Wikipedia:Teahouse

Sdkb, 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

How to I add Pictures in my article?

I've been trying to add pictures in my wikipedia article but i cant make it. how do i add picture from my computer data to wikipedia? Please guide me. Kimaya Sulakhe (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, {{U|Kimaya Sulakhe]] and welcome to the Teahouse. Use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard for this purpose. You will also want to read Help:Viewing media. DES ^(talk) 13:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The prior ping was malformed, so you did not get it. Trying again: Kimaya Sulakhe --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reason for deleting my article "Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple"

I could not understand the reason for deleting my article "Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple". It had proper footnotes and necessary photographs. Relevant information have been given based on the field work carried out by me in person. The temple has a history of more than 13 centuries. From the archaeological perspective also it was important. In Tamil Nadu, only select number of temples are found in this style. The iconographic aspect of the temple is very worth to mention. So far I have written more than 100 articles, most of them on temples, in English Wikipedia and 600 articles in Tamil Wikipedia. I request to reconsider your decision. Your reconsideration will help me to contribute more articles in Wikipedia.If any corrections have to be made, I will do, accordingly. Regards. B Jambulingam (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi B Jambulingam, and welcome to the teahouse. Draft:Thukachi Abatsahayesvarar Temple is still there in draft space, and is a promising article. It just needs a few more references to support the statements. Unfortunately, your own field work cannot be used to support the statements until you have it published in WP:Reliable sources. Keep up the good work. Dbfirs 11:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dbfirs, Thanks for your opinion that this is a promising article. Let me know if I have to give many more foot notes/sources enabling others for not deleting the article. Your comments will be helpful to make the article in proper shape. Regards.--B Jambulingam (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a few more reliable sources would help to establish notability. Statements such as "It is said that previously there were seven prakaras" need WP:reliable sources. Dbfirs 07:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dbfirs, For the concerned line suitable quote is given. I tried my level best to give reliable/available quotes. Regards.--B Jambulingam (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not able to check the references because I don't understand the language, but, ideally, each statement should have a reference which confirms the claim in the article. The reference should immediately follow the claim. Dbfirs 17:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Best practice for citing articles in EU Treaties - to wikisource or not to wikisource?

Hi,

I've been trying to update and improve a variety of EU related pages, including for the European Council. I have query concerning the best practice for citing treaty articles as references, and whether we should utilise the wikisource versions of the Treaty on European Union, and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or link to external pdfs on the EU's own web domain. I notice that the page currently uses a mix of these approaches. I also wanted to know best practice for citing specific articles in the text on wikisource.

Many thanks, EU explained (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hello EU explained. I do not have a hard and fast answer, but the following may be better than no answer at all.

The general guidance on sources is that you are referencing a publication, not a particular way to obtain it, which different download links essentially are. Of course, a low-quality scan on a shoddy website is not as good as the original publication, because of link rot and falsification issues.

I would say (but that it my opinion, I do not have a strong guideline in mind) that you should link the wikisource in the "see also" sections of articles about a particular treaty, but use the europa.eu link for any other reference. The idea behind it is that when you are using the reference, you refer not only to its content but also to who published it, and for that the official website when available is better IMO. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing wording that's promotive of the subject

Hi dear Wikipedians

I'm new to Wikipedia and I would greatly appreciate some help on editing my very first page 'Simon Cohen (communication expert)'. I would like to learn how to make improvements to make sure the page is written in a neutral and objective voice.

I alone have not written the article but I'm responsible for posting it, and I have a conflict of interest since I'm currently working together with the subject of the page. I hope that some of you more experiences members of the Wikipedia community can help me to edit the article so that it is well written and provides information in a relevant manner. Thank you!MatildeZ (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hewllo, MatildeZ, and welcome to the Teahouse. The page Simon Cohen (to which title it has been moved recently) does indeed have a number of problems. I see that you have declared your COI on the article talk page. This is very good. The remaining tasks are, roughly:

1. Make sure that all current content is supported by the sources cited and that all of those are Reliable sources. I notice that several sources are by Cohen himself, or by entities closely connected to him. Those can be used to source his statements and views, and for basic non-controversial facts, such as his place of birth and education. They should not be used for any controversial facts, except perhaps with a prefix of "Cohen says ..." or "Cohen claims ... " or the like. Some other sources, such as the Huffington Post, may not be fully reliable.
2. Remove any promotional wording. First look for adjectives (and verbs) that are really editorial comment, such as "inspired". Look for phrasing that is praise rather than reporting, and remove or rewrite it.
3. Look for additional reliable sources. Use them to expand the content in the article, or offer additional points of view, being careful to give them due weight. In particular, look for properly sourced critical views of Cohen. Surely there are some. They should be added to the article, unless they are mere fringe views.

I hope these suggestion are helpful. I have made some small edits to the article myself, mostly formatting issues. DES ^(talk) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi DES

And thank you so much for your kind reply and patience. It now seems several editors have helped in improving the page and I'm of course very thankful for this. I understand now what should be removed and why. The template of issues / COI etc. that was previously on the page has now been removed. Does that mean I should not continue working on it? Is it approved as a page?

Following your advice, I have found a critical source / an additional point of view that would be useful in the page. Should I add it or is it best I let the article stay as it is, given my COI?

Thank you so much for helping out! MatildeZ (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How to do notes instead of references?

There's a note on an article that's being displayed as a reference, how do I change it so that it is displayed as '[note 1]'? The Verified Cactus 100% 15:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. One way is to create a separate section just above the references section with a header like, "==Notes==" or "==Footnotes==" and then place this markup in that section: {{notelist}} Once you've done that, at the spot in the article where you want to place a note, use this markup: {{efn|Your note text (which can include citations)}} By the way, "efn" stands for explanatory footnote. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 21:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

What's a good minimum number of references for an article?

It's about a television show and is located at Draft:The Stanley Dynamic Aamri2 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Good question... but the answer is not that easy. There could be three great references from three great sources and it would be enough. For your article they could be reviews from TV guide, CBC, and a link to a winning Emmy. On the other side you could have 20 references from blog writers, facebook, industry publications that carry little to no weight and would not help show notability, and it would not be enough. I added a couple refs to the article. There are more out there that will support that article as it expands. Thanks for your question and for your contribution to Wikipedia. Cheers. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

regarding my artical

i have made edition to that artical because the previous artical is not satisfactory and the people who want exact knowledge this artical is for those , as you have declined my artical i want it to be publish and help me out with that my artical is vibrio cholerae.

Jskrn94 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If you find the article Vibrio cholerae unsatisfactory, then you should make improvements to that article, not try to create a new one. It might be best to discuss your changes on the talk page of the article before making major controversial changes. You also need to be aware that the original article has eighteen references. Your proposed replacement had only one. Dbfirs 06:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Neighbourhood and suburb are both same? If not which one should be used as a settlement type for merged villages in Indian towns and cities?

• Example: Hyderabad - its original areas are Charminar, Khairatabad etc.

• Merged areas into the corporation (earlier non metropolitan areas) like Balanagar, Malkajgiri.Vin09 (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

A suburb traditionally is a specific type of neighbourhood, more on the outskirts of a city. However in some countries this distinction has disappeared. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

editing with different languages

How can I edit with several languages without changing the whole page language?

AlHarbi 09:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdusalam Mahmoud (talk • contribs)

That's not possible. Content on the en.wikipedia site does not affect any other languages. Each language-version of Wikipedia is effectively it's own site hosted under the Wikipedia domain. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Formatting Help

Twinkle Messed up my AFD request here 1 and I am not quite sure how to fix it or what is the correct format. Help! Razer^{Text me} 09:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done by removal of a surplus open-square-bracket: Noyster (talk), 09:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Searching in multiple Wikipedias simultaneously

Hi Teahouse,

I use Wikipedia in different languages and like to have the ability to search in a few of them simultaneously. In other words, I don't like to switch Wikipedia when I switch language. Is there some sort of universal search capability? Can I "turn on" some languages and see results from them.

Hope I was able to convey my question. Thanks in advance. Alireza1357 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Alireza1357, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but the the best of my knowledge, that is not possible. Each language edition of Wikipedia is its own site and project. Besides, the corresponding term for a subject under another language might not be the obvious (machine) translation of the title in English. However, many Wikipedia article do link to corresponding or closely related article in different language editions of Wikipedia. Thus once you have found one in one language, you may be able to follow useful links to other languages DES ^(talk) 12:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Alireza1357 and DESiegel – You can open various language Wikipedias in different browser tabs. For example https://en.wikipedia.org in one tab, then https://fr.wikipedia.org in the next tab. So then you can easily switch between wikis by just clicking on the tab for that one. This is how I find a French article that corresponds to the English article. For example: article Roman Catholic Diocese of Angoulême#since 1802 and look at last entry for Claude Jean Pierre Dagens English wikipedia; and (fr) French wikipedia. Hope this helps. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:DESiegel and User:JoeHebda I was actually looking for a more convenient way like "turning on" different wikis in preferences and having a universal search box that pulls out results from the "turned on" wikis. This would save me some additional clicks and repetitive tasks. But thanks for your answers. I was wondering if it is a good idea to raise the issue on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)? Cheers Alireza1357 (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You can if you like, Alireza1357. I don't see any obvious answer to the issue that the search terms would be different, and that languages do not translate 1-to-1. But I am not up on the latest developments in searching, and maybe there would be an answer. It couldn't hurt to ask, the worst that could happen is a laugh and "No way! Not possible." DES ^(talk) 12:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel

Will do! That is the least price one can pay! As Germans say:

Wieso, weshalb, warum? Wer nicht fragt bleibt dumm!

Cheers Alireza1357 (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes...the song for the German version of Sesame Street. Ahhh, those were the times. Lectonar (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• You can also fire up the external search engine of your choice, and use the keyword site:wikipedia.org to restrict the search to pages on the Wikipedia domains. However, doing so will have all the shortcomings of an external search (some internal pages are not indexed, you cannot search by template, etc.). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How do I write about a design studio without it becoming promotional?

I recently wrote an article about a design studio and its work and it was then immediately flagged for deletion. I then changed the contents to only have cited facts from reputable sources such as their work that was shown by the Cooper Hewitt but was then still deemed to be promotional by admins. I have no idea how to proceed since there was no other explanation on how that is promotional from the admins. I see other design firms having wiki pages e.g. Continuum (design consultancy) and want to know how. For full disclosure I interned and freelanced at this studio a while back but have no current association with it, do I have to declare conflict of interest? Inksquare (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Inksquare, and welcome to the Teahouse. As it happens I am the admin who deleted Prime Studio. Phrases such as "It is founded by designer, engineer and entrepreneur Stuart Harvey Lee" seemed promotional to me. Also, the rather shot article did not clearly indicate how the subject firm was notable. Still, the decision was not as clear-cut as many that I encounter tagged for speedy deletion. If you wish, I will restore the article in Draft space (as Draft:Prime Studio. There you will have more time to fully develop the article before it is assessed, and it will be reviewed by an experienced editor before it is taken live again. Would that be helpful? DES ^(talk) 15:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Inksquare. It would be advisable for you to read WP:My first article and also to familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines for companies found at WP:CORP. Although there are some exceptions to notability for artists based on there works being exhibited, no such exception exists for a studio, which is after all a business. John from Idegon (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DES for your explanation. I would like to continue working on the article and would really appreciate having the draft page to work on. Thank you John from Idegon for the resource link, I would definitely have a read before I continue. Inksquare (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Do I have a Conflict of Interest?

Hello, my name's Tom Nordlie. I just signed up for a Wikipedia account.

I'm a full-time public relations writer with the University of Florida, working for the UF agriculture program's communications office. I've been doing this sort of work for 15+ years but this is my first attempt at being a Wikipedia editor.

If you'll please bear with me for a few paragraphs, I'll explain my situation, and then get to my specific questions...

Some months ago, I was asked to prepare an English-language Wikipedia page profiling one of our new faculty members, Dr. Ilaria Capua. Dr. Capua is originally from Italy and has an Italian-language Wikipedia page. She's a virologist and is fairly well-known in contemporary scientific circles for her advocacy of "open source" genetic databases.

Originally, my intention was to write and post a piece on Dr. Capua that conformed to Wikipedia requirements, working from her Italian page. I've now completed the writing, but haven't tried to post anything yet.

