist our work? I feel like I'm working with not a pen or pencil or computer, but with a stick in the dirt. Here's one such Search Engine: {down below, again, says to use ref ref so} ref https://lucene.apache.org/solr/features.html ref ~ I bet my bottom dollar that some company would LOVE to say they donated the A.I. Search Engine to Wiki.

I want to draw in more editors. We need to make this easier to use. Perhaps editors need to be involved in the AI vetting process.

I will continue to edit, but I'm hesitant to leap back in - especially after the deletion of all my work on my last edit job - that was overseen by an editor! Yikes. [I see below "Sign your posts on talk pages: Cityfolk (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC) " again why? - so Cityfolk (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC) CityFolk

@Cityfolk: - welcome to the Teahouse. Many of the ideas you have highlighted are issues that Wikipedia is well aware of, such as making editing easier, creating an inclusive and welcoming environment, and using technology to improve the encyclopedia. However, because Wikipedia is not run 'top-down' but 'bottom-up', with all decisions made by a huge and varied community, these changes are often slow to implement. When changes have been dictated 'top-down' in the past they often do not work and have to be removed. Either way, The Teahouse is a place to ask specific questions about editing, and I am not sure what your question is? Hug^syrup 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cityfolk, I understand some of your frustrations, having been involved with a small number of Women in Red Editathons myself. Firstly, we ask you to sign your talk post a) so we know who is saying what, and when, and b) because an editor is only only notified of a reply to their post if the recipient username is included and the editor posting the comment includes their signature within the post at the same time. See WP:PING for more details.

I agree with you about how demoralising it can be to have a new page immediately put up for deletion by someone else. That's why we encourage everyone to start either editing a topic in their sandbox or as a draft (via Articles for Creation). Only when it's ready need it be put into the main encyclopaedia (aka mainspace).

I also agree that it's incredibly valuable to collate and share the usernames of everyone attending an editathon for a number of reasons, not least of which is to be able to monitor editor involvement and to offer post-event support and guidance. (See my personal notes on this here). I think it is valuable to give every participant a printed handout to takeaway to offer them help after the event. I create a 2-sided A4 handout from this page: User:Nick Moyes/editathon/handout1. I'd be interested if you have any feedback or criticism to offer. You might like to see the self-help notes for organisers at Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon and make any comments on its talk page, if you wish.

To make general editing easier, and less like html, the guys at Wikimedia Foundation created Visual Editor. Have you tried it? But even here at the Teahouse (a safe, friendly name, rather than an arcane one, in my view) the basic wikisource editor still has easy button for things like bold and italics. Highlight the text and click the 'B' button. Yes, you'll see the markup code inserted, but this isn't a bad thing as it introduces new editors to the basic and most powerful form of editing here. Most experienced editors find the lack of control in Visual Editor too limiting. For those simply wanting to edit an article, and not go off into talk pages and the like, they do indeed get a WISYWYG experience with VE.

Finally, I can't comment on A.I., though the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) do have teams of developers working on free tools for everyone to use and wouldn't be able to tie themselves in to corporate deals with software that's controlled by another body. Whilst complicated searching is possible here, I admit that I find doing more than the basic searches quite challenging. Sometimes I resort to using Google to find stuff, even when I know the page I'm looking for is actually here within Wikipedia. I really appreciate your comments you've made today. We do have a formal venue for making specific suggestions on how things work, and that can be found at Village Pump, or Village Pump (technical). regards Nick Moyes (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a couple of points. "non English speaking editors" – this would be a problem since this is the English language Wiki. If you want to include non English speakers you should encourage them to work on their onw language Wikis. Next, where in the world is "CUNY Grad. School of Journalism" or the "MOMA library"? This is an international encyclopaedia and you cannot expect readers to be aware of locally or even nationally important institutions that may be half a world away. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Help with WP tools

Hi all. Perhaps someone can help me out. 2-3 months ago, several of the tools I use in my gnomish activities stopped working. It has to do with signing in to WP on that tool, and the OATH script. I keep getting the message: "There was a script error --> --> A problem occurred in a Python script. /home/dispenser/public_html/cgi-bin/tracebacks/connect_OAuthException_120_SjBvb1.html contains the description of this error." Anyone know I can fix this? Thanks in advance.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Sorry you're having trouble. Try asking at WP:VPT, that's where technical issues get discussed. RudolfRed (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed - will do that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding an article for a book already published on online stores

