Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mcstove (talk | contribs) at 13:23, 25 January 2019 (→User making arbitrary changes to get to 500 edits: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.




This is the teahouse
Welcome to the Teahouse...                        
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.
Shortcuts

Finnusertop, a Teahouse 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.

New entries

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

Hello, Fritz Jörn. Almost all Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, and very occasionally parts of it change, as people make proposals and persuade enough other editors that the consensus changes. You are welcome to try to change this policy: the place to propose it is at WP:VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Colin, for your suggestion. The rejects I got naturally came from one person, with a lengthy standard statement. Naturally disappointed I will try no further: I know what a Womanizer is, having researched elesewehere; if the useres of Wikipedia want to know too, is now less important to me, I’m afraid. And to change a well accepted and proven Wikipedia policy I would not want. I argue for sensitivity and common sense with new subjects that may not have "significant coverage". –~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz Jörn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fritz Jörn. I have read your draft and did a quick research. I think it would have helped if you first developed the article further, outlining its distinction to a vibrator. This could entail reference to its inventor or origin/development and how the device works (e.g. how it stimulates through suction and pressure waves or how it mimics oral sex). A Huffington story also cited a study that showed the device can address orgasm disorder for menopausal women. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fritz Jörn, and welcome to the Teahouse! Just a quick note: The suggested HuffPost piece (here) was written by a non-expert contributor (RSP entry), and should not be used in the article because it is questionable. The line "I learned of the study when I was contacted by a Public Relations firm" also undermines the credibility of the piece. While the contributor piece would not count toward notability, Lifehacker's review is a little bit better and is usable in the article.
Please refer to the Referencing for beginners guide for an overview of how citations should be formatted. In most articles, the only link that should be in the "External links" section is the subject's official website. Reviews should be in placed in citations, instead.
Also, in Draft:Womanizer, the sentence "The womanizer is expected to replace the vibrator as sex toy for women." is uncited and promotional, so please remove it. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! ​​ — Newslinger talk 08:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Regarding your comments on the notability guideline, one of the reasons we require at least 2 independent reliable sources with significant coverage before a draft can be published is to prevent companies from using Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for run-of-the-mill products. If a product is unable to meet this requirement, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but please feel free to write about it somewhere else. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear Sirs,

Tuesday, January 22, 2019: I am editing my original question posted in the last seven days. In addition to the fact that Ubi Primum has at least two authors, the main subject of Ubi Primum is the office of Bishop. It would make more sense in the context of Pope Pius IX being a Marian Pope to substitute his Papal Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus for Ubi Primum in the Wikipedia article about Pope Pius IX. Ineffabilis Deus' subject is the Immaculate Conception. That is how I would edit the Pope Pius IX article: substitute Ineffabilis Deus for Ubi Primum. That makes the most sense and does not disturb the article content at all.

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

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

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

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

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

  • You should actually be able to edit it now, the protection has expired. I would still recommend creating an account though. There isn't any disadvantages to it and it doesn't request anything. [Username Needed] 13:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MetalDiablo666 Overkill (band) page

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

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

Hello ColinFine, thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, I'm not trying to be "edit warring", rather it is my ignorance with wikipedia that is the cause, I will gather up the reliable published source and communicate that to the editor/author, how do I send a message directly to them? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellhammer666 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor

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

No. You've come across an obnoxious editor, editing from an IP address. It's not worth a second thought. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello Mstrojny, welcome back again to the Teahouse. Should you be concerned? Probably not, but that depends what you mean by 'concerned'. You certainly won't be taken to WP:ANI for that, and you did absolutely the right thing both by asking here for feedback, and for reverting your edit. Maproom was right - the IP editor did come across rather unreasonably to you, though I can understand why to some extent. I looked at the sequence of events, and I do think you made two, possibly three, mistakes. So, yes, you should be concerned to understand what you did wrong, and how to resolve any problems you might have caused, just as any good editor should. The trick - as in the real world - is to appreciate what those mistakes were, learn from them and not to repeat them, and to understand that wrong decisions and unjustified warnings can really upset others (after all, there's a real person behind every IP address. But they should have responded in a WP:CIVIL way to you, which they did not.). Let's break it down, shall we?...
...First off, the IP editor made this valid edit which improved the page. (Admittedly, like you, I'd never come across 'Glottolog' codes before this question, but by following the link in the Infobox, it was easy to see it's a legitimate language database (we even have a Wikipedia page about it. see: Glottolog). It's really important not to jump to conclusions about IP editors - the vast majority of their edits are just as constructive as those of registered users. OK, so you saw their edit (maybe at 'Recent Changes'?) and reverted it with Twinkle without leaving any edit summary, and you then took up Twinkle's offer of templating the IP editor, and gave them a level 1 warning for vandalism on their Talk Page. That was quite unjustified and your second mistake. You really should have spotted that wasn't vandalism. So, not surprisingly, they came to your Talk page and expressed their frustrations with your actions. They did not cover themselves in glory in the way they went about addressing you. You then did the right thing by reviewing your actions, reverting them, and apologising to the IP editor. So that was great. Well done. I think you could still go one step further and go back to their talk page and remove your templated warning, leaving an edit summary along the lines of "removing warning template - I added it in error, sorry". Not removing that template was your third mistake, and you can still correct that one if you wish.
I do think it was a little unfair of the IP editor to highlight your past problems and block - though perhaps understandable under the circumstances, though the 'obnoxious' way they did it was not OK. It certainly looks like you're really doing your best to now be a constructive editor - and that's absolutely fantastic, and what we want to encourage. You certainly don't need to be concerned if this is a one-off error, and you have to learn not to be upset when people aren't polite. Just be careful not to make too many more. i.e. err on the side of caution, especially avoiding accusations of vandalism and not reverting or rollbacking edits without leaving an edit summary. But unless you do stuff here, you won't be helping; and whenever we do stuff, inevitably we sometimes make mistakes. I certainly do. The trick is to try to recognise when we've made an error, rather than rush on to resolve the next issue. Stay a while longer and consider whether your actions were justified.
So don't be concerned that this single, genuine mistake will affect your ability to edit. You dealt with it OK. You do seem hasty in placing some of your higher level warning templates, (like this level 3 notice, and this level 2 one). And in future, don't quote other people in bold - either use italics or, better still, the {{tq}} template, which puts quoted text in green like this.
Finally, and on a completely different note, what I would suggest is that you remove the WP:REDIRECT from your Userpage to your Talk page, and simply place there a few honest lines about yourself and your past mistakes for which you were blocked, explaining what you're now trying to do to make up for it, and the type of editing you're now doing. That way, when someone comes to ask why you've done something, they'll see a positive statement about your current approach to editing, rather than lots of old talk page messages just highlighting past issues. I hope this (rather long) explanation serves it purpose, and that you go on to serve Wikipedia well over the years ahead. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your advice, Nick Moyes. Mstrojny (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi everyone, is there anyone available who could pls check the article? I changed all requested things. That would be great. Thanks in advance. --Franklin187 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Refimprove" vs. "more citations needed"

