Creating a new page for a company.
Dear all, I need help creating a page for a 41-year-old company I'm working with. What could be the reason that the page was deleted. I want to mention that I did not want to publish yet, cause it's not ready, could not find a save botton, had to publish it, knowing it will not be online.
Please advise me what to do as a beginner.
Hello, Armen Sepetjian, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have some misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First, everything, everywhere in Wikipedia is published, in the sense that it is visible (and in most cases, editable) by anybody in the world - articles, drafts, personal pages, everything. That is why the Wikimedia Foundation insisted that the "save" button be renamed "Publish". That is a different sense from when we "publish" something as an article in the main encyclopaedia.
Secondly, what we create here is not "pages for" a company or anything else; it is articles aboutnotable subjects. Not every company (just like not every sports person, politician, musician, artist...) is notable in Wikipedia's eyes: we require that an article be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it, and therefore such independent published sources must exist. Your company may be notable, but most companies in the world are not. Thirdly, if you are working with the company, you almost certainly have a conflict of interest; and if you are in any way compensated by the company (whether as an employee or volunteer, or as a contractor) you are required to make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.
If you can clear those hurdles, then you may try to create a draft article about your company, using the articles for creation process. This is a very difficult task for new editors, and even more difficult for editors with a conflict of interest, because material that looks straightforward to you may look promotional to other editors. But if you want to try, Your first article is the place to look.
In short: if you are coming here to tell the world about your company, you are probably in the wrong place (I mean Wikipedia, not the Teahouse). That's not what Wikipedia is for. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armen Sepetjian (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply.
Honestly, I was hired months ago to accomplish certain tasks, one of the most important one in this, being present on Wikipedia. It was my fault I tested an unfinished page. The company I'm working with is not similar to any other food product distributor. It's something related to Middle Eastern Culture, Lebanese culture. I have many reasons to believe that Al Wadi company must be present on Wikipedia. All I need is your advice, as you mentioned above, I will go to the "Articles for Creation page" and proceed from that step. Hopefully when I'm in need of help I will hear from you.
thank you
Armen Sepetjian (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has your business ever been covered in local history books about your city, in newspapers, or in cookbooks not published by you? Does your boss have a collection of old newspaper clippings? If you can find at least three good sources you can build your article around what other people say about your business. If you write your article that way, it could help keep it from being deleted. If your boss cannot give you any newspapers or magazines, then tell him he need to get friends who are reporters and authors, and that your Wikipedia task will need to wait--maybe several years until a good variety of sources can be published by third parties (not your own company). Once you have all your sources lined up, then consider going to WP:Lebanon and asking for help, though that may not help as there may not be many active people left in that group.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HELP
Hi, I just noted that the user {u|Dean197} has deleted plenty of text from this article "Mi Notebook Air" url:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi_Notebook_Air. I had spent a lot of my time editing it and it now fees like a waste of time.... Was this article previously reviewed by a senior editor before acceptance. If so, is it ok for someone to remove most of the text from the article? Should I edit other articles or not? Can someone please review/? Thank you for your advice. Earthianyogi (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Earthianyogi, welcome to the Teahouse. From what I can tell Dean197 removed content that was considered unnecessary and/or lacked citations. I see you've left a message to Dean197 on the talk page; I have pinged them on your behalf. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu, Thank you for your response. I did read his/her comments "content that was considered unnecessary and/or lacked citations.". Thanks for pointing it out. However, I think slightly different as follows:
1. I check this user's profile and s/he seems like an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia. Also, they have not yet replied.
2. This editor seems to have made no effort to correct it themselves. If they cannot, they should at least try to find the missing references. If they cannot, they should leave a [citation needed] tag on the article and leave it for others to improve it. If they cannot, they should contact the author of the article. I feel so because the article must have been passed by a senior editor and maybe worth it.
3. How can we assess this user's credibility in deleting the text? I mean, a text that is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to another, depending on their perspective.
4. If an editor feels that some content needs to be deleted, then they should first check with the author of the article or other editors before doing so.
5. I edited a few Wikipedia articles. I noticed that references are missing in many places in various articles. That does not mean that the text is any less relevant. I just feel that sometimes authors do not have the time or the energy to add these references, or some do not even have that kind of training to do so. Therefore, we should put a collaborative effort to make and improve Wikipedia, rather than just deleting another person's effort.
6. Please note I am not the author of this article. However, I had spent time editing it, and I feel like it has been a waste of my time when someone just comes along a deletes the text. I wonder how would the author of the article feeling.
Hello, Earthianyogi. Yes, you are making sense; but no, that is not entirely how this works. The relevant policy is BRD. If you read this, you will see that your point 4 is specifically wrong. As for your other points:
1 is not relevant, except that the other editor may also be unfamiliar with how we work.
2: I agree that that would be preferable, but there are many reasons why people do, or don't edit in the most preferably way.
3: I'm not sure what the "credibility" of an editor is. Editing Wikipedia is a combination of applying rules and policies, and balancing subjective views of what is appropriate: that's why we have BRD. AGF says that we should treat all editors equally unless and until their continued behaviour gives cause for concern.
5:Wikipedia policy does not require everything to be cited, as long as it could be in principle, (see WP:PERENNIAL#Require inline citations for everything), but editors are often more picky about new material introduced. You are entitled to introduce material without citation (as long as you have verified that there is a source that could be cited - but then, why not cite it?); Dean197 is entitled to regard that as unsatisfactory, and remove it. The next step is to discuss the question and reach consensus.
6: Usually "the author of the article" is a phrase without a referent. Most Wikipedia articles are the work of several, sometimes many, separate editors. It is in the nature of how we work that sometimes people will put in effort that is ultimately discarded. This is one of the reasons why it is sometimes a good idea to propose a change on the article's talk page before making a change.
Note that I haven't even been to look at the article and your edits, so I am making no statement about whether I agree or disagree with your additions: I'm just answering your questions about the process. --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ColinFine, Thank you for your reply. I agree with all your points. Concerning point 4, I have not looked at the policy; however, I was just porpoising that we do so. But it is okay if that has already been thought through. I regard to credibility, I mean how do we ensure that the person has the right set of knowledge and skills to do so. Also, a text that is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to another, depending on their perspective. May be the person is just a fraud (how do we assess?). I mainly edited the text of the article, without adding any new info or removing any old info from it. It is okay that some of the work gets discarded, but It has to be done in the right way on a factual basis; otherwise, it is just discouraging. Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Earthianyogi. You were bold, Dean197 reverted, now you're discussing. That's how it works. As for credibility: there is no particular knowledge required to edit any article constructively. There are some basic skills in using and understanding English, which we assume that an editor has until they give us reason to doubt that; there are some skills in how Wikipedia works, which we assume that a new editor does not have, but try to teach them gently. You are right that there are people who come on here not to build an Encyclopaedia; but we start by assuming good faith. And if a large edit is done by a vandal or POV pusher, it is usually straightforward to undo it, so nothing is completely lost. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From quick look, the article was tagged before Dean197's deletions with too much detail and citations needed - and much of what was deleted was separately tagged with citation needed - so the actions were not entirely arbitrary. If citations can be found for the deleted content it may be appropriate to restore it, or some of it. Personally, I agree that even if citations are available, there was too much esoteric detail. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a document that helps a person decide which notebook to buy. David notMD (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David notMD, Thank you. I understand, but in that case, why should this article be accepted by Wikipedia in the first place? I feel that it should be completely removed, should n't it? Earthianyogi (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu,:David notMD,:ColinFine,:Earthianyogi: This is a very insightful discussion and really helpful. As pointed out, I am a new editor. And as I noted in the edit summaries, I removed some sections due to lack of citations and what appeared to be overly specific detail that the regular person wouldn't be interested in. Some of the text also sounded like it was lifted from an advertisement, so I amended some of that to sound more impartial to the topic at hand. I can image how frustrating it would be to have someone come along and remove text you'd put considerable time and effort into making. However, so much of the instruction aimed at new editors is to be bold and as I am a professional writer in my day job I thought I'd take a crack at making the page more useful to the average reader. I could be totally wrong and have missed the point, however, and very much welcome any feedback from experienced editors out there. Dean197 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help these users are threatening me that I will be blocked and deleting my work
I need help. Some people are threatening me that I will be blocked and deleting my work. First they said I did not add reference. Even though I gave all reference. Now they are removing line saying, this is duplicate. They are removing the most important information from the article abstract. The abstract needs this. I have followed the rules and not done anything wrong. Please see this and ask them to stop blocking me.Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratap Pandit: Per the note on your talk page, the block warning is due to edit warring. Stop making changes to the article and discuss on the article's talk page to get consensus on the changes. RudolfRed (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pratap Pandit, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! For starters, you are edit warring, wherein you repeat the same edit. That is not helpful, and can get you blocked. The way to solve this problem is to discuss it on the talk page (Talk:2020 Palghar mob lynching). Its possible this is a simple misunderstanding, please discuss it with the other editors. If that fails, there are multiple forms of dispute resolution available. But please don't edit war, that is disruptive. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓15:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think these users are BJP agents and that is why they are removing important facts from the article to spread rumours. They must be blocked.
@Pratap Pandit: It looks like you may be engaged in a content dispute. If your change gets reverted, you can use the talk pages of articles. And no, you are not going to be blocked unless if you cause disruption. Read our block policy for more details. You can do almost anything here with common sense. Aasim15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aasim as CaptianEek asked I raised the issue on Talk:2020 Palghar mob lynching but no one is replying. Instead now they have asked administrator with false case of Edit warring.
I have not violated the 3 revert rule that this user explained on my wall. So with only 2 edits, how can they file the false report ? is this allowed ? Pratap Pandit (talk)
@Pratap Pandit: I am guessing it's been resolved to your satisfaction; sometimes erroneous reports are made, administrators review them, so nothing bad results. Sometimes, admins can make mistakes too; if that happens, there are processes to appeal, and discuss more broadly among Wikipedia community. Do note, however, that 3RR rule is not a license to revert 3 times. Wikipedia functions on common sense, and WP:GAMING can backfire spectacularly. Even in minor matters like 3RR, admins can block an editor for edit-warring even if the 3RR line has not been crossed. On the other hand, according to that report, you had not made any reverts after receiving a warning at your talk page; that reflects very highly on you. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️11:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool After reading WP:GAMING, it seems I was being lured to step into the trap for blocking. Yes, I am satisfied with the verdict given by the administrator RegentsPark on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pratap_Pandit_reported_by_User:GreaterPonce665_(Result:_No_violation_). Yes, I have read the full page on Edit warring, and I plan to strictly follow these rules. I was surprised by the hostile manner I was treated by them. The threat of getting blocked had got me stressed and I immediately clicked the Help link on left margin that brought me here. This thread on teahouse was my last ditch effort to seek help, had I received a similar response here I would have abandoned Wikipedia. I am glad that I asked help and the users were so welcoming. RudolfRed, CaptainEek, and Aasim thankfully explained the matter well. Aasim and MrClog also discussed the issue I had raised with the other editors after which they relented and allowed my edit for which they were edit warring. I have read the welcome post by Aasim those were helpful in explaining basic things. I see that other user who was posting on my talk page is now blocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brihaspati#BlockedPratap Pandit (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pratap Pandit, that editor was blocked for a completely unrelated reason.