Here's a recent development -- several weeks ago, I discovered that another editor has posted an English-language page on Dr. Capua. Consequently, my assignment changed and I am now supposed to make edits to that page, and expand it with material I have on hand. I hope to get started editing in the next couple of days.

Two questions concern me --

First, I may have a conflict of interest, by virtue of the fact that I'm a UF employee writing about another UF employee. I'm not sure if someone with Wikipedia needs to further vet me before I attempt to make any edits to the page, or if I need to follow a different course of action altogether, such as submitting my material to someone else for review and possible action.

Second, I have already left a message for the editor who posted the original page on Dr. Capua. I explained what I planned to do, and invited the editor to reply with any questions or comments. My question here -- is there any standard protocol for expanding a previously created Wikipedia page? In other words, am I expected to reach a consensus with the other editor about what I'll add? Or is it okay for me to make edits at my discretion and leave it to the other editor to decide whether to challenge anything?

Any advice would be most appreciated.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Nordlie (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It is fairly standard wikipedia editing policy to include a link to an article being discussed, so Ilaria Capua, there. Secondly, there is no need to notify former article editors about your edits unless you are significantly changing what they have done. Then contacting them would be a polite courtesy. So edit away, be bold, and just be sure that you are properly referencing your edits. Also, if you put something, anything, on your user page then your user name will change into a blue link rather than being the red one that it is now. This suggests to others, or at least to me, that you are not the dead end that red links suggest and that perhaps you are even a serious editor who intends to stay around. The "User Page" tab at the top left of your user page will change color too after my posting, because now there is something there. Consider it, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My view is that in this situation the advice regarding conflict of interest does apply. You should propose changes at Talk:Ilaria Capua, supplying references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to support your proposed changes. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hello Tom Nordlie and welcome to Wikipedia (WP). The page we are talking about is Ilaria Capua. In the following, highlighted words are "wikilinks" you can click.

A conflict of interest, in Wikipedia's sense, is any relationship that would make an outside observer infer that you might be biased; it can be a financial COI (writing about a client, a employer, etc.) but not necessarily (writing about a relative, a friend, a politician you support, etc.). Since you have been assigned with writing a page, you probably fall under the stronger guideline outlined at WP:PAID. Please read it carefully: you must disclose paid editing in a particular manner, by the terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The original editor of the page has no more oversight than anyone else over its content; while it was courteous to inform them, it was not necessary. Long-time editors use the watchlist feature to keep track of changes to the articles they care about.

While the usual advice is to be bold when editing a page, with the idea that anyone who disagrees can "revert" (cancel) changes fairly easily, you are encouraged not to do that because of your conflict of interest. Instead, post an edit request to the talk page of the article (Ilaria Capua).

The how-to guide for edit requests is here; the short version is to make a new thread on the talk page, place {{request edit}} at the top of it, and describe your proposed changes in the format "change X to Y, per the source <Z>". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody! I have set up a user page and will review the WP:PAID guidelines.

Tom

Tom Nordlie (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Randall Kay Williams

I have just finished my draft version of Randall Kay Williams and I would like to publish. I have tried to find out how to do it, but am getting confused. Does it need to be reviewed first. How do I go about that. Thax. PaulineG777 PaulineG777 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I've added a template which includes a "Submit" button for use when you want to submit the draft for review. I haven't looked at the draft in detail, but I see that there are some misplaced external links, and there is scope for tidying up the references which are used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I will work on your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulineG777 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Help creating article about a blues musician - noob here

Article draft is at Draft:Solomon_King_(blues_artist)

This is an blues singer/songwriter and guitarist who I have seen live several times and become very familiar with his work. I decided to write his Wikipedia article because of the difficulty I had experienced in researching the guy's career.

Although there are numerous interviews in relevanr and reliable sources and official press releases and product information and other published material, I still had repeatedly encountered references and attributions to at two other artists with the same stage name "Solomon King".

I figured since I had taken the time research this person and determine which information is correct and which are errors or artifacts of music metadata systems I ought to share this with others who may experience the same confusion.

So, to sum up the help request:

Is there anybody familiar with writing music and movie articles that can help a noob with proper formatting and style, citations, etc?

Brownianps (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Brownianps. I have done some of these, including recently 500 Miles High. I will try to take a look at Draft:Solomon_King_(blues_artist) later today. In the meantime, I urge you to read Your First Article and Referencing for beginners if you have not already done so. DES ^(talk) 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Formatting and style are easily corrected (I've already corrected the use of boldface). The main problem is likely to be finding enough reliable published independent sources to verify that King is notable. The two sources currently cited are to interviews with him, and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems some of the sources I had previously included as citations were not saved. There are other edits that don't seem to have been saved either. I am not sure if my changes are being saved when working on mobile. It keeps refreshing the captcha and isn't displaying a confirmation or an error. Sometimes the edita stick, but sometimes I guess they don't.

Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownianps (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If you use any source that is on the Google Amp thing, whatever that is, it won't save. I've had the same problem several times. It's apparently a blacklisted link, but you can circumvent it by removing the amp part of the url and leaving the newspaper's own website. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I use an Android and have experienced similar problems. I access Wikipedia via my Chrome browser rather than using the app and always select the desktop version. When I need a search engine, I access Google.com on Chrome and select the desktop version also. Hope that helps. John from Idegon (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't try to edit Wikipedia on any mobile device, only on a desktop or occasionally a laptop. DES ^(talk) 01:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

IPA templates

It's obvious why the documentation for Template:IPA-en has a section describing how to use the template with English words, and another section for non-English words. But why are these same sections, for ±English words, included in the IPA templates for Esperanto, French, Arabic, Greek, Belarusian, Mandarin, Klingon, and presumably all the other IPA-language templates? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Article Title Spelling change

I recently created a page for a local theater in my community, The Shelton Theater.

However it looks to have saved in the British spelling of 'theatre', which is different from the theater's other source spellings as well as their website. How do I make this marginal change to the title of this page.

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

Thank you.

Mayalekach (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mayalekach. I have gone ahead and moved the page for you; for (seemingly) uncontroversial requests such as this, you could either a) move the page yourself, or b) request it to be moved at WP:RM/TR if you cannot do so yourself. It would also be of help to view WP:RM in case a move is contested. SkyWarrior 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You do, however, need to provide references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate the notability of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is my page marked for speedy deletion?

the page had all the proper references but still marked for deletion (Rjacobs1 (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This must be about Augustine Grant. It cites no references. It does list three references, so the citations could be added, as recommended in the "multiple issues" notice at the top of the article. But the first is to IMDB, which is not reliable, and the other two merely mention the subject, they contain no in-depth discussion of him. So, they fail to establish that he is notable. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rjacobs1.

There's another problem here: based on your username, you may be writing an an article about yourself or you've chosen a username to perhaps imply you are impersonating the subject of the article. One way or another, you would be running afoul of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

How can I improve article to be reviewed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Middleton

Hello I have written the above article and it was first declined for notability but i have since improved the sources and am awaiting review since resubmitting over a week ago. I wanted to ask your opinion on how it could be improved even further while I wait, or if it is OK as is to get approved when it does get looked at again? Thanks so much!

Ashalily91 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ashalily91. I reviewed and declined your draft again. See my comments there. You have not addressed the issues raised by the first reviewer. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The long list of his publications should be removed or severely trimmed. The article would also be better without the section on non-notable awards he's won. But the main issue is (as John from Idegon just said) whether the citations establish that he's notable. The article cites almost 40 sources, but I don't see even one which does anything to establish his notability. Maproom (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John from Idegon I really appreciate your comments and am working through those now. Can I ask if journals are notable sources as all research publications are 'written' by the subject, but if it has qualified for the journal would this be able to be considered a notable source for proof? I am looking at the International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics where both of the 'australian first' acheivements are published. Or would it be best to only mention the advancement that was also picked up by media/newspaper sources? Maproom thank you also for reiterating the comments made by John,appreciate your further advice here. --Ashalily91 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Mark Middleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have supplied journals and a media source that verify Mark as introducing a major advance in the treatment of cancer to Australia, but I understand that there hasnt been enough media coverage to warrent inclusion in Wikipedia. I had focussed on this acheivement as I was told his business acheievements were advertising(although reported on by third part sources and a key aspect of Marks reputation in the health landscape), can I ask how this is any different to this article which has been approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Jaffray

Ashalily91 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I write an article which is not there in Wikipedia but in other websites ?

I want to write an article about abellaite (mineral) but it is not present in Wikipedia but it is present in another website called Geoscienceworld.org. 122.172.167.134 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Provided that you can find multiple Reliable sources about it, this would be helpful. I don't know Geoscienceworld.org, what kind of site is it? does it have some sort of editorial control? Can additional sources be found, perhps via a google books or google scholar search, or a library search?

Please read Your First Article before trying to create a new article. Unless you register an account, you will need to use the Article wizard to create a new article. I would urge you to do that anyway, and to go through a Draft stage in any case. This will allow an experienced editor to review the draft before it is moved to a live article. DES ^(talk) 14:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)After a quick search it looks like there would be enough to support an article. Unless you create an account you can not directly create it. You can use the articles for creation process and create it in the Draft namespace. Then when it is ready it can be moved to the main space. ~ GB fan 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• You should also be careful not to copy-paste the text from geoscienceworld.com. Doing so would be a copyright violation and would force Wikipedia to delete it as soon as it is detected. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think all known minerals, animal species, and plants are notable for us by definition of existing. There's some scientist out there studying them. Abellaite should be listed and discussed in mineral or stone identifying books. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've found a few good sources:

• Ibáñez-Insa, Jordi; Elvira, José J.; Llovet, Xavier; Pérez-Cano, Jordi; Oriols, Núria; Busquets-Masó, Martí; Hernández, Sergi (16 February 2017). "Abellaite, NaPb2(CO3)2(OH), a new supergene mineral from the Eureka mine, Lleida province, Catalonia, Spain". European Journal of Mineralogy. ISSN 0935-1221.
• Hålenius, U.; Hatert, F.; Pasero, M.; Mills, S. J. (1 February 2016). "New minerals and nomenclature modifications approved in 2015 and 2016". Mineralogical Magazine. 80 (1): 199–205. doi:10.1180/minmag.2016.080.080.
• "Abellaite: Abellaite mineral information and data". www.mindat.org.
• Commons has a photo at File:Abellaite-738453.jpg
• The Wikiata page shows that four other language Wikipedias have articles

We obviously need this article so please go ahead and start it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Creating a list

I have created List of Removed Monuments and Memorials of the Confederate States of America.

However, trying to put on the first item, Liberty Monument (New Orleans), it's not working. What's wrong? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe. It appears you are confusing a list and a category. A list is an article which just happens to include a list of something. You add something to a list by editing the list, just like any other article. A category has a name starting with "Category:". If it's called "Category:X" then you add pages to it by adding [[Category:X]] to the pages. It requires that the pages exist. Wikipedia uses sentence case for titles so a category for your purpose should be called something like Category:Removed monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Existance of naming guidelines

Does Wikipedia have guidelines on the naming of articles? And if so, where are they located? AtlasDuane (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi AtlasDuane The page you want is WP:Article titles. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, much appreciated! AtlasDuane (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Hi all-

Clearly I am HTML self-taught, much less new to Wikipedia. I am trying to cite sources in an article I have created and really haven't a clue what I am doing. I have read everything that has links and still, well, AAAACK! I bow to your genius. Please help so I can get an article listed. Once done, want to help me figure out how to get images posted? I really do want to learn, so help? The article, not published, is "Cultural & Natural History Collections at the University of La Verne."

Chickboat (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The page is Draft:Cultural and Natural History Collections at the University of La Verne, La Verne, California. ~ GB fan 18:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Chickboat. I'll leave some easy to follow instructions on your talk page for formatting references. Please be advised that although wiki markup is largely based in HTML, it is not the same. However, your draft has much bigger problems than improper formatting. There is nothing whatsoever to show that your subject is notable, which is the requirement to have an article. You need multiple reliable sources that are totally independent of the library, the university, or any of the donors that specifically discuss the subject of the article in detail. I'm not seeing any sources there that would meet our criteria of reliability. John from Idegon (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Chickboat and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wording like "Nestled in the foothills" rings an alarm for me as promotional and possibly a copyright violation. Even if paraphrased, staying too close to your source can still present a problem.