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

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teblick. Please take a look at the documentation at Template:More citations needed. That is the name of the actual template. {{refimprove}} is a common redirect to the master template, and I was surprised to learn just now that there are no less than 32 different redirects to the main template. Functionally, both chunks of code perform the same, but some editors enjoy reducing unneeded redirects, and that is a useful thing. It makes the encyclopedia run a bit more efficiently. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cullen328. I had never thought of redirects being used for templates, but it's a logical approach. I will try to remember to use the master template in the future. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Robert Guibe

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

Hi IP 78.147.27.147. It's not clear which article you're referring to because your edit at the Teahouse is the only one listed in your contribution's history. If by chance it's Robert Guibé, then you can be WP:CAUTIOUS and start a discussion at Talk:Robert Guibé about any problems you feel need fixing or you can simply be WP:BOLD and try and fix them yourselves. Nobody has edited the article since July 2018 and it appears to be fairly stable for the most part without any disputes over article content or sources, so maybe you mean a different article.
As for reliable sources, reliability often depends upon the context in which a source is being used, but if the sources you mentioned above satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, you should be able to cite them in articles. If you'd like more specific feedback about a particular source, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: This may be related to the section #Gibb as surname above. It would be wise for Richard Gibb and the IP to read WP:Referencing for beginners to understand how to cite the sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it would also be wise for them to rein in their frustrations and not to insult all and sundry here. Every editor contributes voluntarily, and through the best of intentions. It can be a challenge to understand how things operate but, as in life, a little diplomacy can go a long way in getting the support or guidance one needs. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard Gibb You are railing against strawmen. The issue is your citation in an opaque and vague manner to sources like "The Vatican", "Collage of Arms", "National Records Kew ", instead of transparently citing a particular piece of information to being verified, for example, by the text located at a particular page of a particular book, identified by year, name, author, location, ISBN, etc., so that others can verify the information. This is a basic requirement of academic writing and citation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with getting my article approved

Hi guys

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

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

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

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

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

I hope to hear from someone soon,

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

Hello, Thegman81. The notice was placed on Draft:Daisy Clover (band) by GSS, who also placed a longer message on your User talk page, suggesting that you may have a conflict of interest. GSS has not, as far as I can see, given any reason for believing that you may have a conflict of interest, or be a paid editor, so the appropriate action is to ask them why they say this. You can do this in any of three places: the talk page of the draft article, their own user talk page, or on your own user talk page, replying to their message. I have just pinged them above, so they will see this message and, I hope, respond.
One point you might not be aware of about Wikipedia: we are a huge collection of volunteers, all more or less equal. Anybody may put a message on an article like the one GSS put on Daisy Clover, if they think it is justified; anybody may remove it if they think the issue has been resolved. However, given that the message relates to your contribution, it would be a bad idea for you to remove it without discussion. I confess I am puzzled why GSS has put such a message up without giving any explanation of why they think it is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks again.

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

Yes, Gino, you have successfully replied to me. Two formatting points: if you reply to a message on a talk page like this, please indent your reply with a colon at the start of every paragraph (or one more colon than whatever you are replying to). Secondly, please sign your posts on talk and discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin. This GSS user is still giving me grief about my article. First it was that he thought that I paid someone from Upwork to make the article, which i have since explained i haven't. Then is was the photo i used. the photo is simply an image from a newspaper from 50 years ago that would have no copyright issues with me uploading it. Anyway i have just removed the photo and will look into getting approval to use it or find a different photo of the band. For now I will leave it with out one. Now he is taken issue with the fact that the drummer in the band was my father! He has put another message about my draft. Are you able to, at all, please assist me in getting this draft approved and uploaded to Wikipedia? Im happy to amend any of it to suit but I believe that I shouldn't have to as I have made it neutral, true and accurate as possible, with many cites and references. Please see if you can check out my article and assist me thanks mateThegman81 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The banner placed at the top of the article IS appropriate, as you do have what Wikipedia considers a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). This does not mean that the draft will not be accepted if every else OK. If accepted, the banner would remain. On the Talk page of the draft you should create a section to declare the nature of your COI. The photo (since deleted) did have a copyright issue. David notMD (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when a noticeboard question goes unanswered?

Hi. I've only been a member of Wikipedia for 15 years, so bear with me. I posted a question to WP:NORN, the noticeboard for questions about the WP:OR policy and its application. That noticeboard apparently has little traffic and after eight days, I still have not a single comment on my question. Is there a place where one can ask for people to comment on such a question without appearing canvass-y or annoying? After all, the noticeboard is the correct place for the question and I cannot find any other venue that would be equally correct. Regards SoWhy 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might get a little more attention with a formal Request for Comment. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, RFCs were always for when you want to make changes to pages, not when you need input on an interpretation. Thanks for the tip! Regards SoWhy 17:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl of Wisdom Needed

Sadly I cant get a article or edit to stick. My information is sought after yet there are no reliable sources to site. The knowledge I wish to share is not published anywhere. My own articles are valid and useful but are viewed as unreliable. For example: http://flagstones.org/2019/01/20/natural-cleft-pennsylvania-bluestone/. Do I have a leg to stand on or should I give up trying to provide useful information here. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenvieczorek (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevenvieczorek: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the information you want to post is not published in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the subject, it cannot be on Wikipedia. If you just want to tell the world about your information, you should use social media or other website that you personally can operate. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us are experts about something. We do not add links to our own websites or blogs. David notMD (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically archiving user page

How do I get my talk page to automatically archive old conversations? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC) + edit[reply]

User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo tells you about one method. Help:Archiving a talk page talks of others. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase SigmaBot III

I recently edited my talk page to automatically archive old posts using the above bot. I set the “old” parameter to 10 days. Does this mean that the thread will be archived 10 days after being created, or 10 days after the most recent post? Also, I have already created an archive page manually. How do I tell the bot to start archiving from page 2? Puzzledvegetable (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find article I was working on

Hi all!

I was working on an article on event cameras about one month ago, which I wanted to finish off and publish. However, I can't find the page any more. Is it possible that the page was deleted because it was stagnant for a month? I thought that the URL was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SquidWhisperer/EventCamera, but maybe I have gotten this wrong. Can I somehow view all of the pages in my namespace (SquidWhisperer)?

