Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

"Major app reviews" needed for page approval. Where to post and how many?

Wiki editor says the page I created needs "Major app reviews" before it is approved. Where should I post links to these? Do I need to link them within the content somehow? How many should I post? MelodyCS (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

How to upload phpto

I was able to easily upload one photo a few days ago that went into my infobox. Now I want to add a photo into the text of my draft article and I am getting warning: We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. I have made more than 10 edit in Wikipedia, and I am a user 4-5 days in . . . I did not take the photo, but it is from a family album. Jami van Haaften https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamivanahaaften/sandbox Jamivanahaaften (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing For Neutrality?

Is it unethical to edit articles for neutral wording? Such as changing pronouns in religious articles that are not in direct quotes? While I understand that this may be seen as disrespectful by those who view their own version of faith to be the absolute truth, because this is an encyclopedia and not the sister-site "Conservapedia", my own personal belief is that all religious articles be treated with a certain degree of neutrality.Risky shift287 (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Risky shift287. I can assure you that Conservapedia is not a sister site and has no connection at all to either Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. As for your question, it is always appropriate to edit articles to bring them into compliance with the neutral point of view. However, be sure that you are not inadvertently imposing your own point of view. As for the use of pronouns, a specific example would be helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Risky shift287 and welcome to the Teahouse. Whether a pronoun for a deity should be capitalized is covered in Wikipedia's manual of style. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake Cullen, just spent an entertaining half hour reading some "articles" on Conservapedia... And absolutely will comply about inadvertently inserting my viewpoints.

Thanks for the tip, StarryGrandma!Risky shift287 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

delay in the review process

I submitted a draft article for review on Jan 15th (draft: operations management for services). It has a yellow review box added near the bottom that said the review would take a week or more. Since it's been more than three weeks, I am wondering what has happened to it? Is this article currently under review and do you have any idea how much longer it will take? I am afraid it may have become lost in the system or is delayed for some reason.Thanks.Rgschroeder12 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it Draft:Operations Management for Services? It helps, when asking a question here, to provide a link to the draft or article in question. One reason for the delay in review may be that the draft is very long. I would also comment very briefly that there is a stray heading between the "References" heading and the list of references. Also, we don't normally end a Wikipedia article with a "Summary". It hasn't been lost. Review may be taking a long time because it is long. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't get Infobox to display properly

Can someone take a look at the infobox on the page for Anice Das. I have copied it from another page for a speed skater and it seems like everything is structured properly. If I make a (visual) edit to the Infobox and save the changes it displays correctly. Then when I save the changes to the page itself, only the name and the medals section display, the rest doesn't show.

Tomdejong14 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tomdejong14. I must admit this has me perplexed as well. I managed to fix the issue with this edit, but...I'm not sure why it worked. I cut the infobox out, pasted it back in, and it was suddenly working right. Maybe one of the other editors could elaborate as to what, exactly, I did? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if there may have been some strange characters before the = signs for the various parameters, but I don't know what the characters were. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Stuck in the Incubator

Please can someone tell us why the Kabiye (kbp) Wikipedia is still in the incubator? This Wikipedia was initiated in June 2014, and since then has been steadily growing with daily contributions from a small group of dedicated volunteers. It now has over 850 articles], many of which have graphics, infoboxes categories and links. The 500 most used interface messages have been translated. The Kabiye Wikipedia has many more articles, and more depth than other minority African languages that have made it onto the real platform. Ghiutun made a Request for a new language in May 2016 which I seconded, but there's been no reply. Kabiye does not even appear on the scroll-down list on this page. What more do we need to do? We're feeling invisible and fed up. Gnangbade (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This seems like something that should be handled at the Incubator project, not on the English Wikipedia. You should be able to find the help you need there. Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks Gnangbade (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

COI edit request - no response

Hi, If you look on the Nova Science Publishers Talk page I am a COI editor who made a request almost 2 weeks ago to have 1 line added. It's very neutral and sourced. I have not heard anything. Yet every other time I've made a request it's been denied within hours. I understand there is a backlog but I am also aware there are at least 20 editors watching this page. I do not know why no one is helping me but I would like to know how long I am supposed to wait before requesting this edit again? And if I am suppose to make the request again, do I simply go to the talk page and ask someone to look at it for me or do I re-enter the line I want added with the reference again? Thank you for your assistancePrplns (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Has now been addressed by Voceditenore on the talk page, IMO correctly - this is in the manner of a press release. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

User pages / areas. Place for lists of articles

Thought I saw a sample of this...just a list of Wikipedia articles (so I don't have to have tons of browser bookmarks!) Now all I can find is the Book area. Is this the right spot for these? Would like functionality of grouping or re-ordering if that is an issue. Thanks Suemactal (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Suemactal, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to keep a list of articles that you are planning to work on, for example, or a list of articles you have created, you can start a page in your own user space for this, such as: User:Suemactal/Article list or User:Suemactal/Articles I have created or that sort of thing. You can put any text on your user pages that you like, as long as it's not a copyright violation, not promotional and is related to your Wikipedia editing.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Anne Suemactal (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OOPS! I clicked on the text in your response (User:Suemactal/Article list) and created a page (I think). I take that it's now an orphan & I should started from my existing/main user page right? I only added one thing...suggestions for next step before I muck up anything more? Suemactal (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It does no harm to have extra pages in your user space, Suemactal; but if you want rid of it, just stick {{db-author}} at the top, and an admin will be along to delete it for you.But I see that you're using it at present, which is fine. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Suemactal (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Need help with adding publication dates to references / reflist

Newbie here. refs for article have retrieved date but I'd like to add publication date. Thought I WAS able to edit that section before but since other changes and added references to that article it seems like editing is different now. Thanks in advance. Suemactal (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Suemactal. The parameter to add the date is simply |date= 7 February 2017. You should be able to paste that inside the cite template and it should work its magic. So instead of using:

{{Cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/03/got-hulu-netflix-need-app-search/|title=Got Hulu and Netflix? You Need an App to Search It All|last=Pierce|first=David|newspaper=WIRED|access-date=2017-02-07|language=en-US}}

...you would use:

{{Cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/03/got-hulu-netflix-need-app-search/|title=Got Hulu and Netflix? You Need an App to Search It All|last=Pierce|first=David|newspaper=WIRED|access-date=2017-02-07|language=en-US|date= 10 March 2016}}.

As to why "editing is different". I'm afraid you'd have to be a bit more specific for us to figure out exactly what you mean. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are saying that you don't see the date field when using the "cite web" template from the edit toolbar, you can use the button to "Show/hide extra fields". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I was looking in the wrong place. I got it now. BUT (allways a butt) I notice now with the 5 cite dates I just added that the order in which the data (author/pub/title/etc) appears differs a bit. Is this in the cite web template itself? Can the order be changed on the fly? If I need to go back to school, do tell me.. Thanks again. Suemactal (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which order the parameters appear in the wikitext, the template will decide on the display order.--David Biddulph (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok Thanks. Suemactal (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Template

Hello I am back hear for seek Can anyone explain me about the template used in wikipedia Like Template:...} — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs)

Hello, SawOnGam. Templates are used for inserting common bits of text (or more complicated things) into articles. There are thousands of them. See Help:Template. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Article

Hello How can I create a page or article on A celebrity,place or something ?? Sawongam (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, SawOnGam. Wikipedia is a big and complicated thing to work on, and creating a new article that is accepted is one of the harder tasks. I would very strongly advise you to spend a few weeks, or months, learning about editing Wikipedia by making improvements to some of the many articles we already have that are inadequate before you attempt to create a new article. But please read your first article to get an idea of the task. --ColinFine (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Need to Rewire Article "Endoca"

Can anyone help to rewrite this article Endoca? Wikibaji 10:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibaji (talk • contribs)

my article draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Keyur_Parikh is rejected

The reviewer has stated lack of notability. I've given enough references that establish notability.

Niyu13 (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Parikh is probably notable, Niyu13, but I can't see that the current references establish this, as I don't think any of them is both substantial and independent. I would also reject the article on the basis that it doesn't really say anything about him, just lists his awards and fellowships. And that is itself a symptom of the notability problem: if you haven't got substantial sources about a subject, there's nothing that can go in an article.

Also, though it isn't grounds for rejecting an article, the references would be much easier to evaluate if they had proper bibliographic details, rather than just plain URLs. See Refencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

what is parsing another editor?

Hello, I've been told I am parsing another editor and that this is a form of disruptive editing. I read the page on disruptive editing and it is definitely something I don't want to do, but I didn't see parsing on that page and am not sure what it means... is there a page on parsing in the context of other editors I could read to make sure I am not messing up? Thank you!G1729 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, G1729. One definition of "parse" from Dictionary.com is "to analyze (something, as a speech or behavior) to discover its implications or uncover a deeper meaning". Accordingly, my conclusion is that the editor who made that comment believed that you were trying to discern some hidden meaning in another editor's comment, and that effort of yours disrupted the conversation. I am not saying that is true but rather, I am trying to help you understand the comment. In general, it is best to interpret another editor's comments based on the plain meaning of their words, rather than engaging in amateur exegesis. This is an aspect of assuming good faith, which is an important behavioral expectation here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

G1729: you were not accused of "parsing another editor". You were asked, at Talk:Executive_Order_13769, to "stop parsing other editor's talk page posts". I believe that this referred to the way you were interspersing your responses with what they had written, making it hard to understand, instead of placing them all together below it. Maproom (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Maproom: Thanks, I agree. I replied to Cullen's user talk page with something similar as what you describe and think I fixed the problem before your reply, but thank you for looking into this; I should've provided a reply here, too. If you think "parsing other editor's [sic.] talk page posts" still appears to be an issue, let me know what I could do to correct it. Thanks! G1729 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

review oroantral fistula page

Hi. I have made a draft for a page titled oroantral fistula page link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oroantral_fistula_(2) and waiting for submission. The current reviewer have to pass it on to someone else due to having too much history with the page. Can anyone help me with the review of this page? Justryingtohelp (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Justryingtohelp: Draft:Oroantral_fistula_(2) is in the queue of drafts awaiting review, which is badly backlogged. When it is eventually reviewed, it is likely to be rejected, because, as explained in the comments at the top. there is also an older draft Draft:Oroantral fistula. Reviewers are overworked hard-pressed editors, who have better uses for their time than sorting out the mess of two rival drafts for the same subject. Maproom (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Maproom I've already cleared up all the copyright issues and merged both drafts (as indicated by the previous reviewers) together into the link that I've posted. I guess for now I'll just have to wait until it is time for it to be reviewed. Any estimation of when it will be reviewed? Justryingtohelp (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

why are we being deleted the next day ?

Hi - my name is Debbie and I am helping my dad Karl.. on page: VPB 121.

I logged in and went to vpb 121 - edit - added our note - preview - save.

logged out/logged in and it was there but the next day - it had been deleted.

I don't know why.....

We want to add under Aug.7:

CORRECTION ON DATE AND EVENT: As noted above, Aug 7th, one on the squadrons were shot down/with no survivors is incorrect. On August 11, 1945, PB4Y-2 Squadron 121 Crew 3, was shoot down in the Sagami Wan Bay (aka Tokyo Bay). Unbeknown to the other plane, there were eight survivors and four were lost at sea. All eight survivors were captured by the Japanese and incarcerated in the Ofuna Camp. All eight P.O.W.s were released after the war. This note is made by one of those survivors: Karl C. Gaber. For pictures and story see Ref: Sheet #721003 PB4Y-2 Privateers insert.

THANK YOU FOR ANY ASSISTANCE, DEBBIE AND KARL KARL G. (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi KARL G. and welcome to the Teahouse. You added a comment to an encyclopedia article rather than rewriting a section. A correction suggestion should go on the talk page of the article, not into the text of article itself. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

KARL G., has the story been written up anywhere but on a reference sheet that comes with a set of decals as described here? The men got medals which are recorded. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, KARL G. and Deb. Two things. First, Wikipedia's terms of service clearly state that an account is intended for the exclusive use of one user. You cannot share it. Secondly, it appears Dad may be writing about something he is directly connected with. KARL G. = Karl C. Graber, ya? Although not forbidden (unlike two people using the same account), it is highly discouraged. See WP:COI. The reason for this is quite simple. In an encyclopedia, you do not actually write about the subject as you would in an essay or a thesis. Instead an encyclopedia is a summary of what has been written about a subject in reliable sources. It is hard for a person who has been involved in something as traumatic as a battle to seperate themselves enough from the event to be able to accurately paraphrase whatever the sources say about it. To state it another way, if you have a book and an eyewitness describing the same thing in different ways, we are going to include what the book says and discount the eyewitness completely. John from Idegon (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

An Edit Battle

Hello folks. I am an occasional editor with an interest in education. I've been keeping track of Swiss UMEF University which is a fake university in Switzerland, notable for being the foundation institution for a real university in Afghanistan. If I include the current owner's name, it gets edited out. If I include the current status of the institution as unaccredited, it gets edited out. Both entries contain references that show what's written is the case. What should I do?Bizetshine (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Discuss it on the article's talk page. If you can't come to a consensus with the other editor(s), then try dispute resolution. Don't engage in an edit war. RudolfRed (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed. Currently the talk page is full of more advertising which I didn't really feel right about erasing, and there's been no engagement at all with my concerns.Bizetshine (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Bizetshine. Don't link to external sites in the text of an article instead of writing a reference. Read Help:Referencing for beginners. You will also need to find a source that says the university is unaccredited. A reference to source that does not list the university is not sufficient. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks StarryGrandma, that's not me doing the external link. The reference is in fact the reference list used by the Swiss authorities. If you're not on the list you're not recognized. The Swiss government doesn't make a negative list, which does not mean that you can never say a Swiss institution is unrecognized. You can.Bizetshine (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bizetshine and welcome to the Teahouse! Looking through the article, I see many unorthodox citations - not to news, magazine or journal articles - and instead to links like this: https://www.unglobalcompact.org. "UMEF" doesn't appear anywhere on the main page when you follow that link, and if you search the UN Global Compact website, all you see is that UMEF is now "Delisted... Expelled due to failure to communicate progress." When I search for information I find nothing, not even in books.google.com, which is highly unusual for the subject of an encyclopedia article.