India-Pakistan and Hindu-Muslim issues are among the riskiest and most unpleasant areas of editing in Wikipedia; even experienced editors could lose perspective over there; many avoid those areas like the plague. Naturally, most new editors from India/Pakistan are likely to start off on these very minefields and end up quickly blocked wrongly or rightly; being right about an issue isn't enough, you have to know the right way to go about convincing others too. There is something called Discretionary sanctions authorised for India-related editing where administrators have more personal discretion to enforce the rules more strictly, which you should expect to receive a notice about soon. Be especially careful when editing India-Pakistan and Hindu-Muslim articles; you could get into trouble in Wikipedia or worse, in real life. So, be careful not to divulge any information about yourself that others could use to track down your real-world identity, if you intend to continue to edit these areas. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️12:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number, about your reply below, I admit I had lost my nerves, but you need to understand the very stressful situation I was pushed into, please see this thread to understand. Usedtobecool how can you be so sure that it was a completely unrelated reason ? The Wikipedia article says "Swarajya (magazine) is an Indian monthly print magazine and online news-portal. The publication subscribes to right-wing liberalism and critics note it to be a pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) publication". If you look at the line, which these 3 users were edit warring to remove, it perfectly fits this description. I am following the policies so I hope I will not get anymore ominous notice. Ok, I will be careful in the topic. Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool, the nomenclature used is really strange, why would someone call it "sanction" if it is intended to be informative ? Oxford dictionary defines Sanction as "a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule". Looks like Wikipedia chooses its names to strike fear into the users. Someone should think of a better name for it. The information nevertheless is useful, it will save me another heart attack. Many thanks. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pratap Pandit, hah! that was just my mind skipping over a word; I meant to say discretionary sanctions notice. (The sanction itself is indeed very sanctiony, and very indicative of wrongful conduct.) And, turns out, the correct terminology is even milder—it's apparently an "Alert". The template for the alert is at {{Alert}} if you're interested. Usedtobecool☎️13:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phew Usedtobecool, "alert" is indeed lot less terrifying than the former. The links you gave are very helpful. Will follow what is said there. I would appreciate if you could help me to clarify one more thing. I have already read Good Faith and Civility policies. This blocked user seems to have taken a ginormous offence about my question. On his talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brihaspati#Blocked, he claimed, "I called him B worker" This is absolutely false. All I did was ask him that question as I had this suspicion. A query is not the same as declaration. Is even asking such a question, considered a sanction-able offence here or was that user over reacting ? Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pratap Pandit, it's not sanctionable on its own, no. The editor was justifiably offended; I am not going to investigate the extent of their reaction and whether it goes into the "over-" territory. Context matters. If I were asking someone if they are an Ayurvedic doctor in real life because of their demonstrated expertise in the area, it would be a compliment; if I asked the same question to imply that they were pushing pseudoscience, it would be an attack, specifically, an ad-hominem attack. Neutrality is one of the three core policies of Wikipedia; so that which might as well be worded "Your edits are so biased; they could only be coming from someone brainwashed or paid by the BJP" would be offensive to any editor, especially so an editor who has possibly received all kinds of insults and accusations, having been active in one of the most unpleasant areas of the project. Tell you what, focus on content, not the editor (unless you have sufficient evidence of the editor's wrongdoing to push for some kind of sanction; even then, best focus on the actions, not motivations/affiliations) and there's never any reason to worry. While we are at it, there are some questions that you ought not ask even of friends (see WP:OUTING). Best, Usedtobecool☎️15:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brihaspati has been indeffed for undisclosed paid editing wrt Swarajya, so I wouldn't worry about them taking offence, though your general remarks are well taken, Usedtobecool. Bishonen | tålk15:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Indeed, Usedtobecool I am glad that you noticed. I decided not to throw a tantrum over it but it did raise a lot of questions in my mind. Which is why I had to ask, but I never got a response, only tantrums. Your advice is very useful, I agree that it is better to be careful on the safer side. Pratap Pandit (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why so many people are so keen to reject?
Hallo,
the AFD process for the bio I wrote just finished and resulted in a keep. The bio was declined twice and than rejected. I kept asking what was the problem and the only answer was not reliable sources. when I tried to understand what were exactly the sources to cause the problem I got no answers at all. if you are too busy to feed the writer of an article with all the information he needs to understand your decision and improve his article please just don't do anything. If you fail someone's work than it would be fair for you to be available to explain your decision and help.
Honestly i don't feel that those who have rejected/declined the bio I wrote were moved by genuine intentions, otherwise they would have answered me and explained me what it was wrong in their opinion.
In the ADF talk page I was accused of going everywhere to ask for information, what was I supposed to do? if nobody answers me should I just let it be?
moreover, telling a person stuff like "fails WP:GNG", "fails WP:BASIC" or " fails WP:ANYBIO" needs to come with an explanation as those are very much interpretabile guide lines.
If your point is to get something done fast please do something else. If your point is to improve wikipedia be there for giving all the necessary info.
moreover, when I received the rejection I went everywhere asking what I could do and everybody just told me there vere scarse possibilities for me to see the bio published. after I asked 1000 times someone finally offered me to put it in the AFD and I have accepted. This behavior is not constructive neither. don't Just answer "it is hard or it is almost impossible" tell also what is can be done. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable article requires reliable sources that establish the subject as notable. If no-one can find such sources, then the subject isn't notable, and an article on it is not warranted. There's nothing that can be done to get round that. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: hallo, please ping people when you give them an answer otherwise they might never see our answer. I said that my article was kept, but this is not the point. the point is not if the sourcing is good or bad but the fact that if you tell someone his sourcing is bad than you need to explain a little bit your opinion, especially if you have the power of failing his article. if you say the source is bad than explain why in detail. probably the user spent a lot of time writing his article, you can take 10 min to let him know why his work is not accepted. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2, 3, 4 and 8 report what he said himself, so are not independent.
5, the link given is to a page that does not mention him.
6, the link given is to a page with no content, but apparently written by him and so not independent.
7 is to a list of articles by him, and so not independent.
Reference 1 however does seem to me to qualify as helping to establish notability. Anyway, I see that the article has now been accepted; so, congratulations! Maproom (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: I wan't talking about Marricke Kofi Gane but this one sounds like a very good answer. this is exactly the type of answers people should give when they fail an article.
I applaud Alejandro's sincerity and politeness. Thanks. I get so many snippy comments and rudeness from editors that I wonder how they ever made it through kindergarten. I am sure we all wish Alejandro success, and I, for one, hope he will stick around and help improve the encyclopedia by working on other articles. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why so many people are so keen to reject?" Some people wish the honor of being considered an "expert" on something. Being able to reject someone else makes them feel better by gratifying their badness. Sort of like how a crackpot or crank enjoys tricking people into thinking they are an expert, but with less effort. Plenty will review things they have no expertise in. Also some people resent it when people make something or learn something new: in the real world not on the internet this is the sort of reason people like doctors and scientists need their professional groups. By supporting each other they can keep good work from being torn apart for petty reasons. So some people's motives are bad and childish. However, this website has a rule that people must assume "good faith" even when good faith is not shone to them. The purpose of this rule is to keep people from always assuming that people who disagree with them have bad motives--it is no way to run a discussion. But it comes with a trade-off--until you have gained "friends" of a sort to support your work (sort of like with like doctors and scientists), you are vulnerable to people being petty to you. My suggestion would be for a while to focus on trying to help other people who edit topics that interest you. Then when people treat you badly your "friends" of a sort might come to your aid. Obviously this is time consuming and a lot of work, and you may not find it a good idea for you personally--I understand. One other thing--when it comes time to publish a new article in articlespace you may find better luck with reviewers if you use your own sandbox or a userspace draft than community draft. Not saying you won't get the same issue there, though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the characterisation that (some) AfC reviewers see it as something honourable to reject a draft and I don't think there is any evidence for that either. There are certainly issues with the AfC process, but these comments aren't helpful. In addition, you don't need friends to get your draft accepted (though it may be helpful if your friend is experienced at Wikipedia and can advise you on how to write articles). By the way, any general criticism with regards to AfC should be posted here, not at the Teahouse. --MrClog (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing how you feel about my last post; I will try to keep it in mind. No, you don't absolutely need friends to get your draft accepted--but if multiple editors edit a page some reviewers are more sympathetic--because they may believe that multiple editors will continue to support and develop an article after creation. For example, once I and another editor showed we would support a new editor's rejected draft. The other editor asked the person who rejected the community draft to unreject the draft, and the person did right away, saying that the work on the article would be better done in articlespace.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wylie39: i want to change or atleast try something new layout style for talk page. default signature style is good enough and i dont want to add few extra bits or bytes everytime i use signature. Leela52452 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Leela52452: But, as regards signature style, please don't place anything else after the ~~~~ (as you did above and elsewhere). The timestamp it creates should be the last thing in your post. There's no reason to provide a link to your meta talk page on enwiki – discussions about enwiki should remain here. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—16:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to see what next steps are while waiting for a decision on a discussion. It has been suggested the article I proposed be merged with a parent page CHC. I can make edits to the current talk page; however, I'm concerned that if I submit without a decision being made I run the risk of the article being deleted.
