Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

PrimeHunter, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Question regarding "Trivia" section/information

Hello, I think I need help in understating certain Wikipedia's definition/policy, particularly regarding the "Trivia" stuff. I've made an edit in an article about certain person, adding certain information about subject's Cosplay activity with the hopes that either myself or someone else will expand this further. However, before someone had the chance to expand on this, that edit was simply reverted with comment about "removing trivia"... My question is, how exactly this information can be considered as "trivia" since it is a well-noted fact, covered by reliable sources such as Newsweek here, ESPN's video here, one the Polygon's section here as well as other less popular (but I believe still usable) sources such as here and there and also being prominently presented in subject's own Twitch channel as well as subject's dedicated Patreon account related to this specific activity? Is all of this still considered as "trivia" even though it's a major, well-known part of subject's online personality?Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Definition of trivia is subjective, of course. You may read more in Wikipedia:Handling_trivia (stand-alone trivia). Ruslik_Zero 20:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom! I received your email asking for assistance with this question. See this guideline for more information. Generally, we want to avoid adding "trivia" sections to articles, which generally contain random bits of information. Instead, you'll want to add this to a previous section if it fits in order to make the information relevant, or a new section that discusses the information you're adding. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else and I'll be more than happy to do so. Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Where can I complain a bureaucrat?

UPDATE: I am looking for an authority that can supervise the bureaucrat of another wikipedia, I am not expecting English wikipedia to do something. If you know the right place, point me there. That wikipedia has not done anything to the patrol that defamed me 3 times in a month and banned me instead for demanding that patrol be penalized. The same user is writing baseless content to wikipedia, is distorting the sources and despite me reporting the issue bureaucrats and admins are not doing anything. They are not giving any explanation to the steps they do, I want to report this issue to the higher authoirty. END UPDATE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhubelent (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I had an objection to certian topic on Turkish wikipedia. I reported the abuse of power to the relevant bureaucrat, it has been almost a month and the bureaucrat is not doing anything. He does not seem to do anything. Where can I complain about it?

The background of the event: I told the patrol that certian passages are no original research, I told them that they are distorting the source. We discussed it, they did not show any reason to prevent my proposal and to keep their version, they just stated "if we accept your changes, there will be a rotation of one-eighty, it will change the artically totally in a different way." Then, their bureaucrat protected the page, they are not stating any reasons and are not allowing any change. I told them over and over again that they are giving misinforation in wikipedia. It is going on for more than 5 months now and nothing is done. The same passages are updated in English version wikipedia, the same user edit-warred me here but after I reported him to Wikipedia admin noticeboard/incidents and to Admin noticeboard edit warring he quitted doing so on English wikipedia, probably due to him having no powers to prevent me here without stating any reasons. But on Turkish wikipedia the same user is a patrol and he stops me from changing the article via his/her powers. Where can I solve this problem? If it is not a right place to complain this issue, tell me where to apply? I know it is very unlikely that I am in the right place, I do not know where to go and I know this is the place I can ask this question. Where can I report this abuse of power and ignorance of the bureaucrat? --Ruhubelent (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ruhubelent, if I'm understanding you correctly, the problem you had on en.wiki has been dealt with? Because, I'm sorry to say, neither our scope or knowledge here extends beyond en.wiki. The scope of our mission at Teahouse is to provide friendly assistance with problems newer editors encounter on en.wiki, which would include advice on how to handle a disruptive user, even an administrator. Here, bureaucrats have very little interaction with everyday editors. Other than supervising various election processes, I'm not even sure of their function. Each language Wikipedia are entirely separate organizations. It's possible, but doubtful a host at Teahouse would have an answer for you, but one may be able to point you to a better place to ask. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I know it was a wrong place to ask the question but I am hoping there will be someone who can point me to a place where I can ask this question. Who overlooks all wikipedias? Who assigns those bureaucrats? Where should I contact? These are the questions I am seeking an answer for. There may be someone who controls and can inspect bureaucrats. --Ruhubelent (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ruhubelent Each edition of Wikipedia (one per language) has its own organization, and its own methods of appointing admins and bureaucrats. On the en edition, bureaucrats as such do rather little, and most significant tasks are done by admins (also known as sysops). Most bureaucrats are also admins. I believe this is true on most editions, but I cannot be sure. There is no one and no group that overlooks all wikipedias. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) provides support, and enforces a few core principles, but does not do any detailed supervision. Each language-edition of Wikipedia is independent and self-organizing, and has its own processes for dealing with problems. I have no idea what the processes are on the Turkish Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ruhubelent, it's possible you may be able to find someone who would be able to help you out at our Wikiproject Turkey. John from Idegon (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: @DES:, now if I understood correctly: There is no way to oppose the bureaucrat and a bureaucrat can abuse Wikipedia or his/her powers as much as he wishes or as much as he can? No way to supervise them? Even in the relevant wikipedias? --Ruhubelent (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No one said that. What we said, both of us in different ways, is that there is no interrelation between English Wikipedia and Turkish Wikipedia. None. I can say there is no one on English Wikipedia with any authority to do anything about anything that happens on Turkish Wikipedia. What you are doing here is getting upset with us because we can't solve your issue with a DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION. Would you expect Burger King to be able to solve a complaint you have about McDonald's? Because that is what you are seemingly expecting us to do. John from Idegon (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC) @John from Idegon: --Ruhubelent (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No no no. That is not what I am expecting you to do. What I am asking is to point me to the place where can the actions of those bureaucrats be questioned? If there is a way to do that, point me to that direction. If not, then am I not wrong to deduce bureaucrats can do whatever they do and no one can question them?

User:Ruhubelent - John from Idegon and DES are right. Also, if Turkish is your first language, your complaint may be better understood by administrators of the Turkish Wikipedia in Turkish. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, Turkish is no different than my first language. Administrators of the Turkish wikipedia is ignoring this issue for a month, Turkish wikipedia community is ignoring it for more than 5 months. That is why I am seeking a supervision from higher authority. Turkish patrol even stated that he would not allow any change that would diminish Turkish writer's status into a liar. The point in question exposes the distortion of Turkish writer, the same crisis was experienced on English wikipedia as well but they did not have power here, I reported him and then he quitted edit-warring here but there on Turkish wikipedia he has powers to prevent me and protect the page, so did they. --Ruhubelent (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