Do you know of any high quality, independent, and reliable sources that discuss this university with any depth? If not, it is likely the case that the Swiss UMEF University does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and should be deleted. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

An understandable concern Darouet. Notability as far as I saw it at the time was this: Dunya University of Afghanistan (DUA) is in fact a recognized private university in Afghanistan, and it was founded on the basis of Swiss UMEF University (which has existed as an unrecognized school since the 80s that actually has small facilities and a hostel). Graduates would get a dual degree, one from UMEF and one from Dunya, and there was obvious pride in the guy running both institutions. Currently the actual Afghan Dunya site has scrubbed mention of "UMEF" and "Swiss" (although their Wikipedia page is touting the affiliation and that ain't my writing) and so maybe this is going down the memory hole as a successful diploma mill operation that got the job done. I could see it being deleted as its existence might be just as a scrap of paper if the guy running it is covering his tracks. Edits on the article come from Switzerland, which is interesting. Bizetshine (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, I think I'm wrong about scrubbing. Continuing touting at the reference.. Bizetshine (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I blanked the talk page section. It was nothing but an old copy of the article. Meters (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we have an article on this at all. Meters (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bizetshine, Meters, StarryGrandma, and RudolfRed: I've proposed the article be deleted. I hope nobody is upset at this? If you would like to contest the proposal you can remove the proposed deletion template and we can move discussion to the article talk page or other appropriate venues. -Darouet (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

No objection from me. From what I can see some of the claims in the article are not supported by the cites. I have yet to find anything solid that can be verified. Meters (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

References

accepted protocol for dealing with Requested article?

Hi again. There is a request for an "HY antigen" article (#36 under "Uncategorized" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences/Biology/Genetics). There in fact is H-Y antigen. I always learned the term without the hyphen. I know how to move H-Y antigen to HY antigen, but I'm thinking it may be better to simply create an HY antigen page as just a redirect to H-Y antigen. What does the community think about this sort of issue? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, DennisPietras. The first step is to determine which is the most common name in the majority of the high quality English language sources that discuss the topic in some detail. See WP:COMMONNAME for details. If necessary, move the existing article, and then create a redirect at the other name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You could also move H-Y antigen to HY antigen if you find it's warranted, which will automatically create a redirect. Justin15w (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks folks! Much to my surprise, HY is only slightly in the majority on medline, so I'm going to leave H-Y as is and make the redirect to it from HY. DennisPietras (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit another members Draft or create my own?

In short, I came across a draft of an article that's currently been rejected twice for lack of 'notable' references. My question stems from that. Do I update this other members draft to include more references, then give it a major content overhaul to bring it in line with other 'similar' articles, or start my own draft and push from there. I don't want to step on this other members toes, so to speak, but I also don't want there to be two efforts running in conjunction. Any advice would be helpful and appreciated. - NsTaGaTr (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi NsTaGaTr. I assume you are talking about Draft:The Dollop. It is fine to improve an article by another editor when it is in Draft space rather than their own user space. Many Draft articles have been rescued and improved by other Wikipedia editors. See all the rescued draft articles at User:Anne Delong/AfC content rescued from db-g13. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I just didn't want to cause any drama if/when the original author came back to it and saw it in a different state than when they left. - NsTaGaTr (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NsTaGaTr - No one owns a Wikipedia article or a Wikipedia draft, and changes to them should not cause drama. The objective with any draft should be to improve to where it will be accepted. If a user wanted to be the only editor of a work in progress, they would and could keep it in user space, where it is still not exclusively theirs, but they are its steward. Go ahead and improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

NsTaGaTr, it would be polite to drop the other editor a note on their user talk page to tell them that you intend to work on it, and se if they want to discuss anything with you. But you don't have to. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Both are very valid points. I'll shoot them a message, and if I don't get a response in a certain amount of time, I'll start drafting up changes, for the greater good. - NsTaGaTr (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

what else do i need?

I just got another deletion notice for my article. What else do i need to keep it or fight the deletion?Parwaaz hasan (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Parwaaz hasan and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article, Hazrat Shah Sufi Khaja Abul Hasan Chishty has no sources as references for what the article says. You have a list of books the subject has written. What you need are references that have been written ABOUT him, not by him. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. For a subject to have a Wikipedia article he must have already been written about elsewhere, in reliable sources independent of the subject. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

adding an image

How do i add an image to my page? Blaney j (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Blaney j. There is a very good answer to a similar question here: #Adding a image to my page. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Trying to delete an article

I am trying to delete the article for URL_(rapper) because it is simply copied from his facebook page and is otherwise unverified because every other link is broken or useless. I have tried adding tags to the beginning of the page to make it an article for deletion and the proposed deletion but they don't seem to change as desired, or am I doing something wrong. Thanks.Higthomas (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the page - you may find this policy helpful in the future -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Samtar, Before this was deleted the question that really should have been asked is, what came first, our article that was created 20 April 2010 or the facebook page where the oldest post is 3 October 2010 come first? There is a strong possibility that the article came first and it was copied to Facebook, not the other way around. - GB fan 15:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I had read that, hence why I thought it was suitable, I was just failing at the actual deleting process.Higthomas (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't able to find a Source for an Article.

Hi to everyone. I recently searched the Air India aircraft list on Google. And it shows that they have a total of 109 aircraft and 21 on order. And it also shows that Air India has 23 Dreamliners instead of 22 (VT-ANX is 23rd Dreamliner). But if I have to add it to the The Air India Wiki page, I have to give a reliable source. And that I am not able to find that. The sources which are on Google has only images. Should I add that or leave that for now?? Can someone help me please? Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey FlyJet777. Wikipedia generally lags behind the "truth", especially on topics where information can change rapidly or continuously. This is, as your rightly point out, because information on Wikipedia has to be backed up by reliable sources. So before we can write about it, the thing first needs to exist, and second be around long enough for a reliable source to take notice and write about it themselves.

So as a general rule, we err on the side of "definitely recently correct" rather than "potentially currently outright false". If the information has in fact changed, and the topic is in fact notable, then it should only be a matter of time before a reliable source becomes available, and if Wikipedia is slightly out of date in the interim, it's just one of the necessary constraints of our policy. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So you mean that I have leave it until some reliable sources come? Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

FlyJet777: In a word, yes. However, keep in mind that the reliability of the source needs to match the size or relative weight of the claim it supports. So for example, we have exceedingly high standards for reliability when it comes to medical information (see WP:MEDRS), but on the other end of the spectrum, it is perfectly acceptable to cite even social media sometimes for mundane and uncontroversial personal details (see WP:SELFPUB). If all you are looking to change is something as minor and uncontroversial as the size of their fleet, probably even a reference to their official website (if the information is actually there) would be reliable enough to support the content. TimothyJosephWood 15:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you very much for your response. Well.. How many years does it take to gain the adminship? FlyJet777 (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Umm...There is no formal requirement as far as time spent on Wikipedia or number of contributions made. Some current administrators, especially the old-timers, may have gotten the bit after several months. Others who have been here for ten years or more aren't admins, never have been, and plenty flatly don't want to ever be.

Being an admin really just means that you have some extra buttons to push, most of which are for...essentially janitorial maintenance: things like deleting clearly inappropriate articles, blocking obvious vandals, adding protections to pages when it's requested...generally fairly boring stuff. But other than that, being an admin isn't really a special status. Everyone's more-or-less on equal footing around here, and experience and perspective matter much more than what user access level you may have. TimothyJosephWood 16:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I have understood. Hey.. What do you think of my edits here on Wikipedia? Need explanation or good work? Thank You! FlyJet777 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

FlyJet777: I'm afraid we have a bit different subject areas, but I would encourag you to consider participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation if you haven't already. Seems right up your ally. TimothyJosephWood 17:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi. I would like to edit the page for International Alert, the charity I work at. This was recently deleted and written from scratch but there are a number of significant details missing. The page has also been flagged and one concern is 'conflict of interest' (the author has declared having a very loose connection to International Alert). As an employee I obviously have a much closer connection to the organisation, so I'm concerned the changes I make won't be accepted and may result in the page getting deleted again (especially as it will involve some heavy editing/re-writing). I plan to keep the style very factual with plenty of external links but please can someone advise me on the best way to amend the page and get the flags removed? Many thanks.82.108.6.210 (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello anon. You may request changes on the article's talk page by including {{request edit}} in your comment. Changes suggested should be precise and supported by reliable sources which should be provided so that the information can be verified. There is currently a backlog of 102 requested edits, so it may take a little while for someone to respond, but a volunteer will address your suggestions and accept, modify or decline them. TimothyJosephWood 15:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Establishing notability for Emmanuel Navon page

I received a notification on the Emmanuel Navon page that it "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention." I have cited many sources which I thought were independent and secondary, as well as referred to many scholarly articles written by Navon. Can someone please advise on what may be the issue with meeting notability requirements here and how I can improve it? Thanks!109.65.30.14 (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have worked through the first ten references at Emmanuel Navon, and found that none of them help to establish notability. If you believe that some of the other 55 references are independent and reliable, and include significant discussion of Navon, can you please tell us which? Maproom (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A large number of these "references" have been written by Navon himself. That's not appropriate. References should be to published material written by journalists, critics, or other authors who are not connected with Navon.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you say it is better not to reference articles authored by Navon at all or just to add additional ones that are not connected with him?79.181.247.66 (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And would, for example, reference number 52 be a good reference? It quotes Navon but is not written about him.79.181.247.66 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

my entry was deleted.

my entry, Four Primary Days, was deleted. this happened two times previously. i want to be able to post it again and it to not be removed. the reason for removing my entry was totally bogus. What can I do about this? 50.161.46.26 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

When your submission was deleted, the reason will have been given on the rejection notice. Can you recall what it said? Maproom (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was created and re-created multiple times — Four primary days (deleted twice) and Four Primary Days - Presidenial Primary Reform (sic) (deleted once) The details for the rationale behind the deletion are at User talk:DouglasRoberts1986. Basically "(A11: Article about a subject obviously invented by article creator or associate, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." I haven't seen the deleted articles but they seem to have been based solely on the contents and ideas at http://fourprimarydays.blogspot.com. If there is no significant coverage of this movement in entirely independent sources, I'm afraid the article doesn't stand a chance of being kept. There were some proposals to reduce the presidential primary elections to four days back in 2008. But they don't seem to have gained a lot of traction and it's unclear if they are related to the movement espoused on that 2013 blog. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Saving a half-edited page.

New Editor: I want to copy-edit a page but I need to do more than one thing. First I need to do the copy-edit, then I need to put in some Wikilinks that would explain the subject a little better. How do I save a half edited page? Then, how do I find the page again to complete the edit?

Cynewulfsfadr (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cynewulfsfadr. Welcome to Wikipedia. There is a link called "contributions" at the top of every page which shows every edit you make under you user account. The page you are working on has a "history" tab at the top which lists every edit that has been made and allows you to view older versions of the page.Charles (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That was helpful Charles, thank you. I think that I am slightly overwhelmed at the scope and complexity of Wikipedia at the moment and am trying to find my way around it. At the same time I don't want to 'break' anything. (That is probably not possible but I'm sure that you understand the fear. - ooohhh, sounds like the definition of phobia doesn't it?. Thanks for the help. I'll be back! (Terminator 1).

Cynewulfsfadr (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Cynewulfsfadr:, if you are unsure about a specific edit, both the text editor and Visual Editor have a "Preview" function where you can check the effects of your edit before actually saving it. Anyway, most edits can be easily reverted - even if something goes wrong, you can usually "undo" such edits in the article's edit history. GermanJoe (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding a image to my page

Hello please can you tell me how I can add images to the page I am creating Thank you Christine Bedwellty Union Workhouse, Tredegar(Christin5P (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Christin5P and welcome to Wikipedia! This topic is covered in depth at the following links: WP:IUP and WP:NFC. If your file is in the public domain or you created it completely by yourself, you may upload it using the wizard at c:COM:UPLOAD; if it is not free to use but you can write a proper fair use rationale, you may use WP:UPLOAD. Since you are a new user, I highly recommend that you use the WP:FFU (files for upload) process (click the link to get started and follow the instructions). This will allow more experienced Wikipedians to help you find out if the file you wish to use can be used on Wikipedia, and they will also upload it for you and tell you the filename. After that, all you have to do is include it in the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I am waiting for permission to use some images if my page is successfully used on Wikipedia can I upload an image at a later date? Christin5P (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Definitely! You can always add to an article - a Wikipedia article is always a work in progress. :-] --Slashme (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Christian5P. Could you clarify what you mean by "my page"? Are you referring to your user page or are you referring to something else? Technically, we as editors do not have a "my page" when it comes to Wikipedia as explained in WP:OWN and WP:UP#OWN, but whether you can add an image often depends on where you want to add it. Non-free images are only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9, which means you cannot add such an image to a draft, a user page, a template, a talk page, or any page that is not in the article namespace. Even for articles, you have to clearly establish how the image's use satisfies WP:NFCCP. It's easier to use freely licensed or public domain images since such files are not subject the NFCCP. Even in those cases, however, image use is not always automatic and you may need to discuss adding it on the article's talk page as explained in WP:IUP#Adding images to articles if other editors do not feel the image should be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Edited version does not come automatically

Hi

I have edited 2 pages 1) Saoli Mitra & 2) Arpita Ghosh. I am their official correspondent.