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidWhisperer (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a relevant search at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?search=prefix%3AUser%3ASquidWhisperer%2F&title=Special%3ASearch and it finds nothing. Similarly your contribution record shows no edits except for your question here. Perhaps you forgot to press the "Publish changes" button to save your edits? - David Biddulph (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take mint and the legislative info box

Hi I edited the Andi Story article. She is a new Alaska state Representative (elected in November, sworn in Jan 15). I cited the new page of representatives. But don't know how to change the place in the infobox (on the right) that says "Member-elect" would appreciate direction to tips to read or the answer right here. Thanks, orcalover orcalover (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Orcalover: and welcome to the Teahouse. I have fixed the wrong display of "Member-elect" (instead of just "Member") in Andi Story with this edit. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea why the other parameters don't work (and am too lazy to dig into the spaghetti code of Template:Infobox officeholder). But you could use the alternative parameters for now, and I'll report the issue at Template talk:Infobox officeholder to let the coding experts for this template know about it. GermanJoe (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Orcalover. There is no doubt that Andi Story is notable as a newly elected member of the Alaska legislature and ought to have a Wikipedia biography. The current article is just a beginning, and ought to be improved over time. Your help is appreciated. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take a wiki page draft to be active or Live?

I have contributed to Wikipedia by drafting a page. I am wondering how long it usually takes for the page to be active? Right now the pending queue is showing 1453 articles to be read before mine. This number is increasing day by day instead of decreasing. Appreciate your feedback. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzzane lasale (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzzane lasale: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts are reviewed by volunteers, who do what they can when they can. As you are aware, there are hundreds of drafts awaiting review; it will likely take many weeks. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the submission box it says: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order". One thing which you can usefully do while you are waiting is to remove the misplaced external links from the article text. You may have intended some of them to be references. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Setting up a new page

Hello,

I would like to set up a new page for a legendary movie producer who doesn’t have a page on Wikipedia currently; how do I go about doing this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela RPor (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamela RPor: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. If you want to dive right in, I would strongly advise you to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and the process. If you have any connection to this director, you must disclose it per the conflict of interest policy and (if it is a paid connection) the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pamela RPor. When I see somebody ask about "setting up a page for" someone or something on Wikipedia, I always think that they are confusing Wikipedia with social media or a directory. I urge you to replace that phrase in your mind with "writing an article about". If such an article is written, it will not belong to the producer, they and their associates will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly (they are welcome to suggest changes), and they will have no part in deciding what does and what doesn't appear in the article. Please see WP:PRIDE. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage formatting

Is there a way for me to align Template:Userpage blue border short on the left and and have my service badge aligned directly on the right, so that they are level? (Link to my userpage in signature) Puzzledvegetable (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Puzzledvegetable. Does the alignment change I made suffice?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's perfect. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Puzzledvegetable: Great. Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take Jack in main characters

Please take jack in main characters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.192.87.77 (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is your only edit using this IP address, so we don't know what Jack you're referring to, nor what "take" might refer to, as to which main characters, of what show.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me?....

Hi. I recently changed the font on my talk page to veranda, now when I go on any user talk page the font is veranda, is it just me? Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thegooduser. You mean Verdana. The font in User:Thegooduser/Templates/Talk Page only affects User talk:Thegooduser. Are you sure you see it everywhere? That would require a change of your personal css or your default browser font. Maybe you only saw talk pages which happen to have the same or similar font. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do i make my Wikipedia page live?

I have drafted a Wikipedia page about a man by the name of 'Baddy Oosha', how do i get it published? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Baddy_Oosha — Preceding unsigned comment added by RochL (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and it will be sent for review but this can take up to 6 week 2 months (backlog is even higher than normal). RhinosF1 (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why my word Hello is wrong?

Please tell me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Trump (talk • contribs) 05:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! Pooja Shrivastav08 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article was deleted as you stopped working on it. The submit function sends it to review for an article which the word 'Hello' is not. You are free to leave it in your userspace though. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how to change Pictures

I am new to wikipedia,I have seen some celebs wikipedia pages and they have quite old pictures...I want to modify them, can I do that?? If yes then how. Grewal SInder (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grewal SInder, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can not exchange them for ones you find whereever on the internet, since those are almost always copyrighted. "We" have a place called Commons where people can donate/search for "free" pictures. If you have celeb photos you have taken yourself you can upload them there and then they can be used on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources

Having difficulty finding sources for a page I'm working on despite knowing that the information is correct. There exists real-world artifacts which could be a source... but no such luck for websites. Is it okay to not have sources under some circumstances? Zantarctica (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Zantarctica. There must always be published sources, but they don't have to be online. Newspapers, magazines, and books are acceptable. —teb728 t c 11:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: BigDFT (January 21)

I created the BigDFT page a long time ago and the creation of a new page about BigDFT with the version 1.6.0 was not from me. Is it a bug from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdoune (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a bug from Wikipedia. User:Tdoune/BigDFT was a userspace draft that you were working on back in 2012, but for some reason User:Robert McClenon submitted your draft for AFC review, but he then immediately declined the submission himself on the grounds that BigDFT already exists in mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... and the mainspace article was created by yourself on April 4, 2011‎, before you started the draft, and you have edited it 2012, 2013 and 2014, as well as today. I suggest that you just delete the old draft to avoid confusion. Dbfirs 14:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I WANT TO BECOME A MEMBER OF WIKIPEDIA. PLEASE

I plead or wish to become a honest,loyal. member. of Wikipedia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praisenwachi200 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Praisenwachi200 and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. You have already joined Wikipedia by creating an account and we look forward to your edits. To get you started, you might like to try WP:The_Wikipedia_Adventure. Dbfirs 14:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, Praisenwachi200 and welcome both to the Teahouse, and to Wikipedia. There is no membership, as such. You have now become a registered Wikipedia editor, and you are free to contribute to any article that needs improving. Of course, just like school, we have lots of rules we ask everyone to follow. You might like to visit Wikipedia:Five pillars which explains how we are an encyclopaedia, based solely on reliable, factual information published elsewhere. In other words, we don't just add stuff from our own personal knowledge or beliefs.
Do try out The Wikipedia Adventure, which is an interactive tour, allowing you to gain 15 badges along the way to show your understanding of how we work. My advice is to start simply, perhaps making only small improvements of, say, spelling or grammar, to articles you have an interest in. Every article has its own talk page where issues or concerns around that particular topic can be discussed prior to adding to the article itself. We work by consensus (agreement) between other editors. So, if another editor reverses (reverts) any edit you have made, look at the 'edit summary' in the 'View History' tab associated with that page to understand why. They might even leave a note on your talk page to explain if they think you made a not very good edit. Don't panic over that - but listen to what they say and try to understand the reasons why. If you don't understand, you are, of course, entitled to ask them for an explanation. Do come back here again with any questions you might have, or visit Help:Contents to try to find answers for yourself. I'll pop by and leave you a 'welcome' message on your talk page, and I wish you luck at the start of your own, personal 'wikipedia adventure'. Oh, and try to sign every talkpage message so we know who has said what. To do this, simply type four keyboard tilde characters right at the end of the post (like this: ~~~~), and your user name and timestamp will then be automatically added when you save (publish online) your edits. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Profile/infobox photo

I am trying to swap out a picture in the Infobox for my boss's Wikipage. I can add a new photo but it does not replace the old one and I am having a hard timing finding the original picture to remove when opening up the source editor. Any ideas on how to replace the image?