Hi,

I have published a book and it is already available on online stores. I like to add the article for my book on Wikipedia with whole information and references of stores. Can I add article for my book. Which editor should I use for the same.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasbeersingh05 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jasbeersingh05 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, so has articles only on topics that have already been written about in WP:Reliable sources. It might be WP:Too soon for an article on your book unless you can find reviews that have already been published independently. Dbfirs 12:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jasbeersingh05: - Welcome to the Teahouse. First off, we strongly advise against editing in subject where you have a conflict of interest, such as adding an article about a book you wrote. If you wish to do this, you should first read out policy on COI editing. As for the book, we have criteria here for whether a book should have its own article: WP:NBOOK. If you have a quick look at the list of five requirements in the box at the top, would you say that your book meets one or more of these? If so, you could start creating an article via the WP:AFC process. If not, then your book probably isn't ready for an article. Hug^syrup 12:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi (edit conflict)@Dbfirs: and (edit conflict)@Hugsyrup:, Can you please let me know who is authorized to write for my book and bibliography for me as an author. It is required as an author to be authentic. Can you help me with this, so that I can proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasbeersingh05 (talk • contribs)

@Jasbeersingh05:. Any editor without a conflict of interest can write about your book if they a) want to, and b) believe it is notable. I'm afraid I can't say whether anyone will meet both of those conditions! Did you look at WP:NBOOK as I suggested and, if so, which of the five criteria do you believe your book meets? Hug^syrup 13:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jasbeersingh05, if you can point us to the WP:Reliable sources that have published reviews of your book, then I'm sure someone will make a start for you, or you can use WP:Requested articles. Unfortunately, self-published books tend not to get independent reviews unless they are exceptional, and the publication was very recent, so perhaps wait and see? Dbfirs 14:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs:, Can reliable reviews be from goodreads, Review from an famous author already on wikipedia about my book on social media, amazon reviews etc.

@Hugsyrup:, What does the review mean here in this point :

This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews

@Jasbeersingh05: reviews means critical appraisals. It would need to be published in a reliable source. Self-published sources such as goodreads, social media and Amazon are not considered reliable sources. A review in a well-known newspaper would be more suitable. By the way, you don't need to put {{ec}} every time you reply - that is specifically for when there is an edit conflict. Also, you should sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after them. Hug^syrup 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup:, Will the review on a news channel Indiablooms help

https://www.indiablooms.com/life-details/LIT/4605/book-review-jasbeer-singh-s-poetic-thoughts-on-the-emotions-of-life.html Jasbeersingh05 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jasbeersingh05: - It seems to be an independent news site (which is good) although I've never heard of it before which might be because it's not well-known, or may just be my ignorance of Indian news sources. In addition, the review is very brief and cursory, so that's a negative point. In my view, it wouldn't be nearly good enough on its own, but if it was in conjunction with some other good sources, this would potentially help establish notability. Other editors who have more insight into whether India Blooms is reliable or not might be able to add more info. Hug^syrup 15:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Jasbeersingh05, please stop trying to use Wikipedia to publicise your book, which is plainly what you are doing. Promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. Once several people, unconnected with you or your publisher, have independently chosen to publish some substantial material about your book, and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, then an article can be written, based almost entirely on what those independent writers have said about the book. Until then, even if you manage to collect several brief reviews, they will not contain enough information to write an article from. Once there is such an article, it will not belong to you, and you will have no control over its content. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that both Notion Press ("India's Fastest Growing Self-publishing company"), who less than a month ago published the paperback available on Amazon for Rs. 120 (~ US$1.69) and Xpress Publishing, the publisher shown on the picture of the back cover in the India Blooms review, appear to be vanity press outfits. My understanding is that this can make establishing notability difficult. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Hi there. I'm just wondering if the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper is a reliable source to prove the notability of a topic? If so, I'm assuming three SMH articles about the topic is enough to prove notability? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaMc81 (talk • contribs)