However after editing when I type their names the edits do not appear. It is the undedited version that I can see. When I go to Revision History |I can see the changes that I made. How can I ensure that if their names are typed we will see the Edited version only.

Regards

Anirban Anirban Pancham Vaidic (talk) 8:40 am, Today (UTC+0)

Hi Anirban, and welcome to the teahouse. As official correspondent, you need to declare a WP:Conflict of interest in editing these articles. Your recent edits are still there, but you need to add references for each statement (see WP:Biographies of living persons). Perhaps you just need to purge the cache of your browser, or reload the page to see your latest version. Your earlier edits to Shaoli Mitra were reverted because they lacked references. See WP:Referencing for beginners. The duplicate page Saoli Mitra has been deleted. There is some advice on your talk page Dbfirs 09:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Anirban Pancham Vaidic. Please understand that if you are an official correspondent for those people, then it is not your job to edit the Wikipedia articles about them. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employees or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have published about them. As an agent of those people, your role in Wikipedia's articles about them should be limited to making suggestions for edits (preferably with references to reliable published sources) on the article's talk page. Also, if you are in any sense paid for doing this work, you are required to declare the fact: see WP:PAID. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Anirban Pancham Vaidic - You are edit-warring by repeatedly making edits that have been reverted. Also, the tone of your edits is non-neutral. You are introducing peacock language after it is being reverted. You should stop edit-warring and stop inserting non-neutral language, or you may be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

How does X work?

Your question. Anirban Pancham Vaidic (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Anirban Pancham Vaidic and welcome to the Teahouse.

Please try again at asking a question. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Question asked above. Dbfirs 09:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Need your help.. my article is about to be deleted..!!!

Hi, I knew Mr. 'Dajikaka Gadgil for over 10 years. he was truly inspiring one. What should I do now to avoid being looked at it as promotional material? Kindly help me.. Thank you. Gaikwadyr (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gaikwadyr: Whether you knew him was irrelevant. What you needed to do was cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are not affiliated with the subject but still specifically about him. You also need to avoid saying stuff like "he was truly inspiring one" -- we're not a memorial site. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Gaikwadry and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not sure it is possible to save this particular article. Creating an entirely new biographical page on Wikipedia is fairly difficult, since there are many criteria that must be met before the article will be accepted. I took a look at the article and what stands out most about it is that is does not yet look anything like a Wikipedia article. It is not formatted like a WP article. It does not contain anything recognizable as references or citations, which means that it has not even attempted to establish that the subject of the article meets WP's notability standard.

We here at the Teahouse stand ready to help, but there are certain steps which you must accomplish on your own. We usually suggest that editors get considerable experience improving other articles before attempting to create new ones. There are just too many pitfalls that await a novice editor that lead to article deletion and editor frustration. Master the material at WP:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners and you'll begin to see some of the problems with your existing attempts so far.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you allowed to have a clock on your talk page?

So, I've noticed how some people have clocks that tell the time of their time zone and the wikipedia time. I was wondering if Wikipedia allows for users to keep these kinds of clocks on their talk page so that other users would know if they would get a quick reply from the user. NewByzantine (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, NewByzantine. It's certainly allowed. Here's what you can and cannot have on your user page (or the associated talk page): Wikipedia:User pages and here are talk page guidelines in general: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If you see a lot of users doing something that requires more than introductory knowledge and none of them are getting blocked for it, it's safe to assume it's probably allowed. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A hand

Can someone come and give a hand on Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States82.38.157.176 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse. In case you weren't aware there is already List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States. Wikipedia does not allow for two article about the same subject. If you feel that changes should be made to the existing article I would suggest that you discuss them on the talk page for said article. MarnetteD|Talk 22:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

A jeepers I am such a maroon. My apologies, I see that you are trying to create an article that devoted solely to animated films. You might try asking for help at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

is there a "blind ping"?

Hi again. With email, I have found bcc (blind carbon copy) useful. (I guess I'm a sneaky son-of-a-gun...) Is there some sort of blind ping available on wp, to alert an editor without actually broadcasting it to everyone? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DennisPietras. If you use Template:Talkback on the editor's talk page, the message will be visible only to those who visit or watch that particular talk page. Since this is an open collaborative project, we do not promote secrecy, except in very narrowly defined circumstances. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. There is a template called {{no ping}} which will link to a particular editor's user page without sending them a notification, but not sure if that's what you would want. FWIW, I'm not sure there would be a point to a "blind ping" since anything you post on Wikipedia is pretty much there for anyone to see regardless of whether they are notified or not. So, if you "blind ping" me to a page because you want me to look at something without others knowing about it, then my presence would be made known to everyone who cares the minute I post a comment or make an edit. The "blind ping" syntax, unlike an email BCC, would also be visible in the editing window where you added it. If there's something of a personal nature related to Wikipedia that you would like to discuss with someone off-line so to speak, then there is always Wikipedia:Emailing users, Wikipedia:Contact OTRS and even Wikipedia:IRC. As Cullen328 posted, there may times when it's inappropriate to post personal or proprietary information out in the open. I believe all administrators, etc. are required to have their email access enabled, so you can try and emailing one of them as well, if you have a problem whose details may be too sensitive to discuss on a public noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

is the page I have just contructed Wikisuitable?

Hi - Having had useful adice earlier from JzG can anyone give me an idea about whether my draft page at user:Robertspcole/sandbox meets the Wiki criteria - and if it doesn't, what I might do to upgrade it? Also - can I change the name of the page to what it should have been all along? That is, 'London Poems'?Robertspcole (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robertspcole. Your draft article is about a book of poetry that you wrote. It seems the book was published two months ago by a variant of a vanity press, and you use the website of that publisher for several of your references. Clearly, you have a conflict of interest.

You need to make a convincing case that your book meets our notability guideline for books. In most cases, this means that the book has been reviewed by several major newspapers or magazines. Other indicators of notability are winning major literary awards, being adapted into a film or play, or being part of the curriculum of university level courses. I see no evidence at this time that your new book of poetry is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

One edit or several?

When making changes to a long article, is it considered better form to make one big edit, or several small ones (e.g. one per section)? One edit makes less noise on Recent Changes and makes the edit history easier to skim, but with smaller ones, people can link to specific changes they want to discuss afterwards more easily. Mortee (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mortee. There is no hard and fast rule on this, so I will give my opinion as an experienced editor. In most cases, I recommend a series of smaller edits as it is easier for other editors to evaluate the significance and impact of an individual edit that way. If edits are utterly non controversial, they may be grouped together. For example, our Manual of Style says that after first mention, we refer to people by their surnames, rather than their first name. So, if you change a dozen instances of first name to surname in a single edit, that should not be a problem. Consider a more complex edit, though, where you combine a series of non-controversial improvements like correcting typos with a possibly controversial change in content. If your edit is reverted, all the minor but clear improvements will be lost (at least temporarily) until consensus is reached. So, my recommendation when beginning to edit an existing article is to start out with the copy editing, the typo correction, and edits to comply with the Manual of Style. Then, move on to the more substantive content edits, explaining clearly in your edit summaries the thinking behind your edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes sense to me. Mortee (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mortee: I agree that there is no hard-and-fast rule. You are allowed to make each little change a separate edit or to apply a great mass of changes simultaneously as a single edit.

From the perspective of a source control system, which the edit history is a form of, you would like to see an approach something like one-edit per "reason", so that the reason given in the edit summary can be readily verified as making the associated changes justified/appropriate/understandable. Making a bunch of small changes, all for the same reason, adds to the burden of interested editors watching over the article. Similarly, making a whole bunch of unrelated changes in a single edit similarly burdens those editors with scrutinizing each change without knowing immediately what the motivation for that particular change is, even if several were listed in the edit summary.

In practice, however, an editor working on fixing one aspect of an article will also, along the way, spot some minor correction and include that with the edit - generally with a small annotation in the edit summary to acknowledge the additional change in case someone looking at it might think it was an accidental change.

I don't think I'm making any different recommendation than Cullen328, but perhaps this provides a bit of motivation: consider the editors who are also looking at the article as members of your team – how what you do may make things easier for them.

One other thing to be aware of: there are certain edit summaries such as "fixed a typo", "added a fact", "corrected what was WRONG" that are like red flags because they are sometimes (frequently?) used by vandals to deflect examination of their changes. As you continue to edit, you'll begin to recognize some of these behaviors.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

its better to do many small edits, not one large edit. Vyvek (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that, as someone who often reviews edits, I don't like to see unrelated content edits that cover more than one section. It's usually impossible to cover in one meaningful edit summary, and it's a multi-stage process to back out part of the edit. Meters (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

klimgeran

Hello help me to make my project. Its going to remove, I worked on it a long time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Litrico Article Why is nominated for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luca_Litrico Klimgeran (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Klimgeran - The best explanation of why the article is nominated for deletion is the comments at the deletion discussion. The comments say that it doesn't establish notability. You say that you worked hard on the article, and we believe you, but that is not a test of notability. Would you like the article moved to draft space rather than deleted? Also, do you have a connection with the subject of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Hello the person in questin Mr Luca Litrico, have autorized me to create a wikipedia page. I want create a persnal page for Luca Litrico. he ask me to create an articole including her personal life. He is a stilist italian.... What i must do for create a profile? Thanks Klimgeran (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Klimgeran - Read the conflict of interest guideline and declare your conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not have "profiles". Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. Wikipedia is not the medium for someone to use to publicize their career. Also, you appear to be struggling to express your concerns in English. Have you considered editing the Italian Wikipedia or a Wikipedia in a language in which you are proficient, on subjects about which you are knowledgeable but do not have a special interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The article has already been deleted three times on the [[Italian Wikipedia] [1]. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

going from draft to article?

I started a draft 3 days ago and have been editing it daily. I like it to be an article in Wikipedia and continue to edit it as an article but I don't know how to go from draft to published article. Please help with advice. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Riverwood,_Port_Charlotte_Florida maureenwinsMaureenwins (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Maureenwins and welcome to the Teahouse! I have read your draft, Draft:Riverwood, Port Charlotte Florida and I see that there are a number of problems that would likely prevent the draft from becoming an article on Wikipedia. Here are a few possible concerns for you to think about - let me know if you have any questions about each?

First, all articles on Wikipedia must meet what are called general notability guidelines. Many subjects are interesting, but most are not suitable for an encyclopedia. If you read WP:GNG, what is your feeling about whether Riverwood in Port Charlotte should have its own wikipedia article? Has it been the subject of many newspaper articles, book chapters, or academic journal articles?

Second, your draft has no citations to reliable sources that are the basis of all encyclopedia articles. You should envisage each sentence in your draft being concluded with a specific reference to a high-quality source that has no affiliation with Riverwood.

Lastly, the draft is written in a promotional tone. To me, it looks like this is all content that is best suited to appearing on Riverwood's own website, and not on Wikipedia.

I hope this is helpful! Again, let me know if you have any questions. Darouet (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

requesting review of new article

Hi all!

in the past years I contributed sparsely here and there, and since 2016 I decided to work regularly both on new articles and on expanding existing articles (specifically on performance art, sci-fi, writing and technology). So in December 2016 I created my first article from scratch to hone my editing skills [1]. Despite the article having been edited (without any negative comment) by other, more experienced editors, it remains unreviewed. As a result, it is not indexed by search engines and essentially invisible on the Internet. My question:

Is it possible to request a New Page Reviewer to review the article?

I'm happy to follow any suggestion in regard to possible edits. I put a lot of work on that article, so it would be great to see it available to the larger WWW. Having this article reviewed and accepted also helps me moving forward onto other articles (editing or newer ones, I have a list of them).

Thank you in advance,

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Donnarumma The pages is unreviewed as you can see by searching it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed

Blackpaleskin (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your page was created only in late December. You will have seen from Special:NewPagesFeed that there are 16195 pages awaiting new page patrol, with a backlog to early October. If the backlog doesn't continue to get worse (which it has been doing since the new system was introduced) your article will probably be reviewed within the next 3 months (though of course you might be lucky and get reviewed earlier). Your article looks OK at first glance, but the "new page patrol" user right is now restricted (from about the time that unpatrolled pages became NOINDEXed). --David Biddulph (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Since other editors have made minor changes to the article and not tagged it, I have reviewed it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David for the clarification and Robert for such a prompt response! It is much appreciated, I'll move on onto my other articles in the TODO list. Re: amount of pages to review, I'd be happy to lend a hand, but not sure I would fit the requirements to become a New Page Patrol yet. Anyway, this is a bit off topic. I'll have a look and post a separate thread if needed. Thanks again.