Sunvidal, your link has a bad character. While I can access the page, I do not know where exactly in the article you intended to bring readers to. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I’ve been a fairly active editor for the past year, but lately have felt emotionally drained editing and have felt like I’ve come across poorly to fellow Wikipedians. Is there any sort of “support group” or community discussion areas where one can converse positively? I was running through this page and saw how kind all the responses have been despite the confusing and occasionally trying questions. It gave me hope after a bit of feeling pretty down about my involvement for a while and want to be more substantive. If this isn’t the page to ask these questions, I apologize; I’m still getting the hang of the “back-end” pages. Thanks! ~ 05:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Pbritti (talk)
@Pbritti: I'm sorry to hear you feel that you're burning out. Wikipedia focuses intensely on improving and creating good articles, so there aren't official spaces (that I'm aware of) where support groups are held. Have you thought about taking a WP:BREAK? Please put your emotional health before editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I try to stay upbeat on Wikipedia by reading the weekly/monthly "on the bright sides" Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-29/On the bright side. If you're looking for less formal places to discuss issues, I'd suggest joining the English Wikipedia WP:DISCORD. The conversation is certainly varied, and not structured as a support group, but I find it quite helpful and chat in there a great deal. A good place to ask for instant help/feedback or just share a funny page you saw while editing. Tenryuu is right though, if you're burnt out, sometimes its good to step back for a bit and do something else. Take care of yourself! Smooth sailing, CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu and CaptainEek, thanks for your advice! I'm going to look into the break option, but probably will be taking a look at the "Bright Side" page as well! I'm glad that there are some aspects of community here! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I believe your comments on the page you and I are on, are constructive and well thought out. These times are emotional for most people, the world is in turmoil. Thank-you, for all your help with wikipedia that I'm aware of, and beyond. GunnisonMarmot (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes when I feel drained from WP, I will work on more mindless tasks like fixing orphan articles. These tasks are unlikely to involve arguing or people reverting me.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How to properly understand reliable source guidelines
india is so diverse, and high population. how much population is enough to call it popular. As even if a single kannada newspaper cover only one major city like Bangalore in Karnataka. It will have readership of crores. But editor being from north india or english speaking may judge it not reliable.
Saamna newspaper by shiv sena and national herald by Indian national congress Saamna is popular then its own circulation, will it be considered as unbiased and reliable source citing ownership by a political party. Lokmat is only Marathi its demographics is limited to Marathi speaking population only. The hitwad i know is some of oldest newspaper but no popularity.
Some language like konkani, sindhi have very less speaking population, but a specific news paper have loyal readership in the language speaking population.
Above all no single newspaper can represent entire nation in detail, hence the need for regional newspapers.
So my question is how notability is really established, which news source can be considered reliable.
I went through guidelines several times, but have hard time understanding then in context of my question above.Nealtylor (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You ask a question that would require an essay to answer, Nealtylor; unfortunately, I don't know of any that already exist.
Readership has nothing to do with what makes a source reliable. There is some correlation, but that doesn't indicate a causative relationship. And reliability is just one of several characteristics required of a source for it to contribute toward notability. Others being that the sources be "secondary" as well as "independent" and the coverage be substantial, not just a passing mention or a routine coverage.
A source is judged reliable if, for example, it has been mentioned as a reliable source by other reliable sources, or if it has a reputation for accuracy and prompt redaction when mistakes are made, or if it is written by a known expert in the field with good reputation for accuracy and other desirable qualities, or if it has some kind of responsible editorial mechanism/board and there is no evidence that it publishes inaccurate/fake news, I think you get the picture. That means, "a Kannada newspaper that covers only Bangalore" would be reliable if it is one of those things I mentioned above. Same with Lokmat, hitwad, and "a specific newspaper in Konkani or Sindhi". Saamna and National Herald would have to be evaluated in light of their affiliations with Shiv sena and The Congress respectively. They could be reliable about certain things, and unreliable about other things. They will not contribute to notability of anybody or anything connected with their respective parties because whether they are reliable or not, they are not "independent" or "secondary" when it comes to their own parties. As to whether the local/regional papers contribute to notability, there is no general answer that would fit all. For example, if the topic is a Marathi writer or a book from before 1900s, and there is substantial coverage in Marathi papers and a few mentions outside Maharastra, that may be considered sufficient; but if it's a Marathi writer or a book from today, people might wonder, why there is no substantial coverage in national and international level,and even suspect that someone could have paid the Marathi sources to cover the topic, then that would not contribute to notability. Deccan Herald, AFAIK, counts toward notability most of the times. Isn't that a regional paper?
The actual content of the coverage matters too. Time and again, Wikipedians discuss whether Times of India should be considered unsuitable for evaluating notability of Bolly- / Tolly- / Kolly- wood related topics, because it writes filmy articles which read very much like paid placements, but then, people say, all Indian film coverage is bad; so, it's tolerated, last I checked, lest we run out of sources to use. On the other hand, English world has a ton of global sources, so there is a very high standard, and even large multi-national/global newspapers can get blacklisted.
It makes complete sense, but how i can use this information in real time situations, like it is a unwritten code of conduct between publications, to not publish about each other due to competitive nature between. Now how a new but going good in circulation publication can be cited in wikipedia. I seen several brands and publication pages in wikipedia in which publication page have its own links as references like bhaskar, jagran, how it is allowed and how a rather new publication will be or not be allowed to use its own references as it may marked as advertisement.
But other publication are never going to write about it.
Same for journalists and editors, except for few who keep on switching jobs i do not see accredited journalists mention in editorials for any award except for government website.
In this case journalist award reference link can be provided but no other references will be available.
All editorial mechanisms and responsibilities big brands automatically qualify, but how a new will be able to, on what points wikipedia editors will judge it.
Nealtylor, again, you raise excellent questions, some of them really arguments, one of which I have previously used myself. The general answer is: Wikipedia is not perfect, we do the best we can. The policies here are all borne out of WP:CONSENSUS, and every editor has the ability to propose amendments to policies if they have the arguments to convince the rest of the community. You can visit WP:VPP to see some of that in action. Some of the problems you bring up has to do with WP:Systemic bias. Some of it has to do with how technology changes the world. Everything that was written about before printing was invented is considered automatically notable. Before the internet came along, and with it, clickbait, fake news, WP:COVERT advertising, and all that stuff, newspapers used to be considered almost always automatically reliable. At the end of the day, we service our readers and the philosophy of free knowledge for all; if erring on the side of caution with respect to the booming media landscape does it, whether and how much fair it is to the legitimate new media does not much figure into it.
Getting back to the important question of how to go about editing Wikipedia under these circumstances, all that need said, most likely, is, use common sense. Try your best to make sure the source you are using is reliable; and if someone reverts you, present your case in detail such as you have done here, especially focusing on why you think the source is good, and since you are new, ask politely what they know that you don't know that makes them conclude the opposite, and try and come to an understanding on what's best for the encyclopedia. If you can't find an agreement, there are other avenues of WP:Dispute Resolution. As I said, a lot of how Wikipedia works on is common sense and unwritten consensus. So, it is folly to try and figure out all the rules before you even start. Know that there is no hierarchy of editors here, but that, with experience, may come better knowledge regarding the most up to date community consensus on best practices, all of which may not be found in the written word, and that there are always avenues to pursue if you find yourself in conflict with other editors in any regard. In the meantime, you might be able to gain more insight by raising some of the specific questions you had, at, say, the WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics. I am thinking of questions like: "Why do Jagran and Bhaskar get to cite themselves, when it is spam in case of new publications?" or "Why should the state-level newspapers of India that serve more readers than many of the countries' national papers not be listed as reliable sources or sources adding to notability?", and so on.
With regard to some of those more specific questions used to illustrate your general point, WP:SNG is one compromise we have to try and make it fairer to topics that are important but do not have readily available coverage in mainstream sources. For movies and short films, the secondary criteria are listed at WP:NFO. As you can read there, a film without a ton of coverage will be presumed notable in the interim if there is at least verification that it has won a major award, for example. Similarly, for journalists, WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC provide for presumption of notability if there is evidence that they have won a major award, or have been cited many times by others, for instance.
Nealtylor had asked this question to me as well, so I found this response helpful. I also found these links that I feel are good advice. Please take a look.
Uses and indications of Traditional Herbal Medicines
Hello
I want to post some changes and add Traditional Herbal uses of some of th entries in Wikipedia, can someone help me to understand what you refer to as reliable sources. In my work, I have used many traditional textbooks, such as Bartrams Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine. Are these considered reliable sources for the information about the action and uses of herbs as remedies?Herbalthyme (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Herbalthyme, please visit WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard to discuss reliability of a particular source in general or in a particular context. Please read the notice on the top of that page before you make a post. Editors there are more specialised in evaluating reliability of sources. Wikipedia has a rather strict interpretation of what counts as reliable in health-related contexts (see WP:MEDRS), so my guess is, you could say "This book says this herb does this" (provided it is DUE), but you can't say "this herb is medicinal for this purpose". Best, Usedtobecool☎️14:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I encourage you to edit the pages of individual plants--less people will oppose you, as their are many plants and not as many people editing plant articles as they used to. One good source I have is "Stern's Introductory Plant Biology"--there is a large appendix in the back with hundreds of plants and how they were (or still are) used as medicine. Because this book is published by a well known scholar and is peer-reviewed it might even raise less issues from the people worried about high standards on medical articles. When looking for sources online, you may want to search for the term "Ethnobotany"--the sources you find will help by explaining not just what the plant was used for, but who used it, or still does.
Topical encyclopedias are not good for proving that topics on Wikipedia are notable enough to have new articles about them, but they are still considered reliable sources for writing within existing articles. You can still use Bartrams to write within existing articles--just not to prove that a new article is notable enough to be published in article space. An example of how it is already used as source can be found here: Elecampane#Uses
This might seem odd that wikipedia, itself an encyclopedia, discounts other encyclopedias. The reason for this is that their are many encyclopedias covering popular topics like "Star Wars" or "Fan Fiction"--with so many niche topics that are of interest to only fans--so as a result it was decided that encyclopedias are not good for proving that an article is notable enough to avoid being deleted.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability
Hello Teahouse hosts. I am considering another article for Wikipedia; however, it will entail much work, so I am inquiring regarding wp:notability before writing the article and having it rejected due to to lack of notability. The article I am considering is list article about native Texas, firewise trees. There is an article already on Wikipedia, Natural landscaping from which the phrase native landscaping redirects from the search box. While there is no firewise landsccape Wikipecia article (and I am considering an article about that subject), I have found several reliable sources (at least I believe they are) regarding the subject:
Interesting question, Hu Nhu! I've mulled over this quite a bit before replying, and I should say, first off, that I don't really like the sources you've found. But even with great sources, I would still urge against a list article, and especially one that is specific to listing species of relevance to one small geographic region of the planet - or there'd potentially be tens of thousands of such lists!
If anything, the topic of Firewise landscaping is itself notable - and one that has recently come to awareness (though here in the UK we prefer to focus on species that don't go mouldy in prolonged rain!). Firewise landscaping seems almost the opposite of Xeriscaping, and I think quite appropriate to Wikipedia. I would base any new article on what firewise landcaping is, and not on listing individual species. A quick search found me a number of US government sites that could form the basis of a short article, such as this, this, this, this and this. Plus this on the Firewise Communities Program, which could be noted within the article. Just a few example tree/shrub and herb species would be appropriate - not long lists.