If suggest you go and read WP:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. Incorporating the advice given there will go a long way towards allowing you to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your use of the personal pronoun "our" in the article, beside being completely unencyclopedic, is indicative of a conflict of interest on your part. Please read the link and follow best practices. If your job duties in any way include public relations or you are being compensated in any way for your writing here, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose that in a manner prescribed at WP:PAID. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon, Thank you very much for the insight! I will add some additional information to make the article more notable, remove the pronoun/conflict of interest, and yes, I did alter information found on the University's website ("nestled in the foothills") so definitely technically unoriginal verbiage. I don't recall using any of the University's websites for references, however. And more, did I at least get that figured out? In the meantime, let me edit the VERY appreciated commentary and suggestions.

Anne aka chickboat Chickboat (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Using the university's website as a source but not referencing it can also be a problem. Where else is the quote at the end of the introductory paragraph to be attributed to? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article titled "Examiner.com"

I need help with the Wikipedia article titled Examiner.com.

I was a contributor at Examiner for over 6 1/2 years, from November 2009 until it closed in July 2016. Recently I read the Wikipedia article about it, and I was alarmed by a few different paragraphs and so I deleted some and edited others. This started an editing war. Someone is angry that I removed his or her incorrect, unsubstantiated input. The article now appears exactly the same as it did before I got involved.

On Wikipedia, a critic or an industry competitor wrote that Examiner had an ongoing plagiarism problem. Initially they did, but in 2010 Examiner's IT department installed software that detected images and sentences that had been published online before. Any contributor who got caught doing that instantly lost their login and their column disappeared.

Additionally, in 2010, Examiner hired a full time editorial team at their headquarters in Denver, Colorado. They were tough. Contributors would submit their articles to the editorial team for review and approval, and the first submission was always rejected for trivial reasons that were a non-issue. An article could bounce back and forth between a contributor and the editorial team several times for weeks. By the time an editor published it online everybody was sick and tired of it, and they hated each other.

Also, a critic wrote on the Wikipedia article that Examiner never offered to pay their contributors. That's not true! This is a double-edged sword: When I was contracted in November 2009, my recruiter said that contributors who had established readership had earned $100 to $150 per day for years. I worked really hard to establish my readership and when it reached about 10,000 unique visitors I received about $50. As my readership increased, my pay rate dropped. Obviously Examiner's recruiter lied. If it's true that they had 25,000 contributors during that period then there could be enough unpaid earnings to justify filing a class action lawsuit, and an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. For some mysterious reason, Examiner kept changing parent companies, but all of them were owned by Philip Anschutz in Denver, Colorado. The umbrella parent company was Anschutz Entertainment Group ("AEG"), which is now called Anschutz Corporation.

And so would you please resolve this editing war. Clearly the people who wrote the paragraphs that I tried to edit did not know anything about Examiner and they had never worked there or even contributed a single article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiesmallory (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Katiesmallory: your close involvement with Examiner.com makes you less qualified, not more, to edit the Wikipedia article on it, as you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not based on its contributors' opinions on a subject, however well-informed; it is based on what has been published in reliable independent sources. The edit war will be won by the party that provides references for its contributions. You will not achieve anything by deleting referenced content and replacing it by your own unreferenced opinions. If you can cite independent published sources for Examiner's current policies on wages and plagiarism, please add them to the article. Maproom (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Katiesmallory, and welcome to the Teahouse. Of course edit wars are bad and should be stopped. I haven't yet looked at the page Examiner.com, but I will. However, what drives article content should not be what you know, or what any other editor knows or has experienced, but what published reliable sources say about the subject. Do you have published sources to back your statements about Examiner.com? Your personal knowledge is not verifiable -- that is, a reader can't check it. All Wikipedia content should in theory be verifiable, so cited reliable sources are vital in such matters. DES ^(talk) 21:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Katiesmallory, this issue should be discussed on the page Talk:Examiner.com. Please honor the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. You made a series of bold edits. Another editor (and a rather experienced one, by the way) reverted them, claiming that they were unsourced. You should now discuss the matter on the talk page. If you an provide or point to sources that support your edits, please do so. Other can help insert sources if that is needed. But without sources that support your changes, they will not stay in the article.

Also, one revert, with a plausible reason, is not an edit war. People revert edits that they disagree with all the time. This is normal and proper, provided that the reverting editor explains his or her action, and is open to discussion thereafter. this series of edits did not introduce any new citations or sources, and did remove cited content and the citations supporting it. DES ^(talk) 21:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Katiesmallory, on looking further I see that you (or someone editing from an IP address ending in 42cd, which I suppose to have been you) made the same or similar edits three times, being reverted by a different editor each time. That is an edit war, but it suggests that you were the person warring. I will assume that you didn't realize that after the first revert you should go to the article talk page and start a discussion of the issue. But you know that now. Please do not continue to insert unsourced statements into the article against local consensus without discussing the matter on the article talk page first. Doing so will not gain cooperation from other editors here, and will have negative consequences. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture

How can I add a picture to an article?NickTheScout (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi NickTheScout. It is very dependent on what picture you want to add to which article. Copyright is a big hurdle, and it depends on many factors, so please tell us the specifics so that we can give tailored advice. In their absence, I am posting a canned template below that may explain some of the issues. Best regards---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.Template:Z40--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Question Part 2 - Nick

The reason I ask for this is because I notice an article by the name "Hacker" didn't have any information needed so I wanted to find an easiest way to fill in this article with no info!NickTheScout (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, NickTheScout. If you are referring to the page Hacker (film), which you created, it has been deleted (by myself, in fact) as a test page, and as by your request (by blanking the page).

If you want to create pages in the future I urge you to read Your First Article and Wikipedia's Golden Rule first, and then to use the Article wizard to create a Draft. That will make things much easier for all involved. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

reference for word of mouth information

how do you write reference for word of mouth article and history Lmuamua (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lmuamua, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are asking how to document something you learned because someone told you about it as a source for a Wikipedia article, the answer is simple, you don't. According to our verifibility policy and our guideline on reliable sources, sources must be published.

However, if a relaible source, such as a work of history, recounts what someone told the historian, that can be cited and used. So can published oral histories, such as the Oral History project run by the US Library of Congress. DES ^(talk) 23:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Lmuamua, I've tidied up your article stub a bit, but you need to do some research to find WP:Reliable sources, and you might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Can you find the co-ordinates on Google Earth? Dbfirs 23:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

trying to edit a page of an artist that is up for deletion but should not be in my opinion.

Hello I am trying to understand why artist Patrick Thompson (artist) is up for deletion. How can it be edited to avoid this?Plasterofparis (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Plasterofparis, and Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason why Patrick Thompson (artist) has been nominated for deletion is given on the AfD page for that article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Thompson (artist). There the nominator says: "Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Can find no indepth coverage just a lot of listings and passing mentions." This means that the nominator, the experienced editor Theroadislong, has looked for but was unable to find published independent reliable sources that discuss Thompson in some detail.

As to "How can it be edited to avoid this?", the answer is simple. Find and add such sources. Several such sources at least. Published reliable sources that discuss Thompson and/or his work at some length (at least several paragraphs, more is better) are what is needed and all that is needed. Sources do not have to be online, although being online makes things easier. If you don't know how to add them to the article, simply list them on the AfD page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Thompson (artist), describing what the sources say about Thompson and why they are reliable (if this is not clearly obvious). Descriptions should be brief, but through enough to allow someone who has not read the source to understand how it deals with Thompson or his work (or both). Such sources as books published by mainstream publishers, scholarly journal articles, magazine articles, newspapers, or online sites of comparable quality and function to these will all work. Blogs and fan sites will not work. Neither will mentions in passing, or inclusion in directories and lists.

Significant awards can also help, but there must be a cited source showing that Thompson received the award (or was a finalist for a major award). Online searches may be enough -- library searches/research are sometimes required.

Does that answer your question? DES ^(talk) 00:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and do NOT copy sizable blocks of text directly from the sources, Plasterofparis. DES ^(talk) 01:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

how to write word of mouth stories and how to reference it

I was given the opportunity by our fathers to write the story about our family and how they travelled to reach where they have established our village at present, to write about their journey. This stories have never been documented before. How can I reference this stories as I go along, please advise. ThanksLmuamua (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Lmuamua, please read the answer you were given about in #reference for word of mouth information. Wikipedia citations must be to published sources. Wikipedia articles must be about notable topics. DES ^(talk) 01:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Lmuamua, even though you cannot write such an article here on Wikipedia, you could approach a nearby college or university's history department. Oral history projects are quite popular in academia these days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Help needed. I'm working on creating a first article on Wiki, and got a message about that the article will be deleted ;(

Hello, I'm creating my #first article looking forward to hear your opinions to help me save the article from to be deleted. Help needed asap. Roberto_Estuardo_Penedo Thanks Everyone who may have time to take a look at the article and leave your comments how to improve it in order to safe it. Olga Wills (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@OlgaWills2017: You (yes, you, not someone else) need to cite multiple professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about Penedo but not affiliated with or connected to him. These sources need to point out something unique he has done.

For example this source is useless. He donated to John McCain, so what? Who cares? Lots of other people donated to John McCain. This source is also useless because Bircham puts up photos of pretty much anyone who graduates. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Thank you for your message. That's an article about a person who was elected by the Congress of Guatemala and has been serving in offie with the reliable sources to the articles proving his position and about the issues related to it. That is reliable information.
About his tights with John McCain, I removed the contribution part as you suggested and replaced it with the link where he was interviewed by the the news.
About Bicham University, there is an information on their page saying that he received Honoris Causa Doctor in Services to the Human Kind (not a bachelor), which is an award.
I really do want to have this article according to Wiki standards, but as a beginner, I need help to save that article.
What else do I need to change in order to keep the article alive? and how long time usually Wiki is giving for the corrections?
Please, leave your comment on what to do next. Thank YOU in advance. Olga Wills (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Olga Wills. For an article to be retained, the subject needs to show what Wikipedia calls notability. There is a general notability guideline (you can read it on the page I linked above) and there is a related guideline for articles about people. Quoting from the latter, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." That's the basic criterion for an article about a person. In glancing over the article now, I don't believe it has been met. Rather than trying to fix specific problems areas with the article, it might be better if you read these guidelines carefully and consider the entire article in the light of what they call for. Are you sure the subject is notable as Wikipedia defines notable? If so, it should be clear to you what you need to do in terms of sourcing to avert the article's being deleted. Feel free to check back here if you have specific questions. Good luck! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not so sure, Rivertorch that our policies, guidelines and explanations are as clear and obvious as you suggest above. Certainly I spend enough time here at the Teahouse explaining them to people who have not understood them correctly the first time through.

In any case, OlgaWills2017, the primary required task is to find and cite a number of independent, published, reliable sources that discuss Penedo in some detail, not mere passing mentions or inclusions in directories or lists. On the other hand, anything that seems like puffery or promotion should be removed, including opinions not cited to a named person or entity. The formatting also needs to be cleaned up, clarifying ambiguous links and providing citation metadata, but that is less vital.

As to how long Wikipedia allows to get an article to a proper state, there is no fixed time. Until someone formally suggests that an article be deleted, there is no time limit. Once such a suggestion has been made, both "Proposed deletion" (PROD) and "Articles for Discussion (AfD) take at least 7 days before an article will be deleted, and the article can be edited and perhaps improved during that time. DES ^(talk) 04:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Question: what if to add Category: Politician to the article (which is has reliable sources proving that he was elected by the Congress of Guatemala to an office. Thanks for your input. Olga Wills (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

verification

I've resubmitted my article but I'm not sure if it will be accepted this time or not. I've tried to follow the guideline properly but if possible can anyone of you please check it.

DhanishaB (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DhanishaB.