Blackpaleskin (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

klimgeran I need your help

Hello I am a newbie, this also my project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Litrico Look at my project, tell me what am I doing wrong? J User:Meters User:J947 User:Justin15w David Biddulph Correct project please as you need to be a good article Today I added external links look Klimgeran (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

What you are doing wrong is failing to read and abide by the advice given to you on your user talk page at User talk:Klimgeran. The words in blue are wikilinks to more detail on the subjects in question. If you don't understand English well enough to understand the advice given, you ought perhaps to stick to editing the Wikipedia in your own language. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

HELP: 10 days and no one is participating is discussion regarding nomination for deletion

In ten or so days, there has been no participation from other editors, including the editor who nominated the article for deletion, and no response to the substantive changes and additional secondary sources that respond to the reasons for nomination for deletion.

Please see all at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/National_Academy_of_Construction_(USA)#National_Academy_of_Construction_.28USA.29

I appreciate any help. I don't think the discussion process is working. More importantly, the changes to the article and further information provided demonstrate the reason for nomination for deletion has been overcome.

Thanks!!MaeInJune (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:MaeInJune - I have a brief comment, and that is that your comments at the deletion discussion are too long, difficult to read. I will read them. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

MaeInJune: as has already been explained in the deletion discussion, the draft in its current state is unnacceptable because it lacks references that establish its subject's notability. Such references must be to reliable independent published sources with significant discussion of the subject. At present the draft has 21 references: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 20 are not independent, 8 merely lists the subject, 10, 15, 19 and 21 merely mention it, 9, 13 and 18 don't even mention it. 18 may be regarded as marginally acceptable. If you want the article to be accepted, someone will have to add better references. You will not help its acceptance at all by promising that you will improve the references without actually doing it; nor by writing at excessive length about why you believe the subject warrants an article; nor by pointing out some existing articles also lack adequate references. Maproom (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Maproom: This discussion has been super helpful. Clarification: When I wrote that I'd add sources, I did (see addition of the section Services). It would have helped if I'd have gotten feedback that said the sources needed "significant coverage." But I got no feedback. When I wrote that I'd add additional details relevant to the discussion and upload in the next few hours, I did. Again, I got no feedback/response. Thanks again. And especially for checking all of the sources and giving helpful and appropriate feedback. I really appreciate that generous effort. Enjoy the day.MaeInJune (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. This is the feedback I've been wanting. If I move to my sandbox, what happens to the article title? (I will read more on drafts.)MaeInJune (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you move it, you can change its title as you do so. Maproom (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there any difference between moving the article to a draft space versus letting it be deleted (and it may be a draft for a long while)? MaeInJune (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you move it to draft space, there's a chance that someone else will come along and improve it. Maproom (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Maproom: This discussion has been super helpful. So my last question, can someone please delete the article? Clarification: When I said I'd add sources, I did (see addition of the section Services). It would have helped if I'd have gotten feedback that said the sources needed "significant coverage." But I got no feedback. When I said I'd add additional details relevant to the discussion and upload in the next few hours, I did. Again, I got no feedback/response. Thanks again. And especially for checking all of the sources and giving helpful and appropriate feedback. I really appreciate that generous effort. Enjoy the day.MaeInJune (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggest just letting the deletion discussion run its course, MaeInJune, as it looks like it will result in deletion at present. By the way, Robert McClenon and Maproom won't have been notified of your mentions in that comment, as you didn't include them in the edit that you signed. See Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events for an explanation. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cordless Larry!MaeInJune (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

drafting

how do I make a draft? L.S. inc. (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello L.S. inc.: You can do it two ways. Enter Draft:<article name> into the search bar above and create the page (I.e. Draft:Teletubbies) or create it in your sandbox by clicking on the Sandbox link at the top of the page or by creating User:L.S. inc./sandbox/<article name>. Let us know if you need clarification. Justin15w (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

thanks.L.S. inc. (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Or the third way, which I would recommend (since it gives you the header with useful things like a button to submit your draft for review when it's ready) is to use the Article Wizard, L.S. inc.. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Will recommend in the future. Justin15w (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I dont understand WIkipedia HELP

Hi, so I wrote an article about an Tape Art Crew, it needed to be changed, which I did a month ago and now I have no idea, what the deal is. I dont have time to study 6 years of Wikipedia. I am a Macuser, I am used to quick, simple things, not complicated things like WIkipedia. Sorry, if I am too dumb. But I need help, because this project is killing me. :( LizA 1988 (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello LizA 1988 and welcome to Teahouse! I have read Draft:Tape_Over-english and see that the draft has a number a problems. One issue is the lack of inline citations within the text. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the information it contains needs to be verifiable for readers. The most important way of accomplishing this is by citing reliable sources - newspaper and magazine articles, books or journals - at the end of sentences. When I write articles, I try to provide a citation every 1-3 sentences. Aiyangiyang is a short article I wrote that can give you some idea.

To provide a citation, when editing your article, place the cursor at the end of your sentence. Then use the mouse to click "cite" at the top of the text editing menu, and after that, "template." You can select the appropriate template and fill in the information.

A second issue with your draft is that it appears promotional. For example, the sentence "TAPE OVER finds joy in experimenting" is what a reader would expect to find in a promotional website, not an encyclopedia. Altogether, I'm guessing that if TAPE ART meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article should be 2-3 paragraphs long altogether, and no longer. Please let me know if that helps. -Darouet (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Compressing tables to one-line format

Hello! This question is not really about editing Wikipedia, but I hope it's ok anyway. I'm trying to use the one-line table row format on another wiki (not Wikipedia), but I can't get it to work properly. As an example, I've tried to use this code:

{|
|fmtspec|AA||fmtspec|CC||fmtspec|EE<tr>
|fmtspec|BB||fmtspec|DD||fmtspec|FF<tr>
|}

On Wikipedia, it gives the following result...

AA	CC	EE
BB	DD	FF

...but on my wiki, it looks like this:

AACCEE<tr>BBDDFF<tr>

As you can see, there is no space between the table cells, and the <tr> tag doesn't work. I've tried changing it to </tr>, but it makes no difference. I'm using MediaWiki 1.28 and raw HTML is enabled. Does the one-line format require any extensions (or something else) in order to work properly? Any help would be highly appreciated! 155.4.134.68 (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You should try mw:Help:Contents or one of the mediawiki IRC channels. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The suggested code at Wikipedia:Advanced table formatting#Compressing to one-line row format looks unstable. It has an opening <tr> without a closing </tr> and makes assumptions about the precise interaction between html code and wikicode for tables. It doesn't surprise me if another MediaWiki installation treats it differently. I would avoid unclosed html tags completely. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

See mw:Manual:Using content from Wikipedia#HTMLTidy, but I recommend avoiding this code instead of trying to make it work. I don't know whether HTMLTidy is enough to make it work. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies! I'll think about it and see what I can do. Do you know any other way of expressing an entire table row on just one row of (wiki-)code, without completely resorting to html? 155.4.134.68 (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page got deleted

I don't know why my page got deleted for it says speedy deletion are you trying to say I am not famous or globally recognised enough because I am I provided links from big newspapers that featured me in it I need to have a wiki page in order to get across to my following but the deletion has really demotivated me a lot :( I would love to get in contact with Wikipedia like a email or number would be great so one of my legal representatives can I can provide any sort of proof you need in order to get my page up I have seen people who are not even recognised at any level and there pages are up its a real shocker! Raj vin (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Raj vin and welcome to the TeaHouse. I think you may have misunderstood what Wikipedia is. It is not like LinkedIn or other networking sites where people write about themselves. Instead, it is where editors write about various topics in a neutral way that does not promote them. As was explained in the message on your Talk page, the reason the article Deepak Vinayak was deleted was because it "seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." Nothing to do with whether the subject was notable. This is precisely why autobiographies are strongly discouraged in Wikipedia (see the article at WP:Autobiography for more details). If you are convinced that you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, the proper way to get your article into Wikipedia if you really are willing to accept having a neutral, non-promotional article, is to make a proposal at WP:Requested articles providing the references. If an editor decides to take on the project, they can pick it up from there. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Need to reinstate entry for Francis Celentano

fuhgettaboutit deleted my entry for Francis Celentano and I am seeking to appeal this decision. Francis Celentano was a seminal contributor to the Op Art movement and is an internationally recognized artist whose works are regularly exhibited at MOMA and other art installations around the world. Much of the information already appears on his official website at www.franciscelentano.com an I have permission to use that information from his widow Rebecaa Celentano. I am also his nephew and find it extremely frustrating and unfair that one user can summarily remove information that is clearly a warranted and valid contribution to the Wikipedia collection without giving me a chance to address the issue. Acelentano2016 (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Acelentano2016.

Based on what you say, it should certainly be possible to find reliable, independent sources to establish that Francis Celentano meets WP's notability standards. Fuhgettaboutit was probably acting correctly by WP standards because your entry either did not provide such independent sources or was copied too directly from the artist's website. That material cannot merely be copied to Wikipedia. You should also consider yourself to have a conflict of interest with respect to this subject and we strongly advise against trying to create the article yourself.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Acelentano2016: copyright can be a tricky matter. Just because you "have permission to use that information from his widow Rebecaa Celentano" does NOT mean it can be used on Wikipedia. Please read the detailed response on your Talk page at User talk:Acelentano2016#Copyright issues, where Fuhghettaboutit explained the problem and the options to deal with it.

Forgot to sign my comment above, so re-pinging Acelentano2016 and Fuhghettaboutit. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The artricle has not merely been deleted. The parts of the article which were not a copyright violation have been moved back to draft space as Draft:Francis Celentano, and the only other material which has been removed was a lengthy list of exhibitions, which was totally unsourced. The draft is there for you to work on it and hopefully bring it to a standard which is fit for publication. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acelentano2016. Wikipedia requires that previously written information be released into the public domain or under a suitably-free copyright license before it can be used here. We cannot use non-free copyrighted material under permission for use here, the permission is a release by the copyright owner. You can read about how a release can be provided (directly by the copyright owner in a verifiable manner, not secondarily by you asserting a release has been given) at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This has nothing whatever to do with the notability of your uncle, or whether an article is warranted, and everything to do with copyright infringement. It is not legal for you to post non-free copyrighted material here. If you cannot obtain a release that does not mean an article cannot be written. It means it must be written in your own words, citing to reliable sources as the source of the information, but not copying the words of the sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Trying to restore "References" sub-heading

Hello,

I'm drafting an article, and while the references/citations are still there, the sub-heading "References" seems to have fallen off? Is there some way I can restore it?

Thank you for your help! I am very new so apologies for the basic question.

It is for this page (not yet submitted pending further improvements): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wear_it_Purple_Day

SunnyBoi (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi: Hello and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.

Something happened in very nearly your first edit to that draft that messed up the references section. I just put in the standard section, hope that's not too startling. Still lots of work to be done on that article, though.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, jmcgnh! SunnyBoi (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Need help verifying two sites

I have made changes and tried to make the language more neutral in these two articles: Dreaming of Denmark and Michael Graversen. Are they ok now or do they need more work? One last question: I have tried to search on google for "Dreaming of Denmark wiki" and "Michael Graversen wiki" but no english pages come up. Is this because they are not verified? KlausJensen (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KlausJensen. Dreaming of Denmark includes the following sentences:

"The premiere was at a time when the refugee situation in Europe was at its peak hence the film had a big impact not only on the public debate in Denmark but also internationally. After the release in Denmark the film sparked national debate in TV, radio and newspapers about the conditions of the unaccompanied minor refugees in Denmark."

No references are provided to support the claims that the film made a "big impact" or that it "sparked national debate". Those are promotional claims that must be cited to a reliable, independent source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Graversen contains many unreferenced assertions. The list of awards is entirely unreferenced. Either references should be provided or the unreferenced content should be removed. As for appearing in a Google search, that will happen only after a new pages patroller checks the pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. Thank you so much for your help Cullen. It is really helpful. I have a lot of danish references in relations to the debate. Would they work or is it only english? KlausJensen (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

KlausJensen. References to sources in any language are acceptable. If sources are plentiful, then English sources are preferred. But Danish sources are fine if no English sources are readily available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. KlausJensen (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Next steps for draft article. Submit for review? Or perform further cleanup first?

I have created my first ever draft article and I have no more content to add to it. I have responded to a few suggestions from your Help desk and added in lots of references were they had been lacking before.

But the latest comment from the Help desk said that my article needs a lot of work. I have no idea what that means.