Any article on Wikipedia should be short and to the point about what the concept is and not a manual on how to do it. If you don't feel confident, I would be happy to cast an eye over any sandbox or draft article you might prepare. I hope this gives you the kind of answer you were seeking. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most excellent and thank you Nick Moyes. I very well may do a firewise landscaping article and accept your generous offer for an occasional perusal. I am currently composing articles on two very interesting women, both major generals in overall command their respective states' National Guard and with significant press reporting them in the context as the first female commanders in their states' history.
Also, as an inquiry strictly meant to improve my work as an editor, I am curious as to what the sources I found lack and to what I might look in the future sources. Most kind regards, and again, appreciation.Hu Nhu (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hu Nhu: Sorry for taking a while to reply. I'm happy to answer your question about the references you gave. As a basis for an article, none are strong enough, and I would expect to see an article based solely on them being put up for deletion (mainly because a lot of AFD nominators - especially new ones- don't seem to bother doing a proper WP:BEFORE check for better sources before rushing to have stuff deleted.
The KLS.COM article is a bit too newsy, and chatty, and not in depth enough about the topic.
The www.theunion.com article is similarly too shallow, and is just a short gardening page, listing a handful of seemingly randomly-selected herbaceous plants.
The MotherEarthNews link didn't work for me. I did find this one which was also too short and sweet to base an article upon, nor did it explicitly refer to Firewise landscaping.
So, when we look at notability of a topic, and its relevance to Wikipedia, we need to look both at sources already in use if the article exists (especially if it is being challenged and up for deletion), and we need to try to find enough in depth, detailed sources to be able to demonstrate that the topic is notable, and to use only the best ones which serve our encyclopaedia's purpose. It's also important to show the breadth of relevance, so I'd also look for sources from other parts of the world. Does that make any sense? (Finally, and as an aside, I did look for any pre-existing article that might already cover this topic, but could find nothing of direct relevance, which is good news for you. My heart did sink a bit when I found Fire Resistant Environmental Ensemble, but when I checked it out I just had a chuckle.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Earthianyogi please collate the sources carefully and make sure that the subject meets either WP:GNG or one of the criteria at WP:ENT, then use the WP:Article Wizard. Reading WP:YFA before you start is recommended. Other editors can weigh in once you have a rudimentary draft with, for WP:GNG, a list of three best sources (WP:THREE) that establish notability, or failing that, requisite evidence for WP:ENT. On a sidenote, do you know why your signature is after the timestamp in your post? Usedtobecool☎️19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool, Thanks for your reply. I have no idea why my signature is after the timestamp in my post :( Is it a problem?
331dot, Thanks for your reply. Just for fun. Can I not? I have only created technical page/articles so far on Wikipedia, and want to make/write another type of page/articles as well. It seems slightly complicated...
Earthianyogi When a newer user says that they have a "need" to create an article, they often have a specific reason for their need. If you just want to create an article, that's fine. Be advised that creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. I would second the advice given to you by Usedtobecool. You may also wish to spend some time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, so you get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. It may also help you to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, Thank you, but I created other technical articles as well and have made significant additions to other articles (like copula, Positron Emission Tomography, Time-activity curve, etc.). I wanted to contribute (maybe I should have said - I wish to create....). I see now why it is hard to publish an article on Wikipedia, it can get complicated :) :) Earthianyogi (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Earthianyogi, well, when the order is messed up, the reply-link tool doesn't work; makes it harder to leave a reply. That also suggests, at least a possibility that bots might potentially have a problem too. IDK for sure. It was weird enough to make me curious, that's all. Usedtobecool☎️20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: Having fixed the same (sig) problem in the section above, I fixed this one as well, not realizing it was being discussed. Odd that it happened to two different editors, and not in all their posts. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Usedtobecool: Mystery solved. If you type 8 tildes in a row, it is interpreted as 5 tildes followed by 3 tildes, yielding a timestamp followed by a userlink. Since we added the preload when people use the Ask a question at the top of the page, which has a somewhat obfuscated auto-signature in it, some more experienced users that are used to signing their posts, when they use that button, don't notice it and add their own ~~~~, which usually results in two signatures. There was a change made to the preload form that removed a space, so the two sets of tildes now run against each other. Pinging Tenryuu. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—01:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlanM1, the reason why I removed the space is because it would always render the signature as code in preformatted space due to the space preceding it, which as far as I could tell wouldn't allow reply-link to work. I tried to find examples in the archives, but they've been copyedited away by editors. Perhaps we should add another comment in the preload? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: I tried a couple of different things and didn't come up with a good solution. At least a comment that tells people not to manually sign it would be good. I'll work on it some more tomorrow. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—02:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: I've added a new comment to the reload. A possible thing we could do is add any one character before the signature, like "." and format its colour into white so that it is essentially invisible. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: After fixing three more flipped sigs (the last at 2020-04-25T06:04Z), I inserted a space in front of the tildes in the preload, which seems to work fine (and is a good idea anyway so people's sigs aren't crammed up against their post). We'll see if any more show up. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—08:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Clarification added above) I also played a bit with the Lua String module to try to catch and remove the four tildes if the user types them, but from the results, it seems that the tilde substitution happens too early – the String module gets the already-substituted signature instead. So, we may just have to live with the double sigs if they don't see the instruction. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—08:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mofongo1234: If you are going to add the location inline with the text, you would normally add a {{Coord}} transclusion inside parentheses, like the following (look at it in source editor to see the actual code used):
If you have more than one of these in an article, one of them should use |display=inline,title (the others should just use |display=inline). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a really helpful resource for me on my journey to publishing a Wikipedia page and I was wondering if I could ask for a bit more help. Last time I was here I was requesting an edit on the Voxa page, and Ian.thomson and ColinFine were incredibly helpful in telling me what I was doing wrong and steps I could take moving forward. They suggested that I write a page on Voxa's main product, the Mochii, which I have done here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mochii. I have taken their advice on both source collection and tone (I did my best to write it as if I was one of their industry competitors sticking to facts that I found from reputable sources). I was hoping either of those two or someone else would be so kind as to look over the Draft:Mochii page and let me know if I'm headed in the right direction and what I can do to improve it to be Wikipedia level content. Thankful for all the help, Sachin Zachariah (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading through the article, I suspect that the article's sources are pretty shallow in their coverage. This is because I came away with more questions than answers. The emphasis on use in space causes me to wonder what other situations the Mochii might good for, and who would use it. Was it modified for use on Earth (that would reduce costs)? As a casual reader, the specs are kind of over-kill in the absence of any mention of the history of small EMs and the market's development. Was NASA involved in the product's design from the start? Is the Mochii a substitute for an EM in certain situations other than space? Did the Mochii have a predecessor? Context is vital.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the quick review and comments Quisqualis, extremely helpful. I was originally planning on adding an Applications subpage where I use sources that talk specifically about the different applications of the Mochii and how it differentiates itself and creates a new niche in the market. I was originally wary of doing this because I thought it could sound too promotional, but I guess if I keep the tone correct it seems that this would be a super helpful part of the article. Do you recommend cutting all of the specs or comparing them to how regular electron microscopes function. If not, where would you suggest doing most of the differentiating between the Mochii and its competitors, and how do you recommend doing that without sounding promotional as if I were working for the company. I plan on adding more context about the competitors and how it's different. Thank you! Sachin Zachariah (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sachin Zachariah, the specs are pretty dry reading for a general reader; I believe you could leave them out. As far as differentiating the Mochii, you might state what the company intended to achieve when they entered that market, rather than enumerating differences with other products.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Process for Creating a Page that Exists in a Foreign Langauge?
1987atomheartbrother, welcome to the Teahouse. There is a good deal of information at WP:TRANS about your query. In short, you can begin a short article about the person in English, as described at WP:YFA, then, assuming you want to do it yourself, you can start translating. It's best not to use sites like Google Translate; make sure you also include citations. If you do choose to do this, make sure you provide an appropriate edit summary for your additions e.g. "Content in this edit is translated from the existing Italian Wikipedia article at it:Gustavo Simoni; see its history for attribution." If you don't want to do it yourself, place Template:Expand Italian on the page, and someone else will translate it for you. Hopefully that makes sense. Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi08:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quandry on how to proceed
I recently edited the article Haruhi Fujioka in which I edited what has often been a contentious opinion about the fictional character. I tried to be as factual and neutral as possible in my language. Without explanation, the editor of some of the original text (from 12/2018), reverted my edits back to their own, which (imo) reflects an unsubstantiated opinion. I left the editor a TALK message on 4/24/20 asking if there is a way we can collaborate on the language and am waiting for an answer. QUESTION: If the editor user:Maplestrip refuses to collaborate, what do I do next? This editor, in another area of the article, deleted a direct quote, removed language, re-inserted their interpretation of the quote, then used the original citation to validate their interp (see 07:32 1 August, 2016). I replaced the interp with the direct quote again. That was left in place, but the other edits were reverted without reason and without citation (in one case) to support their validity. Is simply asking for citation enough? And if we still differ, even after conversing, how do both non-cited opinions get listed within the article to comply with WP:NPOV?
I just woke up and am currently responding to @Ouranista: on my talk page. I hope we can figure things out. I didn't intend to come across as so difficult, but yes, I did revert stuff without explaining way and I shouldn't have done that. I hope I can be a better editor and we can figure this out together. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maplestrip and I chatted honestly about the issues at hand and the article in question is now amended in a mutually agreeable way. I've also learned a bit more about Wiki-editing in the process. Thank you, Teahouse! Ouranista (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicommons Licensing Question
This is actually a wiki commons question. If this is an inappropriate place to ask this question, I apologize and request help finding a better place to ask the question.
I’m looking at this page [2] which contains a picture of a Greek vase.
The licensing information seems inconsistent. I see thIs statement:
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
That sounds good but in a previous section I see:
Please note: The above museum permits photography of its exhibits for private, educational, scientific, non-commercial purposes. If you intend to use the photo for any commercial aims, please contact the museum and ask for permission.
Are these consistent? Can you release something under CC share alike with a caveat that the photo cannot be used for commercial purposes? If not, what should be done about the image? Can there be an image on Wiki commons that is not available for commercial use?
I should mention that I didn’t take the photo or create the page in question but I’m curious about the licensing issues. I was under the impression that photos on Commons should be available for commercial use.