I assume you are referring to the draft article Draft:Vishnu Ramdeo. I took a look at it and can tell you it will not be accepted in its current form. It has no references, nothing at all that would substantiate the notability of its subject, and still has major failures to follow Wikipedia style guidelines. You can work on these while waiting for a formal review. First gather your sources and make inline citations for each statement of fact in the article. A good resource for how to do this is the page Help:Referencing for beginners. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Page removed - The ACRONET Paradigm

Dears, I have a question concerning a page removed by your staff (I guess) regarding an Open Hardware and Software Project named ACRONET Paradigm. Yesterday I included this project in the list of OH Proj. here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_hardware_projects), and I also created the specific page of the project itself. Both the link in the list page and the explanation one have been deleted. Could you explain me why? A brief motivation was given: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I would better understand if a description of ACRONET Paradigm can be published in Wikipedia (as well as other OH Proj. are), or if some other problem has been put in evidence. Many thanks in advance. Adrianofedi (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Adrianofedi. I can find no trace of the article ACRONET Paradigm. Did you create it under a different user name? For me, Google finds only advertising for ACRONET Paradigm, and also suggests that you might have a WP:Conflict of interest, but if you can find sources where ACRONET Paradigm has been written about in WP:Reliable sources, then you could request an article at WP:Requested articles. Dbfirs 07:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Adrianofedi. The page ACRONET Paradigm was deleted by Nick. The deletion log reason was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I can't say that this was an invalid deletion. The article stated that the "paradigm" was new. Although it had three sources, all were apparently by the inventors of the "paradigm", although they were apparently published in scientific journals. I haven't checked to see if the work was peer-reviewed.

Moreover, the article included such phrases as "Moreover, artifacts, schematics, bills of materials and firmware are kept publicly available on the project website for free", "The versatility of the dataloggers developed within the project allows the possibility to accept a huge amount of sensors already available on the reference market.", "simple Do-It-Yourself mounting kits (IKEA Model) are designed and made available from the website", "Thanks to the aforementioned characteristics, the ACRONET Paradigm has been successfully applied in some critical areas", "remarkable results were achieved", and "An important innovation resides within the fact that today the ACRONET stations can be queried by smartphone". Much of this is pure marketing-speech, and has no place in Wikipedia. It is an attempt to persuade people to use a particular website and the goods and services it offers. Wikipedia article must be objective and neutral. They must not try to persuade. No opinions may be expressed in Wikipedia's voice, only those cited to specific, named people or entities. Adjectives may not be used to praise (or attack) any product, cause, or subject. And the article as a whole must be supported by multiple published, independent reliable sources. Individual facts must be supported by cited sources, although not all need be independent. None of this was done. DES ^(talk) 11:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Dears, first of all many thanks for your messages and time. Moreover, I take note of your views and understand the reasons for page deletion.

The project wants to be ethical and sustainable with specific aim to meet requirements from Developing Countries.

The fact is that the words I used are the ones that we normally include in scientific papers. I must admit that the sentences you put in evidence sounds really as marketing-speech. Thus, I would sincerely that the project could be included in the list of Open Hardware Projects already available on Wikipedia. Maybe, we do not have yet "independent reliable sources", it means that me and my colleagues are more or less always authors of the articles regarding ACRONET that can be find on the web. It would be great if you could suggest me a proper way, if possible.

Many thanks in advance, AdrianoAdrianofedi (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Adrianofedi, until someone can find and present those independent reliable sources, there cannot be a Wikipedia article on this topic. If such an article is created without them, it will almost surely be deleted fairly promptly. And only topics that already have Wikipedia articles are listed in Wikipedia's List of open source hardware projects. So the only proper way forward is to wait until those independent reliable sources about Arconet have been published. Remember, please, that Wikipedia is intended to summarize what others have already written. It is not to be used to bring new things to public attention when no independent reliable sources yet exist. DES ^(talk) 12:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Commons category attached to Wikipedia article

When I click on the Commons link in the Lindera benzoin article it takes me to a weird page. But the code for this on Wikipedia does not indicate how this works. The Commons category for the species exists and is populated. Wikimedia is a far greater nightmare for inexperienced editors than even Wikipedia, so I hesitate to ask there. How can this be fixed?

(Please post about IP addresses on my talk page, not here.) Can someone just tell me how to fix the category problem or fix It? --2601:648:8503:4467:2490:76EC:58AE:F1DA (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The commons category was not named in the template, I've fixed it. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Content produced by templates is sometimes imported from Wikidata. "Wikidata item" in the left pane of Lindera benzoin leads to Lindera benzoin (Q3024124) which for some reason listed both "Linda Vista Community Hospital" and "Lindera benzoin" under "Commons category". The hospital has been removed now so Roger's fix is no longer needed, but doesn't hurt either. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking care of this, sometimes the templates are hard to use, and I was in a hurry. --2601:648:8503:4467:10C2:4AB4:8BBC:7325 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Perhaps the template could be modified to include the Wikidata logo next to the item if it's pulling the date from there? Kind of like the Wikidata logo in this infobox? That would help sort out issues like this more quickly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes usually have lots of data. Pulling a single category link in {{Commons category}} should rarely be problematic. I think in total a Wikidata link there would cause more confusion and distraction than help. The documentation does mention it uses Wikidata. The template code might be improved to detect whether Wikidata has more than one category link but I guess it's rare. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just a thought. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Where do I find the list of articles people want created?

Before I had my account I would search, and if wikipedia didn't already have the article, I could ask for it to be created. (I never did.) So anyways, i want to help those people and give them their articles! If I had this list I would already be working on it. So whenever someone can please tell me where I can find it.

Sportseditor (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Sportseditor: Welcome. It is sorted by general topic at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks i will get right on it!

User keep reverting

I read the WP:RS, and the sources put in some articles are not WP:RS, and thus I removed the sources and some if its content. There is one user who keeps reverting without giving an explanation. What shall I do? Shall I just leave it or should I do something else? Xenani (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Xenani. To what article or articles do you refer? It looks from your contributions as if you have made edits with summaries mentioning lack of reliable sources on several articles.

If you remove a citation (and content supported by it) on the grounds that it is not a reliable source, and another editor reverts your change, please start a discussion on the relevant article talk page. You can ping the other editor involved, inviting that editor to join the discussion. Follow the Bold, Revert, Discuss (BRD) cycle, please. If there is debate on whether the source is an RS or not, use the reliable source noticeboard (RSN) where experienced editors can help asses the reliability of specific sources in specific contexts. Remember, please, that context matters. No source is reliable for every possible statement, and few are never reliable for any statement. DES ^(talk) 12:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Xenani one point of formatting. Within a Section headings are placed as sub-sections, that is with equals signs, such as ===Sub-section===, not with bold text. Subsections appear in the article's table of contents, and use standard formatting. Please do not convert sub-sections to bolded text. 12:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Thank you for the tips. I was referring to the articles Kadurugoda Vihara and Sinhalese alphabet. But I think I have sorted it out with the user.

Xenani (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How to make my article eligible for wikipedia?

Respected Sir/Madam,

The wikipedia article that I created for Pittie Group company got rejected on the basis of it being sounding like an advertisement. I request you to please help me understand it further. Any inputs/suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Regards, Rahul Sharma

Sharma.rahul.4110 (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sharma.rahul.4110, and welcome to the Teahouse. The whole draft at User:Sharma.rahul.4110/sandbox reads like a company brochure or website. Phrases such as "Under the leadership of its chairman and the CEO, Mr. Aditya Pittie...", "Yogurtbay has poised its strong expanse by introducing a new line of waffle stick desserts", "A robust and strong supply chain along with retailer clients like Reliance, Star Bazaar, Hypercity, Metro, D-mart, More, Max Hyper Market, Vishal Mega Mart and Spencer have enabled the group to empower Patanjali and serve all its distribution needs.", "...a one stop destination in puja and spiritual products category.", "...positioned as the ultimate destination for its valued viewers."

Wikipedia articles must be objective and neutral. They must not praise or attack anything or anyone. puffery is not allowed. Any opinions must be those of a named and cited person or entity. Adjectives that imply value judgements should not be used except in direct or paraphrased quotes. I hope this is clear. DES ^(talk) 13:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sharma.rahul.4110: even if you can remove all the promotional language from User:Sharma.rahul.4110/sandbox, it has another serious problem. It has no references to reliable independent sources. Of its 13 references, 1,2,3,9,13 are to the business's own web sites, 4,5,7,8,10,12 are to articles based on interviews with people closely associated with the subject, 6 is to an advertisement, and 10 does not mention the subject. Maproom (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

deletion

i need some advice on how to get my page up. I dont know how to ask the person who edited and then deleted my page directly. I reviewed it and worked to eliminate all self promotion- is there someone i can talk to about reviewing my page and giving me pointers?

klsklskls (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

hello, Kashyshyne, and welcome to the Teahouse. Dermaplaning, which you created, was deleted by RickinBaltimore with the logged reason of "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: http://www.webmd.com/beauty/cosmetic-procedures-chemical-peel-treatments". G11 is fundamental advertising or promotional pages, and G12 is a copyright violation. G11 can be worked around, with editing, but G12 is a hard limit. Wikipedia simply will not accept content copied from another site without proof that it has been released under a free license by the copyright owner. (See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.)

I see that two previous versions were also deleted under G11. The final version contained sections on "Benefits" and "Treatment Alternatives" and included phrases such as "DERMAFLASH is the only at-home exfoliating device that uses a subtle sonic vibration and stainless steel edge to remove dead skin cells and fine hair from the cheeks, jawline, lip area, chin and forehead". It looks pretty promotional to me, and i would have made the same deletion as it stood. DES ^(talk) 19:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kashyshyne and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "my pages". The article Dermaplaning has been deleted because it was advertising and was a copyright infringement. There is lots of advice on your talk page. If you think that Dermaplaning is notable in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. it has been written about in multiple independent WP:Reliable sources), then you might like to start again by creating a draft article using your own words, not copied from anywhere else, at Draft:Dermaplaning which can be improved gradually and is less likely to be deleted (though copyright material will not be allowed). Do you have a WP:Conflict of interest because you have some connection with the topic? Dbfirs 19:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Would the proper use of electronic yellow pages entries be a violation of policy?

I have added a list of places of worship into an article ( Norwalk, Connecticut ), of which some can only be cited by way of sources such as electronic yellow pages or Google maps. I believe such a list to be associated with or significantly contributes to the article. Would such a list, not in itself a directory--- and if properly cited, be a violation of Wikipedia is not a directory policy? If so, how might I re-frame the list so that it does not violate any Wikipedia policy? Thank you for your time. --->StephenTS42 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, StephenTS42. I suggest that you limit yourself to a list of notable places of worship that already have Wikipedia articles about them. Such a list should be of places that are of historical or architectural interest. Listing every one is by definition a directory. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing an exosting article

I am a "newbie" to editing Wikipedia. :-)

I tried to change a number of minor things to my College's profile page. The College motto had been "hacked" and was incorrect as well as the names of the existing Chaplains. ClueBot NG then indicated that I was potentially vandalizing the article and should refrain from doing so, thus returning the article back into its original state. HOw can I get these changes implemented? S noonan (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, S noonan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please post to Talk:MacKillop Catholic Regional College, explaining what you are doing, and where the information can be verified. Our verifibility policy requires that all information must be supported by a reliable source, if challenged. While I am sure you are acting in good faith and providing accurate information here, you must understand that we have no way to confirm who you are or that your knowledge is accurate. Therefor we insist on sources. I have been looking at http://mackillopwerribee.com.au/, but I cannot confirm the motto (except from the logo) or the Chaplin's name. I have reported that ClueBot made an error in this case. But we still need one or more reliable sources for this info. I will look further in a bit. DES ^(talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I found sources deeper in the college web site for both pieces of information, S noonan, and I have updated the article accordingly. Please do let us know about future updates that may be needed, but please be sure to provide a source. The article talk page, linked above, can be used for this purpose, but feel free to return here to the Teahouse if you would like assistance. DES ^(talk) 23:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures

Hi. I want to know how I can upload pictures in a Wikipedia article. I know editors need to obtain copyright permissions to upload photos. How can I do that? Thank's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Queen Commoner (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

King Queen Commoner: you won't need to obtain any permissions to upload a photo you took yourself. And you won't even need to upload anything to use a picture that's already at Commons. Can you tell us what article you're working on, and what the pictures would show? Maproom (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:

1. Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
2. If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
3. If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
4. Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

New Article for Review

I have made a new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Water_Resources_Association. I went through Article Wizard to create the page, and was hoping to save it in Draft space so I could have someone from wiki review it before posting it live. However the page has gone live right now. Can you assist me in switching it to draft and finding a reviewer?Hmb17 (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the article into draft space for you. I'm not sure about the reviewing though: I have no experience with such things. Perhaps someone else could. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added an AFC draft template to allow the draft to be submitted for review when the OP is ready to do so. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Easy to Use status update template.