As you've been told, we cannot help you with any issues on the Turkish Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@331dot:, As you've been told, I am not here expecting English wikipedia to do something. I am asking this question to clarify the place we can complain about the issue. Where is that? Or there is no any place who can supervise it? Bureaucrats can do whatever they want? If there is no way to supervise them, tell it directly. If there is way, then where? --Ruhubelent (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak to the processes and oversight, or lack thereof, of the Turkish Wikipedia. I suspect few users here could. You need to use whatever processes that version of Wikipedia has. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I am using it, they are not doing anything even if I reported a user that insulted me verbally 3 times in a month. I reported him a month ago right after the time that user insulted me, still no action. I am reporting no original research issue, still no action. So, in short they can do everything and there is nothing WIKIPEDIA does to prevent such actions? If someone outside wikipedia sees all of these, they will no longer take wikipedia seriously. --Ruhubelent (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ruhubelent: I don't think there is such a place. Coordination of all Wikimedia projects happens on the Meta-Wiki, and the Stewards there have advanced permissions across all Wikimedia wikis, but they generally don't interfere with individual projects unless those projects lack administrators and bureaucrats of their own. clpo13_(talk) 22:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That means it is likely that those Stewards will not interfere in this situation since the Wikipedia version I have a problem with has its own bureaucrat? Since it has a bureaucrat and admin? If it is true, it means once a person is appointed as a bureaucrat he/she canact as he wishes on Wikipedia and there is no way to question him/her. What a frivolity --Ruhubelent (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ruhubelent It means that whatever remedy for improper action by an admin or bureaucrat there may be, it will occur on the relevant Wikipedia edition, in accodanc with the procedures of that edition. on wn.wikipedia, there are a whole set of procedures for dispute resolutin, there are [[WP:AN], WP:ANI and other noticeboards, and ultimately there is ATRBCOM (the arbitration committee) I don't know what equivalents of these there may be on the Turkish-language edition of Wikipedia. But if you can somehow manage to establish consensus that the other person is acting improperly there, there will probably be a way to deal with it. Those people who are admins (sysops) on that Wikipedia have the technical power to block users there. Under what circumstances they would use it, I do not know. But finding some appropriate forum on that project and raising the issue there is more likely to et what you want than any post here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Ruhubelent DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

DESiegel, I need an authority over Turkish wikipedia. I have applied to everywhere on Turkish wikipedia. They banned me instead of banning a patrol that has defamed me 3 times in a month. I have been reporting this offense as well for a month, nothing is done and today I am banned for a week. Turkish wikipedia's bureaucrat banned me today, I have posted the offense to the pages of bureaucrats, to the page of community portal and demanded they penalize the attacker. Instead they banned me with doing nothing to the attacker. And the userf of Turkish wikipedia only started to respond my charges today after I am banned. They have not appeared for 5 months but today 2 of them replied, what a coincidence. They respond at the time I can no longer respond them. --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no higher authority to consult. If the Turkish Wikipedia has decided to ban and block you, and doesn't want to listen to you, there isn't much else you can do- and there is nothing that we can do. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? What is your position on Wikipedia? Are you a patrol or someone like that? I mean, your answer is in compliance with Wikipedia's policy? Let us wait and see what others say. If what you say is the case, then this means bureaucrtas of wikipedia can do whatever they want and there is nothing to prevent them. They can write articles as they wish, they can publish their worldviews on wikipedia and protect it and there is nothing that can be done. I hope I can get all these published on major media sources and newspapers. We shall let the world see how absurd system Wikipedia has. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm an administrator here, and I certainly don't know everything, but Wikipedia is a private entity and can determine who uses it as it sees fit, this can include blocking people for any reason or even no reason. Personally, I don't want to do that, but those that run the Turkish Wikipedia can determine who uses it as they see fit and I don't see as if you have much recourse. I think you are going to have to let this go; there are other websites you can contribute to, or you can start your own. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I know a certian site can determine their policies as they wish. I was not implying Wikipedia must obey certian rules. What I am saying is Wikipedia has such an absurd system, they can be absurd I am not objecting to Wikipedia's right to be that absurd. I am not trying to wikipedia obey something, what I am gonna try to do is to let this absurdity be shared as much as possible. --Ruhubelent (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ruhubelent, to the best of my knowledge 331dot is correct, there is no supervising authority over the Turkish Wikipedia (or any other) outside itself. I am an admin here on en.Wikipedia, and have been an editor since 2005. I am reasonably sure that there is no such supervising authority. From your story, it does sound as if you have been treated improperly, although of course there could be another side for all that I know. You could try to bring attention to this on User talk:Jimbo Wales -- as the founder of Wikipedia Jimbo has significant moral authority, although litle or now power of decree. His talk page is much read. Besides that, if the Community at the Turkish-langauge Wikipedia has decided to block you and that what has happened to you does not need any response, there is really nothing that you can do. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Multi-Lingual Multi-Encyclopedic Directory to Help

It occurs to me that editors come here, or one of the other assistance forums, on the English Wikipedia to ask for help with a complaint on a Wikipedia in another language. It occurs to me that it might be useful to have, probably on Meta, a directory listing the Help resources for all of the Wikipedias in all of the languages, including brief descriptions about the resources in the language of the resource. We could then direct editors like this one to the superdirectory. (Of course, that might require support from the WMF because it crosses systems. The WMF has an inconsistent record of helping users. But it might be worth asking.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

So, where should I ask or apply? Where can we give this proposal? --Ruhubelent (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ruhubelent I poked around a bit, and if I'm understanding the situation correctly, there is a Wikipedia page saying someone said X, but you can prove they actually said Y because you've can show a link to the actual footage. That's original research, and no one on Wikipedia will help you insert original research into an article, even if that original research is demonstrably true and the Wikipedia article is demonstrably false. The only way you can make the correction without someone reverting it is to find the information mentioned in a reliable source. valereee (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

can someone please help me with an edit question?

I wrote a long piece on Carmel Snow a while back that put her in the context of her time and place, explaining her significance.

It was replaced in its entirety today by someone who eliminated the entire text, replacing it with a much more skeletal one

I'm saddened to have worked hard on a scholarly entry, only to see it replaced by a less informative one. I don't think that readers will be well served. I can see adding to the original material, but to delete all of it, altogether? Including footnotes, etc. etc.?

I'm not a frequent contributor here and, given my professional obligations, cannot take that on. I'd so appreciate it if someone could help me undo this new version, and create a fairer portrait of this subject?

Thank you, Biographer1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biographer1 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Biographer1 Welcome to Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Content are summaries from many independence, reliable source and not an elaborate of every things about the subject. You edits have been reverted twice because you removed the "sourced" content - see here [1]. If you want to add any info, please back it up with sources (from newspapers, journals, publication houses) of such claim Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I can understand why you were reverted. You took an article with 11 sources that is wikilinked to other articles and changed it to an article with one questionable source and no wikilinks. If you want to improve the article, I suggest you start with what is there now and improve the article. If you have concerns about the quality of the article the place to raise those concerns is on the article talk page, Talk:Carmel Snow. 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GB fan (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The version which you tried to reinstate was unsourced as well as malformatted. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! An earlier version was extensively sourced, as I recall. In any case, I'd be delighted to add sources as necessary.

This text has withstood scrutiny for over a decade. The larger question to me was why the original couldn't have been added to, rather than deleted altogether.

It's nice to have some of these new details, such as the color of CS's wedding dress, but the piece needs to put her in the context of her time. I'm unclear about why the new material -- and sources -- couldn't just have been added to the earlier text.

I'm a professional biographer and journalist and worked hard to give this subject credence. Carmel Snow had a profound effect on the cultural in America and Western Europe in the mid 20th century.