@MarylandGeoffrey and John from Idegon: No, I don’t think that qualifying statement is consistent with the way the file is licensed or with c:COM:L, but it might not matter per c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography if the vase is no longer eligible for copyright protection. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC to see whether this photo might be considered to be a c:COM:DW. The CC license is technically for the photo, not the vase, per se and it’s the photo that’s really the “own work”; however, if the vase is still protected by copyright and that copyright holder is trying to restrict commercial use of third-party photos of the vase, then the file may need to be deleted. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
did i submit the article I wrote? I cant tell!
I am unsure if my article on filmmaker Suzanne Guacci has been submitted. How can I tell? and if so, what comes next? New to wikipedia. Thank you. Upintheairalways (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upintheairalways, your content was published in your sandbox. Generally drafts are created in draftspace, and I have moved yours to Draft:Suzanne Guacci. Feel free to delete the redirect by clicking on the link in "Redirected from User:Upintheairalways/sandbox" and deleting the content there. I suggest having a look at other articles to see how they're laid out; for example, section headings in all caps are not allowed and we do not link to Wikipedia in external links like you did with "Official website" and "Suzanne Guacci". I'm not the one to talk about image licencing with, but just to confirm, do you have permission to use the image? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You state on your user page that you "work in the film industry in management." You should disclose any conflict of interest you may have, especially if there's any financial ties involved, on your user page as well. It doesn't matter if you're not being directly paid per edit. If Guacci or any business associated with her is in any way connected to your business, you have a conflict of interest. If she or someone representing her are paying you for services, you are considered a paid editor even if you were not explicitly ordered to make a Wikipedia article or even if you were not explicitly ordered to ""get the word out" about her.
Wikipedia is not a PR service for new info by paid workers, it is a volunteer-driven summary of already-published independent sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. Yes, I am in film management but not directly to subject but rather to the work. We are attempting to inform and fill in information that other managers have started about Guacci's films that have been mentioned in Wikipedia a handful of times and are linked to other actors. Upintheairalways (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
porqué quitaron el contenido de la última empresa que decía que era un esquema piramidal o estafa ???
Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. This place is for new editors to ask questions about navigating and using Wikipedia, not about if a subject is part of a pyramid scheme or not. Perhaps you might want to try the Spanish Wikipedia project? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot insert images hosted elsewhere, that includes files hosted on your own computer. In the latter case, you may upload it via Special:Upload. However, we need to adhere to certain rules there. WP:IMAGE should have more on this. Once you have uploaded the image, you can insert it. If you uploaded it as "File:Example.jpg" the following code will generate a nice thumbnail on the right side as it is used widely (Check the source in edit mode) Just an example. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, I am updating the page on Rabbit Hemorrhagic Disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_haemorrhagic_disease and noticed that the taxobox information is outdated. The current taxonomy can be found at https://talk.ictvonline.org/taxonomy/p/taxonomy-history?taxnode_id=19950818&src=NCBI&ictv_id=19950818 and should read Riboviria > Orthornavirae > Pisuviricota > Pisoniviricetes > Picornavirales > Caliciviridae > Lagovirus > Rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus. But I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do this! After 90 minutes of trying to figure it out I thought I'd elicit some help! I am not a coder, and so all of the information on the taxobox pages is going over my head. Is there someone here who can fix this for me? Thanks for your help, Rabbit Vet (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Covid-19 Survival phone numbers for those without internet, to stay inside.
Is Wikipedia tenable to use for our Wiki for this project. http://emailtomail.org
33,000+ USA (eventually world wide) records, one per Zip/Postal Code, with one printed
mailing page. example: https://emailtomail.org/Downloads/Pre%20Survival%20List.txt
Each page should have about 15 essential sources, mostly food. With a medical, laundry,
smartphone acquisition, GOV hot lines, essentials, etc. PHONE numbers. Not Links, as
33 Million Americans (many more Worldwide) do not have internet, PC, smartphone, or
even phone books! (enough to re-infect the world, many times over) In fact, many do
not have 911 or 311 also.
Can it be controlled at all, assuring as much accuracy as possible, guarding against
foul play, unique records(one record per zip code), crowd vetted, etc.
Can there be the same system for each country. There are many data to Postal Mail
services in the world, (for one's family) and we should be able to get GOV, donors
to pay for Postal organizations to deliver one to each mailbox in the world ASAP.
Most web pages have <br> and other formatting, which cause extra lines to be pasted
into mailing WYSIWYG forms. The example link above is to a txt file which does work
without the extra lines. Can a <pre> and or <code> be implemented to solve this?
With this pandemic, each life we save, may be our own. Soon, the recovered should
serve the quarantined. Only then, do we have a chance to outlast this virus.
We may not have the will to do this now, but when this comes back in the Fall, as
Dr. Anthony Fauci insists it will, maybe we will.
This infrastructure will serve the world for this and future disasters, for rapid
deployment of LOCAL hard copy public health information. "All Politics is Local"
Hello, Emailtomailorg. This might be a useful suggestion, but it is absolutely nothing to do with what Wikipedia is, which is an encyclopaedia. There are plenty of other places on the web that might be more suitable. Also, please note that, however laudable your proposal may be, you are attempting to promote it, and promotion of any kind (commercial or non-commercial) is forbidden on Wikipedia. And finally, I'm afraid, User names that suggest that they account is being used on behalf of an organisation are not permitted: if you intend to carry on editing Wikipedia (which you would be most welcome to do, if you're not being promotional) I suggest you abandon that account and create a new one. --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does an article edited by someone else automatically get resubmitted?
I have written a article (Lee Fardon) that was initially rejected. I edited and resubmitted and it has subsequently been edited by two others. Does this mean it will automatically be resubmitted (by them) or do I have to resubmit? How do I know if my article will be accepted? Fencedown (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fencedown and welcome to Wikipedia! The other two editors simply fixed up the draft, but you must click the "resubmit" button again as yet another one has declined your edit. I will warn you, though, it is probably a good idea to find some reliable sources to back your article - there has been cleaing, yes, but a lot of your sources are not ideal. -- a ladinsane(channel two)08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If your article is edited after resubmission it is just fine--such editing doesn't remove it or even bump it back in the query. The people reviewing an article's submission only see the link and the first few lines until they click on the article. When they click on it, they will be sure to see the most recent version of your article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some doubts
Hello, i just wanted to know is there any difference between footnotes and references on wikipedia? Also, what is the use of short descriptions in any article? Lightbluerain (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbluerain, welcome to the Teahouse. Footnotes are notes found at the bottom that are linked to sentences in the body. References are usually done as footnotes and provide information about the source content is being taken from. Short descriptions provide a very short description for articles (which makes it easier for mobile devices to find them). More information on short descriptions found on WP:SHORTDESC. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am writing a biography in English. The spouse of the person has a page on the Swedish Wikipedia. When I try to link it claims that the page does not exist.
I saw some references to how it is done, but sadly it is unclear, and in my experience (I am new to Wikipedia editing) as unclear as many help/tutorials I saw in/on Wikipedia on other subjects.
Thanx Danishom (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Danishom, welcome to the Teahouse. You need the language code sv for Swedish. See Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links (links in the text of the article) and Template:Interlanguage link. We can usually give better help with less effort if you give specifics like the name of the page you want to link, and where you want to link it. {{Interlanguage link|Name of spouse|sv}} produces Name of spouse [sv]. "Name of spouse" is intentionally a red link to the English Wikipedia as long as we don't have an article, while "sv" links to the article in the Swedish Wikipedia. You didn't name the article so my example link doesn't work. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to do it is to put a colon, sv, and another colon before the article's name in Swedish. Like sv:svenska. But weirdly, only the second colon appears, the first one is hidden. Click on edit to see exactly what it looks like.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non Constructive
"Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)"
How should I best respond to this strange message? When has the criterion for Wikipedia ever been about construction rather than accuracy? Is CLCStudent operating outwith the terms and conditions of Wikipedia? Yourmrbumbles (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yourmrbumbles Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the edit was just an error on CLCStudent's part, it might have seemed to a quick observer to surreptitiously slip a misspelling into the article. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear: "Revert" is commonly used in Indian English to mean "reply". See wikt:revert#Verb, no. 12. Shabnamrana: many English speakers outside Asia do not understand "revert" in that meaning, and it has a different use in Wikipedia editing, so I advise you to avoid it here. --ColinFine (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to members of the TeaHouse.
In reference to the draft Draft: Aaron D. Lewis i think 4-5 reliable sources that are independent of the subject, have now been cited, neutral tone and notability guidelines met. In response to a request one editor, who asked to state 4 sources of the subject without 'passing mentions', the sources are:
TheEpistle, you have asked the same question on my talk page, where I have answered it. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. Doing so is likely to annoy editors who might otherwise have been willing to help you. Maproom (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovingpenguin question
I published a couple of things . When I search up the title of them they do not come up . HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR ARTICLES TO BE FULLY PUBLISHED ?
Lovingpenguin (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The question was the pervious post. "Publish changes" (the blue rectangle) does not mean publish the draft to main space. You created Draft:Loving penguin and Draft:Jaws. Because these are not like Wikipedia articles, they have been tagged for Speedy deletion, and will disappear very soon. I suggest you take the tutorials on how to edit articles before trying to create a new article. David notMD (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia
why was my articles deleted i just put in my own words what i thought now two of my articles are going to be deleted ? why is this website like this ? Lovingpenguin (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was blocked by my family from accessing Wikipedia for a short while, and, as I am a wikiholic, I used the proxy User:5.153.218.57 ([3]) to access and edit Wikipedia. I could not log in to my account from that proxy, and I subsequently got blocked for a month for making edits in my userspace. Recently, I have read WP:NOP and have realized that the edits I made on that proxy are inappropriate. As I live in Ohio, not China, what should I do now?? should User:5.153.218.57 be blocked indefinitely? Computer165 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to contribute content to an existing page, but I wanted to share it with the page creator
On the Wikipedia page USS ARIZONA SALVAGED ARTIFACTS, it references that an artifact has been donated to the Veterans Memorial Museum in Laurel, MS. I am the website administrator for this museum and I wanted to provide a photo of the artifact/display to the Wikipedia page. I really didn't want to have to go in and do a full blown page edit. Can you help me out here?Jweby70 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Jweby70 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jweby70, the stated scope of the article USS Arizona salvaged artifacts is "articles displayed throughout the state of Arizona". Cannot see how any contribution you could make would be on topic. However, your addition of photos of the museum exhibits would be a great contribution to Wikipedia Commons, and if say a state level AAA magazine wanted to do a story on your museum, those pictures would be readily available. John from Idegon (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have multiple images, a good way to show multiple pictures is an image gallery at the bottom of the page. Because you work for the museum that will be producing the pictures, it is important to get someone else to put the images on the page and probably not do it yourself. I encourage you to upload all of the photos on to Wikimedia Commons and to use long, detailed captions. The captions should link to relevant wikipedia articles using the interwiki linking method of placing :w: prior to the wikilink. This will allow your Wikimedia commons images to link directly to wikipedia articles relevant to the topic.