Thanks,

Joeywyoming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeywyoming (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joeywyoming, First you may want to establish on your userpage that you have a WP:COI. This may restrict you from making direct changes to the page, but if you have the image you want, I can do it for you. Just be sure It is free use or that you have permission from your boss. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WelpThatWorked, - Please and Thank you! Page: Kenneth McPeek - Changes: The photo at the bottom Left needs to replace the headshot in the infobox on the right side panel - I have permission to Make the Changes and rights to the photo.
Joeywyoming,  Done WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Joeywyoming. I'm not sure why WelpThatWorked mentioned "permission from your boss", as that is not relevant. Nothing about Wikipedia's article about a person requires their approval. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: I'm guessing it was not permission to make the edit, but permission from the photo's copyright holder to upload it. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FlyingAce, Yep, I was just mentioning he may need it if said photo was taken privately or was non-free for some other reason. WelpThatWorked (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WelpThatWorked, FlyingAce. "Permission" is wholly irrelevant for images. Either the copyright holder has released it under a suitable licence, or they haven't. If they have, anybody may use it without permission. In the latter case, nobody may use, permission or not. (Unless the Non-free content criteria hold, in which case permission is again irrelevant). But I had checked before my comment, and seen that Joeywyoming had uploaded the photo as "Own work" in any case. --ColinFine (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am an employee of a subsidiary company related to the page mentioned in this thread. I simply made statistical changes related to his win stats for graded stakes races and notable horses. I did not write any of the information on the page other than updated racing statistics and a photo. However, I was notified that this is a conflict of interest and there is a notice on the page now. How do i remove this notice and or how do i claim a potential conflict of interest on the page so this page does not get removed or cause any trouble? Any help on this will be much appreciated. User:ColinFine User:WelpThatWorked User:FlyingAce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeywyoming (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Joeywyoming. If you read WP:PAID it tells you how to make the required declaration (if you are employed by a company related to the subject, Wikipedia considers you a paid editor, whether or not your job specifically includes editing that Wikipedia article or not). You should post the changes you would like made on the article's Talk page with a {{request edit}} template, and in time somebody will come and decide what action is appropriate. --ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not exactly know how to make an article.

Hello everyone! I noticed that there are certain articles that can be made, like the biography of Robert Topala for example. I would love to contribute to Wikipedia by making accurate and up to date articles! But I do not know how to! I think it might have something to do with the "upload files" page, but my account is not verified yet and therefor I haven't tried that yet. A quick overview of the guidelines and ways to upload articles would be nice! Thanks! AnimationChromaAnimationChroma (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AnimationChroma, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is unfortunate that so many new users think that the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is by creating a new article. It is useful to do so, of course, if the subject is notable; but improving existing articles is if anything more valuable, and a good deal easier. I always advise new users to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works, before they embark on the rather difficult task of creating a new one. When you do decide to have a go at creating a new article, Your first article is the place to start. "Uploading", by the way, is generally for photos and other visual or audio media, not usually for text. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning forthcoming works

When is it appropriate to edit an article to include mention of a forthcoming publication? A year ago I added mention of a book contract (with $1 Million+ advance) to a biographic article. The book is a novel about the subject; I did not write the book nor have any connection to the author. It was a two-line edit with citation, but it was removed because the book hadn't been published yet, and as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.

The book now has a publication date of February 5, a page on the publisher's site, major author blurbs, a book tour, and is available for preorder on Amazon and multiple other places. Do I have to wait till February 5, or can I add this info now? And if so, how should it be worded? Thank you!Susanc1906 (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)susanc1906[reply]

I recommend that you wait for a week or so after the book has been published, before trying to create an article about it. By then there should be published reviews of it. You will need to cite independent published sources to establish that the book is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article – blurbs etc. aren't independent, and will do nothing to help. Maproom (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Susanc1906 is asking about adding the information to an existing article, Maproom, not creating a new article. Susan, items mentioned in articles about other subjects do not have to meet the criteria for notability, but they should still be referenced to reliable sources. Whether the sources need to be independent of the subject of the article depends on what kind of information it is: SELFPUB gives some guidance. I would say that in most cases information about a forthcoming work comes under the rubric of "self-serving", so should not be included unless it has been the subject of independent coverage (truly independent, not just regurgitated press releases). So, in short, my advice is the same as Maproom's, even though it is a different case. --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply adding a book citation to an existing article because it is a novel about the biographical subject. It is published by Little, Brown, not self-published, and there is an ISBN. Wikipedia has a citation format I can use. The book has been reviewed and can be pre-ordered, but the release date is February 5. Can I add the citation NOW? Susanc1906 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)susanc1906[reply]

I would advise against it, Susanc1906. The problem is that the only published source you are adducing is one from the subject's publisher, which is therefore not independent. I am wondering why you think it is so urgent to add this unreleased book to the article: there is very rarely a good reason for urgency in editing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions about Bycombia

I am editing the article Bycombia and have two questions. I have information that lists the subfamily and tribe and want to know if this information should be added to the taxonomic box. Also, there is very little written about this moth and I think the article pretty much plumbs the depths of what's out there. Can O remove the stub template? Many thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aurornisxui. Assuming that the information you have is reliably published, (and is not just your own work), then yes, you may certainly add it to the taxobox. See Template:taxobox for the precise names of the parameters.
If there is no other information likely to be found, then you probably can remove the template. See WP:DESTUB. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Aurornisxui, welcome to the Teahouse. Despite being a retired museum biologist, I have to admit to sometimes (often!) struggling to understand Wikipedia's taxoboxes, and I'm certainly no lepidopterist. That said, providing you have Reliable sources that clearly state taxonomic levels, I see no reason why you shouldn't add that information. It's OK to add lower-level information, but often pointless to add higher level subdivisions. So go for it. Please carefully read Template:Taxobox/doc for the fields available to you. 'Tribe' is added by inserting "|tribus =" and "|tribus_authority = " which I have just copied over from the doc page to your infobox, and have done the same for subfamilia (i.e. subfamily), too. So you can now just add the relevant details to these fields. Left as they are, they display nothing to the reader when they're empty, so don't worry if you decide to leave it out because your sources aren't actually that 'reliable'.
I don't fully agree with you about 'plumbing the depths'. I often find that editors fail to extract obvious habitat information from their sources, and I think you should go a little further and exploit that source by explicitly state that specimens of this taxon were collected at light in Verdugo woodlands in early March 1925 (dates are specified in the reference) at Glendale, based upon this source. I am amused by the minor typo in the source that states; "the species may require a separate genius" Maybe you are that person? Finally, I definitely feel you can now alter the article assessment from 'stub' to 'start' class yourself. You do that by visiting the article's talk page and changing the parameters there. For help to understand this very informal process, which all editors are free to contribute to, please visit Wikipedia:Content assessment. Does this make sense? Good luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Deletion

I discovered a page on Wikipedia that I wanted to create (which is located here). This link contains my draft. Since I made the draft, can I delete it since I don’t need it anymore? LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As sole author you can tag it for deletion by pasting {{Db-author}} at the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid I.V.