Are there any easy to use status (online/offline) templates that I can use that don't require me making an actual edit to change? I know of User:Cyberpower678/Status and a few others, but they're not what I want. Thanks. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 01:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There is Template:UserStatus. and you can use User:Enterprisey/StatusChanger.js with it. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings L3X1 and Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, a long time ago, I tried the same thing & got tired of having to edit each time. Instead I made the following which you are free to use if you like.

GreetingsWhen online, I'm busy improving existing articles.

Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting some review

If anyone has a second to check over Draft:Chase Alexander Crawford I would appreciate it

Ojitchee (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ojitchee. In my opinion, this actor does not meet our notability guideline for actors. He has appeared in two films but does not have a starring role in either. I do not see any significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What action is to be taken on an article whose content is not useful ?

Note : Brought back from archive

I recently came across the Matrix decomposition article. It seems that the article's content is so vague and isn't so useful to readers in it's current form. It just seems to be listing the various types and a little information about each and seems to miss the most crucial information about how to perform the operation. Shortly it doesn't cover the main picture and thus is not so helpful for readers who come to read the article without much knowledge about the method (I guess that's the majority) There's another article titled Non-negative matrix factorization. On skimming through it, I could see that it has more background information than the Matrix decomposition article. What should be done to make the article more readable ? Kaartic ^{correct me, if i'm wrong} 07:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Matrix decomposition article is not much use in itself, but is useful in directing readers to an article on the kind of matrix decomposition they are looking for. Maybe it should be retained, but reorganised to make it clearer that it's what I think is called a "set index" (like Inkcap). Maproom (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response User:Maproom. In that case, is it ok removing the contents of the article resemble the Inkcap article and thus making it explicit to the reader that it's more of an index than an article ? Kaartic ^{correct me, if i'm wrong} 04:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems to me a reasonable plan. But you ought to discuss it on the article's talk page first. Incidentally, part of the process of establishing that Inkcap is an "index page" rather than an article or a disambiguation page was the addition of the template {{Fungus common name}} – I've no idea whether there's a similar template relating to mathematical techniques. Another page which like Matrix decomposition has brief descriptions of some mathematical objects, with wikilinks to articles on most of them, is graph product. I'm not aware that anyone has ever expressed unhappiness with the way it's structured. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

creating a new wiki page

Hi I'm trying to create a wiki page about a companyTheknowledgegroup (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Theknowledgegroup. Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, there is not an easy answer. I suggest you start by studying your first article. Take especial note of the following:

• Creating an article is hard, and I would not advise anybody to try it until they have a few weeks' or months' experience of editing Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of any kind.
• Writing about a topic you have a close connection to is strongly discouraged, as your conflict of interest is likely to make it hard for you to write in a sufficiently neutral manner
• Any article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with a subject have published about it. Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject has said or published about themselves, and no interest at all in how they wish to be represented. If there is little or no independent material published about a subject, then the subject is not notable (in Wikipedia's sense of the word) and no article about them will be accepted, however it is written.

Finally, I'm afraid your user name is almost certainly not acceptable, as names are not allowed which suggest that you are editing on behalf of an organisation. Please change it, or (more easily) abandon that name and create a new account which is personal to you. --ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Waving Germany flag for userpage

I can't find a Germany flag to display on my user page. Where can I find an animated one that I can see without clicking a link on my userpage to see it? GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi GermanGamer77. I answered that at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 609#No userbox for important thing. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of Sources Needed

If I want to have another Wiki user write an article about the company I work for, how many sources do I need to provide?

Thanks!

KjohnsonSB (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey KjohnsonSB. While there is no hard fast number for how many sources are required for an article, the general guidance is that it should be enough to demonstrate that they subject meets our notability standards for organizations and companies. How many that takes largely depends on the types and quality of the sources provided. TimothyJosephWood 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KjohnsonSB. In my opinion, three or four impeccable sources that devote in depth coverage to the topic are vastly superior to several dozen mediocre sources that mention the topic in passing or say the same brief thing repeatedly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

my name is signed for a minor edit on the live page. help!

i just made a minor addition to the robert motherwell page, adding "bert katz" linked to a web site as one of his students at hunter. i signed it with the four tildes and it seems my name is appearing in red. is that bad? Margokatz (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Margokatz. Looks like it was already taken care of. For future reference, if you make a mistake, you can always click on the page history at the top of the article and undo your mistake, or click edit in the relevant section and manually remove the change. TimothyJosephWood 19:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That just means you haven't created a user page yet. Thanks,DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice) 19:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's why Margokatz's signature appeared in red, but the broader point is that signatures don't belong in articles, only on discussion pages. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

‎Adding a category to a protected userpage

Can an administrator please add Category:Deceased Wikipedians to these userpages: User:Sheldon Brown, User:Tgarden, User:OdedSchramm. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 21:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Neve-selbert. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Nevé–selbert 22:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

ClueBot NG editing rates

This might be a strange question to ask here, but how can ClueBot edit pages at a rate of 9000 every minute when the contributions page says otherwise? Thanks in advance. ~ Weird Al Legorhythm^{(Hello, World!)} 21:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a strange question. Where did you get the rate of 9000 (edits?) every minute from? ~ GB fan 22:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Al Legorhythm, welcome to the Teahouse. The infobox in User:ClueBot NG says "Edit rate Over 9,000 EPM." EPM is not explained. It could be edits per minute (far from 9000) or edits per month (over 9000) but I think it's a deliberately vague joke. It comes from User:ClueBot NG/edit rate which originally said "Over 9000 EPM.",[1] linking to a well-known Internet meme referring to a large number. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that the point is that ClueBot is capable of handling a far higher volume of vandalism than the actual current vandalism rate, which fluctuates. 9000 edits a minute amounts to almost 13 million vandalism reversions per day. Vandals are irritating and need to be controlled but there is nowhere near that rate of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Knocks on every item that even remotely looks like wood. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

template reference for over copying

Warwick railway station, Queensland - the history section looks like a copy of the [1] link history tab, word for word. What's the {{ }} notation to add to note this ? my brain won't work this morning. Dave Rave (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Dave Rave. That site is freely licensed, under CC-BY in fact. The initial edit summery can be seen here and says so, although perhaps a better attribution is needed on the talk page. DES ^(talk) 02:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The attribution is in the article, at Warwick railway station, Queensland#Attribution. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

So it is, and that should be ample. DES ^(talk) 02:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

true, and true, but the refs for [1], a - aq, are a little way too much with every single paragraph being a straight copy. Shouldn't it all be inside a < code > with a single ref at the end ?
and while defending the article, good, where's my answer ? Dave Rave (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, your first answer, Dave Rave is that no template is needed in this specific case. If I found an article with as much copying as this one has from a non-free source, i would probably use {{db-G12}}, calling for a speedy delete as a blatant copyvio. If there is not so much as to warrant speedy deletion {{copypaste}} or {{close paraphrasing}} might be used. Does that help? Wikipedia:Template messages is a good way to find such template, in my view.

The number of uses of that source is much larger than usual, but that is what happens when an article starts out as a copy of a freely licensed source. I don't think we use <code> in the way you suggest in articles. Even if we did/could, what happens when someone edits to insert new content, with a different source, in the article. How will a reader know what content is coverd by which source? NO, I think they way in which this article does it is better than that, or any solution which somehow says "this entire section is supported by this source". Unless we are going to freeze the article, of course. DES ^(talk) 03:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That said there is some pruning could be made. I'd remove all the sub-paragraphs in the Heritage listing section for a start, how the building meets the listing standards is OTT IMO. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Vague source some book in the library

How do I tag or template a vague source. The article Tomostethus multicinctus lists some unidentified research notes as a source. This is akin to citing "a book in the Seattle Public Library." I want to tag it so that whoever added it fills in the source fully. The same source has been used other places on Wikipedia. The library or archive is not the source, the book or journal in the library or archive is the source. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. If clicking the link to the Seachable Online Orthinological Archive takes you to the actual source, then I suggest that you add the bibliographic information yourself. That improves the encyclopedia, while tagging doesn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It takes me to an unidentifiable pdf of two pages of research notes. I tried searching SOOA, but could not find the original article. I am also editing on mobile, so doing citations can be difficult. Usually I do just correct, but if I don't have time, then someone else might get to it if I tag it. --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, relevant templates are here, but I doubt it would be helpful to add one in this context. You're discussing it on the article's talk page, which is the right thing to do. If you find you can't reach consensus about a given source, additional opinions from uninvolved editors can be sought by posting a query at the reliable sources noticeboard. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. I have been editing for ages, and I've never seen that page. (Usually all I do is add sources to very technical articles.) --2601:648:8503:4467:F5BC:4C98:3C7C:66D6 (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Now I have to ask, if a source is bad, and I can't fix it, Cullen is suggesting don't tag, just let it sit there? Why even have tags? I search for botany articles with unreferenced tags and add references, but now those tags are bad for the encyclopedia? Why have them, then?--2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:86 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There are different approaches to this. My approach is to tag content that I think is probably verifiable but for which I can't readily find a reliable source. For the most part, I do that in the hope that someone with advanced knowledge on the topic can identify a source and add the citation (or replace it with a better one). If I don't think the content is likely to be verifiable (e.g., extraordinary claims, contradictions of sourced content elsewhere in the article, etc.), I'm more likely to just remove it. If there's an active discussion underway on the article's talk page or at a noticeboard, I'd generally consider a tag redundant, which is why I recommended against tagging it. (That's just my take. We can always ping Cullen and see what he says.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

IP editor, you are reading far more into my initial response than I intended. I said "If clicking the link to the Seachable Online Orthinological Archive takes you to the actual source, then I suggest that you add the bibliographic information yourself." Never did I suggest "don't tag". I described a better alternative to tagging if and only if the bibliographic information is readily available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It does seem you are saying "tagging doesn't improve Wikipedia," but, okay, you're not. One reason for tagging is that it might discourage people from using a source like that if they have to go back and correct it, or maybe DYK people will notice it is insufficient if tagged. --2601:648:8503:4467:DD1A:8D69:38BF:77B6 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think what is being said here is "Tagging is second best. If you can actually fix the problem, say by supplying a missing sources, or replacing a poor source with a better one, then please do so. If you see a problem, but don't know how to fix it (for example you can't easily find a needed source) or don't have the time to fix it, then tag so that others at least know that there is a problem. If you can fix, there is no need to tag." Tagging is better than leaving a problem untouched. It is not as good as fixing the problem, when that is possible. DES ^(talk) 02:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I called it a vague source. If I knew what the source was, I wouldn't think it vague. It's not possible for me to figure out. It's frustrating coming here. When the Teahouse first started it was the one place on Wikipedia you could ask a question without being lectured about how you were doing something wrong. I generally only edit Wikipedia by adding citations, so when I venture into other areas, like trying to figure out the right tag to use, I find it difficult to locate the correct information, and I'm jumpy when I come to the Teahouse, because it seems to be such a put down place. The editors I am used to working with and asking questions of are all gone. I assumed I was being lectured about tagging because it's such a common occurrence here, lecturing editors. "How do I do ....?" "Oh, why are you trying to do ...." "Don't do ...." --2601:648:8503:4467:BCAE:2D17:1DA3:5D49 (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are finding it frustrating, IP Editor. You did indeed describe it as a vague source in your initial msg in this thread, but none of us has seen it, and people use terms like "vague" differently. Since you are saying that it is not only vague, but there is no easy way to find the information needed to banish the vagueness and convert it to a good citation, then tagging or discussing on the talk page is the best that can be done. What Cullen originally said was, |If clicking the link to the Seachable Online Orthinological Archive takes you to the actual source,..."(emphasis added) then don't tag, fix instead. You complain that the Teahouse is full of putdowns. That surely isn't my intent, and i don't think it is the intent of most hosts here. We are (or at least think that we are) in the position of a driving instructor who is often getting questions such as "How do i best drive my car though the side of my house?" The only honest and useful answer is "Don't do that." Wikipedia has many policies, guidelines, and customs. We frequently get questions here from people trying, in honest good faith, to do something that is flatly against those policies or guidelines. For example, people saying "How do I get this article about my company accepted?" when the article is nothing but an obvious advertisement. There is no way that such an article will ever be accepted, and we need to tell the person asking that, and why. I for one want to help people understand Wikipedia, and enough of its policies and customs that they can do what they want, or as close to it as is possible. I truly try to obey WP:BITE, and indeed have often complained to other experienced editors that they should follow it more closely. This is not an easy task. We need to tell people "Don't do that" when "that" is something doomed to failure, but tell them in a way that will not be a putdown. If you have suggestions on how we can do it better, please share them with us. DES ^(talk) 10:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Assume that apparently inexperienced editors are not idiots and try to answer the question they ask. Stop lording it over apparently inexperienced editors that you know how to do things in Wikipedia they don't know how to do. Assume that writing an encyclopedia is more important than socializing. And, how you explain the answer to my question is not how it was said. He said if you can fix it, do that. Full stop. That improves the encyclopedia (I assumed "that' was fixing the reference), but tagging, what I was trying to do, and what I was asking about, doesn't (I assumed fix it). You spend so much time fighting vandals in Wikipedia that you assume everyone is and you treat everyone like a vandal. I remove complete unsourced nonsense from Wikipedia all the time and have to battle editors who demand it stay in. I add sources and get the addition removed. I once got into an edit war trying to remove a book written by D. F. Y. McMalangaster. It took the intervention of three administrators for me to be unblocked and allowed to remove the vandalism. Stop hounding expertise off Wikipedia. Stop scolding expertise for being upset when they get attacked by Randy and his 7 cousins from Boise who are preventing the removal of bullshit.