I should add that you will need to release even the commercial rights to the images. As commercial involvement is sometimes prohibited by museum policies, you should check with your museum to see if they allow it. For example, would you feel exploited if a business in your town made post cards with the images you put on WP and sold them--competing with your own gift shop? These are good things to bring up to your museum board of directors or supervisor prior to uploading the pictures. See also c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography.
Then, when you are done uploading all of the pictures you want to add, post your request and links to your photos on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Someone may see it and add it to the article, and since the other person will not be a museum employee, this will not violate the Wikipedia policies on conflicts of interest. If you state on the talk page that you have a conflict of interest and need help, I expect that somone will understand and be considerate of your request. As some people can be sort of snobbish with photos, make sure they are taken with high resolution and good lighting. Many indoor pictures taken in museums are too dark and as a result are unhelpful for wikipedia.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article on famous television series
I want to create an article on a famous television series. Can someone guide me in a detailed way so i can create article without the risk of deletion. Hansi Choudhary (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hansi Choudhary: This may seem like an obvious question, but are you sure there is not already an article about it (i.e. have you WP:SEARCHed in the Main (article) and Draft namespaces for its name and any potential variation)? What is the name of the series? I think it may be quite unusual for there to be a notable TV series that does not have an article in mainspace or one already being developed in draft space. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—06:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that only exist in another language or on Wikispecies
Hello,
I have written drafts of articles for three interesting protist genera: Rhodelphis, Colponema, and Aquavolon.
Rhodelphis has a short article written for it in Russian. Should I be editing this version of the article somehow or should I create a new Rhodelphis article in English?
Colponema has a very short article on Wikispecies. Should I create a new Wikipedia article or add to the Wikispecies?
@PeriplasmicCortex: Hi! Wikipedia:Translation will have more information for you. All articles here on English Wikipedia should of course be in English, and if it exists on Russian Wikipedia and you're able to translate it without introducing errors, that would be very welcome. I don't know too much about Wikispecies, but it has a slightly different aim than Wikipedia since it's not a straight encyclopedia like we are. Typically species should have information at both places; feel free to copy over from one to the other, but be sure to note that you've done so in your edit summaries for attribution purposes. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Odd formatting on wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article
The page shows a third bullet that is incomplete. The underlying text is this:
I don't understand your question. It isn't ignoring everything up to the comma; it is providing what appears to be a sensible working link to edit the reader's user talk page. It would, however, seem appropriate to change the punctuation from a comma to a semi-colon. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Markell West: Like the others, I saw "Click here to ask for help on your talk page". {{edit}} adds the class noprint so I guess you saw the page in a printed or printable version where the class is hidden. <span class="noprint">This text has noprint</span> produces "This text has noprint". I see "This text has noprint". It's not shown in the printable version. It's admittedly confusing to hide the link in some circumstances without hiding the text after the link, so I have removed noprint.[4] Alternatively, noprint could have been added to the whole line, but I think users who view the printable version should know the link is in the normal online version. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... but don't sign at all if you add a new section using the Ask a question at the top of this page – it already has code in it to append the signature-producing tildes. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPLIT: Forming a new article from the text in an existing article
Hi, I have added a lot of new content to the 1.7.2. 'Bones' section within this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography. I left a message on its talk page proposing that a new article can be formed using 1.7.2. 'Bones' section. However, no one has yet replied. I am asking for suggestions as I intend to write more on BONES sub-section and add a few more figures on this topic. I noticed that the page is loading quite slow. I am not sure, but any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thank you. Earthianyogi (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Earthianyogi. Have you read Splitting? (By the way, when you refer to a page here, it's more helpful to use a Wikilink rather than a URL: [[Positron emission tomography]] rather than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography). --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely worded sentence. Not continuous with the article.
Hey Guys,
I'm not a WiKi-Pro so i am not completely sure how to properly edit information on this website. I found this strange. It would be a very hard job to factor out all the confounding factors leading to any results based on the studied population.
Gonna jump on the other side of the fence today. I've been reading up on reference grouping because I am currently editing an article that would look best with multiple notes in a reflist at the end of each section. To separate them I have been using <ref group="" name=""> tags, but when I call them, the superscript marks read as "group 1" instead of "1" as I wanted them to do. Anyone know a way of suppressing the group name from showing up in superscript? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenryuu Do you mind sharing the article you are working on? I have a couple of thoughts, but I do better playing around a bit (without saving, but will share what worked in preview mode). And, you are not trying to separate notes from citations, but to have separate reference lists by section, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson: I'll be honest, it's not here on Wikipedia but on a different wiki (external link's here if you're interested; go to the "Thief" section to see what I'm talking about). I'm trying to get a notelist for select sections, which is why I'm using the grouping feature in the cite software. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: If you use {{Efn}} and {{Notelist}}, it will use the lower-case letters and they can be re-used in multiple sections (i.e. the {{Notelist}} shows only the {{Efn}} since the last {{Notelist}} (or the top of the article if none)):
P.S.: I assume we're talking about "notes" only here, not actual references (which should remain together near the end of the article, AFAIK). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—07:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: I'm talking about notes, not references. I'm actually editing a page for another wiki, which doesn't have those templates. I'm guessing that without templates like {{efn}} and {{Notelist}} it's impossible to do with the original cite software? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: The functionality does seem to be in the basic reference handling (at least as of the current wiki software version, though I think it's been so for a long time). Here's examples with roman numerals without templates. Note that if you try to use one of the section 3 references (like "x1") in section 4, you get a "not defined" error, so they are definitely isolated. You can even re-use names between sections on the same page (though that's not nice to future editors ):
@Tenryuu: Yes – at least the style property is necessary to make it use the lower-roman numbering on the list so it matches the superscripts in the text. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—18:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanM1: I think I'm doing something wrong; I've copied the line for the references group and for some reason the superscript still reads "lower-roman 1". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenryuu: Well, there's nothing obvious in the HTML of the rendered page, so I'm stumped (HTML, CSS, etc. is not really my bag). Someone at WP:VPT may be able to tell you what's in enwiki's config that makes it emit "[i]" instead of "[lower-roman 1]", that isn't on your other wiki (and, for those who are silently screaming, we know it's gone off-topic here ). —[AlanM1 (talk)]—19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a draft pending. Is it okay to make a article on that?
Hi, I recently made a article namely Draft:Basic Level Examination. It is a type of examination which used to be named District Level. Previously, It used to be conducted by particular district. But now it is conducted by Municipal Education Board. So, I felt it was necessary to make a article. District Level Examination is the previous system of board examination for Grade 8 students. Please suggest me necessarily. NecessaryEdits (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NecessaryEdits, you seem to have requested deletion of your draft. So, it's not clear to me, what exactly it is that you are asking. District Level Examination, it appears, is the same , except for the change of stewardship from Districts to Municipal councils. So, it seems sufficient to note that change in the existing article; a new article seems unwarranted. If you have the sources to back it up, you could move the article to the new name as well. Best, Usedtobecool☎️20:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As now of today, the style of the examination has been changed. The name must be change according to the type of the Examination. The examination used to be of district level but it has been modified. The system of the examination has also changed. The format of taking examination has also been changed. So, I felt necessary that a article should be made. Concerned User:Usedtobecool and User:Maproom
it contains hyperlink above "From விக்கிப்பீடியா" and below "பிலார் உருயிசு இலாபுயெந்தே" in desktop mode [ i mean tapping desktop at bottom of page, NOT "request desktop site". is this some kind of error ? Leela52452 (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Leela52452: The Teahouse here can only handle questions about the English Wikipedia. Each language is a separate project with its own rules that are not necessarily the same. Please ask at the Help desk of ta.wikipedia.org. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Leela52452: It's done deliberately on all pages in that wiki by installing mw:Extension:ShortUrl. The url's for non-Latin scripts look bad because they use percent-encoding, e.g. this for your example:
Your browser may display it in the script in the browser address bar so it looks better to you there, especially if you know the script. https://ta.wikipedia.org/s/7ctr is an automatically created redirect to the article. It uses the page ID so it still works if the article is moved. In a wikilink you can write ta:பிலார் உருயிசு இலாபுயெந்தே but that only works from within Wikipedia, not when a link is posted externally. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Way to format an image with a heading, without using the multiple image template
I am working on edits to an article, Procuratie, which uses a {{Multiple image}} template (vs. formatting with the standard "File:" format). I created this sandbox page with both formats for the same image, and the only difference is that there doesn't not seem to be a way to add a header to the File: format.
Is there a way to add a header to the File approach that I am just not aware of?
Is it okay to just leave the single image formatting using the multiple image template?
I was beginning to get the same thought - that there's not likely a clear good answer. I will leave it for now... and also reach out to Help talk:Pictures. Thanks so much for your response, Usedtobecool! And, if you used to be cool, but aren't anymore, maybe that's because you're getting plenty of –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting mis-linked English and Danish pages
The English entry for an area of Copenhagen variously known as: the Kildevækd Quarter, the Strandvej Quarter, the Svanemølle Quarter and the Composers' Quarter is here
Can I propose a redirect page that was denied multiple times 10 years ago?
I think it only makes common sense to have a redirect from Articles for Deletion to the page WP:Articles for Deletion. I see that several requests to create the page Articles for Deletion were denied in the past (>10 years ago), or that the page was deleted for random reasons. Is there a reason that this is a silly question? Is there a reason the page shouldn't redirect to the right AfD page? Thank you for opinions. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article under development requires your support and guidance
Hi Team,
I have written a articleDraft:Nisha Ravikrishnan. Thus article was rejected because of notation issue.Wanted to know what needs to be added from my end.This article is my first ever article, so would need your support and guidance on what needs to be done.