Can someone please give me detailed instructions on how to request that a page be written about Liquid I.V.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthaliv (talk • contribs) 18:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your question answered on your Talk page, and it appears you successfully created a request.David notMD (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Liquid I.V. is another`water plus electrolytes product in same general family as Gatorade, Powerade, Pedialyte, etc. Less sugar. Contains a few vitamins. The company's own website has a section called "Science," but it provides no references to clinical trials or reviews published in science journals. A hasty search could not find any mention of science for the claims that when added to water it is more hydrating that wate alone. IMO, not article-worthy. I see that on your User page, you declare a COI with this proposed topic. If you later intend to directly create an article, you should describe the nature of the COI. David notMD (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I found some images in Flickr that are "all rights reversed" and I really think these images are useful. I want to use them in Wikipedia. What are the possible ways to upload them to Wikipedia. If geting permission (by paying money) from the owner is the answer then what are the steps to get permission and then prove to Wikipedia that the owner has allowed me to use his own work in Wikipedia. I am new in these things so I don't have much idea about these things. Thanks in advance --SharabSalam (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use those images, except for the very limited cases that meet all the criteria at WP:NFCC. The owner would need to release the image under a free license that allows reuse for any purpose (not just for Wikipedia). RudolfRed (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hello SharabSalam, Wikipedia requires permission not only for use on Wikipedia but also for use anywhere for anything, including commercial use and making derivative works. The way to request permission is described at WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 18:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SharabSalam. In addition to the advice you've been given above, you also need to try and assess whether the Flickr account holder is actually the originator of the content per c:COM:LL. Some people upload images they get from other sources to Flickr and then add a license to the image; this license, however, might not be exactly the same as the one given to the content by the person who created. If the Flickr account holder seems unlikely to be the original source for the image (for example, it's a really old photo or a scan from a newspaper or magazine which looks unlikely to have been originally taken/published by the Flickr account holder), then it's possible that file may actually have been originally released under a different license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spikeball vs. Roundnet Wikipedia pages

Hi there,

I have a question for the group - I am someone who competes in a sport called roundnet, and has done some work for a company that creates equipment for that sport (Spikeball Inc.)

Currently the Wikipedia page for roundnet exists and describes the sport fairly accurately, but the Wikipedia page for Spikeball equates the two and is merely a redirect to the roundnet page.

What is the best way to go about getting that relationship clarified and an accurate page for Spikeball Inc. added to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c4:c400:9b73:b4dd:8820:d242:1aa (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The roundnet article describes "Spikeball" as a brand name for roundnet equipment by one manufacturer. If that is accurate then there is no need for a separate article on Spikeball. A redirect routes readers to the common article. —teb728 t c 23:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, a redirect might be created from Kankakee Spikeball to roundnet for users searching that way. —teb728 t c 23:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A separate article about Spikeball Inc. would be possible only if the company meets the criteria for notability - and you should preferably not be the person to write it, because you would have a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bennett ...the audio diaries part 2

Hi,

can anyone let me and others know, what music is used at intervals during this recording on his CD. It sounds like a piano trio,..piano, cello, violin.

It's wonderful music and a great way to break up the diaries.

Thank you

brian puddifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian puddifer (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian puddifer, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, we're only here to help editors who need assistance or guidance in how to edit Wikipedia pages. We're not here to research esoteric topics unrelated to editing. You ought to be able to use search engines to find such information yourself although, if you get stuck, there is a bunch of people over at the Reference Desk who just might be willing to assist you. Regards from the Teahouse, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to get an Music Album article approved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnw28/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnw28 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Johnw28, and welcome to the Teahouse. The mechanics of getting an article approved is to edit it to insert {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top.
However, if you do that now, your draft will certainly not be accepted. In order to have an article about the album, the album must be notable (in Wikipedia's sense) - generally, that several people unconnected with the artists or producers have chosen to write at some length about it, and been published in reliable places. The two references currently there may or may not be regarded as reliable, but they are not independent: they are clearly based on a press release. It is quite rare for an album to be notable only a few days after release: see TOOSOON.
My advice to you is, see if you can find two or three independent reviews, published in major newspapers or magazines, which together provide enough information (on their own) that a reasonable article could be written from them. If you can't find these, give up: it will be a waste of your time going any further at present. If you can find them, then start again, basing your draft entirely on what those independent sources sa (but in your own words). If that gives you a reasonable article, then you can add a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information from non-independent sources.
One last point: if you are in any way connected with Worthy, or his studio or producers, please read conflict of interest carefully. Wikipedia may not be used for promotion. --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the preview on Google

Hello,

How do i change the wikipedia preview information on google.

I would like to change the CEO name for Red Rooster to match the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rooster.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Reds (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, James Reds. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid we don't have any control over the algorithms that Google uses to create its previews on its own search pages. All we can do is to encourage every volunteer to keep pages here up to date, based upon reliable sources. We can only then let Google catch up in its own sweet way. Sorry there's no other route that I'm aware of. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Standard reply: Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My major crime article on a child abuse network was changed to a draft due to copyright concerns. I have reworded all exact text matches with its sources except the phrases in this table, which are mainly quotes, names of crimes and lengths of prison sentences.

Can someone please tell me, are the phrases in this table all in the article for a good reason, or are some of them are still a copyright infringement?

Is my draft ready to be restored as an article?

Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Talk:Berkhamsted_child_rape_network/Temp for speedy deletion as a talk page without any corresponding article page. How this is advanced should be worked out in draft space. Many BLP issues I think. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please deal with my question regarding Draft:Berkhamsted_child_rape_network/Temp, which has not been answered. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My major crime article on a child abuse network was changed to a draft due to copyright concerns. I have reworded all exact text matches with its sources except the phrases in this table, which are mainly quotes, names of crimes and lengths of prison sentences.

Can someone please tell me, are the phrases in this table all in the article for a good reason, or are some of them are still a copyright infringement? If you think some are an infringement, please state (or somehow indicate) which ones.

Is my draft ready to be restored as an article?

Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This question was moved here by David Biddulph, creating the false impression that my question was "already answered". It wasn't!
The question has thus far been sidestepped three times, all because a different editor placed the article in a talk page instead of a draft page. It's in a draft page now, and David Biddulph is wrongly getting my question ignored by other editors using an excuse that was fully dealt with an hour ago.
My original question still needs to be answered. Will someone please help?
Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Issues such as copyright violations can take some time to work through, from days to weeks. Please be patient , we are all volunteers here and backlogs of work can be extensive.  Velella  Velella Talk   02:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, although there are two identically worded questions with the same section heading, what the OP failed to make clear is that the words "a draft" in the 2 versions of the question are wikilinked to 2 different target pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David Biddulph, please see WP:AGF. It was obvious from Ariconte's response that the original draft was in the wrong place, deleted, red and unreachable. It was absolutely clear that I needed to fix this and resubmit the question somehow with a working link. The phrase "a draft" in the 2 versions of the question was visibly different. One was red, the other was blue. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Hi, I’m new-ish to large scale Wiki editing, and I recently turned Ivy to Roses from a redirect into a proper article. One of the big parts that’s missing is all the category info. I tried my best but frankly, I’m not sure what I did right/wrong. Help would be appreciated!