I'm convinced that there were sources in the original page. Is there a way to look back at earlier versions?

My only interest in giving this extraordinary subject her due!

Many thanks for whatever help you can offer.

Biographer1 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to look back at earlier versions, click the "View history" tab at the top of the article, and it will take you to the history. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You can see every single version the article. Go to the article, Carmel Snow. Then click on "View history". Next just above where the first version is, click "500". Now all the versions are visible on a single page. Now if you click on the time/date sequence you can see what the article looked like then. ~ GB fan 11:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's a look at all your edits: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Biographer1&page=Carmel_Snow&server=enwiki&max= And it looks like your most recent edit until this week is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Carmel_Snow&diff=prev&oldid=235063842 valereee (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Desktop

Can I use the desktop version of wikipedia on a smartphone/tablet ? Kpgjhpjm 12:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes you can, I do it. At the bottom, of any mobile page is a link called "Desktop", click it and you will be taken to the desktop version. ~ GB fan 12:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there no way to go to the desktop mode without clicking ? Kpgjhpjm 14:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: I believe the only (but rather straightforward) way to ensure this is to make sure that when Wikipedia is called, it uses the "en.wikipedia.org" address rather than "en.m.wikipedia.org". If you can configure that on your mobile device, you should be good to go - but unless you are actually using a bookmark in a browser, I don't know if it's easily done. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kpgjhpjm. I edit Wikipedia using an Android smartphone 99% of the time. I use the desktop site. I stay logged in and have one or more Wikipedia tabs open at all times. I just click one of those tabs to return to the desktop site. If I come to a Wikipedia article as a result of a Google search or a Facebook post, I need to click the desktop site link, but that just takes a second. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: Depending on the browser you're using on your mobile device, there may be an option to always request the desktop version of the site. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Can i submit my startup story in wikipedia

Hi, I just want to post my startup story in Wikipedia. How can I create that one? We have started a small startup but we are growing very fast. we want to present in wikipedia. So can you help me for that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskar Kosuri1992 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't. Wikipedia is not for promotion; it has articles only on subjects which are already notable. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bhaskar Kosuri1992. You have a conflict of interest about your startup, and should be very careful with your edits here. Please comply with our mandatory Paid editing disclosure. Does your company meet our notabilty guideline for businesses? If so, you can draft an article through our Articles for Creation process. If not, do not try to draft an article. Please be aware that your contributions will be scrutinized carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Another User Repeatedly Removing My Content

I'm relatively new, so I'm still learning. I've abided by referencing content I've included on a wiki page but 1 user in particular has repeatedly deleted my content. Is there a way to stop that? Thank You! (2PacKidada (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC))

2PacKidada, first off, if someone reverts your edits, don't just put them back and insist you are correct. Instead, go to the talk page and discuss it. Content is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. See WP:BRD for the proper procedure to follow when your new addition is reverted. And above all, don't take it personally. Although sources are required, merely having them is no guarantee that your content is going to be in the article. On the subject of sources, if you are the one who added the Vanity Fair source for that paragraph, that isn't an acceptable citation. VF is a periodical. Without the issue date, the reference is useless. The editor reverting you should probably remove the entire paragraph. John from Idegon (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If I need the release date for this article that I'm referencing, I will redo it. I was informed by an administrator or someone who checks validity months ago that I did it correctly. I will repost with all that is needed.(2PacKidada (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC))

Please use the article's talk page to discuss your content instead of simply restoring it. The text about wanting a baby looks like trivia that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article, but if you bring it up on the talk page and get consensus in favour of including it, that's a different matter. Please don't start new sections for your new comments, by the way - it's better to keep the discussion in one section as long as it is about the same thing. --bonadea contributions talk 06:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I want to change website URL

Hi, I want to change website utl which is not being possible through source code setting, please help me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srivastava Shweta (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Srivastava Shweta. welcome to our Teahouse. There should be no problem changing a url by editing the source code unless the page has been 'protected'. This only happens to a tiny minority of pages which either see a flurry of sudden abuse, or are so popular that they attract constant vandalism. In these cases they may be protected for a period of time, allowing only registered users to edit them or requiring edits to be pre-approved before they go live here. Unfortunately your account shows only one edit - this one here, at the Teahouse. So I have way of helping you. Your best bet is to leave a note on the Talk page of the article, stating the changes you would like to make, and why. Alternatively, come back here and tell us which page you are having problems with. Sorry I can't help more without further information from you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you attempting to change the title of a Wikipedia article? In that case, a WP:MOVE is what you're looking for. Please familiarise yourself with the guidelines on WP:MOVE and the Wikipedia naming conventions before moving and article though. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sandbox Problem 2

All of a sudden the sandbox said: "your edits are abusive and pure vandalism". I regretted the message and 'trotted' back to the home page, nervously staring at the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondboy9756 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It appears you inadvertently (?) made changes to someone else's Sandbox rather than the general Wikipedia Sandbox or your own personal Sandbox. And yes, you were making many, many, many, many edits at Wikipedia Sandbox. If you want to experiment privately, use your own Sandbox. David notMD (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Bandboy, you can find your own personal sandbox here User:Bondboy9756/Sandbox, good luck. --DBigXray 14:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: The default has the word sandbox uncapitalised (although the link to it at the top of the page has the word capitalised), so User:Bondboy9756/sandbox is what the user has already been using. Hopefully he won't try submitting it for review again unless he eventually uses it for a draft suitable for article space. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

how many kinds of barnstars are there?

"One, two, three, i messingly count them in a unordingly way and mess-up the barnstar names as a whole..." Bondboy9756 (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bondboy9756. Can I ask whether you have plans to contribute content to the encyclopedia or help with maintaining it? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

aggressive counter-editing

i think i might have encountered a marketing assistant trying to counter my valid edits for the purposes of ensuring that the brand names they are being paid to promote appear in the short summary which is displayed on Google search results when our wiki appears. What should I do and how can i make a formal complaint about the user, who when i researched, was using a fake name from an obscure novel titled, "The Man Who Used the Universe" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimmyAU (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@TimmyAU: Your user name is not identical to your legal name, either...

And if we're going to have an article on a book, movie, or show, we generally do explain who publishes or produces that media, especially when the production or publishing company is notable enough that we already have an article on them. That's not advertising, that's completeness of information, and I'm saying that as an admin who loves blocking PR accounts.

Go read WP:Assume good faith until you understand the problem here. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is at WP:ANI#Bizarre edit summaries / hounding on 13 Reasons Why. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

White supremacy

This topic you discussed about, White supremacy, is biased to political hatred on Christianity. That's consequently mislead and can manipulate society mind to put Christianity into bad realm as bad behavior as White Supremacy. And at that point Wikipedia is a fake! You wrong if you try to make sense that White Supremacy is a part of Christianity decree. Better you edit it, and let the core topic only related to satanic philosophy base of White Supremacy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:15D0:51A0:ED8C:4B7F:5D33:245F (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss this would be Talk:White supremacy.