But mostly, why not answer the question asked without lecturing people, thereby encouraging adult content creators with knowledge of technical topics to participate. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:BE (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I offer you a friendly suggestion and you respond by freaking out and trying to put words in my mouth that I never said or implied. Very interesting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You explained, I said okay, maybe I got it wrong. Then someone came back and overexplained you, as if my accepting it was not good enough, and I got frustrated. Now you're here, focusing on your owie, saying I'm "freaking out." Not very interesting. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

How to submit a stub

Dear Teahouse,

I'm currently working on an article about the volunteer-based emergency organisation Draft:South Australian State Emergency Service. Sourcing is difficult to find, so I have decided to make this a stub until I can find some documentation not written by people directly involved in the organisation. I'd like the stub published in the hopes that someone may see it in a search & be able to help improve it. What is the best way to go about doing this?

Kind regards KaiRAWR (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KaiRAWR. We only allow articles about topics which have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Those sources should be provided as inline references. This applies to all articles including stubs, which are just short, uninformative articles. I do not think that editors should set out to write stubs in 2017. That may have been OK in the early days of Wikipedia, but this project is 16 years old and we need informative articles these days, not stubs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi KaiRAWR, please do not add stub tags to drafts - a draft is always classified as a draft, regardless of its length. Stub is a classification for mainspace articles only. The draft is in any case far too long to be classed as a stub if it were to be moved to mainspace.

If mainstream news sources are hard to find (because "mentions" are so common) how about looking for government reports and policy documents that deal with the organisation? I'd also expect that such a significant organisation would have been discussed in the state legislature on more than one occasion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not independent of the subject, so needs to be used with care, but I found this source, which might be helpful, KaiRAWR. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry. Much appreciated.

My wikipedia created page is in draft

Hello Team,

I am trying to add a profile created by someone with name of "Pradeep Gupta" but it is in draft.

Can any one guide me where I am going wrong and how can I edit and make it live again please guide me Sociowash (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The draft includes explanations that note the problems with the article. It does not address the fact that your user page identifies you as a "Digital Marketing Agency." See WP:PAID and WP:COI for why you should probably just stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Information for Sufi Rani khanam is not published yet.

Hi Wiki Support Team,

The Information for Sufi Rani khanam is not published yet, please do the needful and let me know what is the reason behind this.

07:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)07:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)07:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufi Rani Khanam (talk • contribs)

Is this question about Draft_talk:Rani_Khanam, where you appear to have written a draft about yourself, or about your user page, which you have used to write about "AAMAD"? Neither is at all likely to be published in its current state. Maproom (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There's also User:Sufi Rani Khanam/sandbox. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why our first article was decline

We are new and unexperienced in writing articles on Wikipedia. It seemed to us that our first article was declined because it was written like a manual. therefore we asked for assistance to understand how to change the article in order to fix Wikipedia standards.

You can find our article at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Menikini/sandbox

Thanks in advance NorbertMenikini (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your article appears to be a copyright violation, copied from your own website. You need to be aware that Wikipedia does not host advertising. You also need to be aware that your user name is not permitted because it represents a company. Only individual accounts are permitted, and, if you create an individual account, you will need to declare your WP:Conflict of interest. What would be the title of the article you wish to write? We already have an article on Superheated steam. Dbfirs 13:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How to access a draft on a new day, and after logging out

I am new to Wikipedia and want to add an article, but I want to draw it up in a draft that I can work on over several days, after logging out and in again. I have spent hours now, searching for an answer. How can one "save" a draft without clicking the SAVE button?

Nunukis (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The "save" button is the right one to save your draft so that you can come back to it later. It doesn't get submitted for review until you hit the "submit" button, or add {{subst:submit}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversy sections

Hello again Teahouse!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Perry_(fighter)

Recently edits have been made to the page of a professional mixed martial arts fighter to add a controversy section that includes a story about racist comments made by the fighter's friend and cornerman Alex Nicholson, and accusations that a photo of the fighter wearing a black plastic mask was in fact Blackface. They cite sources from bleacherreport.com, a site any blogger can sign up to and write stories for, and one that employs every dubious trick in the book to get clicks. It is not in any way a credible news site but the editor that keeps making the changes insists it must stay on his page and is going to report me for section blanking. I am the second person to bring up the issue of defamation but they don't care. Sadly this is spillover from another community where one of the fighter's fan groups resides, and this person is purposefully trying to "troll" them as well as hoping the fighter's employer terminates his contract. The "blackface" photo is still on the fighter's instagram account, any homophobic tweets we're deleted and there was no official reprimand of any kind, only a statement made about Alex Nicholson's comments which the fighter did not hear at the time, let alone have any involvement with.

Is this section within the rules? and if not, what do I do to make sure that person doesn't just keep undoing the edits.

ty for your replies in advance Jahannum (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I will share the controversy section (below) because it's not currently visible page in question

Controversy

During his UFC debut at UFC 202 Perry and his cornerman fellow UFC middleweight Alex Nicholson were accused of racism after Nicholson shouted during the pre-fight introductions, saying, "He can't even open his motherf--king eyes." referring to his Asian opponent Hyun Gyu Lim. Nicholson later addressed the comment on Twitter, saying, "I respect every man who steps in the cage and my comments were insensitive towards lim (sic) I was hype for my brother but It's all love no hate." Nicholson also referred to Lim as "Dung Him Kong Jung Foo," in a Facebook post. On the Monday following the fight Perry offered an explanation while on The MMA Hour stating "I don't think any of my competition can see me, and when I hit Lim, I opened a lot of people's eyes," Perry told Ariel Helwani. Helwani then clarified that the comment was made prior to the fight to which Perry responded "Well, we can see the future." Perry has also been criticized for making homophobic and racist comments as well as wearing Blackface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahannum (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This user is actually being pretty deceptive and keeps leaving snarky comments on my talk page he makes sock edits without logging in and there's more sources than the ones i used such as . 173.69.20.107 (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also i think the second person he's referring to is his own IP [2] 173.69.20.107 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No one removed these sections from the page except for the one time Jahannum did with there IP which is obvious if you look at the editing history so i'm not sure what there referring to when they said there was another person before them but the only edit was the IP above that removed it afterwards. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

He also keeps trying to spin this as if it was only his cornerman/friend who made the comments Perry responded to those which is why i included it in the article but Perry has also worn Blackface and said racist/homophobic comments himself here's more sources I've gathered. Even LA Times mentioned it in this article. More on Perry's racism 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Other Fighters such as Matt Mitrione and Jon Jones have made controversial homophobic comments and it wasn't removed from there page and Jones also has his listed under a section called ""Controversies"" much like the one i made for Perry so I'm not sure why Perry is a special snowflake and can't have a Controversy section on his page . 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

References

reply to ... David?

I don't make stealth edits and the original comment about defamation was not made by me, I just copied & pasted it while failing to tag the edit properly, and I still don't know how to do that. Also highlighting comments I made on your talk page adds nothing to this discussion about the controversy section. I am not misleading anyone.

That bloodyelbow.com report isn't useful either because Mike's comments about his cornerman's racist comments have no relevance to the story you're attaching it to. Mike Perry has words in his vocabulary that are often used in a derogatory manner, but not by him, he trains with African American athletes, has a nickname related to an African American athlete and there is many examples of him supporting African American athletes on his social media accounts. The way Mike and Alex speak is entirely because of where they are from and how they grew up, and that upsetting you doesn't give you the right to judge him on his wikipedia page. If Mike had been reprimanded by the UFC or if the UFC had made a statement on it naming Mike Perry specifically, you could add that, but as it is you need to make a page for Alex Nicholson if you really want to push this topic you seem so passionate about. Have you not even noticed how the links on that bloodyelbow.com report don't link to the homophobic comments directly but instead link to "archived" copies hosted on websites that aren't connected in any way to the site the comments were posted on? They are not credible sources. You can edit the facebook pages before submitting to that site by using the inspect button, and it's a common trick used for faking social media content. There is nothing on that article that actually proves Mike Perry is racist, and discussions started on the subject have almost unanimously agreed that Mike Perry is just a "wigga" (apologies for using the term on this page) and not actually racist at all. Homophobia in combat sports is very common too, but it does seem strange you would single out Mike Perry for comments you can't even prove he made.

Jahannum (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC) yours sincerely, a snowflake.

Mike Perry has never worn blackface, that is just people's opinion of a photo Mike posted of himself wearing a black plastic mask, and you can still find that photo on his instagram account as I highlighted for you earlier. Jahannum (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going single out anyone which is why i brought up Jones and Mitrione nobody is trying to remove there Controversies just you on Perry and I'm saying Perry is the Special Snowflake not you if you even bothered to read my comment or the sources. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You also referred to me as a troll on my talk page. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And MMA Mania and Bloody Elbow are reliable sources that are commonly used on MMA articles but i suppose the LA Times is also an unreliable source right ? Are you Perry's lawyer or something ? 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jahannum. Thanks for speaking up. Bleacher Report does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and particular care should be taken not to cite it for any content involving content about living persons. It looks as if the content is currently removed. If there are further problems, you can request that the article be protected by filing a report at requests for page protection. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

173.69.20.107 (talk) Please stop trying to create a situation her, I posted that on YOUR talk page not on this page, why do you keep referencing it? and I know you were referring to Mike Perry as the snowflake, but who calls a professional athlete a "snowflake" when they aren't even connected to the page or the edits? That isn't trolling?

Mike Perry is tough and doesn't care about it but we are supposed to be objective and you're definitely not being objective. You're refusing to listen to any arguments and have already condemned him, which is not what wiki pages are for, and no one cares about your opinions. I'm really sorry I had to be rude but you're trying to make a massive scene out of this by cherry picking bits of what I said on your talk page while ignoring the links I provided that have proven you can't keep that section on his page. You conveniently chose not to comment on that at all in fact.

Jahannum (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC) and thank you Rivertorch for your reply

Im re adding it later with sources that i know are Accepted on Wikipedia such as LA Times and MMAjunkie. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch could you please look at some of the other many sources that i provided and tell me which ones are acceptable ? 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The middleasy.com source has comments by well respected journalists like Brent Brookhouse. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not just the sources, it's what you're claiming they prove.