Hello @Joesimnett:, and welcome to the Teahouse. As a general principle articles are usually not added to broader main categories, when they are already included in more-specific subcategories of the same category tree. For example: all "2017 mixtape albums" are implicitly part of "2017 albums", so there's usually no need to add the broader redundant category. This principle has a few occasional exceptions - WP:Categorization contains more comprehensive and better-explained information about all these categorization-related aspects. Hope this helps. GermanJoe (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS - please make sure to sign talkpage messages with 4 tilde character ~~~~ for a formatted signature. GermanJoe (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capillary Pressure... the standard accepted equation is wrong

The standard capillary equation found in text books and Wikipedia is the Young-Laplace equation. This equation is wrong. It implies the spontaneous increase surface energy does work to push a column of water up the tube. Surface tension has nothing do with the rise of fluid up the column, it is the charge (charge) on the surface of the glass or crystals, that provides the energy for the capillary rise. The ionic character of the SiO2 molecule leave the glass or crystal surface covered with a weak negative charges. When water is contacts SiO2 this charge energy dissipates into the water through hydrogen bonding. The heat released from the hydrogen bonding is called the heat of adsorption (about 70 mN/m for silca). This bond energy is the driving force causing the capillary rise.

How do I open a discussion on this, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddydxplornet (talk • contribs) 01:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddydxplornet: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you believe information in an article needs to be changed, you should start a discussion on the associated article talk page. However, Wikipedia information is based on what independent reliable sources state. So, you will need your own independent sources to support your claims- and even if your claims merit inclusion(taking care not to give undue weight) that doesn't necessarily mean the existing information should be removed. 331dot (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

< whatever famous person > wants to send me money...

Bernard Arnault was the one that brought me to Wikipedia but let's face it, ANYONE known, or assumed to have, extra money could be named in a phishing scam MY QUESTION IS do we have a way to warn people who look up people named, possibly even using a multi use tag showing for instance green for famous person but not known to give charitably (roseanne barr) a yellow color tag for a person known to be giving away large amounts of money but not known to have a phishing scam naming them. (Bill Gates and his billionaires club have vowed to give away 80% of their wealth but haven't heard them mentioned in a scam) and RED if they are known to be mentioned in at least one scam (Bernard Arnault since i've already recieved one)

Tags ain't my speciality but i know similar "DEF - CON" Systems have been embedded in tags and even had bots inserting in appropriate pages so what's the policy? Qazwiz (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Some context for this question can be found at Talk:Bernard Arnault#Bernard arnalds foundation.)
Hi Qazwiz. If I understand what you're asking, we would never modify articles on individuals to systematically categorize them by whether the subjects' identities have been used by unsavory people to pull off scams. Oh, it's possible that if a particular person had been used in this manner to such an extent that it became a true cause célèbre, such that, for example, multiple newpaper articles had written about the phenomenon in particular connection to the person, that might merit a sentence in the article on them. Barring that, however, this sounds like an idea that would seek to elevate connective trivia; to insert, modify or classify articles by something far too unfocused and tangential to the article subject. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CIA

In Wikipedia , is there a list of famous CIA standoffs or anything of that sort ? 005X (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

005X, the CIA list articles that currently exist are List of CIA controversies and List of CIA station chiefs. CoolSkittle (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Is the chart in the date format a suggestion or a rule for WP? There are a number of formats or styles that are identified specially as inappropriate and recommendations sometimes follow. I started to edit a particular style in WP since sometimes in the same article the inappropriate style and preferred style were consistent. Unfortunately, especially after advising that the style as incorrect some have been reverted based on the previous style based on their opinion was correct. It is my understanding that when it comes to commas in the "month year" style and the "day month year" style commas are not to be used to separate the parts unless it is a quote. All the dates revised have not been quotes. What is what? Is this a matter of some "quirk" of that particular English/Language/Grammar? I looked at the coding to see if there was any such notation and found none. I would appreciate it as those who insists on the previously existing format care to have a basic level of courtesy to explain on the talk page(s). Thank you.2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A. You'll find more detail about this in MOS:DATES, but date formats are like national varieties of English in that there's no one particular house style that is preferred for all articles. Generally per MOS:DATEVAR and MOS:DATEUNIFY, you should try to stick with whatever style was used by the article's creator or first major contributor (as long as it's not a bad date format) and try to keep the formatting consistent throughout the article. In some cases, as explained in MOS:DATETIES, a particular format may be preferred for certain subjects, but you shouldn't really just change a date format simply because it's your preferred format or it's the one commonly used in your home country. You can propose such a change on the article's talk page if you think it should be made, but you should at least try and establish a consensus for it first, particularly if it's an article which is heavily edited and watched by lots of editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, IP 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A, since I am one of the article creators/first major contributors in question. When I first submitted an article for review for Good Article status, I was told that the preferred format in English Wikipedia is month (not abbreviated)/day/comma/year, unless it's in a quotation, in which case the format in the quotation should be used, if different. My personal preference is day/month/year, but I conform to the preferred format. This is why I've been reverting your edits, and I explained this when you were registered under a previous IP address. I would have been happy to discuss this with you through my talk page (since you don't have one) and save both of us some time and effort. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How My Account Will Be Confirmed?

In How Many Days I can be a confirmed user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangita12345 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you gone through the process to verify your user identifier/registered username? And have you made the minimum amount of edits?09:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9149:8300:7C35:42EA:E43D:D94A (talk)
Sangita12345, you are currently autoconfirmed as your account is older than 4 days and you have made at least 10 edits. As an autoconfirmed user, you can create articles, move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files.
You will be extended confirmed after your account is at least 30 days old and you have made 500 edits. When you are extended confirmed, you can edit extended confirmed protected pages. CoolSkittle (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to request a page move discussion

Thanks.Jonty rhodes (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty rhodes, what page do you wish to move? Certain page moves could be controversial, and require discussion, while others are non-controversial (like fixing spelling errors) and can be done yourself. CoolSkittle (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks moved it.Jonty rhodes (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was the very essence of the kind of controversial move that should not have been done in this way, and an admin has moved the page back. (The page is Christian terrorism.) Instructions for doing this the correct way are at WP:RM. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibiza Weekender references

Hello, I’m currently trying to work on Ibiza Weekender, and I noticed that the references are in a ‘list of citations’. I’ve never came across something like this before, and wondered if it’s possible to make it into a proper reference list. If so, could it be explained/carried out?