While I agree that someone truly saved by Jesus cannot be a racist, a lot of white supremacists claim to be Christian. Even if I agree with you that that claim is false, Wikipedia does not say what is true or false for religion (because there are a lot of beliefs that that lots of people say are true and we're just looking through a mirror darkly) -- Wikipedia just says what people say about their own religion. This works with "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," because we wouldn't want Muslims to rewrite the Christianity to only say that Christians worship three different gods, we wouldn't want Richard Dawkins fans to rewrite the Christianity article to say that Christians to only say that Christians are delusional and superstitious, and so on... Right? So we have to grant the same privilege to other religions, even if we disagree with them. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2018

Can you make a Wiki profile about Esport Players?

Hey my name is Sindre Roalkvam more commonly known as Zid or Zidius. I am Play Esports and I play in many different gaming tournuments. My friend asked me an interesting question and gave me a challange of sorts. Is it allowed to make wikipedia profiles about esports gameers? And if yes is there a limit? Do they have to be world known or can you write about someone like myself. I am a Norwegian Esport player and I am not exactly world known but I hope to be one day :-)

Basically I want to know if it is allowed for me or someone else to make a wiki profile about esports players including myself. And if so what would the rules be for making a profile like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidius (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Zidius: See WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Autobiography, and WP:NOTPROMO.

If you want to try to point to any existing articles on esports players as a counter-argument, see WP:Notability, and, again, WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Autobiography, and WP:NOTPROMO.

Basically, Wikipedia may have (but is not required to have) articles about any individual who has been featured in professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject and not affiliated with the subject. So your team's website would not work. We strongly discourage anyone from writing or even editing articles about themselves, as they almost never do so from a neutral perspective.

It is possible to be "world known" but still not be notable. The Internet makes it very easy for people from all over the world to know of you, to have hundreds of thousands of followers -- but if professional academia or journalism does not notice, it doesn't matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

i want to know about infobox and userbox

i want to know about the template : infobox and userbox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IVCofficial (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If you're looking about general information about infoboxes and userboxes, WP:Infoboxes and WP:Userboxes may be helpful to you. If not, please clarify further what you're looking for. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IVCofficial. I don't think there is a rule against using an infobox on your user page, but do you really want to be revealing that kind on information on a very very public site? Infoboxes are intended for summarising the (reliably cited) information elsewhere in an article. Your User page is somewhere that (if you choose) you can share something about yourself as a Wikipedia editor: userboxes are a way for people to display their interests, origins, or affiliations.

I would really encourage you to put aside working on your User page and get stuck in to improving the encyclopaedia, which is what we are all here for. I suggest trying The Wikipedia Adventure to strt with.I am also a little dubious about your username: it looks as if you are claiming to be an official of something called IVC (whatever that is), and usernames which look as if they are editing on behalf of an organisation are not allowed: please see WP:UN. --ColinFine (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Avigdor Eskin

Good Day What format of a source in the PDF file. On many people sanctions are imposed. I want to write about it in articles. --Bohdan Bondar (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bohdan Bondar. You cite a PDF like any other published source: with enough information to enable a reader to identify and in principle obtain the source, eg through a library. I am not aware of a particular citation template for PDFs, because these usually relate to a kind of publication (book, news, journal, website etc) rather than a format. Have a look at Citing sources. --ColinFine (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

talk Thank you . I experimented for a long time but managed to get what I wanted--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Biography

Why did you delete my article if it has valid references?

(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilthebest06 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything deleted. However, Draft:Emil Cerda seems to be an autobiography with very poor sources and some BLP violations, and the editor added material about himself to Ensanche La Fé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in December. Doug Weller talk 18:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes question

What do the triple brackets {{{}}} mean in infoboxes? I see them sometimes but am unsure. Test No 1 (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Test No 1, and welcome to the Teahouse. In infoboxes, and in templates generally, those indicate the use of a template parameter. See Help:template#Handling parameters for more details. (Infoboxes are pretty much always implemented as templates.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Block me

Pls block me 4 1 min ☎️ 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:BCC8:28BD:1E4B:93BB (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Need to initiate page -- but have COI

Hi all. I'm hoping to add a page -- or inspire someone to initiate a page -- re a TV show called "Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcampo123 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a page currently about the host, Soledad O'Brien, which fleetingly mentions this particular show: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soledad_O%27Brien

There is also a page regarding an Australian TV show called "Matter of Fact": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Matter+of+Fact%22+TV&go=Go&searchToken=5nm7lqbx9bzh4a8sqretomcvi

As you might imagine, this has the producers (Hearst) behind the US "Matter of Fact" concerned about having their own Wikipedia page.

There is also a page re a comparable TV show, "Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Measure_with_Sharyl_Attkisson

The reality is that pages like these are at least initiated by interested parties.

Here's where my COI comes in: I'm the "PR" guy for Hearst Television, the show's production company. Much of the publicly available detail about the show was originally developed by me.

So I'm following the protocol here in alerting the editorial team up front.

Please advise me of next steps? Should I go ahead and initiate a page -- strictly facts / sans hype -- for editorial-team review?

Thanks!

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcampo123 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Tcampo123 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Tom. First of all, thank you for being up front about your COI. Please start by reading PAID, and make the mandatory declaration.

Then - you are strongly discouraged from creating a page where you have a COI, but not forbidden. The formally recommended way would be to post a request at Requested articles - but your chance of somebody choosing to pick up the request is not high. You can probably improve it a bit by finding and citing some high-quality sources, but the prognosis is still not very good. (Remember that Wikipedia is entirely created and edited by volunteers, who choose what they want to work on).

So most people in your position will try to create the article yourself. Please start by studying Your first article, and create a draft as advised there. (I always advise people to spend a few months editing existing articles before even trying to create a new one, but I suspect you won't feel you can take that time. Be prepared in that case to find the difficult task of creating an acceptable article made more difficult by your inexperience in the ways of Wikipedia, and more difficult still because of your COI).

You also need to have a look at TVSHOW and check whether the show is notable in the special sense that Wikipedia uses the word. This means finding reliably published sources wholly independent of the writers, actors, producers, broadcasters etc involved in the show, that cover it in some depth - ignoring anything published by anybody associated with the show, anything on blogs or social media, and anything which is based on an interview or press release. If you cannot find any such sources, then give up. Wikipedia will not accept an article on a subject which does not meet these criteria.

If you get past that, you will need to write an article based almost entirely on what those indpendent sources say - and if it happens that some of them are critical of it, you must give those due weight. Wikipedia has very little interest in what anybody connected with the show says or wants to say about it, and no interest at all in what the producers would like the article to contain. If you succeed in getting an article accepted, it will not be your (or their) article, and you and they will have no control whatever over what changes are subsequently made to it - your role will be limited to making suggestions on the article's talk page.