Jahannum (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

173.69.20.107, this is the guideline we use to decide whether a source is reliable. If there's any doubt, the reliable sources noticeboard is the place to ask. I'd suggest you post something there if you'd like an uninvolved editor's opinion on whether the sources in question are appropriate for verifying the disputed content. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Article on Johnny Orlando

Do you think it's still too soon to create an article about Canadian singer/voice actor Johnny Orlando? People have made articles about him and they have gotten deleted, but more sources have come out about him since them. I have started an article about him on my sandbox... should I publish it now or wait for more news articles about him to come out so I can expand the article? Thanks in advance for feedback

Hillelfrei (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A quick glance at your draft suggests to me that notability may still be an issue. There's often a bit of wiggle room, but in order to be notable (in Wikipedia parlance), a subject should have received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (I'm quoting from the guideline, which you should read in full if you haven't already.) Maybe Orlando qualifies—without a thorough check through the references, it's hard to say—but among the refs you provide, I'm seeing some primary sources and some other sources that don't qualify as reliable (for instance, IMDb is a problem). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How to make your article public

Hi,I have created a wikipedia page however it does not show when searching for it. What steps do I take to publish? Sure Thing! Insurance 15:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SureThing! (talk • contribs)

Hello, SureThing!. Sandboxes are not indexed by google, by design. In any case, your pages were all promotional, and your user name is evidently that of a business, so I have tagged the pages for speedy deletion, and blocked you from further editing, pending a change of user name and a block appeal. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

how do i go about editing a page on "homeopathy"

how do i go about editing a page on "homeopathy"Fpatanwala49 (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Since this is a controversial topic, and closely watched, you would be wise to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first. On the other hand, if you just want to add WP:Reliable sources then just click edit and add them. Dbfirs 16:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your account User:Fpatanwala49 cannot edit Homeopathy. You can click the "View source" tab and follow the instructions to submit an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I missed spotting the fact that the article is semi-protected. Dbfirs 06:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Maratha Empire article

Someone from the I.P. 74.94.52.197 is repeatedly replacing the Maratha confederacy map of 1760 in the lead of the Maratha Empire article, removing "File:India1760 1905.jpg" and putting "File:Maratha 1320.jpeg" in its place. Can we have an admin control that please? A discussion about that can be seen on the talk page of that article also.-Dona-Hue (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dona-Hue: Hello, this isn't really the proper forum to request administrator intervention; you may want to visit this page if the issue is user conduct. If the issue is edit warring, you can make a report at edit warring noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia keep track of changes I make?

I've been making small edits for a while now. I just recently started logging in because I thought Wikipedia would keep track of my changes if I logged in, however that doesn't appear to be the case. Is there a way to have Wikipedia keep track of all the changes I make to articles or do I need to do that separately? Simonga25wiki (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

All changes made are tracked, no matter who makes them. They are tracked under the page they are made to in the history tab and they are tracked by who made them. Yours that you made while logged in are at Special:Contributions/Simonga25wiki. Those that you made logged out are tracked under the IP address that you had when you made them. I don't know what IPs you have used but it works the same way. In the link for you contributions you just replace your username with the IP you used. If you don't know what the IP was, you can go to an article you edited and look at the history, find an edit you made and then look at the contributions for that IP. ~ GB fan 19:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do people keep removing my content?

im new to Wikipedia and i don't understand why people keep deleting my articles when they are 100 percent true and i put a lot of time and effort in to making them

Yours faithfully  Jw100  Jw100 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jw100: Hello. There is a post at the bottom of your user talk page that will likely answer your questions. Please understand that creating an article is actually not an easy thing to do successfully; it takes time, practice, and effort. You may find it easier to start smaller and make minor edits to articles. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jw100. Your edits have been undone mainly because they are entirely unsourced, and citing the policy that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. In sum, I'm sorry you have put forth a lot of effort to add, for example, bus schedules to Wikipedia articles on certain locations, but I agree with their removal. The fact that some piece of information is true does not necessarily mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OhMyThat'sAlotOfGuidelines

Hello Teahouse,

I am new here, and have read the very basic rules, guidelines and tips for editing. However, it's already evident that the sheer voluminous nature of all the Wikipedia guidelines (which I want to read) and the features and projects integrated into the system will make every little detail difficult to locate. I am not decrying this thoroughness; on the contrary, I completely admire it. Still, is there some sort of list where I can find Wikipedia:This and Wikipedia:That and anything like that? I'd find this extremely helpful!

Best,

Alt3no (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alt3no. I believe Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia provides a very good overview of many aspects of Wikipedia, and can be an anchor page to get a summary, while opening new tabs to explore from its (yes: many, many) links, as they strike you as ones to look at in further depth. I think you might also benefit from taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. After that, a good place to get ideas about where you might start with dipping your toes into editing is the Wikipedia:Community portal. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks! Alt3no (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Alt3no and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yes, there are are a vast number of detailed rules. Fortunately, many of them boil down to codified common sense, but it has to be written down somewhere because, at some point, someone made a change that others thought was wrong, and the result needed to be recorded.

The way to proceed is not to try to commit all of the rules to memory. Many of them will turn out to never be applicable to your editing. Take the advice of the basic rules and, if it looks like you are honestly trying to contribute to Wikipedia, any mistakes will be gently corrected and forgiven. Through that experience, you'll learn which rules are most applicable to your kind of editing and you should find its a manageable process.

As for the mechanics of contributing, you've already demonstrated basic competence by being able to successfully post a question here at the Teahouse. That, and the lessons taught in the Wikipedia Adventure are enough to get started with your career as a Wikipedia contributor. The rest will come with experience. I recommend picking off little tasks from WP:Community Portal to get started. After you've made 50-100 small edits, you'll be well on your way. And if you have any questions, the Teahouse is here to help. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

All of the above is excellent advice. Some pages you might find helpful:

• Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines
• Wikipedia:Dashboard
• Wikipedia:Glossary

Remember, you can always come back here to the Teahouse to ask questions—or, when you've been here for a while, you might feel more comfortable asking at the help desk. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: Thank you so much; those pages were exactly what I was looking for! I'll get the hang of navigating Wikipedia quickly. Best, Alt3no (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

How to get my film recognized.

Hi, I'm looking to make a movie. I have personally scheduled a release date and want to give this film a wikipedia page to have it more widely recognized. Is this allowed? If so, how to create a page? Movieman007 (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Movieman007: Hello and welcome. What you want to do isn't really compatible with what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote or bring publicity to a film; this is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable. I would add that you have what is referred to here as a conflict of interest, meaning you are too closely associated with the subject to write objectively about it. You may want to review that page for more information. Your best bet would be to allow others to write about the film; however, if you have independent sources, you may be able to draft an article by visiting Articles for Creation; but understand that the draft will be reviewed by an independent editor, and even if the page is accepted, anyone can post any content that can be cited to the page, good or bad. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The donation pop-up disappear after I login

Howdy!

I'd like to make a donation. But when I'm logged in the message is gone.

Do I have to be logged out to donate?

Thanks!

Robertgombos (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robertgombos. Please see wmf:Ways to Give. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And Wikipedia pages have a "Donate to Wikipedia" link below the logo (not in the mobile version). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Done, managed to donate, thanks! Fuhghettaboutit

Fuhghettaboutit, PrimeHunter I have another question: being a photographer I own many images that I could upload to be used in various topics when other editors create articles. Is there any please where to upload them? (I own the copyright for the shots since I created them, do I have to do any disclosure etc?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgombos (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Robertgombos. That would be great! Our sister site the Wikimedia Commons is where you should upload images you own and are willing to either donate into the public domain, or under a suitably free copyright license (licenses that are compatible must allow re-use and modification even for commercial purposes, though under most of them suitable credit to you upon re-use is required). Here's a link upload wizard there which should walk you through it. You will need to provide some disclosure but it's pretty low hanging. Just be aware of one pitfall: derivative works. If, for example, you snap a photo and something already copyrighted is captured in it (in a non-de minimis way) – say a t-shirt someone is wearing with a huge image of Mickey Mouse emblazoned – that would be a derivative work, that you could not release without blurring the non-free portion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also Robertgombos, be aware that even if you took the picture and it is not a derivative work, you may not have the copyrights to release them as you please if you already used it elsewhere. For instance newspapers, editors etc. will usually have an exclusivity clause that forbids you from re-using it. You can even completely lose the copyrights in some cases (e.g. a wedding photography contract usually transfers the copyrights to the newlywed). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Tigraan, I am very well aware of that. I just have tons on images that (never published online or offline, sold - I own the copyright and some of them might be used helping other editors create better article) I shot with my cameras for various during the last 4 years of studies. Low Key photography, high key photography (I really want to create these two particular pages someday) are some examples.

Finding articles that need work

How do I find articles that need to be edited? I can't seem to find the articles that need to be fixed, and I don't know where I can find this. Thanks! Emineminems (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Emineminems, welcome to the Teahouse. Maybe you saw the feature at Wikipedia:GettingStarted when you created your account. The linked page shows how to go back to that feature but Wikipedia:Community portal, linked on "Community portal" in the left pane (not in the mobile version) is more common to use. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

PrimeHunter -

Thanks!

- Emineminems (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing the junk science insult.

The Wikipedia anti-psychiatry page refers to anti-psychiatry as a fringe view, and links to fringe science. This is bias pure and simple. Are psychiatrists sabotaging the anti-psychiatry entry? (I happen to know in some instances they are.) We anti-psychiatrists have been calling psychiatry pseudo-science for ages, and now Wikipedia is accusing us of pseudo-science. Every time a person Googles 'anti-psychiatry definition' the word "fringe" pops up. What gives, and how can I change this misleading and ultimately dismissive statement into something more neutral and less prejudicial (i.e. remove fringe)? "Psychiatry is to medicine what astrology is to astronomy." The late Leonard Roy Frank, psychiatric survivor activist, wrote that. There is an astrology organization included in your list of "fringe science" organizations, ergo, anti-psychiatry is not fringe science.Antipsych (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Antipsych and welcome to the Teahouse.

Wikipedia can be a frustrating place for activist editors, which you seem to be proclaiming yourself to be. Encyclopedic articles generally stick to mainstream views on topics and, by necessity, relegate minority views to lesser coverage. The meaning of "fringe" on Wikipedia may seem variable. For some topics, a view held by only, say, 5% of practitioners may be considered acceptable as "Alternative theoretical formulations" and a legitimate part of the scientific process. On another topic, that kind of ratio would put it in the pseudoscience category. It's very helpful to have published sources that unambiguously declare something to be pseudoscience, but in the normal course of scientific debate, that word can be used polemically to try to shut down debate, especially as the topic becomes more politicized.

I've seen the pseudoscience label being added and removed to Anti-psychiatry multiple times over the past few weeks. What has not happened is a substantive discussion at Talk:Anti-psychiatry#Fringe started by Richard Paternoster. You need to start you efforts there, as the proper place to begin a discussion about an article's content. Eventually, you may need to start an RfC or use other aspects of the dispute resolution process. But the most persuasive thing you can do is bring forward reliable sources that support your side of the argument. [But also stay civil and remember that your activist stance may work against you.] — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

At least there is a discussion taking place about this addition of the "fringe" slur. I will see if I can offer any input. Thanks.Antipsych (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

please review my article.

I have written my first Wikipedia article a while ago and it was rejected first time as it sounded promotional to the editor concerned. I have edited the draft again but the editor hasn't checked it yet. Can a Wikipedia editor please review my article?

Priyanka2887 (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Priyanka2887. There is currently rather a large backlog of 1,253 drafts awaiting review, so it might take a few weeks for you to receive feedback on Draft:MarkPlus - as it states on the submission template message at the bottom of the draft. In the meantime, you can still edit the draft, and indeed I would encourage you to do so to improve its chances of being accepted. In particular, it would help the reviewer judge the topic's notability if you included URLs in any of the article's references to sources that are available online. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Priyanka2887 the page Draft:MarkPlus is in the queue to be reviewed. The next reviewer is not likely to be the same person, this is deliberate because we do not want your draft to become influenced by the opinion of only one reviewer comming back repeatedly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to any of the references, but most of them seem to be publications by the subject of the article. Are you able to find independent WP:Reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail? Dbfirs 07:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Draft:CitiusTech Inc.

Hi. My article is still in draft mode. The title is 'Draft:CitiusTech Inc.'. By when will it get published and be searchable by anyone? Please help. Thanks.

Edgarjstephens (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Edgarjstephens you have not submitted the draft to be reviewed. To do so please add {{subst:submit}} (including the double curly braces) to the top or bottom of the page. Without such a tag we have no way to even know that the page exists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Mr Puaz reference links

I have added a reference link as a source to the page but the message is still there. also if someone search Mr Puaz on google it doesnt come . kindly show me the right way so i can improve (Randyjoel (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: Mr Puaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).   Maproom (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Randyjoel. Welcome to the Teahouse. The message you refer to is a template noting that the article is an orphan, which means that no other Wikipedia articles link to it. New articles don't show up in Google results immediately; it takes several weeks. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the BLPPROD which i removed in this edit. Some copy editing has now been done on the article, but it needs additional sources. DES ^(talk) 13:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

properly formatted infobox

Hi, Can you give me instructions on how to create a properly formatted infobox? this is my first article submission. Thank you so much. Mary Anthony StartzMaryAnthonyStartz (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MaryAnthonyStartz, and welcoem back to the teahouse. You do that by placing an infobox tempalte at or near the top of the article or draft. In the case of Draft:William McNamara (soldier), I would suggest {{Infobox military person}}. Then you fill in appropriate parameters form the list on the template page. In this case something like:

{{Infobox military person
| name = William McNamara
| rank = First Sergeant
...
}}

Add in all appropriate parameters for which you have sourced information. Sources can be cited after any parameters where a citation is needed. DES ^(talk) 13:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

MaryAnthonyStartz, it's often easiest to find an article on a similar topic, £dit Source it, and copy the infobox code, making changes as necessary. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What links should I add in 'see also' section of a new article?