RebeccaMc81: they might be, if they are independent of the subject (not based on interviews or press releases) and have in-depth discussion of the subject. Maproom (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Maproom: Thank you. Much appreciated. I definitely have one that is based on a press release, so I will cut that one from the list. What about if the not-for-profit company (which wants a Wiki page) releases a research report and then the SMH writes an article mentioning the release and discussing what the report means? I'm guessing this would be acceptable as a reliable source for notability purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaMc81 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, RebeccaMc81: that sounds as if it might be a valid source. Please note that Wikipedia has no interest in whether or not the company wants a Wiki page; and that if somebody writes a Wikipedia article about the company, it will not belong to the company, and the company and its associates will have no control whatever over the content of the article (though they will be welcome to make suggestions). --ColinFine (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Need independent editors to share views

Hi,

I am a connected contributor working on the page of Lori Greiner. I have made all declarations and am suggesting changes via talk page. There are certain tags on the page assigned by editor - Ronz. I have worked on the page to address those issues including completing citations with clear citation style and providing reliable references. I want independent editors to please check the page, talk page and help me remove those tags. Thanking in advance.

FamJoshua1 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@FamJoshua1: I went through and made some changes to the article, and removed the hatnotes. Since you are a connected contributor, please continue to request future edits on the talk page for future edits, or the article will be hatnoted again for COI editing. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE NEW VOCABULARY, DEFINITIONS TO UNKNOWN WORDS, LITERATURE.

Good Day Every One,

Topic: I WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE NEW VOCABULARY, GLOSSARY, DEFINITIONS TO UNKNOWN WORDS, LITERATURE, GRAMMAR ETIQUETTE.

Perhaps continuously add lost grammar of the highest caliber to continuously feed our brains, I am not new to Wikipedia, I have been a Fan, reader, follower, and donation support for over a decade.

Since i am, new to creating any post, I would like to ask if this is Kosher with Wikipedia Rules, and the community.

I intent to deliver quality Wiki's with relevant, and truthful content, which does entail time and effort as all the pros know.

Essentially contribute to what Wikipedia has been accomplishing, I wanted to respectfully ask for word, grammar, etc, etc.

Q: I would like to essentially ask before i start, so there is no time or effort wasted on a misunderstanding of technicalities.

Thank you for reading,

Ken --KenMastersLee (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers and thanks for your interest in editing Wikipedia, though I'm afraid it might not be your "cup of tea". Wikipedia presents and summarizes, in accessible, neutral language what has already been written about in reliable sources that must be properly cited. While there is some room for some creativity in writing, it is a lot more like technical writing. An editor's opinions, knowledge, synthesis of sources, etc., should not come into play per WP:OR. You should also have a look at WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is and is not. Note that, if you're focused on words in particular, Wiktionary might be more appropriate. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@KenMastersLee: I've left a welcome message with a more complete set of links to information about Wikipedia and editing on your talk page here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi AlanM1,

Thank you for the Reply, and Helpful directions, I am making note of everything, As well as checking the Wiktionary, this makes absolute sense. Again thanks for the Help, Good thing i double checked before creating, and posting on the wrong place.

If you have a moment, I wanted to know am i using the Reply or talk correctly by replying this way ( modifying post ) I would like to make sure i am seeing everything correctly, certainly would be funny to view a forum or html as an app.

I clicked the link with your name, and well as talk link, one lead me to your page, awesome by the way, and the talk button lead me else where.

Hence, responding through article modifications. Making sure i get it right, well anyhow, see you around, thanks again.

KenMastersLee (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi KenMastersLee. You would be very welcome over at WikipediaWiktionary, but most words are already there. Any new words need at least three citations spanning at least a year and more than one author. There are lots of definitions there that need improving, but it takes a while to learn the format, so don't be discouraged if some edits get reverted. Dbfirs 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I presume that Dbfirs meant to write "very welcome over at Wiktionary". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I meant to write. Now corrected. Dbfirs 19:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs:

Thank you very much for the Clear and Concise directions, as well as the warm welcome to a Subject such as vocabulary.

I'll certainly remember your considerate heads up in regards to the format, and especially your advice in encouragement.

Live, and Learn Right, no losing in a win, win.

Thanks again @Dbfirs: KenMastersLee (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@KenMastersLee: You got it – on "Talk pages" (those that have the word "Talk" or "talk" before a colon in the title), you continue a conversation by editing the section it's in and adding to the end of it, just like you did. If you start it with {{Ping|username}} (as I've done here), the user will be notified.