If this sounds discouraging, well, I'm afraid to a degree it is meant to be. This is an encyclopaedia, and not a promotional tool for anybody. "X wants to have an article about them/their band/their show/their company" is never an adequate reason for adding an article to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Tcampo123, and welcome to Wikipedia. Several points:

• The reality is that pages like these are at least initiated by interested parties. In fact they are often created by fans, not people involved with the show itself.
• You clearly fall into the category of "paid contributor" and must disclose this in accord with our policy on paid editing. I would advise doing this by placing {{paid}} on your user page, with the appropriate parameters filled out. See Template:paid for documentation. Do this before you take any other steps in the matter.
• Best would be if you did nothing at all, and left it to a fan to eventually create a page. Failing that, you could use the article wizard to create a draft, subject to review. Note that the backlog for review is long, up to 8 weeks. Note that you will be held to a strict standard of establishing the notability of the topic, in this case the show, with independent published reliable sources.
• The anxiety of the producers is not of much interest to anyone here.
• There really isn't an "editorial team" here. There are many volunteers, each of whom works as he or she sees fit, sometimes working together, often independently.
• Note that per WP:OSE the existence of an article on a similar topic does not guarantee that a page on your preferred topic will be created.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

DES This section was a duplicate of the one above. I've removed the copy and kept your contribution at the end. Rojomoke (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Rojomoke. I must have made an error in handling a misplaced section header. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Got a warning that an image will be deleted

I got an alert that a photo will be deleted from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Press_photo_2_Brothers_on_the_4th_floor_A-700x998.jpg#Summary

Something about "rationale," which I don't understand. I have permission from one of the artists to post this publicity photo to Wikipedia. I have updated the file description, at least I think I did.

Can someone help me ensure this photo won't be deleted? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanymike (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Albanymike and welcome to the Teahouse. The photo in question is claimed to be copyrighted, meaning it falls under Wikipedia's non-free content policy (see WP:NONFREE for more guidance on that). In order to use a copyrighted image on Wikipedia, the image must be accompanied by a fair use rationale explaining why its use meets the non-free content criteria. clpo13_(talk) 21:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Albanymike, and welcome to the Teahouse. The warning is because it appears that this image has been published and is under copyright. permission from one of the artists to post this publicity photo to Wikipedia is not sufficient. The release would have to be from the copyright holder, who is nornally the photographer, not the person shown in the photo. And it would need to be a release under a free license such as CC-BY-SA. This means that anyone, anywhere in the world, is free to reuse the image for any purpose, including for commercial purposes, without paying any royalty or license fee, as long as the work is properly attributed and the same conditions are imposed on further users. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If the image is not released under a fully free license, it can only be used on Wikipedia under fair use. This means it must comply with wikipedia's Non-free content criteria. In that case, a "rationale" is a statement explaining how an image fits those criteria, and how it is used in a particular article. Such a rationale is required for each use of a non-free image.

You would need to either have the copyright holder follow the steps in donating copyrighted materiel or else make a claim of fair use, supplying a satisfactory rationale. Note that pictures of living people only rarely can satisfy the fair use criteria here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

DES, looks like we got caught in dueling edit conflicts. I was going to add that very information to my original comment but you beat me to it. clpo13_(talk) 21:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It happens, Clpo13. Now the OP can be assured that multiple experienced editors agree on their advice. This is an issue that many new editors find confusing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle

Why won't Twinkle automatically leave warnings for me?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thegooduser When use TW instead of HG, it will lead me to the user talk page, but I have to put what type of warning and the level of warning. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a page at User talk:Sandbox for user warnings specifically for testing and comparing the way different tools issue warnings. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thegooduser You can find all the warning templates - see here WP:WARN and the associate messages - see here WP:MLT for multi level warning and WP:SLT for single level. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thegooduser! To answer your actual question, I think there are two reasons. First, many problematic edits do not meet the criteria for vandalism and thus automated templates are not an option. Second, even with vandalism edits, a large amount of discretion is required to determine the nature of an edit. Any edit which appears to be made in good faith is not vandalism. Twinkle cannot make those kinds of differentiations—if it could, then we probably would be able to automate more vandalism reverts. The nature of the warning is up to you, although Twinkle does provide you with some helpful warning templates to get you started. It is often helpful to leave an extra comment after a template as an explanatory note. Thank you for editing and improving Wikipedia!  :) —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 02:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Meg Cranston - should the template be removed?

I added several inline citations to the text for the article Meg Cranston. Does the list of solo exhibits need a citation for each or are there enough citations now to remove the template? Wisteriagarden (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that really shows notability, as many of those references are primary. Is there any secondary biographical material about her, or just exhibition-list type stuff? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Starting a discussion and asking users to join the discussion

Hi, I was wondering how I can start a discussion on a WikiProject talk page and ask other users to join that discussion? - LionCountry25 (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

LionCountry25 Welcome Teahouse. Be Bold and go for it. You could invite the regular contributors by just look through the the history page of (1) the particular WikiProject talk page (2) history page of the affected articles of the WikiProject. For example, if you would like to start a discussion on WikiProject Football, then look through football clubs, leagues and players article history pages and find those regular editors to join the discussion. Do drop by if you have further questions. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about editor linked to edited page

Hi,

I saw that an editor is making changes to Rhys Nicholson, using Rhys' partner's name (Kyran) as their username. I looked at the real name/similar name help section, but I'm not sure how to suggest for them to confirm their identity?

Thanks for your advice! SunnyBoi (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi: Wikipedia editors are anonymous (unless they choose to declare their real-world identity). You can ask on their User Talk page, but they are not required to disclose who they are.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the history of Rhys Nicholson, Kyranwheatley has only ever made one edit, on 28 May 2018, and it was relatively minor. Is there an issue with that edit?--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi: Hullo, Sunnyboi and welcome to the Teahouse! As Gronk Oz mentioned above, editors are rarely (if ever) asked to disclose their real identity and the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy guarantees the right of editors to preserve their anonymity while editing. That being said, Wikipedians can disclose their identity of their own choosing and editors with a history of edits that show a conflict of interest. If the user only has one minor edit, it's probably not going to be a huge deal. If you have a concern about a conflict of interest, you should handle the situation as described in this Wikipedia article. I hope that helps! Feel free to follow up here with any more questions or place {{help me}} on your talk page. Thanks for editing Wikipedia! —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 12:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

How to add photos to an article

I am writing a Wikipedia article on General Juan Francisco Morales of Ecuador, South America.

I have some photos of the General that I would like to add to the article.

Wikipedia rejects the uploading the photos because it thinks that the photos are copyrighted.

These photos are family photos and were the properties of my mother and grandmother, which were bequeathed to me on their death.

How can I use these photos of the General in his formal dress uniform and a photo of the General in his campaign uniform?

These photos were taken 123 years ago.

Thank you.

Bodvar Antonio Gregersen

Bodvar Antonio Gregersen (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a matter for Wikimedia Commons, rather than for here at English-language Wikipedia. I see that you have already discussed it at their Help Desk, and received an unhelpful answer. I suggest that you ask there again, and this time make it clear that the photos were taken before 1923 (which is a significant date for copyright in many jurisdictions). Maproom (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Frank C. Jones not notable??