What is the logical next step right now? Submit it for review or invite some specific comments from the Help desk? It is not good enough to say that your article is not good enough. Too vague. If anyone has a comment please be specific. CableHut (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I am confused when you refer to comments from the Help desk. I can't find any such comment at WP:HD or its archives other than one saying that at that stage you hadn't made any edits, so could you please give us a diff? Or are you perhaps referring to comments here at the Teahouse, such as the one below? If you feel that the comment isn't sufficiently clear, it is better to ask on that thread, rather than starting a separate thread. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that CableHut is referring to the response to the question right below this one, here at the Teahouse. Incidentally – the draft in question is Draft:Jean Jepson: Dancer; Choreographer; Teacher.. Maproom (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, CableHut. I think that you are referring to a comment that I made below, so I will be more specific. I suggest that you read Your first article and follow its recommendations. Also, read a few Good articles and Featured articles about performers to get a sense for how things should be done. A few specific points: We never use self-referential language such as "This article is about . . ." or "This photo shows . . ." The licensing of the photo is incorrect since you claim it as your own work. That would only be the case if you were the photographer. You state that the draft article is about the dancer and her associates. We do not structure articles that way. A biography is about one person, not several. Important bibliographic information is missing from most of your references, such as publishers names, page numbers and ISBN numbers. Also, the references are added to section headers and instead should be embedded in the text. Every significant assertion should have a reference. Please read Referencing for beginners and reorganize your references to comply. It is my impression that your draft article includes excessive detail and I suggest trimming quite a bit. Those are the most important problems that come to my mind after a quick reading of the draft. I suspect that a more detailed review would discover more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi CableHut. I posted a comment and some links at User talk:CableHut#Draft:Jean Jepson: Dancer; Choreographer; Teacher. a few days ago, but perhaps you didn't notice it. Cullen328 has given you some good advice, but I would add that you shouldn't embed external links into articles and you sholdn't title the draft the way you have done. I really suggest you take the Wikipedia:Adventure and then try discussing the draft with some of the WikiProjects I mentioned in my post on your talk page. The main hurdle you need to overcome is establishing Jepson's Wikipedia notability and a member of one of those WikiProjects might be able to help you do that as well as fix some of the formatting and other issues that draft has. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

How to REVIEW abd EDIT the search CATEGORIES for my draft article.

I would like to review the "categories" associated with my draft article: Jean Jepson: Dancer, Teacher, Choreographer. I have tried but I am unable to find my categories much less review them. I have tried the Help Categories feature. It provides a lot of definitions and suggestions about using categories.

However I am not able to find any specific guidelines that say something like:

 go HERE to LOCATE your categories and 
 do THIS to EDIT them.

Please help me with this focused request. Thanks! CableHut (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CableHut. Your draft article does not have any categories and does not need them at this time. Categories are for completed main space encyclopedia articles. Your draft article still needs a lot of work before it is ready for the encyclopedia. My suggestion is to concentrate on improving your draft first and worry about categories much later. Please read Help:Categories for more information. The coding for categories appears near the very end of the wikicode for an article. If you examine the code for a categorized encyclopedia article, you will see the category coding at the end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I hate danglers...

Yah, new here as well, but longtime IRL editor.

When I put up a request for assitance or input in an article's Talk section, then the fix/assistance is achieved, would I be overstepping to remove the thus-outmoded post & any responses? I worry that doing so would be some sort of gross "memory hole" infraction... but leaving it referring to something that no longer exists seems confusing.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Weeb Dingle. I suggest instead that you use Template:Resolved to indicate that a request is no longer active. If a talk page grows too long, it is appropriate to archive the older posts. Please read Help:Archiving a talk page for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent solution!! So many little details to learn 'round here -- it's quite fun.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328Cool template! Is there some page that lists all the available templates? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

DennisPietras, please take a look at Wikipedia:Template messages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

new to the wikipedia.

I recently published, for the first time on wikipedia (wiki), an idea that I've had and promoted for a political reform idea. Within a day, twice, a speedy removal action deleted it. The reason for the removal was not specific and no reference was provided. (I find this confusing.) I can understand that the long time wiki editors do not want people publishing non-sense or misinformation on wiki nor people to claim credit for other people's ideas and I support that but what I published was none of those and specifically it was not an idea that was stolen from someone else. I have done a significant amount research on the idea I advocate for and I believe that I should be allowed to publish it anywhere on wiki where it is on topic. (I do not have time to waste or to do the same thing over and over again in a battle with editors at wiki.) Any comments or suggestion about how I properly publish so that my idea or proposal will not be removed? How can I know why my entry was removed from wiki when no specific reason was give?

The entry was for: Four Primary Days

Under the Four Primary Days proposal Iowa still has the first caucus (or primary if Iowa decides to change to a primary) and it on the last Tuesday in January. The New Hampshire primary is second with it's primary on the first Tuesday in February. The third primary day is on the first Tuesday in March and it includes the next 23 smallest states, Washington D.C., and U.S. territories by population. A month after that on the first Tuesday in April the fourth and last primary day would be for the 25 most populous states. The state population data that is used to schedule the primaries would have to be agreed upon by all the states involved.

Four Primary Days as a system is designed to create the best primary system and to resolve all of the flaws in the current primary system. It specifically seeks to create a competitive and responsive system, to have a balanced and fair system, for any state to not have an advantage over any other state, and to not have any state be irrelevant or marginalized as much as is possible. The tradition of Iowa being first and New Hampshire being second, this tradition is maintained to implement a system that is best for all the voters and for all of the states, other small states and large states, both in the primary and in the general election. Four Primary Days is also designed to shorten the primary season as much as is reasonable, to consolidate the number of primary days, and to create an efficient primary system that is more inviting to voters and potential voters. 4.53.137.66 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Wikipedia is not a platform to publish or promote original ideas. Please read our policies on original research and promotional writing. I'd encourage you to consider starting your own blog or promoting your ideas using some other medium. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did anomiebot tag this cite as citation needed and how do I make a semi-protected edit request to improve the cite?

Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor to the Trump White House on January 29, 2017 suggested in an interview with Fox News the purpose of the order was to stop people who would “infiltrate” through the old system. He subsequently stated: “By our estimates, there're more than 40 refugees in recent history who’ve been subsequently implicated in terrorism, and nearly 400 foreign nationals or naturalized foreigners who became U.S. citizens subsequent to their entry, who’ve been implicated in terrorism since 9/11 so it is a very large number of people who have infiltrated the immigration program."[52][citation needed] page is executive order 13769G1729 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi G1729, thanks for your question. If your account is new and you haven't made many edits yet, you won't be able to edit semi-protected articles (specifically four days old, and at least 10 edits). You can make the edits and wait the needed amount of time, or you can make a request on the talk page ofthe article using this syntax:

{{edit semi-protected|(Provide a detailed explanation of the edit request here)}}

Once you post, an editor who can directly edit the article will respond to the request. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@@JethroBT: Thanks! I've made enough edits to participate on this article, but have less experience I guess on high-traffic/rapidly developing articles like it so this is my first experience on Wikipedia actually needing to interact with other editors/Wikipedians. I slipped up and got some sort of sanction so I am trying to be very cautious. Thanks very much for the reply!G1729 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@G1729: I JethroBT has answered the second half of your question, about editing a semi-protected article. As far as the first question is concerned: "Why did anomiebot tag this cite as citation needed", I think you'll find that anomiebot merely corrected the time tag part of the "citation needed" tag, in this edit. The "citation needed" tag itself was added by another human editor, in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: That is helpful. Was the problem with the time part of the cite that it was missing "time" information (required for video?) or "date" information? Do you see anything wrong with the cite on its face that warrants the "citation needed" tag (I'm not looking to complain to anyone, I just want to understand why they think more or better cites are needed.) Thanks very much!!!G1729 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@G1729: You may have misunderstood what I said. It will be clearer if you follow the links which I gave (in my reply) to the diffs for the 2 edits in question. Anomiebot's correction was to the timetag part of the "citation needed" tag, changing "|date=February 4, 2017" to "|date=February 2017". If you want to question the reason for the placing of the "citation needed" tag itself, you need to ask the editor who placed it; the diff gives a link to the editor's user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Ah. Thanks again, I think I got it now. And thank you for the link to diffs :) Best regards,—G1729 (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

How to change my username

Hello,

I am a university lecturer currently running a course assignment through Wikipedia. I have made my username the course code, however I realised that it is not very easy for my students to recognise me, and taking a longer term perspective, it is better I have my real full-name so I am able to continue participating in the Wikipedia community after the course is completed. Could someone advise me on how I could change my username to my actual name? Thanks a lot!

M0SN24-TD (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi M0SN24-TD. Please refer to this page to rename your account. Thanks, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

unsure of when "consensus by silence" is attained

Hi again. I made a | Bravery Barnstar and posted it for comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards over 2 weeks ago. There have been no comments. Does that mean I can assume "consensus by silence" and add it to the list of Barnstars? Related: am I correct in assuming that the way I should phrase these sorts of proposals is by ending with "Any objections?" rather than "Comments?" Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Dennis, I have now commented on the barnstar, however, I'm afraid you might not like the comment. If you wish to discuss further, we can do that at the Talk page. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

My infobox is not showing on my page . . . only the uploaded photo

I have a draft article in my sandbox, and I am attempting to add an infobox. If there was an option to insert a template, I was unable to find that, but willing to try that too if someone could explain how to find and insert a template). I copied code from another infobox, and replaced all the text with my text, and I ano longer see red messages about invalid operators and invalid code. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamivanahaaften/sandbox Jamivanahaaften (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You are using parameters that don't exist in the basic Template:Infobox. You perhaps intended to use a different infobox? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Jamivanahaaften and welcome to the teahouse. The problem was that you had not chosen a specific infobox. I added the word "person" to make it show up in your draft. There is still a problem and I think it is with the way that you have set up the bulleted lists. I have to go off wiki at the moment so hopefully another editor will be able to fix that for you. MarnetteD|Talk 16:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry, it seems to be showing now. May-be I needed to be patient and wait. I look forward to coming back to this "teahouse" for the next glitch I encounter.

Jami Jamivanahaaften (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much MarnetteD. Really, at this point all help and advice is welcome. I inserted some breaks
at the end of lists in the main text of the article, and that seems to have helped with he bullets there.Jamivanahaaften (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Help improve article!

How to improve the article, who knows make, material, links have to be discussed. Article: Luca_Litrico Klimgeran (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Klimgeran: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.

It looks like you may already have received some feedback on the article, but there are several problems that have to be addressed and the burden of addressing them is more likely to fall on you than on anyone who would like to help. The two main problems are that the article as it currently stands fails to establish the notability of the subject and appears to be written in too promotional a tone to be acceptable as a WP article. Other problems can probably be fixed with help from other editors, such as making a more standard-looking infobox and bringing the citations in line with a more acceptable standard referencing style.

There are a couple of essays/help pages that may get you moving in the right direction: Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. Mastering the material covered there will go a long way towards helping you become a successful Wikipedia editor.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User_talk:jmcgnh

Thank you very much. For me, your answer is very important Klimgeran (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

how do I insert an inset

like the one on the right side of the Alexander Calder page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Calder Acelentano2016 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Acelentano2016. That is called an infobox, a type of template. Often the easiest way to use them is to click edit at the top of a similar article and copy the template code and then tailor for your purposes. If the article you are here about is also on an artist like Alexander Calder (and I am guessing it is and that you are here about Francis Celentano), then if you click edit at the top of the Calder article, you will see the {{Infobox artist}} template in use, with filled-in parameters. If you click on the link I just made to that infobox template itself, then you will see the template has documentation, providing instructions for use. Other infoboxes templates can be explored at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. By the way, an internal link ("wikilink") is easiest made by surrounding the title in doubled brackets, rather than using the URL as you did, e.g., [[Alexander Calder]]. To learn lots of basics like this, I suggest taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Acelentano2016. After posting this, I copyedited the draft, but then discovered that most of its content was copied and pasted from previous written material. Accordingly, it has been moved back to the draft namespace and most of its content removed and hidden from view. Adding an infobox would still be good, but is very minor detail given the current state of the draft, which needs to have its main content written.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I import an article from French Wikipedia?

Hi,

I want to write an article on a British cinematographer and I notice there is an article in the French Wikipedia for this person. Is there a way to import the French article?

Thanks for your help,

Beryl reid fan (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Beryl reid fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can translate it. There are several options as to how to do this. I recommend Content translation tool. You can enable it here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop, for your prompt reply Beryl reid fan (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Have I used the correct Licensing for this photograph

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ED8A3538.jpg

The photographer gave me the photograph and a document with permissions for me to use the photo in any way I choose, but when I picked the License that I felt was most accurate, it didn't require me to provide proof of the document or contact details for the photographer, both of which I have. I am concerned the image will be taken down by "trolls" the moment I bring attention to the fact that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Perry_(fighter) now has a photo. The MMA communities can be a fickle bunch.

Are there any steps I can take to make sure the License is verifiable?

Thanks for your time and assistance Jahannum (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jahannum, and welcome to the Teahouse.

We need to have proof of the permission you have been given. You need to send a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

yes! that is what I'm talking about!!! so happy to be able to submit the proof

ty for such a rapid response @Finnusertop I really appreciate the help. I've sent the email, I received an automated response and I'm guessing now that the photo enters the queue (once you update it) and won't be deleted yet, and we just have to wait until it gets viewed. The page suggested it could be 49 days or more which is slightly depressing, but entirely understandable.

Thanks to the Teahouse too :) Jahannum (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

What happens to articles created with the Article Wizard?