Note that it's common to insert increasing numbers of colons in front of responses to break them up, as has been done here (this one has four colons in front, the next should have five, etc., cycling back to none when it gets to be too far to the right to be useful. If you have multiple paragraphs in your posting, each new paragraph should have the (same number of) colons to indent it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. There are a few pages without "Talk:" in the title that are nevertheless "talk pages" also, like this page itself (Wikipedia:Teahouse). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Alanm1: Behold ! the power of @Username:

Hi AlanM1, Thanks again for all the pointers, This is becoming a very interesting journey back to the basics of it all. Perhaps, Remembering Dialup and knowg Wikipedia and our conversations would still load, is pleasant in itself.

Thanks Again. KenMastersLee (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Replacing an image

I would like to replace an image on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Perry. Rev. Troy Perry does not like the photo of him under "Activism" and wants to replace it with a photo he provided. How can I verify that it is an image he has provided with his caption? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnboswell (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnboswell: He will need to release the photo under a license that allows for reuse for any purpose. If he is willing to do that, then see WP:DONATEIMAGE for the process. Also, photos for articles are based on consensus of editors, so you won't have any control over if that image is chosen for the article or not. RudolfRed (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Writing a Company Wikipedia Page

Hi, I really need help with creating a company Wikipedia page. The company is notable, and has an abundance of credible sources that have written about it since its inception in the mid 1990's. Is there an editor that I would be able to work with to go through the process of creating the company's Wikipedia page? I also need to disclose that I work for the company, and have been asked to create this page. My proposed draft will be as neutral as possible and provide credible sources. Please let me know how I can move forward with this process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holly0312 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Holly0312: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for being open about your circumstances. You will need to make some formal declarations, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on how to do that. That said, I would advise you to be very careful in how you proceed. Wikipedia articles(not just "page") summarize what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(more specifically, that of a notable company). Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, on in enhancing search results for the company(a common reason that companies want "Wikipedia pages"); we're all here to add to this collection of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity as a whole. In order for you to be successful in writing even a draft about your company, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. Please understand that independent sources does not include press releases, routine business announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources. Most people in your position cannot write in such a manner. However, if you feel that you can, you should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial first; you may then create a draft using Articles for Creation. Alternatively, you can make a request at Requested Articles that someone else write an article, though that process is severely backlogged. Feel free to show this message to your superiors.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; anything about your company, good or bad, can go in article as long as it appears in an independent source. Your company cannot exclusively dictate what appears there, lock it to the text it might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Holly0312. The first thing I think you'll need to realize is that Wikipedia articles are not written for subjects, but rather about subjects. This might seem to be a trivial distinction to make, but when someone wants to create an Wikipedia article for a subject, they may mistakenly assuming that the subject will have some sort of editorial control over the article or just like they do over their official website. Moreover, when a company requests/instructs/pays someone to create a Wikipedia article for them, the company may be under the impression that the article will be just another part of its online presence that it will be able to use as it pleases. Neither of these things are true per Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; so, it's important that not only you realize this, but that also the company realizes this.

The next thing you'll need to do is carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it does highly discourage and expects such editors to comply with the guidelines the Wikipedia Community has established over the years to help such editors avoid problems. Although following these guidelines isn't mandatory, the community for the most part treats them as such and is going to expect you adhere to them. There's much less room to maneuver, however, when it comes to a financial conflict-of-interest, which you almost certainly would be considered to have. Editors being paid or otherwise compensated to edit or create content on Wikipedia are required to formally declare their relationship to whomever's paying them to edit this content per the Wikimedia Foundtation's Terms of Use and a failure to do so can lead to the account being blocked.

Finally, whether this company should have an article written about depends on whether it meets the guidelines given in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If it can be shown to have received the "significant coverage" in multiple independent reliable sources as explained in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, then an article can probably be written; if not, then an article shouldn't be written. If you feel it does, are willing to comply with the conflict-of-interest/paid-contribution guidelines and policies, and want to create the article yourself, then you can start by creating a draft. When you think the draft is ready to go, you can submit the draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. Another option would be for you to request that another editor (i.e. someone without a conflict of interest) create the article by asking for help at Wikipedia:Requested articles; if the article is as Wikipedia notable as you seem to think it is, perhaps someone else will decide to do it. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies to see if a member of that Wikipedia project would be willing to help. Creating a Wikipedia article is technically a fairly simple thing to do, but creating a Wikipedia article which is not going to end up deleted is quite hard. It's not impossible for an new editor or even a paid editor to do, but those things do make it just that much harder. You can find suggestions on how to write/format an article in Wikipedia:Your first article, but paid editing is viewed quite suspiciously by many members of the community and many are simply not interested in helping someone else be compensated for doing something that can/should be really be done for free; in other words, some people like to help others do their homework and others simply will not under any circumstances. So, the best thing for the company might be to try and let someone else to write a Wikipedia article about it even though that might not necessarily be the best thing for you. In the end though what matters is really what's best for Wikipedia, not the company, not you and not any other editor. So, if you can show that having an article about the company makes Wikipedia "better", one will likely be written by someone. It might not be written today or tomorrow, but eventually someone will likely write one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How can i contact someone who edited my edit?