My subject Frank C. Jones was an editor of the magazine Radio for eleven years. For four of those he edited their Radio Handbook. He invented a transmitter, a receiver and a loudspeaker. In his career he published 3000 articles. How do I establish that he *is* notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipveres (talk • contribs) 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Chipveres, and welcome to the Teahouse. The primary way is to show that he meets the general notability guideline, by citing several independent published reliable sources that discuss him in some detail, say several paragraphs each at a minimum. (Follow the links for more detail.) Note that this requires sources about him, not citations of works that he has written himself. Self-published sources, blogs, press releases, interviews with eh subject, fan sites, and the like will not count towards this. Establishing that a person has held a particular job does not always establish notability. If you cannot show that the GNG is satisfied, you could see if those of WP:CREATIVE can be shown with citations to reliable sources. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Hello Chipveres, and welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). You need reliable sources, independent of the subject, that discuss him in some detail, not just mention him. If there are such sources, a WP-article that survives can be written. If not, not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Want to page for fairwell parties but not able, not able to collect authority reference

If a page doesn't exist on wikipedia, and I m going to create one, every time moderator ask for use references. I am not able to collect external links for reference.

Why can't you find acceptable references? If it's because there aren't any, then Wikipedia won't accept an article on that subject. Maproom (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's fpr Draft:Brother's Day. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph (and references) are plausible. In my opinion, everything beyond that is not relevant and needs to be deleted before trying again. David notMD (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

my article

I started an article on Laurelstone in my account & can't figure out how to return to continue writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.57.62 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

So it looks like your account is Hamish1066. Did you connect an email address to your account? If so, you should be able to recover your password. Otherwise, you're just gonna have to keep guessing what your password might have been. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The draft is at Draft:Laurelstone. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Disputed text

Hello, I have added text to an article and it keeps being removed by another user, who says that the author I quote is not worth including. I have provided links to the author's credentials on a university website, but the text keeps on being removed. Is there usually a resolution to these sorts of dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Michael 2010 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Saint Michael 2010. You and Cagwinn seem to be edit-warring on Lucius of Britain, and you both need to stop. What you need to do, according to the policy on dispute resolution, is to start discussing the matter on Talk:Lucius of Britain, which neither of you has yet done (I see that Cagwinn was involved in a discussion there four years ago, which mentioned David Knight's book; but there has been no recent discussion). If you cannot reach agreement, then the DR page I pointed you at tells you how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, I will put something on the talk page next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Michael 2010 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Saint Michael 2010 is pushing fringe theories and refuses to abide by WP:UNDUE. David Knight is NOT a recognized scholar, he is a fringe author with no qualifications and none of his bizarre theories have been accepted by genuine scholars in the field. Cagwinn (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cagwinn! If your statement is indeed true, then you would be far more likely to receive a receptive response if you carefully (and judiciously) laid out your proof in the article's talk page as ColinFine suggested and were willing to discuss the issue peacefully with Saint Michael 2010. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! —zfJames Please add {{ping|ZfJames}} to your reply (talk page, contribs) 02:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Knight's book has already been discussed a bit on the article's talk page. The fact that you don't see any scholars of Roman era Britain citing Knight's book speaks to its utter lack of notability. Also, Knight is an archaeologist, not an historian, and he naively treats medieval literature such as Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictitious Historia Regum Britanniae as if it is a genuine historical source (which it is not). Knight is a fringe author with fringe theories - thus, per WP:UNDUE, his ideas about Lucius of Britain do not belong on Wikipedia. Cagwinn (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

And your discussions about the article and its source don't belong on this page, Cagwinn, but on the articl'es talk page; or thereafter as directed by WP:conflict resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Clear conflict of interest - how to report?

A local scandal is affecting someone who has a Wiki page that was pretty clearly created by them (or someone close to them)and continually updated by them. They now seem to be adding personal information about the scandal which attempts to lessons the charges against them (which were reported in the national newspaper), without providing any citations. How can this be dealt with? Ross Porter (Canadian broadcaster) NOTE: this page has been repeatedly called up for COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.56.241 (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks. 205.189.56.241 (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The place to report this is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please note that you need to notify anyone who you report there that you have done so, by posting on their talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry 142.216.128.5 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Citing a private e-mail from a credible source

Hi All,

Apologies in advance if this is covered in a policy somewhere; I've looked in various places including on WP:CITET but none of the source categories are quite right.

This is regarding a Finnish TV series, where the Wikipedia article contains an error (a relatively minor one, but still) in what comes to the personal details of the main character, both in the Finnish (presumably original) article as well as the English one. I searched for a reputable source to clarify this, but couldn't find one, so I contacted the production company. The series producer replied by e-mail to clarify the matter. So far, so good.

However, I would now like to correct the mistake in the article(s), but how do I do this when I still don't have a citable source? Or should I therefore not?

Thanks — DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DoubleGrazing. Interesting question. I think my approach in this situation would be to post what you've already said here on the talk page of the article in question, and paste in elements of the email you received from the production company. If you asked there whether anyone minded if you changed the content accordingly (and then waited a while for a reply) it would probably then be OK to be bold and alter minor details of the type you seem to be referring to. The difficulty comes when a statement already has a citation to a source which is incorrect, and you have the right information, but a poor source. But by having that discussion on the article's talk page, all editors in future will at least see what information you have dug out, irrespective of whether editor concensus allows it to remain there, or not. Others might take a different approach, but I think from what you said that this would be OK. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick Moyes, that's pretty much what I was thinking also, just wasn't sure. In this case no source is currently cited so there's nothing I need to contest, which probably makes things easier. Ta muchly, :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with Nick here. Local consensus can't override WP:V – one of our central policies. Personal communications can't be used as sources here because nobody else can verify them. I think the best you can do is remove the statement in question altogether, since it isn't referenced. But you can't include information sourced from an unpublished email.

@DoubleGrazing: – Joe (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Joe Roe, I hear what you say, but... The detail I'm looking to add is entirely uncontentious; in fact, anyone watching the series could most likely gather the same info first-hand themselves (I could probably cite the series as a reference, I just don't know which particular episodes). I also think it would genuinely add useful information here, given that the article as it stands has at best an ambiguity, at worst an actual error. I guess I could go back to the production company and ask them to post something on their website, but this seems a bit OTT just so that I could mention what is after all a minor point on Wikipedia. Moving forward, how should I resolve this, now that I have two opposing pieces of advice? DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can cite the series itself if its something uncontroversial. In fact, you don't even need to cite it. See MOS:PLOTSOURCE. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating my own article.

My question is for all the members of the Teahouse - How will I create my own article about someone one Wikipedia? Please answer me on my talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gamer10101 .