I've written an draft article on the English and American folk song "Hares on the Mountain" using the Article Wizard. It's about finished. What happens now? I've looked at the list of articles waiting for review, but my article isn't on it. Do I have to do something to draw it to the attention of someone who might take a look at it? Joe Fogey (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - Wikipedia seems to have already answered my question! It is a bit puzzling for newcomers, though. Joe Fogey (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. The draft Draft:Hares on the Mountain was wrongly tagged as an unreviewed article. I have replaced the tag with that for an unsubmitted draft, so you now have a "Submit" button for you to use when you think it's ready for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bavarian stamps town cancels

I am trying to find a reference listing Bavarian town numbers on 19th century stamps. Many stamps have a wheel cancellation with a number in the center denoting the town in which the stamp was cancelled. 2601:249:703:4400:5835:FAFC:7DC2:CB08 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Please feel free to ask this question at a section of our reference desk. This page is not a general help forum but specifically for questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Moving a group of page

How can I move this group of page (Glory 14: Zagreb - Glory 15: Istanbul - Glory 16: Denver - Glory 17: Los Angeles - Glory 18: Oklahoma) into one page 2014 in Glory? I want to group 2014 event pages into one page like this 2015 in Glory? Thanks KINGFEDORQc (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@KINGEDORQc: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm not aware of any automated tool that will do what you ask. You basically have to create the new page by pulling in appropriate material from the subpages, as it looks like you've done with 2015 in Glory.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

want to remove "highly promotional in tone" description/warning from Wikipedia

I've written a biography of a New York woman who runs a media company, a media-based podcast operation and has written a report referenced by Forbes and Yahoo Finance. She seems legitimately "notable:"

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

But I'm getting a warning from Wikipedia:

"Highly promotional in tone. Does not provide independent evidence of notability."

I've written the piece in a largely neutral (maybe completely?) tone. The warning threatens a potential deletion within seven days. I've been re-reading and trying to discern the best way to modify the bio to Wikipedia's policies. But I'm not sure what to do.

Any suggestions? Is this a viable entry for Wikipedia?

And thank you.

Phixson (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Phixson: Welcome to the Teahouse. Independent of the tone, your article lacks reliable sources. The Internet Movie Database is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia because it contains user-submitted content. The other three references you list are all connected with the subject, which does not establish notability. And the sources you do list (Forbes etc.) are formatted as external links, which should not be included within the main article text; these should be inline citations. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Your first article and getting more practice editing other articles before creating one yourself. Funcrunch (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

ETA: I see that you did create another article a few years back, but that one is also tagged for insufficient citations. Funcrunch (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Phixson. Consider this passage:

"Gabriella's passion for the arts and her business expertise provided the motivation to cofound ANATOMY MEDIA with Mark Valentine in 2000. Anatomy Media is a New York-based creative firm that specializes in promotion and marketing for large entertainment brands. Gabriella and Mark made artistic aesthetics the driving focus of their work which helped secure clients like Amazon, National Geographic and NBCUniversal. Gabriella pursues artistic excellence beyond the area of her professional work."

Who says all of that stuff about passion and excellence and driving focus? You? Her? That and similar language is overtly promotional in nature and does not belong in a neutral encyclopedia article. Please remove all of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I see this article was deleted before I had a chance to review it, how can I view it?

Epididymus (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Epididymus. The section I quoted above is representative of the overall style of the article. Only administrators can view deleted articles. If you believe that the topic is notable and intend to create an acceptable article, many administrators will provide you a copy of the deleted article in your own user space. It would then be your responsibility to clean it up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Writing for Wikipedia requires a high degreeof "dryness." That is to say, every bit of colorful language is questionable, and must be attributed to the statement of an outside source. For the writer to do the opposite is what journalists call "editorializing," trying to pass off a personal opinion as though it's objective and indeed universal.

Writing here is much more akin to terse newspaper style than the more languid (even folksy) magazine writing.

Calling someone "notable" is not a good start -- you HAVE to demonstrate that this is a credible assessment, or that someone else has claimed it to be so. Piling on with "seems" and "legitimately" -- as with any other superlative -- simply makes your position more difficult.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

needs help on improving article

He wanted to know how to improve the article based on the comments at Luca Litrico (it's an orphan and needs more links to other articles). I reposted this for him as he is having trouble getting the formatting right for his question.Justin15w (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Justin15w (talk) Thank you very much for helping me. I am a beginner and would not want that article retired I want to leave it, to improve, Luca Litrico https://www.instagram.com/sartorialitrico/

See this Italian fashion designer, his uncle Angelo Litrico dressed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy https://www.instagram.com/p/BDzpxeivHfC/?taken-by=sartorialitrico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev https://www.instagram.com/p/BNWgZfbAV_W/?taken-by=sartorialitrico https://www.instagram.com/p/BLgKn5llOg5/?taken-by=sartorialitrico https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin https://www.instagram.com/p/BEGHJ8KPHcX/?taken-by=sartorialitrico Andrey Malahov https://www.instagram.com/p/BLIrHOpAzI9/?taken-by=sartorialitrico

Help improve the article Friend , I do not want to remove the article

How to add a picture of Luca Litrico https://www.instagram.com/p/BO-tIWfAOEX/?taken-by=sartorialitrico — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klimgeran (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Klimgeran: Please see the response above about what needs to happen with this article. Unfortunately, you've chosen a difficult task for yourself, as a new editor, to create a new Wikipedia page. Don't be discouraged. The Teahouse is here to help.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Starting a page

I have spent hours writing a page on Patrick Jones (1970) and wikipedia sent me a 'criteria for speedy deletion' rewriting my page name as: Patrick Jones (activist). I do not want my work deleted. please help. Cheers Permapoesis (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Permapoesis and welcome to the Teahouse. The issue is that your page, Wikipedia.org/wiki/patrickjones is duplicating a page that already exists at Patrick Jones (activist). The latter is up for speedy deletion due to no references. My suggestion is to transfer your content to the Patrick Jones (activist) page, including all of the references! Let us know if you need clarification. Justin15w (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the articles are very similar, almost identical, perhaps we can move your page to the existing Patrick Jones (activist) to save the work needed to transfer the references. Hoping another Teahouse host can chime in on that. Justin15w (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Permapoesis and Justin15w: I've done a history merge, which rendered the CSD A10 tagging moot. The article needs some work Permapoesis--possibly it should be moved to the draft namespace. For the moment, it would be great if you reformatted all the naked URLs into attributed citations. I've done one for you as an example. Please refer to Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:CITEHOW. I'm not sure at this juncture about the notability of the topic and the related reliability and nature of the sourcing – I did not look for other sources myself, and, because of the naked URLs, it's more difficult to assess the existing references without extra work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Permapoesis: BTW (though I haven't looked there), for Australian subjects, Trove is often a great place to look for reliable references.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for you help. I think you'll find the page Patrick Jones (activist) is much 'healthier' for links and citations etc now. Permapoesis (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Are there still issues with these sites?

Michael Graversen and Dreaming of Denmark KlausJensen (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KlausJensen. I will comment on Dreaming of Denmark. This article has lots of non-neutral language. We do not describe films as "award winning" in the lead, since most notable films win at least a few awards. That's promotionalism. Consider also this sentence:

"The film provides brutally honest depictions of the transience, isolation and frightening uncertainty he faces."

Which reliable source calls the film "brutally honest" and mentions all that other stuff? You cannot include such evaluative language in a Wikipedia article unless it is attributed to the opinion of a professional film critic, and properly referenced . Please remove all such unreferenced evaluative or promotional language from both articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Cullen. I will change the language to make it more neutral. I just took the text from the official film page of The Danish Film Institute. They are a respeced government institution in Denmark. KlausJensen (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

To expand a little further, KlausJensen, language such as Cullen mentions would be acceptable if it was explicitly quoted and attributed in the article - provided the source was both reliable and independent. I've no doubt the Danish Film Institute site is reliable; but the description of the film is uncredited, and it seems likely to me that it derives from the film's producers (perhaps by a press release). Evaluative language about a subject needs to be cited to a reliable source independent of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Cullen328 Now I have tried to make it better in Dreaming of Denmark - are there still issues you think? KlausJensen (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Extreme need for help from Senior wikipedia users and admins, about the fact of being a writer and a wikipedia user, and what to do

I am a researcher and writer (here my amazon profile https://www.amazon.com/Daniele-Trevisani/e/B00J78K9H0) and brought several scientific contributions in several fields. As I see at the moment, I have a score of 281 in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.it/scholar?lr=&q=trevisani+daniele&hl=it&as_sdt=0,5 - I find extremely confusing to have a discussion in which I do not understand clearly where the problem is... why contributions that are made in the benefit of wikipedia users and future generations, including research that I have been involved too, should not be present im wikipedia, if all the rules for quoting and balance are present? Is being a books author a negative variable by itself? If so I need to understand better what are the rules, if an author cannot write any contribution at all in fields in which he/she might have contributed, or if yes, under which rules. A couple of examples of arbitrary deletions of my contributions that I think can be considered exemplary detrimental for the knowledge mission of wikipedia: here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Human_resource_management&diff=prev&oldid=751941542 and also here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Communication&diff=prev&oldid=752995425 - These are the two examples used by the MrOlly, the "agent" that made these deletions which... well, I affirm in my full honest opinion, these deletions are absolutely detrimental according to wikipedia core values https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Daniele_Trevisani - I am asking to wikipedia senior experts, what is your opinion based on the facts that you see and can judge probably better than me^

Thanks in advanceCulturalresearch (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Culturalresearch and welcome to the Teahouse! I see here that there is an ongoing discussion at WP:COI/N, a noticeboard regarding conflicts of interest, about your case. While you may be very accomplished in your work, it is Wikipedia policy that editors not write about subjects that are very close to themselves. For a researcher, that would mean refraining from citing one's own work, and not creating or editing articles about organizations or books that you have written.

That said, you are welcome to edit on topics where you have expertise. But, in this case, just be sure to avoid citing your own work, or writing about your lab or organization, etc. You can see more information about this at WP:COI. I hope that helps! -Darouet (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

CR: Just to add a bit, Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of subject matter experts, and they can be a great help to the project. I remember one instance in particular, on the No Gun Ri massacre article, for a while we had the guy who won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on the event, and he helped promote the article to GA status.

But having said that, experts often struggle with the shift to the Wikipedia format, because, while your expertise is valued, the status as an expert doesn't confer any privileged status as a Wikipedia editor. We are all on equal footing when it comes to gaining consensus for changes or additions, and reaching compromises with other editors when disputes arise.

Furthermore, while it is not always inappropriate to cite your own work (as an example, the work of the reporter on the No Gun Ri article, was much of what was available, and was essential in detailing events), but you have to take great care not to give the impression that you are using Wikipedia, and citing yourself as a means of self promotion. The community is generally hostile to this type of behavior, and it is completely against our policies to do so.

There are a lot of policies and guidelines that govern how things work here, and it can take a while to get used to, and be very frustrating at times, especially to someone who may expect things to work here like they work in academia. They don't. That doesn't mean you can't be a valuable contributor, but it does mean there may be a steep learning curve to overcome. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Basing an entire section of an article as broad as Human resource management on a single source, as you did here, isn't really balanced, Culturalresearch. Moreover, your book appears to be self-published. Is that correct? Really, we should only be using academic sources that have been subject to peer review and have themselves been the subject of secondary coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My books are mainly published by the major Italian publisher in social sciences (Franco Angeli), 11 books published since the year 2000 up to 2016. Other 3 books are in English and published by a small independent publisher (if this is a world of freedom, it should not be avoided) while the publisher is dealing for getting translations from English to Arabic and other languages. I wish to know if this delete from MrOllie (that I really ask anybody to verify personally and carefully) https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Empathy&diff=762231586&oldid=761391400 is based on some criteria of usefulness to wikipedia mission, or instead can suggest the application of

• WP:ASPERSIONS - Casting aspersions; it is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause
• WP:HOUND WP:Wikihounding - repeatedly confronting or inhibiting another editor's work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. (is considered a form of wiki bullying)
• WP:DISRUPT Disruptive editing- a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article, edits are largely confined to talk pages; comments may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion.
• WP:OZD- Overzealous deletion - pattern of regular deletion; deletion of large passages; exclusive deletion of a single editor's work
• WP:No-edit orders issuing no edits orders that are not backed by WP policy - considered a form of bullying

and probably many more violations of wikipedia codes of conduct.--Culturalresearch (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I was wrong about the book being self-published, Culturalresearch. I didn't recognise the publisher and it looked self-published on Amazon (by the way, we don't link to Amazon when citing books on Wikipedia; Google Books links are more appropriate). Reverting your edits is not hounding. You need to follow WP:BRD and discuss the issue on the relevant articles' talk pages to establish consensus for your additions. Personally, I think your additions are potentially undue, and it doesn't help you case that you are adding references to your own books. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: The OP is currently indefinitely blocked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Pix for my page

Hi there - Is there a way to speed up the autocontribute thing so I can upload pics sort of now? CheersRobertspcole (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robertspcole, welcome to the Teahouse. You can upload images with a free license at commons:Special:UploadWizard right away. Is that good enough? I see you already uploaded one after posting. You only need autoconfirmation if you want to upload non-free images to the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. Commons doesn't allow that. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I tried it again just after sending you the note...and I must have accidently pushed the right buttons! Two other things while I am on, if I may. 1. I have asked for my user name to be changed from Robertspcole to Robert S P Cole. How long do I have to wait for that and is there a button somewhere I need to push to confirm the change? Or can I change the name of the page in another way? 2. How do I actually publish? Or is it live already in spite of showing me Robertspcole/sandbox? 3. is there a way to wrap the text around the info boxes so as to remove the large white space front an central! Thanks so much, again, Robert. Robertspcole (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Robertspcole: User rename requests have to be reviewed by a user with the right permission. I think it's usually within a day or two. If it's approved then you don't have to do more, and User:Robertspcole/sandbox will automatically be moved to the new name. I don't have access to the interface for Special:GlobalRenameRequest so I cannot see whether you have made a request with that. I made some fixes on your sandbox.[2] It's not a live article. I added a box with a submit button and some help links. It's unlikely to be accepted in the current form. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. The only significant whitespace I see is to the right of the table of contents, and that's meant to be whitespace. Text flows to the left of infoboxes but not to the right of the table of contents. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Prime Hunter - thank you very much for this. Though I thought I had read lots about the dos and don'ts of Wiki I missed the stuff about autobiography. I can't argue with the policy now I know it. If there is a such a place for a opage like this it clearly needs independent sourcing.Robertspcole (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Updating company name

Hi! A couple of days ago I started my internship at Vekoma Rides, one of the largest rollercoaster manufacturers in the world. During research I found that the wrong name is b eing used in Wikipedia. So I made an account but I can't seem to change the company title. Before 2001, the company name was Vekoma. After their overtake by Huisman, they continued under the name Vekoma Rides Manufacturing (or short Vekoma Rides), but since Vekoma (without addition) refers to the company before 2001, it's inaccurate.