Dear Sir/Madam,

How can I determine which links should I add in the 'see also' section, while I am creating a new article? P.Shiladitya (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, P.Shiladitya, and welcome to the Teahouse. A "See also" section is for links that might be useful to the reader, but that do NOT appear in the article. it is always optional. My advice would be to not worry about it until the article is in a fairly finished form. Alternately, you could add several links you expect to use in later article development, and remove each ad you use it.

I urge you to read Your First Article. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and can cause significant frustration. DES ^(talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear @DESiegel: Sir, Thanks for your kind reply. --P.Shiladitya (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Plagarism

I was researching for the Matthias Ringmann page, and I found a website in which most of the paragraphs are exactly the same as the Wikipedia page's. I'm not sure who copied who, but I was unsure what I should do about it. I edited the page, so some parts are slightly different, but the ones I didn't edit are exactly the same. Emineminems (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a noticeboard at Wikipedia:Copyright problems which is staffed by volunteers who specialize in these issues. I'd notify someone there, and hopefully they can take the ball and run with it, resolving the issue. --Jayron32 14:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, Emineminems. One way to work out what came first can be to use a tool called WikiBlame (also accessible via the article's history tab, as "Revision history search") to find out when portions of text were added to the article. If you know when the external webpage was published, you should then be able to work out which came first. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing in an archive page

I know you aren't suppuse to edit archive pages, but if I want to stop an archive from showing up in a category because a WikiProject Template was included in one of the sections. It seems someone screwed up the way the page was displayed pasted a bunch of stuff above the Project Banner, and then it was left there when someone re-added WikiProjects onto top a few years later.

Would it be best to remove the WikiProject banner from the middle of the archive page, or would a noinclude or another function prevent it from being added to categories, or should just leave it as is? WikiVirusC (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi WikiVirusC, welcome to the Teahouse. I see no reason for a WikiProject banner there so you can just remove it by using the Edit tab for the whole page. <noinclude>...</noinclude> would have no effect but <nowiki>...</nowiki> would display the code instead of activating it. {{WikiProject Television}} has a |category=no parameter to avoid the normal categories but annoyingly it adds another category in the talk namespace with no apparent way to get rid of that one: Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! WikiVirusC (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

merge my existing content with references, etc...into an existing wiki article

besides copy and paste everything, is there a way to actually merge the content (including references and links) on my sandbox page to an existing article on wiki? my article was refused but it was suggested i merge it into an existing page and the link was provided to me. I've gone to that page and only managed to copoy and paste my content (but not my references and links) to that page...very time consuming. is there a way to get my stuff without redoing all the links and references? thanks Annaweltman 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Annaweltman. It sounds as if you're copying and pasting from the displayed page of your sandbox. If you open your sandbox for editing ("edit source") you can copy the text including the links and references. By the way, normally when copying within Wikipedia you are required to attribute the source (see WP:copying within Wikipedia) but if you are the only author of the material you are copying, then you are all right without. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Annaweltman. Please remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. I see you use VisualEditor. I don't know how copy-pasting works there but you definitely have to copy-paste from one of the editors and not from the rendered page as I suspect you did. In the source editor it's no problem to copy-paste what you want. VisualEditor has a pencil icon at the top right to switch to the source editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

... and, although it is time-consuming, it is safest to copy and merge one bit at a time and check that the article displays it properly before going on to the next. Dbfirs 18:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Vijay Kedia page up for deletion

Why is my page Vijay Kedia put for deletion?Akanksha Aggarwal (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Akanksha Aggarwal: There is a message on the page that explains why, and also a note on your talk page. See WP:USER for what may and may not be on your user page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I writing a new article right?

My new article, which can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Citybound is coming into shape. As I am new to Wikipedia content creation I just want some advice about how I am doing and, if anything, should I do to improve? BSOleader (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi BSOleader it looks pretty good so far. I've found a couple of apparently independent sources for you - gamasutra.com and pcgamer.com. By the way, WP:WikiProject Video games could give you more subject-specific advice. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at the draft, BSOleader, but on a quick look I notice that nearly all the current references are to cityboundsm.com. Please understand that Wikipedia has very little interest in anything which the subject of an article says about themselves. So at present the first paragraph ("Development") is referenced only to things published by Citybound: in my view, such a paragraph has no place in a Wikipedia article. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

edits for improval of an article with COI

Hi I have created the article Simon Cohen. I have a declared conflict of interest as I am currently working together with the subject of the page. With the help and advice that I have gotten from the Wikipedia community, it seems like the page could use some further improvement. I have suggested some of these improvements on the talk page but I'm unsure if I should move forward and edit the article on my own, given my COI. I'm grateful for any guidelines on this, as I hope to learn the best practices. Thank you MatildeZ (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi MatildeZ. If you have a specific improvement in mind, the best practice for COI editors is to request it on the talk page (in a "change X to Y because of reference Z" format), adding the "magic text" {{request edit}} at the beginning of your request. The "magic text" is called a template, and that template causes the request to appear in the list of requested edits that other editors patrol regularly. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tigraan and thanks for your reply! I'll definitely do that. Thank you!MatildeZ (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What is this

I don't know anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.75.65.68 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To which this are you referring to? --Jayron32 13:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

add picture of keran in page

I want to add pictures of keran from my mobile .how to add pictures from mobile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassir khoja (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yassir khoja. If these are photographs you yourself took with your phone of the Village of Keran, and you are willing to license them in the free manner that we require, then uploading them would be great. Thank you. Here's what you can do: go to the this link to the upload wizard at the Wikimedia Commons, then follow the instructions there. The commons is a free media repository, and images hosted there can be used natively on all Wikipedias and certain other Wikimedia projects. (However, it occurs to me that I have no idea whether uploads can be done directly from one's phone, or if there some intermediate step like downloading the files to a computer first. I would appreciate it if someone else who knows the answer to this issue [or could advise that it's a non-issue] could weigh in.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Need help copy editing so does not read like advertisement?

Hi! I could use any help copy editing so that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shot_Tower_Capital does not read like an advertisement. So far I have removed any flowery language and just stated the facts of what has been reported about the corporation. (I have added lots of citations and recent published information about this company to meet notability) Thank you for any help! EricPfromTustin (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The question, EricPfromTustin, is, What have people who have no connection with Shot Tower published about it? Wikipedia has no interest at all in what Dunn and Law say about Shot Tower: none. But, leaving aside the one that is just a listing, the first three references are all clearly based on interviews or press releases from Shot Tower (their language is almost identical, for one thing). If you take out of the first few paragraphs everything that is not cited to reliable independent source, there's essentially nothing left. Furthermore, the third paragraph (starting "Shot Tower advised") is not supported by even the sources that are adduced: Billboard says that Dunn and Law have worked on those things, not that Shot Tower will (that may be the case, but the source does not say it).

I know that I haven't directly addressed your question about copy editing. But nearly always on Wikipedia, the way to avoid sounding like an advertisement is by sticking to summarising what independent sources say, and ignoring absolutely everything that anybody associated with the subject has said about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Should uncredited roles be added to movie articles?

In the characters section, I mean. The Verified Cactus 100% 23:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. The answer it totally contextual. What the specific situation is; that the appearance can be reliably sourced; the depth of the role—exercise of encyclopedic judgment. In short, in my opinion this cannot be answered in the general.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 11:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How can I edit articles which wiki cannot allow or says prevent from vandalism

Hello sir This is very grateful for me to stand in a such a huge platform. Wiki didn't allow me To edit some pages which are protected so how and when can I edit all articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akram988 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Akram988, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can write an edit request on the article's talk page, describing what you wanted to change. If you keep editing on Wikipedia, you are also on your way to becoming an established Wikipedian who can edit even protected articles. For instance, the some protected pages can be edited by users who are autoconfirmed (that is to say, users whose accounts are more than 4 days old and who have made more than 10 edits on Wikipedia). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How do i undo an edit done by the bot at Rudra (band)

I recently added few images and made reference to articles and blog posts, one of the blog is not a reputable source but the bot did an undo on all the images i uploaded and other links as well, how can undo my edits and remove the non reputable links ? KannanNaidu (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Rudra (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DES ^(talk) 07:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) The simplest way would be to go to the article history, select the appropriate revision, open it and Edit. Once you correct the version and save it, you overwrite the current version, effectively undoing all intermediate changes.

But I can see you did it already: [3] [4] :) --CiaPan (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, KannanNaidu, and welcome to the Teahouse.I note you added a cite to https://heavymetaltribune.wordpress.com/ which I am dubious about. I don't know this particular source, but anything at wordpress makes me nervous. Are you confident that this is a reliable source? Also, please read my note about cite formatting at Talk:Rudra (band). Full (or at least fuller) source metadata is needed. DES ^(talk) 07:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@KannanNaidu: I followed the DES's request above and expanded one ref for you as an example. Please see special:diff/781131183.
For more hints please visit Wikipedia:Citation templates. --CiaPan (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of an additional review by wiki Physics?

Hi, I have just finished an article on a particular optical spectroscopy technique in my sandbox and submitted the article for a review. Several hours later I received a comment: "Please request a review at WP:WikiProject Physics or WP:WikiProject Engineering. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)". I am confused now. Haven't I submitted the article for a review already? What is WP:Wikiprojects and what is the purpose of submitting review there? And finally, how do I submit an article for a review there, I do not see any "submit for review" buttons? Thank you for any help Clearscience (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Clearscience that is a rather confusing message. It is actually the AFC reviewer who would request assistance from a relevant WikiProject, not you, so you can ignore that message. I have just asked the subject specialists at WikiProject Physics to look it over. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Robert McClenon:. Rojomoke (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the clarification!

Clearscience (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

i have created a page but when i search in wikipedia search button it is not shown there

Plz solve my problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassir khoja (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

You created your user page (which is not an article at User:Yassir khoja. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yassir khoja I have made a few neccessary corrections for you - removed a few templates that should only be used in mainspace and also corrected the type of infobox. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Jan Tomasow, violinist

Hello! I've submitted an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jan_Tomasow,_violinist). The submission was declined on 26 March 2017 by KGirlTrucker81 (talk). The reason why it was declined is the following:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

I made some editing to my original submission and resubmitted the new version sometime in April. The edited draft was supposed to emphasize the importance or notability of the musician I wrote about but, it seems not have had any effect as I have not got any kind of information about the status.

Also asked the original reviewer some questions about her comment as I could not understand the meaning of acronyms such as "GNG! or "BIO" in the context.

I have not got any answer to my query as of today. I only know that the resubmitted draft is currently awaiting re-review.

Would it be possible to be informed about what is going on about my draft at Wikipedia?

Thankfully, Ruben

Rtomasov (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG are the General Notability Guidelines, which all articles must follow, and WP:BIO are the additional rules for biographies of living people. Your article does not include any references to WP:Reliable sources that demonstrate notability. We need to be able to follow up on those "reliable sources that are independent of the subject".See also WP:Notability, WP:Your First Article and WP:Referencing for beginners. Rojomoke (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ruben, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you related to Jan Tomasov? If so, please be aware that Wikipedia regards you as having a conflict of interest, and discourages you from creating or directly editing an article about him, because you may find it hard to write sufficiently neutrally. Please be aware that Wikipedia has no interest in what Jan Tomasov, or his friends, relatives, or associates, have said about him: it is only interest in what people who have no connection with him have published in reliable places (and if there is not at present enough such material available, then no article about him will be accepted at the moment). --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Declined all my edits

Hello I made some edits for the article Numbers gang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Numbers_Gang why they all declined? thank you for your response B-Null (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, B-Null. Judging by the article's history, it seems to be because you adding copyrighted material. I can't actually see your edits because they have been supressed, as is policy for copyright infringements, so I can't comment much more than that, but please do take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)