Gamer10101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer10101 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but seems to me like WP:HOW could be a good place to start. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gamer10101, welcome to our Teahouse. Forgive me for answering here, not on your talk page, as you requested (though I will post a copy there). We have many other editors who like to see answers to questions. But I will leave you a 'talkback' notification when I'm done. Addding to what DoubleGrazing has suggested, you do need to be aware that creating a new article is one of the most difficult challenges here, especially for a newcomer. Firstly, you person needs to meet our Notability (people) criteria. Whilst you might think some Youtuber with half a million followers is clearly notable, that's irrelevant from Wikipedia's point of view. So do please read and appreciate that to demonstrate notability, you absolutely must cite references that show the person has been written about, in depth by independent, reliable sources. Se we discount their own blogs, YouTube pages and social media accounts, and other peoples blogs and websites, but require instead newspapers, media outlets, books and journals which have written about that person, thing, or place in some detail. Thanks, by the way, for declaring your Conflict of Interest over Draft:Abdur Rahman. (It's not this person is it? If so, I urge you not to write about yourself, especially as, just like me, that person doesn't look to be anywhere close to meeting our criteria for notability. See Wikipedia:Autobiography.)

To help familiarise yourself with how things work here, do try out The Wikipedia Adventure and then read Wikipedia:Your first article. It is almost inevitable that you will make a mistake if you plunge right in to article creation straight away. It's often best to make lots of smaller edits across multiple pages to'get a feel' of how things are done. When another editor reverts what you've done, please don't be upset, angry or offended. Consider the reasons they gave for reverting that edit, and try not to do it again. It's OK to politely ask them to explain why they've undone something you thought was perfectly reasonable. That way you'll more quickly learn what to do and what not to do. The one things we don't do is editing, reverting,editing, reverting between two editors - that's a surefire way to get blocked from editing, as is blindly carrying on when other more experienced editors have asked you not to do something again. So, we discuss our concerns on talk pages - whether it's on the article or on an editor's own talk page. Finally, your question asked about creating 'my own article'. Nobody here owns any page - even if its about themselves. Everything is in the public domain and can be constructively edited by anybody,providing they follow our guidelines (of which, sadly, there a rather a lot). But we're always here at the Teahouse to help if you get stuck.  Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing Broken Link

Hello. I am new to editing broken links. I tried to fix a broken link on River Town Saints article. I replaced the link with the correct url, but a Check url=value message appeared. If you click on the link it takes you to the correct web page, so I'm not sure what I did wrong. Please advise. Thanks. I forgot to add my nameCalliopeMuse (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Cleaned up that ref and a few others, using a different format. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Where to appeal an AFD discussion with merge outcome

Is Wikipedia:Deletion review, the right place to appeal an AFD discussion where the outcome was merge? Pratyush (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@PratyushSinha101: Welcomt to the Teahouse. The first step is to contact the closing administrator and ask if they will re-assess their close. If you still disagree then you can challenge the close at Deletion Review. Please note though that a deletion review is not to re-argue the case it is only to assess whether the AfD close was good ie that the closer properly read the consensus of the discussion and that there were significant and material errors in the AfD process. Jbh ^Talk 22:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:, that helps. Thanks. Pratyush (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Cannot create any page without an administrator

Hello. We have a problem in our national wikipedia, it seems that none of the titles I try in the national language are allowed. They are on the "black list" and require the administrator to create the page. We onle have 3 administrators and they seem to be very busy. At the same time, there is 350 articles to be published in the national language. What should I and my colleagues do? Is this restriction working for any national wikipedia, or we are the unlucky ones??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RashLightning (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi RashLightning, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no edits at any other language. I don't know why you go out of your way to make formulations which conceal which language you want help with but please reveal it if you want to give us a chance to help you. Also give an example title. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Newbie who has just posted draft article and mangled the footnoting process

I have dialogued over the past 24 hours with Ian Thompspn, Orange Mike and DESiegel (and thank you all.)

I've made an attempt to draft an initial posting of an article about a TV show (now entering its 4th season), starting with my disclosure of a financial relationship to the production company. I've stuck to facts and externally published articles. It seems I've managed to mangle the footnoting process though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcampo123/sandbox/Matter_of_Fact_with_Soledad_O%27Brien#cite_note-4

Happy to make any changes as advised -- or better still for any other users to change/fix as they like.

Thanks.

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcampo123 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Tom. Another user has fixed the immediate problem (look at the history of your draft to see what they did). I suggest you read referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Tom, I haven't looked at all your references, but the four or five I have looked at are all clearly based on interviews or press releases, and are therefore not independent. This doesn't mean you can't use them, but it does mean that they do not contribute in any way to establishing that the show meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin, again for your ongoing help, guidance and especially patience. (I've also thanked Chiswick Chap for his extensive help.)

Re meeting the bar for Notability, I'm going by the following postings as examples of comparable television shows. If you check the references, most if not nearly all are articles resulting from news announcements/press releases about these shows if not directly from press releases themselves. Simply the nature of the beast when it comes to TV programs and the like. I'm hoping the governing criteria in cases of these types of article submissions revolve around the nature of the language used -- For example, I'm taking care to avoid any "hype" or heavily promotional language -- rather than the initial sourcing of the information about such shows, sourcing which almost inevitably originates with publicity about the show.

Examples (based on program genre/format):

Sinclair Broadcast Group's "Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Measure_with_Sharyl_Attkisson

"Fox News Sunday": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Sunday

CNN's "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_(TV_series)

Again, if you check the sourcing, it's typically from news releases, articles derived from news releases, and/or the program's or network's own website.

Addressing the Notability criterion in terms of one aspect: "Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien" -- based on Nielsen data -- now has an audience reach comparable to that of "Fox News Sunday" and far surpassing those of "Full Measure" and "State of the Union."

I'm happy to answer any additional questions and to try to make any further additions/adjustments that would permit me to get my draft to a stage where it can be reviewed for full publication>

Thank you again!

Tcampo123 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Tom

Submission

Hello! Could Draft be reviewed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathrinelilholtnielsen (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kathrinelilholtnielsen and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid we don't generally expedite reviews of drafts already in the queue, but your draft hasn't even been submitted. But don't submit it until you have provided some notability references that meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. So far, none of your references comes close to establishing notability. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Where to start and what do i need to know?

I finally decided to make an account for Wikipedia. I just wanted to maybe know from some experienced users out there for where did you start and how? And maybe what i NEED to know and where i should begin. Steeltree1 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Steeltree1 ! I've left a bunch of links on your talk page, they're a great place to start! valereee (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Steeltree1 welcome to the weird and wacky world of Wikipedia! I suspect every editor has their own tale of how they began editing, but I suspect many, like me, looked up things they either were particularly interested or knowledgeable in and were surprised to discover obvious things missing. If they had access to good books or found online sources of information cite to support content they wanted to add they might have made that first, tentative step add editing. When they discovered this didn't actually break Wikipedia - but improved it a little bit - they may have started on a fantastic journey of contributing to the world's greatest encyclopaedia. I see you've already taken your first steps by removing inappropriate content from articles relating to your home town. Brilliant work - and well done for leaving an edit summary to explain what you've done. I'd suggest tempering your enthusiasm just a little bit, and avoid edits like this one. I'm not sure I'd know how to respond if you'd left it for me! (But we do have a system of Barnstars where one editors, impressed by the contributions of another editor, can leave them a supportive barnstar to show their appreciation. Anyway, good look. Give The Wikipedia Adventure a go - see if you can collect all 15 badges in its six Missions. Come back with questions on editing any time you get stuck. Regards from the English Midlands. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

How do i report or point out a user?