Can some tell me if its possible to change this, and if so, how?

Thanks in advance!

Valceryn (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Valceryn:This guideline will assist you to move a page to your desired name.

Hi Valceryn. You are not yet autoconfirmed, an edit threshold requiring accounts to be more than four days old and have made more than ten edits in order to take certain actions, including moving a page. Please also be aware of the article titling policy and especially its subsection regarding common names and its sub-subsection at WP:NAMECHANGES. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Your own website switches between "Vekoma", "Vekoma Rides" and "Vekoma Rides Manufacturing", e.g. on About Vekoma. Vekoma Rides Manufacturing has redirected to Vekoma since 2015 and I have just created the same redirect at Vekoma Rides. The article mentions the full official name in the opening sentence. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your information and help! @ PrimeHunter, they indeed use different names. I went by the legal department of the company to inform about it. Conclusion was that it is not (legally) wrong to use Vekoma, but it's not its official name anymore since 2001, so it is advised to note the entire name every time only Vekoma is used in an article etc. At the Dutch Chamber of Commerce another Vekoma (transportation company) is registered as Vekoma (without anything). Our company is officially only mentioned as Vekoma Rides. However, I hear multiple employees answering phones with just Vekoma.. I think its also because the company size, worldwide familiarity, and habit to say Vekoma.

Anyways, thanks again for your help! Also in general, you are doing the world a great favor! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valceryn (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Valceryn. While the legal name, and changes to it, should certainly be mentioned in the article (provided reliable published sources can be found for them - which is likely, because for this purpose the company's own website or publications would be acceptable), the primary name of the Wikipedia article should be the name used in the majority of the reliable sources which establish the company's notability. The company's legal department has no authority over what those sources, and hence Wikipedia, call the company. --ColinFine (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've lost some pages added to my book

Hello, I'm new on WikiPedia and I don't know the way to share my problem.

I'm only collecting pages into a book to have joint the information I need. I started this action two days ago; and yesterday when I finished and saved my work the book has 72 pages and 7 chapters.

Today I've connected again to WikiPedia and I've found only 32 pages without any chapter.

Could you help me or tell me where to go to find help. Thank you very much.

Sincerelly yours,

Henry

Lhsebas (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There is no sign of any such problem with the book, so you may need to purge your cache, or (if needed) shutdown your browser and restart it. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your fast answer.

I've clean my browser cache, cookies and everything, I've change my browser; but the result is the same: only 32 pages.

When you tell me that there is no problem with my book, can you see 72 pages?

Thank you again, Henry

Lhsebas (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lhsebas: I see 9 chapters (including an empty at the end) and 72 pages in your saved book User:Lhsebas/Books/Stellar Evolution. When I click the "Book Creator" link at "Edit this book" on that page I still see all the chapters and pages. Is it possible you are working on a new unsaved book in your browser? It's possible to save many different books and work on either one of them or an unsaved book at a time. Unsaved books may vanish between browser sessions but sometimes they last. Others cannot see an unsaved book if you have one. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are looking at a different book? Are you looking at User:Lhsebas/Books/Stars Evolution instead of User:Lhsebas/Books/Stellar Evolution? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I overlooked that. It has 32 pages and no chapters so that must be it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Upsss... Thank you very much.

I don't know where to hide my head. What a shame!!!

I wouldn't know I had started two different books. What a rookie ;o)

Thank you.

One question please:

When I log in to Wikipedia, I don't know how to find my book. Is there an easy link to access them?

Thank you, Henry

Lhsebas (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lhsebas: One way is to click "Contributions" at the top right of any page, and then "Subpages" at the bottom. If some of your most recent edits are to the books then they already show on "Contributions". PrimeHunter (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

All in order. Now I can access easily to my books.

Thank you very much.

Lhsebas (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Another notability question from a somewhat frustrated newbie

Hi again. Since there is a recent question about notabilty, I'll ask my own now, instead of letting stress build. How on earth did so many stub quality articles get onto wikipedia? I've been looking at wikiproject genetics articles. There are about 1,500 stub articles that simply, IMHO, aren't worth the price of the paper they are written on, or the memory they are stored on. How did they get approved in the first place? Has there been some huge change in notability policy recently? If wp wants to not have articles that are not notable (a goal I would support), why is it so darn difficult to get a stub deleted? I PRODed syntelic, and it seems that every possible step is being taken to prevent it from being deleted. It's a one sentence definition, without a verifiable source, IMHO! Why not let auto-confirmed editors simply delete these stubs? If there really is somebody "out there" who is watching the page, that person could undelete. sigh. I feel less frustrated now.... DennisPietras (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DennisPietras. If you think that every article has gone through a standardized "approval" process, then let me tell you that this is not the case. Back in the early days of Wikipedia, large numbers of articles were created without any approval whatsoever. Gradually, a new pages patrol process was developed, which screened out much garbage but not all. The formal Articles for Creation process is much more recent, but is entirely optional. Editors can create new articles as they see fit without going through AFC, and trusted editors who have the autopatrolled user right (as I do) can create new articles while bypassing the new pages patrol.

There has been no recent "huge change" in notability policy but rather a gradual and steady increase in standards regarding new content over the years, which can be applied to old content as well. The General notability guideline did not even exist in the early years of the project. But with 5.3 million articles to review, this is a massive ongoing task.

Only administrators can delete articles. If you want to delete articles, then become an administrator (it is not easy). Many decent articles are incorrectly classed as stubs, and really should be classified higher. Mass deletion of stubs is a really bad idea. The main question is whether or not the topic of the stub is notable, and if so, the stub should be expanded and properly referenced, rather than being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DennisPietras. Since Wikipedia is by design a project that anyone anywhere in the world can edit and be bold, there is unfortunately lots of edits that are made which are not in accordance with relevant policy and guidelines. The same goes for article creation. There are currently over 5,000,000 Wikipedia articles, and many more are created each day. Although new editors are encouraged to try and create articles via WP:AfC, many do not and there is no explicit prohibition against creating anything directly in the article namespace of which I am aware. In other words, you or I do not need approval to create an article, we can just create it if we want to. Of course, not everything which is created should be created, which is why tons of inappropriate articles are deleted on a daily basis. So, if you find an article or stub which you feel does not belong in Wikipedia then I suggest the following:

1. Try and determine what the problem is with the article/stub. Is it something that could possibly be fixed per WP:PRESERVE, or is it something that has no redeeming value to the encyclopedia and should be blown up? If you're not sure, then try checking the article's talk page to see your concerns have been discussed before and initiating such a discussion if they have not. You can also ask for advice from any WikiProjects who might be relevant to the subject matter.
2. If blowing the article up seems like the only course of action, then figure out the best way to do this per WP:DELETE. Seriously problems such as a blatant copyright violation, etc. may qualify for speedy deletion, but WP:PROD and WP:AFD may be more appropriate in other cases. Prod is only for uncontroversial deletions which do not qualify for speedy deletion. If someone is objecting to a prod, then that means the deletion is controversial. In that case, you need to nominate the article for deletion via AfD.

The reason Wikipedia does not let just anyone delete any article is because deletion of content is often contentious and requires input from the larger community. Who's to say that my opinion of an article should take precedence over another editor's. What if I want to delete, but that editor wants to keep. It's for this very reason that only administrators are given the tools to delete articles, files, templates, etc., etc. An administrator is given these tools by the community after going through a vetting process called WP:RFA, which ordinary editors such as you and I are not required to do. This does not mean that administrators do not ever make mistakes, but it does mean that the community trusts them to get things right more often than wrong and that they are also held accountable for their actions if they start making too many wrong decisions. Deletion should be the last resort when no other feasible options exist, which is why there is WP:G4 and WP:REFUND for dealing with recreations of deleted content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again DennisPietras. After looking at Syntelic, the article you prodded, I must admit that I don't understand your it seems that every possible step is being taken to prevent it from being deleted at all. Only one edit has been made to the article by another editor since you prodded it for deletion, and that was by David Biddulph to add an archived link. There's nothing wrong with such an edit as explained in WP:DEADREF, and it would actually be considered an improvement by most experienced editors. The fact that you see this kind of edit as a problem actually is a good example of why the community has decided to leave the deletion of content up to administrators. David's edit might be only a minor improvement that is not enough to save the article so to speak, but he didn't remove the prod tag even though he could've if he really felt the article should not be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DennisPietras. I have to agree that there are lots of stub articles that lead one to wonder "why bother". One extra point that I can't see among the comments above is that notability relates to the subject, not to the article. So if the topic of Syntelic is notable, even though the article is currently just a stub, then the article should stay so it can be improved. If the topic is not notable, then no matter how big or well-written the article is, it should be deleted. Of course there is an indeterminate area where the article does not cite the sources, and we just don't know whether they exist or not. This particular article is way outside my area of expertise and I can't comment on how significant the concept is. A quick Google search finds plenty of hits, including two articles in Nature, so if I was a gambler I would put my money on it probably being notable. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: I have added a little more material, based on some of the references I found above. Unfortunately, most of them are way too technical for me to understand, let alone summarize them in any meaningful way. Articles like this one mean nothing to me - I will pass it over to you to figure out whether it is useful or not. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments! The fact that page patrol didn't exist in the past explains to me how wp got these stubs. Yes, I know that there are primary source research papers that use the term syntelic. With sooo much to do on important articles (my frustrations are not going to stop me from editing!) I'm not going to bother to work on syntelic. I understand that there is a wide variety of expertise in wp readers. However, someone who has the expertise in cytogenetics to care about the definition of syntelic doesn't need to use wp to learn about it!!!! It was cool (to me) to find out how to resurrect links from archives, but David did that only after I had PRODed it. That page, and so many others, have simply been abandoned as stubs. Now that I've learned about the backlog of deletion requests (from other discussions) I'm not going to bother trying to get any other articles deleted, unless I find offensive articles, because there are so few administrators and so much for them to do. That's why I proposed to let autoconfirmed users do the deletions, which appears to have gotten zero traction. As to adminstratorship, I'd rather poke out both of my eyes with sticks than even try to become one if/when I qualify! My hat's off to those who willingly accept that responsibility. Thanks again for your comments! DennisPietras (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras:David probably fixed the dead link because you asked about the article at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 January 26#when/how do substandard pages get deleted?. Doesn't it seem more probable that David was simply not aware of the article prior to that discussion than that he was sitting on that dead link and he was holding off fixing it until somebody prodded the article for deletion? He even explained in that Help Desk discussion that he fixed the deadlink because you posted that There is only one reference, which is to a page that no longer exists which seemed to imply that was partly why you thought the article should be deleted. Wikipedia articles are almost never deleted because the links to sources cited no longer exist and editors shouldn't remove a citation from an article just because it can no longer be found online. Sources only have to be published: they are not required to be online.