Hello, someone called Diannaa removed an edit I put into

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

citing that I violated copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:119.224.2.210&diff=cur

As I did not save that edit to my harddrive I now have no history of it.

How can I contact Diannaa in order to retrieve that edit?

I've tried every which way, without success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.2.210 (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations are removed from all the Wikipedia history, because they would still be violations if they remained there. Your best option is to retrieve what you copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20110603071351/http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/plus/eriosom.html, http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/moth-green-garden-looper-moth-chrysodeixis-eriosoma.html and copy it to your hard drive. You can contact Diannaa at her user Talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@119.224.2.210: You can go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chrysodeixis_eriosoma&diff=909055083&oldid=900913708Oldperson (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @119.224.2.210: Diannaa, an experienced administrator/sysop with 10 years and 260,000+ edits saw your edit, and deleted it with the edit summary: remove copyright content copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20110603071351/http://lepidoptera.butterflyhouse.com.au/plus/eriosom.html, http://www.terrain.net.nz/friends-of-te-henui-group/moths/moth-green-garden-looper-moth-chrysodeixis-eriosoma.html. She then left a long message on your talk page at User talk:119.224.2.210#Wikipedia and copyright, explaining the problem in great detail. Basically, your edit was to insert text that was copied (or very closely paraphrased) from the pages she cited. You can contact her either by editing that section on your talk page, beginning it with {{Ping|Diannaa}} (preferred), or leaving her a message as a new section on her talk page at User talk:Diannaa. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

how to upload a scanned photo of my grand father in wikipedia

hello I am trying to add the name of my grand father Manuel Joseph in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Pier under Architecture, Since he was the chief engineer on this project. But i am unable to upload his image because it says it is a scanned image. What can i do?

ajeet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeet071084 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ajeet071084, before even contemplating doing that for that purpose, there would need to be a reliably cited statement in that Wikipedia article that Manuel Joseph was the chief engineer. Right now there is nothing of that sort, and I am unable to find anything via a Google search. We can't just go on your hearsay; in addition, photographs of the architects or engineers involved are rarely included in Wikipedia articles on structures. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeet071084 (talk • contribs)

Ajeet071084, do not add your claim into the article without adding a confirming reliable-source citation. You just did that [5] and I have reverted you. If you cannot find a reliable independent citation which explicitly confirms the information, do not add it to a Wikipedia article. Also, please do not remove discussions, even if you opened the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Names Database

For research purposes, is there a way to extract a list of names & surnames of famous people from Wikipedia? I'm guessing it will have the most comprehensive list.

Name Surname Country Known For (Actor/Politician/Artist/Scientist etc) Pronunciation of the name (IPA & sound clip file)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarkBiltong (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Question about Infobox recurring event

Hi Tea friends!

I'd like to ask about infoboxes applying to certain pages. The R U OK? page is about an organisation in Australia that facilitates the R U OK? Day [sic]. While the page is about the brand, the content is largely about the actual day, as that is their actual headlining campaign.

My two-pronged query is that, could "Infobox recurring event" apply to an organisational page? And if not, is there a precedent for page move proposals for event-based organisations? (to move R U OK? organisational page to R U OK?Day event page).

Sorry about this being a bit messy, and thank you for your time and advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Page?

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Wikipedia Page? They would seem to be very important to ensuring that even our sources are accurate. On many occasions I have been in very important meetings with Heads of State, but only to see a completely different statement or action reported by “trusted sources.” There has got to be another way to help famous people or worthy people do their own pages and then we validate those pages. I think our audience would appreciate it coming directly from the source or the horses mouth. I am sure many people do their own with a unique user name....Just asking...