Would like to improve on your guidance and support. Cinemapremi (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cinemapremi, as suggested by Robert, for Nisha Ravikrishnan to be notable (and hence be accepted), she must have played a significant role in several films/shows with an article. So far not yet seen in the draft. If she is indeed notable (as from above), then please leave a message on the draft’s talk page and tell others. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that draft Talk pages are rarely looked at as part of draft evaluation (if the Talk page exists at all), and that the best course of action is to significantly improve the draft before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering how I can improve my draft to pass submission
Hi Sam,
If an individual is listed in several different books in different publication years and editions should that be listed also, or is it redundant? Mhjelm (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mhjelm. Mere "listings" of an individual do not contribute to their notability; while they can sometimes be used to support a specific claim about somebody, more substantial material is usually preferable, and is certainly needed for the bulk of the information in the article. Citing multiple editions of the same work is counter-productive, unless there is different relevant information in the different editions: a draft full of citations to multiple passing mentions tends to create a suspicion that there aren't any substantial sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Colin,
Yes, there is different relevant information in the various publications. I am wondering what a substantial source is since it seems many accepted submissions seem to include an array of websites instead of actual published books by reputable publishers.
Courtesy - this is probably about Draft:Lisa Munsterhjelm. Quality is more important than quantity. If all the books have is a list of names with that person included, then does not contribute to notability. P.S. Remember to sign your name after every comment by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, to answer another part of your reply, Mhjelm: Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of substandard articles, which would not be accepted if they were submitted today, and are only there because none of the thousands of volunteer editors has been interested in improving or deleting them. Please see other stuff exists. Some websites are regarded as reliable, if they have a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking; but many are not. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mediapals. I'm afraid that, like many people, you've plunged into the difficult task of creating a new article without having learnt how Wikipedia works; this is like going to your first piano lesson and expecting to play a concerto. The next step (which ideally would have been the first step, before writing a single word) is to find multiple independent reliably published sources which discuss Monteux at some length, and cite them: without that, your draft does nothing to establish that his is notable, and will never be accepted as an article. Remember that nothing written or published by Monteux or his associates, or based on material directly from them (such as interviews or press releases) is acceptable, and neither is anything from a user-generated site such as iMDB or blogs. We need places where people who have no connection whatever with Monteux have chosen to write at some length about him, and been published by reliable, professional sources. Reviews in major newspapers might do it, provided they devote some space to him, not just to his works.
Does anyone know how to make info boxes? CUZ I DON'T. So I tried a couple of times. It NEVER worked. I think I did something wrong in the source editing mode but I'm not sure. Reach me out in the DOES ANYONE KNOW INFOBOXES? talk page. Flipsosmasos (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any attempts to make an infobox in your saved edits. If you post or link your code then we can see what is wrong with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. My responses to all the responses (:D): 1. I was trying to find a game oriented infobox, but there wasn't one (darn) 2. The reason that I didn't have a infobox entry in my history was cuz I never would be able to actualy make one while editing (didn't recognize the template). I had to remove all my attempts cuz u prolably know why. Thanks for the help though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipsosmasos (talk • contribs)
@Flipsosmasos: A board game, video game, or sports match would have different infoboxes. If you want help then say what you want help with. If you have chosen an infobox then you can post your attempted code at User:Flipsosmasos/sandbox. If you want help finding a suitable infobox then say exactly what it is for, e.g. the name of a game. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the above page there is a table of organisms. Some are red and some are blue. They are clickable for more information on the specific organism, but color difference is not explained. 73.60.214.239 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every picture has a name. The example pictures have example names. First, figure out what the name of the picture you want to add in is, and then replace the example picture name with the correct name. With few exceptions, only use galleries near the bottom of an article. Getting your picture right is tricky--I recommend using the "sandbox" link near the top of the page to practice. No one will mind if you make a mistake in your sandbox.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Manoj shrivastav. You have attempted to create an article on your WP:User page. That will never get indexed, because your user page is not part of the main encyclopaedia: it is for sharing some information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor if you wish.
If you want to try the extremely difficult task of creating a new article, please start by reading your first article. If you are in any way connected with Prince - the Desi Rapper, you also need to read about editing with a conflict of interest. If you are the rapper, then you need to read autobiography to learn why writing an article about yourself is a very very bad idea. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a translation (from a native speaker) at af:Cannabis_in_Suid-Afrika and an Admin deleted with no explanation and deleted my question on their Talk. Solution?
Hello, let me emphasize I had a native speaker proofread before moving to articlespace. I posted a machine-translation of the intro of Cannabis in South Africa on a Draft page: af:Draft:Cannabis_in_South_Africa. I got a native Afrikaans speaker to proofread it, and only then moved it to articlespace. But then a couple days later an Admin deleted the page with zero explanation, and today when I posted on their Talk (which they appear to be using as just another userpage, no conversation on it, and I did double-check the page title to make sure it meant Discussion), they immediately reverted my attempt to communicate.
I don't know if they deleted it for legit technical reasons, or out of an animus towards the topic, so I'm trying to assume good faith. If this Admin simply won't provide an explanation or respond to Talk page posts, how do I find someone to look into this and tell me if I'm in the wrong, or the Admin isn't behaving appropriately? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney but English Wikipedia and Afrikaans Wikipedia are entirely separate projects, with different personnel and different policies and rules. It is unlikely that anybody here can help you: youll need to take this up on af-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know some other projects like ja-wiki have an "Embassy" page, but not seeing that on af-wiki. I guess I can try to poke around and see what's their general Talk page and post there. And I imagine most internet-savvy Afrikaans speakers also speak English, so that could be easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk • contribs)
Good Afternoon Everyone! I Benjamin I Request That This Page You May Reconsidering On It And Help To Re-Active Again It Will An Honor To Get Back In Line Thank You! O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)
Hey @Benjamin GASIGWA:. Welcome to the teahouse. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically sign and link your name. I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please ask a little more clearly? Thanks, Hillelfrei• talk •17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Benjamin GASIGWA. I'm afraid that your sandbox has been nominated for speedy deletion, because it is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and any article must be almost entirely based on material that has been written and published wholly independently of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ColinFine! So It's Means That I'm No Longer Able To Use Sandbox?? O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 17:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)
Your content is now at Draft:Benjamin Gasigwa. It is not submitted. If submitted, it will be Declined or Rejected, because there are no references, and because the content does not support that you meet Wikipedia's requirement for notability. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not social media. It is an encyclopedia. And please, do not capitalize every word. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ghoraghatalpha: Wikipedia requires that images not be copyright, as per Wikipedia's Image Use Policy. In general, this means you cannot use photos you find online, rather, you would need to take the photo yourself and upload it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons. Since the photo you are referring to looks old, there is a small chance the copyright is expired, but you would have to look into England's copyright rules because they likely differ from United States. --Hillelfrei• talk •18:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AM I BANNED From WIKIPEDIA ???
I Want To Ask Did I Banned To This Page?? Because Nothing As I See Allowed From Talk, Sandbox To Contribs All Pages Are Saying Deletion Deletion So What Can I Do O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)
No, you are not banned, Benjamin GASIGWA. Your attempts to write about yourself have been deleted, because they were not appropriate content for Wikipedia. But you are very welcome to join us in improving Wikipedia: we have six million articles, and many of them are in need of some care. Please have a look at Help:Introduction. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Robert McClenon maybe you understand my question different!? It was just question I didn't mean to make you angry Robert So Sorry O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 21:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Manoj shrivastav You have edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place for you to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself and your career. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where article subjects, such as musicians, must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case the definition of a notable musician. If you have read that definition and truly feel that you meet at least one of the criteria, you shouldn't be the one to write about yourself- you should allow others independent of you to take note of your career and write about you.
Also understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer or prevent others from editing it. Lastly, do not ask others to post their email addresses in this public forum. Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me. I have created a page for Samuel Mori Voit and the code was checked. It is being rejected and I don't understand why. It has been going on for over a year. Please help! Fayerez303 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayerez303: Your draft hasn't been rejected, but declined, which is not as serious. I suggest deleting your other draft and improve the one you currently have before re-submitting it. Also, refrain from using promotional language, as it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles.
you could link to it instead of uploading it. You'll need to upload it to your school's website first before linking to it like the references already in the page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Epiphyllumlover, but that advice is not right. Awnearn, what is the status of the book Shine on that you say is the origin of the material? If it was published by a reputable publisher, then you can cite it, even though it is not available online. You just need to give standard bibliographic information like title, date, publisher, author, page number. See Template:cite book for how to do this. Uploading a PDF or a scan is likely to be a copyright violation, and cannot be used as a reference because the provenance of a PDF held on a site not known to be a reliable publisher is not itself reliable.
If the book was not published by a reputable publisher, then it's not clear that it can be used as a reliable source in any case.
I see that the Pohlmann book lists ECS among the "sizable group of private schools formed during desegregation". Wikipedia goes with what the reliable published sources say, so that statement cannot be challenged in Wikipedia by an unpublished or privately published source. Reading around it, it seems to me that when Pohlmann says "during desegregation" he is referring to the whole of the period from the Memphis 13 - ECS is not the only pre-1973 school in his list. I'm sure that the wording in the Evangelical Christian School article can be emended to explain this better, and I encourage you to post an Edit request on Talk:Evangelical Christian School. But the article should not say something directly contrary to Pohlmann unless another reliably published source can be adduced. --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an example of “sealioning”
There’s been a recent edit at the page of Nick Fuentes by a user stating that word not used in the sources cannot be used on the page. The user argued that the words “encounter, filmed, and criticism” do not appear in the source article and thus should not appear on the page (and then proceeded to remove the entire sentence). The source used does not use the words but very clearly shows the encounter, the filming of it, and the criticism that ensued from said encounter. Is this a valid argument to make on Wikipedia or is this an example of WP:SEALION?