Finally, you need to be really careful about nominating articles for deletion because you find the subject matter to be offensive. Wikipedia does not censor and what I may personally think is offensive may not be what you find offensive and vice versa. If you try to get an article deleted for just that reason alone, you should expect a strong response for others who are opposed to such a thing just on principle. This kind of rationale is another example as to why the community only allows administrators to delete articles. If autoconfirmed editors could simply delete articles based upon their personal feelings on the subject matter, there would be way fewer articles on Wikipedia than there are now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Stubs in Genetics

User:DennisPietras - I will try to offer a few comments on your frustration about stub articles in genetics, that may or may not address your frustration. First, many of our reviewers, and we don't have enough reviewers, are primarily concerned with making sure that promotional, self-serving, or truly useless crud doesn't stay in Wikipedia. Anything technical is less problematic than some of the spam that we have to delete. Second, many of the stub articles that get entered into Wikipedia daily in biology are species. It is my understanding that we think that any species is inherently notable; all that is required to accept a stub about it is a reliable source. Maybe more information will be entered about it later. I think that obscure species are at least as notable as obscure celebrities. (That, of course, means that we could get a million stubs on species. We have more than five million articles.) Third, the specific case that you mentioned had to do with an obscure technical concept. I think that a similar case can be made that obscure technical concepts should be accepted, and may be expanded later. Maybe this doesn't address your concerns or frustrations. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Thanks for your comments. It's up to the wp community as to whether they want stubs. I got frustrated mainly because I took on the task of actually rating what were 2044 completely unassessed articles in genetics. The number of small nucleolar RNA stubs I found was (and still is) amazing. But, I'm nearly done. After the experience with syntelic and the amount of time various people spent on it, the stubs can just sit there taking up memory, IMHO, regardless of how many wp policies they violate. The fact that syntelic has been deproded means the community is OK with stubs about topics that are not notable. So be it. DennisPietras (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

User:DennisPietras – If you want to discuss with other editors, we should move this to the top. It seems that no one pays much attention to threads that have scrolled this far down. I disagree with almost everything that you say. First, the fact that syntelic has been deprodded does not mean that the community thinks it is notable. It means that one person thinks it may be notable. A deprod is not done by the community, but by one editor. If you really think that it should be deleted as non-notable, you can AFD it. Second, you say “the stubs can just sit there taking up memory”. The idea that deletion has any effect on server memory is a myth, because deleted articles are still available to be viewed by administrators. Memory is not a factor in whether to retain or delete articles. Third, you say that the community accepts stubs that are not notable. No. The community apparently disagrees with you and thinks that the stubs should be kept because the topics are notable. (At least, if you haven’t AFD’d the stubs, the community hasn’t decided that they aren’t notable.) If I understand what you are saying, I disagree with almost everything that you are saying. I think that technical stubs should be kept because the topics are notable, because valid technical topics are almost always notable. (Maybe you haven’t seen real crud that gets deleted by New Page Patrol.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon It sounds like I should be eternally gratefully to not be a participant on new page patrol! DennisPietras (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User:DennisPietras - If you want to discuss this with other editors, we need to move it up to the top. I disagree with almost everything that you say, both in terms of technical detail and in terms of policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Where to discuss the problem of consistent and persistent liberal bias across Wikipedia?

In the past, whenever I've brought this problem up, my edits are deleted and I get banned from topics as punishment for even hinting at it on the talk pages. The admins who voted for Hillary Clinton (or supported her, if they're not American) consistently back the editors who also voted for Hillary Clinton and/or supported her candidacy. How do we go about fixing the problem if we can't even talk about it? It's getting worse, and worse, and worse. Examples: Donald Trump, Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, Hillary Clinton,Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016,Fake news,Alternative facts,Sean Spicer,Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy, and many many others. They're all dripping with liberal bias, and nobody seems to really care about the direction Wikipedia is now going. What forum do we use to confront this problem before it gets even more out of hand? Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I am just a bystander, but you can only fix it one little (reliably sourced) edit at a time. It is apparent that liberals are pretty active on Wikipedia, so some of their innate bias will slip through, and obtain consensus. I did not see bias on Alternative facts, other than the Dan Rather quote being a bit over the top towards the end, but your real role in toning down liberal bias (and the role of anyone who values NPOV) is to change a word or two in one sentence that seems to embody bias, thus defusing the entire article's bias to some extent. Go back to the article a week later, and find another sentence to repair. Take the emotion out of the article, leaving it a limp rag of well-sourced facts, from which a reader may extract what they want. But don't do so for six months on "the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed."--Quisqualis (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hidden Tempo. If you have concerns about the neutral point of view of a particular article, then the best place to first try and discuss that is the relevant article's talk page as explained at WP:DR. If you find you're efforts to engage on the talk page to be not getting anywhere, then you can try to get feedback at WP:NPOVN. If your concerns are more about the reliability of a source or sources cited in the article, then you can ask for feedback at WP:RSN. However, regardless of where you do the discussing, you be aware of WP:TPG, assume good faith and stick to trying to make your point by discussing the article content/sources that you find problematic and try really hard to avoid discussing/categorizing other editors like you did above in your post. Speculating on who an editor may have supported in an election is not going to help you achieve your goals, and will likely only lead to a battleground-type of discussion which is not very conducive to achieving a consensus. If you have problems with the behavior of another editor, the best place to discuss that is at WP:ANI, but before you do it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:ANI advice to give yourself a better idea as to what happens during such discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hidden Tempo. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are the subject of a six month topic ban on American politics due to your disruptive editing in that topic area. That topic ban began in December, 2016 and applies to all of Wikipedia including the Teahouse. Your question here is therefore a clear violation of your topic ban, and I am pinging Bishonen in case anything I have said is in error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

"To claim bias is to demonstrate bias" -- not always true, but surprisingly reliable. (FWIW, I voted for Ford and Reagan, and was a proud NRA member for years. But I'm not afraid of people whose opinions differ from mine own.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Can Admins make changes to an article that don't show on the History?

A certain admin undid hundreds of minor edits I had recently made to an article I doubt he wrote, but that he felt somehow protective of. I did nothing, not wanting to start a war. When I finally went back to the article, a few of his bad faith edits were reverted, but there was no history of these reversions. I had less work to do reverting and justifying my undoing each of his edits, but am flummoxed as to how this occurred. I could cite examples, but not right now. Is it possible for an admin to do this? The greater mystery may be "why".--Quisqualis (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis, Admins have a permission called revision deletion(revdel). It allows them to revert edits that apply to the criteria listed at WP:REVDEL. In your case, I don't think the admin used revdel for legitimate reasons. As long as your edits were in good faith, the admin shouldn't have used revdel. XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 03:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. This could not have been revdeletion, since you have zero deleted edits. Was this possibly a reversion to an earlier version, before your many edits? Anyone can do that; it involves no admin powers. I'm afraid without knowing what article you are talking about and what edits and what edit summary accompanied this, if any, it's just too speculative. People who are administrators necessarily where two hats, the admin beanie and the jaunty regular editor fedora. They need to keep those roles highly separate, because admins have no more say than anyone when it comes to regular editing, and if they are involved in a matter as a regular editor, they must not exercise admin powers to gain an advantage. Do not mistake that separation, though, the admin role, for the user's voice of authority conferred by long experience and a thorough understanding of the nooks and crannies of the encyclopedia – its policies and guidelines – which most admins have by virtue of being highly experienced editors, which is a prerequisite for adminship. In fact, I do think I know what this is about, but it does not comport with your description – and if it is, you are tipping your hand in the edit summaries (and also being uncivil, they may be wrong but are you sure they are operating in "bad faith"; and you're also wrong that they have hidden anything from the history). The fact that the person is an admin is irrelevant, they have used no admin powers, have not edited in any admin role, and were they to exercise admin powers over a content dispute in which they were involved (even threaten to), that might be a grounds to lose administrative privileges, depending on the specifics and severity. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is User:PBS at Hundred Days. By the way, Quisqualis, I have a problem with this edit. First, "So, after" is actually not better than "After" as it is IMHO too informal, and "contain" suggests they lived there, "harbour" suggested that they were taking refuge there, two different meanings. There are no deleted or suppressed edits in that article, everything is in the history. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up Doug Weller. At 10:35, 9 January 2017 I had posted a comment on the talk page of the article in a thread about the changes that Quisqualis had made. I waited several days for Quisqualis to respond when Quisqualis did not I made my edit at 17:07, 14 January 2017. I did not use the term revert in the edit history because my edit was not a simple revert (diff on edits made by Quisqualis). One of the things I did revert was the change that Doug Weller picked up about changing "contain" to "harbor" [sic] (for the reason Doug Weller gave and also because Brittany is a maritime province it could be misunderstood to mean literally harbour).

Quisqualis has since reverted that revert without discussing it or any other change made on the talk page first including changing spellings from British English "occasionally" to American English "occasionly" (as had been done previously by Quisqualis with instalments and installments). Before starting to edit the article again and reverting some of the reverts I had made Quisqualis ought to have discussed them on the talk page.

All in all it is Quisqualis who needs to discuss on the talk page any text that I have reverted before reverting to the initial bold edit that they made, as I have my reasons for making those changes, or the change is is my opinion a matter of style in which case such changes ought not to be made without consensus. -- PBS (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

creating my first article

i would like to get some feedback on how my first draft is looking and if it will stand the test of editors...i'm a bit confused about how to add in the references and the links. is there somewhere I can discuss it with other(s) so that i can make necessary changes before I submit? i've read many of the beginner's resources on how to make the article, but find it confusing still. thanks. 2606:6000:C34E:D000:177:A429:1D86:5B1D (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

2606: if you're confused about adding references, I would advise strongly against trying to create a new article, which is a far more difficult task. You can learn about referencing here. Maproom (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

For references - and every statement and claim should be referenced with WP:RS and WP:IS reliable and independent sources - you can either click the book with the red line running from the centre-top towards the bottom right, or you can put it between these two markers <ref> </ref>. ANYTHING not referenced can, should and will be removed, this is to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia and stop fake information creeping in. At the bottom of the article, create a heading References (==References==) and add {reflist} which will add the references automatically to this list from those in the article within the <ref> tags. Please also note that articles on anything cannot just be created - they must meet a notability guideline, i.e. be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. These can be found at WP:GNG, the basic one being that the subject must have had significant independent coverage. Promotional articles about unremarkable subjects are challenged and deleted by editors who monitor newly created content.

Every editor's journey is different, however my personal view is beginning your wiki career by creating an article is really jumping in at the deep end. The approach that worked for me was to make small edits where I saw the need (e.g. if something had just happened in the news, I could add it with a reference, if I noticed a spelling mistake, I could correct it etc). I didn't go searching for corrections, I just stumbled across them during my normal reading of the encyclopaedia. Over time I built up confidence and knowledge of article content, requirements, guidelines, code and technical stuff in order to create my own articles. No-one is prevented from creating an article to kick off their editing career, however if you consider the analogy of driving a car, you would drive short distances on quiet roads first to learn the process rather than participating in a supercar race (deep end). This is just my view, others may consider your approach a good way to fully immerse yourself into the project and gain the necessary skills quicker, however it may require a thick skin because editors will jump in and sweep up because although new editors are encouraged, the edits are live and sub-standard content will need to be improved (it's not personal).

If you've written a draft, you can post the link on my talk page and I can have a look. Rayman60 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

One small correction to what Rayman60 has written above. The content of the "References" section should be {{reflist}} not {reflist}. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is MUCH easier to participate in Wikipedia if you have an account (and therefore a username). As it is, nobody can send you a message and be sure you'll receive it. You've only got an IP address (2606:6000:C34E:D000:177:A429:1D86:5B1D), which is for the computer you accessed this page from, this time. Use another computer, you'll have a different IP address. --Thnidu (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Depending on the internet service provider, an IP address might change from time to time even when using the same computer. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to hide edits from watchlist that got reverted?

You know, when sõme vandal edit the page but got reverted. Bertdrunk (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bertdrunk and welcome to the Teahouse.

Not exactly. There's a Preference under "Watchlist" called

 Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent

that you can un-check. A lot of people prefer to see their Watchlist this way and it would have the effect of hiding reverted edits (but not necessarily the edits that reverted them).  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what to do?

Hello there! I need some help. I joined few days ago and I want to start editing here but I don't know where to start! I was in another wiki and there, articles that needed help were tagged for users to easily find them, so does such thing exists here? I want to copyedit articles, you know, fix spelling mistakes and stuff like that. Thanks in advance! PerihanM. (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You might be thinking of Category:All articles needing copy edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Biography

How do I write a biography?

I don't seem to be able to alter anything on the 'biography template' — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRAS (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello FRAS and welcome to the Teahouse.

Whoa, there, you may be getting ahead of yourself. Most Teahouse hosts will recommend that you spend some time on Wikipedia getting to know the ropes before attempting the rather daunting task of writing a whole new article. In most cases, you can't just start an article in the main part of Wikipedia – it will likely be deleted because it is unfinished when you start it. It looks like this may have happened to you already.

There are two pages that we generally recommend for people getting started: WP:Your first article and Help:referencing for beginners. If you master the material in there, you'll be on your way. The Teahouse is here if you need help.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

my page

I had made my article And i get that it will be dealted , i want to solve he problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasmen Al-MeQdamy (talk • contribs)

I have answered on your talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference doubts.

I'm looking to make a wiki page about a popular commentary YouTuber. Do YouTube videos count as possible references if they're well documented. Also will the YouTubers website(about me section) act as a source of suitable references. This individual is very popular, however I'm finding it tough to get well documented references. Last thing I want is to spend a lot of time on this article and then get vandal warnings. Any advice is appreciated. Arkhaminsanity (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Arkhaminsanity and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, a person's statements about themselves (such as YouTube videos and their website) cannot be used to establish notability, which is the very first requirement when adding an article to Wikipedia. Adding inadequately sourced material, at least the first few times, is not going to get you labeled as a vandal, but the edits will most likely be quickly reverted and a page that you create with inadequate supporting evidence will most likely be speedily deleted. Be sure to read the guidance at WP:Your first article so you can become a valued contributing editor. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Arkhaminsanity: I typoed the {{u}} template in the above. Pinging again. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)