Why can’t the real person be apart of developing there own Wikipedia Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth Country33 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Earth Country33 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. For the answer to your question, you may want to read about conflict of interest and the autobiography policy. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, and has no interest in what the subject wants to say about themselves. In addition, people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. That said, the subject is welcome to make suggestions as edit requests on the article talk page. If there is incorrect information, we want to know what it is, whether it is from the subject or not. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What you are talking about are personal homepages. Anyone is free to create a web site that contains just what they want people to know. However, since people usually have a tendency to exaggerate their virtues and hide their flaws, just believing them is not a valid strategy to write a neutral encyclopedia. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Real people often have their own websites, and sometimes Wikipedia takes information from there, but it is not regarded as a WP:Reliable source because some real people put there what they would like to be true. The real person has a WP:Conflict of interest if they edit Wikipedia, and we prefer that they point out any errors on the talk page of the article. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on independent sources, not what the subject would like to say about themselves. Dbfirs 11:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

OK...Understood...Thank you.

Athlete info page

How can I create a professional athlete information page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victrixmortali (talk • contribs)

@Victrixmortali: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "information pages", it has articles that are not for merely providing information. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state with significant coverage about articles subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. In the case of athletes, many sports have their own notability criteria for athletes of that sport to merit articles. For example, American football players must meet the guidelines written at this link to merit an article(having appeared in a regular season game). The page WP:NSPORT lists the criteria for many sports' athletes.

Keep in mind that successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. You will be much more successful if you spend time editing existing articles, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in articles. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. If you still want to write a new article, I would suggest reading Your First Article, the notability criteria for the relevant sport(as I note above), and then using Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review, so you get feedback on it before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I know one athlete who Is Asian youth champion. Could anyone create a page on him? It would be a great help if someone does as I'm new to this and not aware about the template and stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victrixmortali (talk • contribs) 12:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Victrixmortali Please put follow up questions in the same section, instead of creating a new section. (click 'edit' in the section header). You can request that an article (not just "page") be created at Requested Articles, but the backlog there is severe, and it may not get done quickly, if at all. As there are no deadlines for Wikipedia, you are welcome to take as much time as you need to learn about using Wikipedia and practice editing so you can create such an article yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Lost In History Because of No Internet

What about events witnessed by many people prior to the internet? Events that took placed before the camera phone and YouTube and no reporting or records from magazines or newspapers. I am not talking about UFO sitings...Take for example Vince Carter is a great athlete that goes down in history as the first athlete to jump over someone’s head during a basketball game, but 20 years earlier 2,000 people in a stadium firsthand witness another athlete do that but there was no recording or no one wrote about it. Wiki seems like the perfect platform to address lost history. Can i recommend we do something about that or form a team that has a section that deals with that. We can even refer to it as LOST HISTORY. This helps our users understand that its without written recorded sources...I promise this is my last question. :)

What can we do about lost history?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Earth Country33 (talk • contribs)

Earth Country33 Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, as noted in your prior question. We can't write about things for which there are no sources that discuss them in depth(though how would you know about something that occurred 2000 years ago if it was not written down?). What you want to do would not be possible on Wikipedia for this reason. There are places where such a thing would be permitted, such as a personal website where you control what appears there. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

81.200.82.123

Hi. The IP address 81.200.82.123 has been making unconstuctive edits lately. Is there any way to stop that? Thanks! Ȝeſtikl (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. If they have vandalized past the 4th warning, you can report them at Wikipedia:AIV. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 12:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Basically needs a mass revert. Need to find someone that can do that. Like MarnetteD or an administrator like Drmies. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

I’ve created a draft redirect, and I want it to be a redirect that is not a draft. How can I move it? I’ve followed the instructions on W:Redirects, but I can’t move it like it says on W:MOV. Can you help me with this? Presidential Vault (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Presidential Vault. You only joined one day ago. You need to be autoconfirmed to move pages. A user becomes autoconfirmed when they have made 10 edits and been around for 4 days.LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 14:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

My edits are deleted

Hi, on 7th of september I created 2 pages, that were "Konjuksioni" , "Disjuksioni" , and I edited a page named "Negacioni" , at 13.00pm - 18: and when I logged in at 21:30pm all my activities from today are not showing, can you help me?

Sincerely, Donat Balaj from Tech Media Online.