Thanks, – Joesimnett (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a proper reference list. If you don't know how references are implemented in Wikipedia, try WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block needed

At Pennsylvania Bluestone and Flagstone, User:Stevenvieczorek and 2600:1700:3260:5420:5951:c161:eab7:ea57 and most recently 99.32.61.126 have been making the same promotional edits. User:Stevenvieczorek has been cautioned twice at own talk, and also earlier this week at Teahouse. This is clearly a person who is not here to work on an encyclopedia, and has now expanded to sockpuppetry. Next step is obvious, but above my skill set. Help, please. David notMD (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: @David notMD: Would this be better suited to an admin noticeboard or WP:SPI next time? RhinosF1 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's fine... just report it to the proper noticeboard next time. It's not a big deal... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the IPv6 editor for repeated disruptive editing and for edit warring on Pennsylvania Bluestone. The IPv4 user only edited once, so I'm not inclined to consider action unless disruption picks up or becomes repeated. I believe that Stevenvieczorek's edits have been problematic, but I note that this user has been trying to work with other editors on noticeboards and discussions (such as a discussion on this page) to try and learn and improve their editing. I'm not going to take action upon this account unless problematic edits continue; lets give this user a chance... Next time, you'll want to report repeated issues to either AIV or ANI. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for help. My primary concern was the edit warring. My hope is that Stevenvieczorek will come to understand that one's own expertise is not what moves Wikipedia forward. David notMD (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some doubts

Hello everyone. I have some doubts that some sources present in this article (recently moved) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ness_MacBean_Ross may not be reliable. Please check them and if possible move them to "Draft" again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:1725:9C0F:2:1:185D:FDEC (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with COI

Earlier today, I came across and reverted a change to Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir that pushed a certain POV and was also considerably below the quality of the rest of the article. I put it on my watch list, and have now seen the same user make a change, this time removing content, but to push the same point of view. In this case, I actually believe they may be right; the content, while it has been there for a while, is ill sourced and its rationale for being in the page disputable, but the editor does have a declared conflict of interest on this page and I am hoping some here may be able to comment on whether they agree that he was right in this second case, and what I, as a neutral outsider who se knowledge of Kashmir at best amounts to being able to point to it on a map, should be doing in regards to such POV changes while under a COI -- NoCOBOL (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HOW DO CAN I CREATE AN ARTICLE AND HOW DO I SUBMIT

Here i new I want to create an bio infograph article i need help Please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by কাউসার হামিদ (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English language Wikipedia, so your draft Draft:সভ্যতার কারিগর does not belong here. If you do want to create an article in English, please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to translate the poem on your user page into English so that all on the English Wikipedia can read it? Dbfirs 16:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse কাউসার হামিদ. I see you have been writing more than you user page in Bengali. Did you know there is a Bengali Wikipedia where they welcome writing in Bengali? —teb728 t c 06:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rassie van der Dussen, Archie Schiler and Nortje

I created drafts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4003:F63F:0:0:1FD4:C0A1 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anrich Nortje has no references. I can't see where you created any other drafts. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Names in blue in articles

I wish to add a name to a particular list of authors who used a specific library in Florence. These authors' names are all in blue. Does this refer to a linked article about them? When I add my name, it appears in black and not blue, although there is an article about his man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Rhydyfelin (talk • contribs) 17:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was in black because you had not provided a wikilink; I have done so in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Random

Can anyone link me or tell me the script to make Special:Random on top of my toolbar?

--TheWinRat (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thewinrat, I am not great at userscripts so I don't know If I can script it for you, but alt+x loads a random article, if speed is what you want. WelpThatWorked (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewinrat: Which toolbar do you mean and should it simply link to Special:Random? The desktop site already has a link on "Random article" at the top left under the Wikipedia logo. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary and wikipedia

I'm looking at the Wikipedia article for depth of field. It starts with a relatively technical definition of a fairly technical topic. Comparatively, wiktionary has the less technical "In photography, the distance in front of and behind the subject that appears to be in focus."[1].

I'm wondering if there are any guidelines or essays on the topic of:

  • How close we would expect the definitions to be in the wiktionary and wikipedia entries to be for the same topic?
  • How to choose an appropreit level of technical detail for an article, and in particular a lead?

Joe (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity about the finite use of 'references' -- 'citations' -- 'notes'

There seems to be an overlapping or redundancy in the use of 'notes' (which are actually references to a published article, news story etc) written in brief terms. My question centers on 'citations' that denote in detail either references or quote references found within news stories, published journals and news documentaries. For clarity, quotations within an article or news story are best placed where on a Wikipedia page? If a scientifically valid claim is made, often the original paper is long in length and the specifics needed for Wiki are isolated (usually by page). But what if it is a nationally broadcast TV news story that has a quote within? The video of the news story needs to be cited and then, it is up to the researchers to review the entire video to see the quote.. correct? I am trying to avoid unnecessary redundancy. I am new to this process and as I look at Wikipedia articles, there are similar conflicts that maybe I don't understand that have added to some confusion. Comments, please. BARRY BARON (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BARRY BARON: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being interesting in citing your sources. For video programs, you may include in the citation the time within the video that has the quote you are citing. A good place to learn about this is Referencing for Beginners, Citing Sources, and the tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL. There's also an interactive learning experience called the Wikipedia Adventure at WP:ADVENTURE. Hope this helps and feel free to ask more questions. RudolfRed (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

account creation help needed

Hello,

I am the Instructional Technology teacher at a public high school in Virginia. I am writing because I am hoping to do a project with a few advanced high school English classes, where they author brand new Wikipedia articles that are related to our local school/community.

As we are preparing for this project, we have run into an issue with account creation. I have managed to get an account created for myself and one of the librarians at my school, but it appears that our IP address is blocked from creating accounts. When we try, we see the following messages:

Account creation from IP addresses in the range 97.64.48.0/20, which includes your IP address (97.64.60.166), has been blocked by Gilliam.

--- or ---

This is probably due to persistent vandalism from the IP address you are editing from, which may be shared by many people if you are connected to the Internet via a proxy server (used by most schools and corporations and some Internet service providers) or dial-up access. Account creation from this IP address (50.205.217.211) has been temporarily restricted.

My questions for you are:

1. Can student accounts be created in bulk, if I provide desired usernames (and passwords?) 2. If not, can our IP address be unblocked (even if temporarily) so that these select students can create their own accounts?

Lastly, if you have any resources that can be shared regarding authoring/editing Wikipedia, we would be grateful if you would share those with us.

I have already attempted to contact Wikimedia directly, but have not received a response. Please let me know if any additional information is needed.