Edit: I forgot to to mention that the user said to find sources using the words mentioned above or “accept this edit [removal]” Nigel Abe (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a valid argument. It seems that editing this page is harder than most because it is a biography of a living person--I encourage you to avoid edit warring over this. Their are different ways of solving this--Have you tried waiting maybe a few weeks and seeing if the problematic user gets bored and goes away? You could also tag the person's talk page with a message that they are being a nuisance. If enough people leave such messages over months or years of misbehavior, the nuisance-causing editor could get punished.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I’m going to leave a message on his talk page, and revert him a second time. If he persists and starts edit warring am I safe to take him to the administrator noticeboard?Nigel Abe (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He won't be punished for just one offence from one person. After leaving a message on his talk page, I encourage you to stay away from this conflict completely for a while. How long? That is a judgment call on your part and depends on how active the other editor is. Let him get into more trouble with other editors so he can learn from his errors on his own or get punished after offending multiple people.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Epiphyllumlover: Just to clarify, users are not "punished". If they are disruptive and break the rules (not merely "offend" someone), they can have various administrative sanctions applied, including being blocked for a period of time in order to prevent further disruption or damage to the project. —[AlanM1 (talk)]—23:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, I used to write biographies of models and beauty queens, I lost my account. Now I am back with a new account to make biographies of young and notable activists, innovators, entrepreneurs and humanitarians. Yesterday, I completed a draft called Draft:Benjamin Bocio Richardson (Category: AfC submissions by date/26 April 2020), I think that I did an amazing job, I noticed that all the drafts posted on the same day have been checked, but nobody says anything or moves the article that I did from draft. What should do? Humanitarian2 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Humanitarian2. Your draft Draft:Benjamin Bocio Richardson has been submitted, and is awaiting review: scroll down to the bottom and you'll see the message. There is nothing you can do to speed it up: reviewers are volunteers, and will get it it when one of them chooses to do so. One thing you could do in the meantime is to edit the draft to refer to him as "Richardson" (or should that be "Bocio"?) rather than "Benjamin", according to MOS:SURNAME. --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change name of a draft
How Can I change or simplify the name of a draft that I created. I created the Draft:Benjamin Bocio Richardson and I want to simplify it to Benjamin Bocio Humanitarian2 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A false account labeling me a pirate was opened on my name and was captioned my picture. I tried to edit it but did not work. Just FYI, my name is Abdi Garad, I'm doctoral researcher from the University of Birmingham, and I need help. 81.104.254.67 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple different people seem to have that name, and one of them is a Somali pirate Zoozaz1 22:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoozaz1 (talk • contribs)
Hello, Abdi. The article Abdi Garad was created back in 2009. Is this not simply a case of two people having the same name? (According to Google, I am actually a New Zealand accountant, acquitted of setting light to my ex-wife's wedding dress in my front garden. Whilst those thoughts have occasionally crossed my mind, I am actually a relatively stable person living in the UK with no accountancy experience and, unlike my namesake, have never been charged with arson.) Whilst all three of the citations in the Abdi Garad article appear dead to me, I do find mention in national media of a Somali pirate who has the same name as you both here and here. Whilst this might be embarrassing, would you mind explaining why you feel this article is actually an attack page on you personally, as I do not see that here at all? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zoozaz1, a Wikipedia article exists called Abdi Garad, and it is about the pirate. What you are seeing is a "Google Knowledge Panel" which confuses you with the pirate. Below the panel is a link to "claim" the panel. You should click on that link and explain the problem to Google, as they created the panel. You can also click on the "feedback" link and report the mistake. Wikipedia finds this situation regrettable, but, as it is caused by Google, you should notify them about the problem.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Quisqualis: Thank you for pointing us to the Google Knowledge Panel - I didn't think to check that. As you say, this has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever, but I feel the IP editors anguish, and have just sent Google my own complaint that they have linked the image of an innocent person to one of our articles about a Somali criminal. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing us to the Google Knowledge Panel - I didn't think to check that. As you say, this has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever, but I feel the IP editors anguish, and have just sent Google my own complaint that they have linked the image of an innocent person to one of our articles about a Somali criminal. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So looking at the page history, what happened is that 81.104.254.67 changed the page to an article about himself very recently. The page was originally about the Somali pirate, but he changed it to be about himself. Since the Somali pirate is what the page was created for and is notable compared with a phd candidate, I have reverted to that version. The specific reason the knowledge graph did not display the updated version is that the Google crawling is not instantaneous; in other words, a page changed on Wikipedia will not be immediately reflected in the knowledge graph because it takes time for Google to crawl the page. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Zoozaz1 You did the right thing. But I cannot blame the IP editor for thinking Wikipedia was suggesting they were a Somali pirate, when Google is the one at fault here, not us. Although they received at least three warnings on their page for editing the article, I feel their attempts to change the page about the pirate were somehow done in good faith, in an attempt to protect their reputation. I would not block them if they tried again without first making clear how the misunderstanding caused by Google had occurred. I really feel for them, though there is nothing our editors can do, except maintain the integrity of the page about the Somali pirate. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the predicament, especially since Google pairs an image of the researcher with its are article about the pirate, so I added a note to the pirate article saying Not to be confused with Abdi Garad the PhD candidate for clarification. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest
Hello,
Could someone kindly check and see if a Template message citing insufficient citations is still justified for this article? I do agree that its still a stub, but can someone give their opinion on if this template still needs to be there? I happen to know the person so I do not want to remove the Template as it may violate the conflict of interest rule. Thank you Saffura9 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Saffura9: Please link to the article - my mind-reading skills are a bit rubbish these days.
Hi, I'm working on a graph at User:Eddie891/GAGraph, and there are several things I wan't to do, but don't have the technological know-how to do. Anyone who can advise on what to do/or tell me it's impossible on-wiki, would be greatly appreciated. 1) I want to gray out the background for sections when backlog drives are in progress, like how this graph is done. 2) I want to highlight specific points on the graph (i.e. all time lowest numbers, highest, etc.). Again, any suggestions would appreciated! Eddie891TalkWork00:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I need a Creative Commons license when I own the sole examples of pictures created by my late mother?
More specifically, I want to create a page about her on Wikipedia’s ‘List of South African women artists’. SO I wish to include some examples of her paintings in my possession.
I‘m not concerned that anyone else might download these JPEG images, and use (or even ‘misuse’ them) in that unlikely event…
Thanks!
```` DeSoto 383 (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeSoto 383: You may have inherited ownership of the paintings' copyright, in which case you can release them under a Creative Commons license. All content (except for some fair use content) must be released under a free license, so it can be reused by anyone. --MrClog (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeSoto 383: The good folk over here on English Wikipedia aren't the same people who deal with images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I think MrClog was right in what he says, though be prepared for someone to challenge whether or not you have the rights over your mothers images. (I am in the same boat myself. I've been thinking of uploading a semi-naked image my own mother drew of the wartime model, Quentin Crisp, which is in my possession. I am the sole heir to her will, and thus I now, sadly, own the rights to all her work. But how do I prove that? If challenged, I guess I might have to resort to supplying a copy of the UK 'Grant of Probate' which shows I managed her estate. It would have to be sent to their so-called 'OTRS' Team for checking.) The reason for challenging people over image rights is not to be a nuisance, but it is there to protect the rights of people against having their work maliciously or incorrectly released against their will. It is possible to upload an image only to Eglosh Wikipedia, where we are somewhat less strict on image rights interpretation. As an important aside, any entry into 'list articles' does generally require a pre-existing page about that person to exist here on Wikipedia. That itself, requires certain 'notability criteria' to be met. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DeSoto 383. We cannot advise you on South African inheritance law, but if you are your mother's sole heir, then it is possible that you also own the copyrights to her paintings, and can release them under an acceptable Creative Commons license. As for List of South African women artists, that is a list of artists who already have a Wikipedia biography. If your mother was truly a notable artist, then the first step is writing a biography of her. You have a Conflict of interest regarding your mother, so you should use the Articles for Creation process to write a draft for review by experienced editors. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes. A tilde looks like this: ~ . Cullen328Let's discuss it01:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The necessary status needed to edit the article on The Lord of the Flies
The article on the novel Lord of the Flies fails twice to identify the most important and most fundamental theme of the novel: Golding's view of human nature, specifically his view that human nature is inherently violent and fearful. I've inserted edits in two sections to rectify this omission. I see there is a notice: "This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." So here I am. I'd like to be able to edit the article. Can you give me the necessary status? Chandlerburr (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Providing our own entry to the European Landscape Convention, with many links to relevant publications, etc.
We are responsible for the European Landscape Convention of the Council of Europe and would like people to be able to find our documents through Wikipedia. How could we do this?
Susan Moller, European Landscape Convention, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France Smoller67 (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Smoller67. First of all, Wikipedia accounts are for the use of only one person, so you should speak as "I" rather than "we". You seem to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. It is a neutrally written encyclopedia consisting of articles that summarize what reliable, independent sources say about various topics. It is not a web host or a repository for documents of various organizations. Please read and comply with the mandatory paid editing declaration and the guideline for editing with a conflict of interest. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rangan Mitra Ray, and welcome to the Teahouse. Information about how to cite books is at WP:Citing sources#Books. As it says there, the template Template:cite book can assist. Note that, even if a book is available on the internet, the bibliographic information mentioned there is the important part of the citation: a URL is a convenience for a reader, not a significant part of the citation. --ColinFine (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to include page number and if possible a short quote from the book that supports the text you want to include in the article. Help:Introduction also has "how to" guidance on referencing, supposedly aimed at newer editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How to be an editor/admin of a page
Hello,
I am a newbie and I would like to know the steps to become an editor of a page that has been translated to two different languages. Your inputs are highly appreciated.
Thank you. Lithuaniacitizenship (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuaniacitizenship Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is a particular article you wish to edit, you may do so- you are then an 'editor' of that article. That's all you need to do. Most articles are free for anyone who wishes to edit to do so. A small number are protected from editing in order to stop vandalism or edit warring, but you may still propose changes to those articles on their associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add to that that editing in order to promote your own consultancy office is not appreciated, because Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements. --MrClog (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are (temporarily) blocked on two counts: Your chosen User name is a business name, and appears you want to promote the consultancy office. Must change name. See your Talk page for all details. David notMD (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really new, trying to translate a page, but how should I add pictures to my translation from the original page?
Hello! I am trying to translate the Enoch L. Johnson page to Hungarian language, but I don't know how can I add the pictures from the original page's infobox to the translated page. I can't just upload it like it's mine, but I don't know any other solutions. I am really new, so PLEASE if you answer, try to be very specif about the steps.
I am trying to update an exisiting wikipedia page with updated information. However as this is my first time editing/uploading something on here. I have the article saved on my sandbox, if someone could reivew this and give me a few pointers as to how to go abut updating the exisiting page without causing any conflict with previous editors?
S5omr Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you state you are working with Kevin Stephens, you will need to read and formally comply with the conflict of interest policy. If you are being compensated in any way for doing so, you will also need to comply with the paid editing policy. The article(not just a "page") does not belong to Mr. Stephens and he cannot grant or deny permission for any editor to edit the article about him. The draft you have written is, frankly, loaded with promotional language and is completely unsourced to independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Mr. Stephens. Wikipedia is not interested in what any article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it. Any expansion of the article about him should only summarize what others say about Mr. Stephens, such as news articles or completely independent reviews of his work. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Olwethu Trevor Cokile
IP blocked by User:Callanecc. @EGL1234: in future report such users to WP:AIV. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
_LI.jpg)
Resolved
):
). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Done @PrimeHunter: it is concise and absolutely no nonsense answer. thank you very much. Leela52452 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Manner_of_Hermonax_ARV_495_1_birth_of_Erichthonios_-_Zeus_and_Iris_(01).jpg){kind=link}