Thank you for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkciokan (talk • contribs) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jkciokan, Hey, I would love to help. What you are looking for is someone with the account creator permission, as they can create accounts en masse. If you could provide the username of the other account just to check it that would be good. Make sure your students are familiar with the guidelines, for instance WP:OR since you are writing on local things. Let me try and get some help with the account creation, and good luck! Also, on discussion pages like this, sign your comments by ending them with four tildes like this ~~~~
By the way, might I ask what school? WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that you've read WP:Student assignments. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, WelpThatWorked. Thank you for your willingness to help. I am at Douglas Southall Freeman High School in Henrico County, Virginia. Is there a way I can send you a list of student information rather than posting it here for the world to see? User:Jkciokan 16:28, 24 January 2019 (EST)
Hi Jkciokan, that would be what Special:EmailUser/WelpThatWorked is for. You will need to have set your own email address under your preferences, as described at WP:ENABLEEMAIL. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on though, I don't think Jkciokan should be e-mailing anyone a list of passwords for requested accounts - least of all anyone who can't actually set them up. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DuPont Teflon

After researching DuPont on this site, I can see lots of praise for the company, all of their meritorious awards and contributions. I only wanted to ask, because Wikipedia now seems like a biased media outlet, why is there NO mention of the DuPont Teflon epidemic? This company poisoned millions with its lack of waste control and complete carelessness, killed and infected people and animals at an extraordinary rate. But, still no mention of this...why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.135.189 (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia is edited by thousands of individual volunteer editors, who each have their own interests and sometimes their own biases: there is no overseeing editorial board. Most of our six million articles could be improved. If you see "praise" for a subject, in Wikipedia's voice, that is a failure of our policy of neutrality; but it is appropriate to cite or quote reliable independent sources which praise something, provided due weight is given to other views that are also represented in reliable independent sources. I don't see the article DuPont as non-neutral; and within the "Controversies" section, there is a sub-section DuPont#Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; C8) which I suspect is what you are talking about.
If you think there is something missing from an article, something which can be found in reliable, independent sources, then you are welcome to suggest that it be added. The place to make this suggestion is on the Talk page attached to the article, in this case Talk:DuPont. --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This matter is also discussed at Polytetrafluoroethylene, the chemical name for Teflon. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where to make a feature request

I would like to know, as I haven't been able to find it, where to make a feature request regarding the Wiki software, so appropriate programmers will see it. It's quite technical and has to do with the interface between categories and templates. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi deisenbe. The technical section of the village pump would be the appropriate forum. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back. Per the top of that page, "The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bug reports and feature requests should be made in Phabricator..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We may be able to give better help if you say what the request it. Maybe it can already be done or already has a Phabricator request. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to contact a page editor to add a common knowledge fact to a bio article?

I read a page on Naomi Osaka and the text explained her tendency to not look people straight in the eyes as a result of her being shy. That is obvious but incomplete. I wanted to add the following:

and a natural result of growing up in Japan where people tend to avoid looking directly into other's eyes as it is considered to be impolite or aggressive behavior.

I am too busy to spend time learning all the skills/tricks to do stuff on WIKI (even sending this as a question, i see "publish changes" which seems ridiculous) but see many things i'd like to quickly improve. If each page had a place to click to send a note to someone in charge of it, it would be nice. otherwise you risk favoring info provided by a certain type of fastidious young folk & professional scholars at the expense of those of us who have spent a life reading and creating content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Tofu (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flying Tofu. I am 66 years old and am a construction worker (still working including today) so I am not among the "certain type of fastidious young folk & professional scholars" that you mention above. As for the content you want to add, you can only do that if you are summarizing what published reliable sources says about this tennis player and her shyness. When I re-read Naomi Osaka, I was reminded that she is half Haitian and half Japanese, and has lived in the United States since she was three, and was raised in a Haitian-American household. And that she can understand spoken Japanese but is not comfortable speaking the language in public. Given these facts, we simply cannot generalize about the impact of traditional Japanese culture on her shyness. More broadly, we cannot generalize about anything. Please read about why original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One additional point, Flying Tofu: there isn't "someone in charge of" any article, ever. All articles belong to the whole community - in practice, those editors who take an interest in the article. Anybody may make an edit, if they think it is an improvement consistent with Wikipedia's principles and practices; anybody else may revert that edit, if they think it isn't. And anybody may discuss the matter on the article's Talk page.
In general, if you think there is an improvement that can be made, but do not feel confident in editing it, the best thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining your suggestion and (if possible) the published sources that you are relying on.
Thank you for your interest in helping us improve Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Credit for edit

Hi, I was just trying to remove something I did not want there and I went about it the wrong way. I apologise. I wanted to contact Wikipedia but have failed to do so because I found out there’s no specific email or contact. It redirected me here.

So, I have made an account after accidentally editing an article without an account, which I thought would link my previous edit to my username but it didn’t. I am interested in writing articles on Wikipedia and editing the ones that misinform people. I just wanted for those edits to be under my name and not my IP. Is there any way that can be edited?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonblythe (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at your Talk. David notMD (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can I create my Public Profile as an Artist?

Hi there, How can I create my public profile on Wikipedia as an artist.

I tried to create my user page and then submit it, but it got rejected. I don't know how to go ahead about it? Could you please help me.

Thanks. Richie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonritchie (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ritchie; I'm afraid that your User page is only intended for saying something about you as a Wikipedia editor. It is explicitly not intended for the purpose of providing you space for a "public profile" and publicising your work as an artist. Any attempts at doing so usually result in deletion (and if you persist, in the person being banned).
Please read immediately Wikipedia:Five pillars which explains Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which details various things it should not be used for.
After you become sufficiently well known as an artist (or something else) such that that several reputable publications that Wikipedia considers Reliable sources write at some length about you, then someone else could create a Wikipedia Article (not a "profile") about you (but not "for" you, and not in any way under your control) using that published information only. It would not be a good idea for you (or anyone directly connected to you) to attempt to do so: see Wikipedia:Autobiography.
Apologies if this seems a little overbearing, but it would be sad to see you, as so many others have done, waste a good deal of time trying to achieve something that Wikipedia will not permit. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Page Creation

Recently I Complated my 10 edditing in wikipedia, So i created one page Which is Market Reports World But the page was rejected.But "Your submission at Articles for creation has Been Rejected" I am Confused did i Created Article or did i Created Page Please Help me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantanu datta (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shantanu datta:, and welcome to the Teahouse. First things first, it seems like you may have a conflict of interest with this topic. Please make sure to read WP:COI (I have also left you a bit more information about this topic on your user talkpage), and disclose such a possible connection. Secondly, writing a successful article is one of the most difficult tasks here - you'll find a comprehensive step by step guide at WP:Your first article. Please note that Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting websites, companies, or any other topic. Any promotional or unsourced content will get rejected. I hope these general tips are helpful, but please feel free to ask here again if you have additional specific questions about the linked information. GermanJoe (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So far, all of your article edits have been reverted (reversed), Some were the addition of text without an appropriate reference, but others were insertions of mentions of Market Reports World with or without a link to a website. This is considered spamming, and will get you blocked if you persist. David notMD (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User making arbitrary changes to get to 500 edits

Hi there, I found some bizarre edits by user أمين, adding arbitrary links to pages, many of them overlinking with at least one wrong link and some datelinks. Looking at their talk page leads me to suspect they're trying to get up to 500 edits to qualify for 500/30 rules.

I'd probably describe this as spamming, but I'm not sure if or where it would be reported. Mcstove (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=880117455"