I have found a user who has made inappropriate edits to some articles, i have tried to get rid of it, and they were recent. Steeltree1 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:AIAV Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Steeltree1: welcome to the Teahouse. The first step should always be to communicate with the user on their talk page. The link provided by Thegooduser above leads to a noticeboard where repeat vandals can be reported to the administrators, but it is unusual that action will be taken if the user hasn't been warned about their behaviour, first. If you let us know which article(s) are affected you could perhaps get a better and more specific answer. :-) --bonadea contributions talk 20:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Presumably The Kingswinford School. While I agree that it was appropriate to remove the sentence you did, Steeltree1, I think the editor who added it was editing in good faith - they evidently have strong opinions, and may not be aware that opinions are not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. You should certainly start by engaging with them on either the article's talk page or their User Talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Uploading an image from a site with granted permission

I wanted to inquire about uploading an image to Commons from a site that has provided other images on several Wikipedia articles. There is a box with permission details for each uploaded image from this site and to quote that partially, the following is written: "Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive." So in light of this, is it possible to upload another image from this site as long as the permission details (the box) are noted? Flyingspacecat (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Flyingspacecat Does the permission email recieved by OTRS specify each image individually or does it cover all images on the source site? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Roger (Dodger67) I don't have access to the email as it requires an OTRS login but the ticket number (ticket #2008012510003504) for every image uploaded to Wikipedia from this site is the same. So I've guessed it's one email correspondence concerning the entire site. Though I wanted to be sure which is why I've inquired. Flyingspacecat (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Archive Date

So I've been wondering this for a while, and I've been meaning to ask. On citation templates, there's an option for 'Archive Date'. I've always been putting the date when I archived it or the listed date if I wasn't the one to archive it, but if I archive it and the archive site, e.g. the Wayback Machine, gives a different date since it's on GMT, do I put that date or what the date was for me? E.g. it's June 15 where I am, but the Wayback Machine lists it as June 16. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnician27 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello TheTechnician27 and welcome to the Teahouse.

It's best to match the archivedate parameter with the date that is part of the timestamp in the archiveurl. You can put your current date or the UTC date in the accessdate, that's not as critical. Or you can put a date in the past that represents when you verified that the reference content. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello TheTechnician27. |archivedate = should give the date-stamp of the archived page, as recorded by the archive, to help in finding the page in the archive, and to provide context of what version of the page was archived. |accessdate= should give the date on which you (or someone) most recently verified that the page as it then stood supported the statements that it is being cited for. This is often the date on which you added the citation, but not always. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I want to for Mayor of Amritsar Karamjit Singh Rintu

Please guide me how I can create a Wikipedia article for current Mayor of Amritsar Sr.Karamjit Singh Rintu in office from Jan 2018 Karamjit Singh Rintu (http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/karamjit-singh-rintu-is-amritsar-mayor/532962.html)https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amritsar/karamjit-singh-rintu-is-new-mayor-of-amritsar/articleshow/62617274.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunghwaace (talk • contribs) 08:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Chunghwaace, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a rather broad question, but the most important thing to start with is to make sure there's enough information for you to create a Wikipedia article in reliable sources. A couple of in-depth texts focusing on the person would be good, or it's possible they can't really have a Wikipedia article either. Hopefully, you should be able to find this for the mayor of a large city. Pay attention to sourcing your statements. Apart from that, I think that reading Wikipedia:Your first article is probably the best advice I can give you. /Julle (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Chunghwaace. I might be misinterpreting, but your choice of words "establish a page for" makes me think that you might be making a very common mistake and thinking that Wikipedia is like social media, where people "have pages". It is not: it is an encyclopaedia, and what we do here is not "establish pages for" subjects, but "write articles about" them. An article about a person should summarise what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them - including material critical of them, if that has been reliably published. Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject, or people connected with the subject, have said about themselves; and no interest at all in how the subject wishes to be portrayed. If there is an article about a person, then far from that article being "for" that person, the person and their associates are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. --ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks --ColinFine (talk) /Julle (talk) This is about newly elected Mayor of Amritsar City, Punjab and lots of independent sources available for references like news paper and Election Commission of India links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunghwaace (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected wikipedia pages

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I was wondering when an editor is allowed to protect/ semi-protect a page and with what authority. If the content in the page is unreliable/ untrue, is there anyone to cross-check that and edit the information? I understand that Wikipedia is not peer-reviewed, but when one sees information that is miss-leading, but at the same time protected, what is the way to go about removing it, if any?

Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.126.135 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi anonymous editor, and welcome to the Teahouse! A Wikipedia administrator can protect or semi-protect the page if deemed necessary, usually because of vandalism or because of edit warring when the involved parties should really discuss the article instead of just changing it back and forth. If you want all the details, you can read Wikipedia:Protection policy. If you come across a protected article with errors, we recommend that you point them out on the talk page of that article. /Julle (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Editor with IP ending in 135. Requests for protection to be added or removed from pages can be made at Requests for page protection. Protection is normally added only because of persistent vandalism, or to deal with an edit war or other dispute that renders the page unstable. Protection is mos toften removed when the original reason for protection no longer applies. To suggest an edit on a protected page, use {{request edit}}, {{Edit semi-protected}}, or {{Edit fully-protected}} (as appropriate) on the talk page of the page to be edited. Provide a detailed description of the requested edit, usually the exact requested text. Also provide one or more citations to reliable sources that support statements in the requested edit. Without sources the edit may well be declined. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with naming an article

I want to create an article about the "Côté Gold Project" (website). How should I make the name of the article (what appears in the wikipedia URL):

1. Cote_Gold_project
2. Cote_Gold_mine
3. Cote_Gold_mining_project
4. same as above, but with the accents: Côté_Gold_project (or _mine, or _mining_project)
5. same as above again, with this variation: Cote_Gold_gold_mine (see Rosebel_gold_mine, where for a gold mine, "gold mine" is in the article name)

Considerations:

• This is a mining project, not a mine yet. Still it will become a mine. Should I use #1 for now, and later, move the article to #2? Or use #2 right away?
• If we don't use the accents, we still need to show the accents on the actual encyclopedia page. Could I use the "DISPLAYTITLE:Côté Gold project" tag (or Côté Gold mine, or Côté Gold mining project) within the article?mmorel 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMorel (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MMorel, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Before even considering what the name of such an article would be, consider whether it should exist at all. Is this project notable? Has it been written about in several independent published reliable sources in significant depth? That means sources not affiliated with the owners or promoters of this project, sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, such as mainstream journalists or academic sources. That means not press releases, not interviews with project spokespeople, not fan sites or one=-person sites or blogs, not sources with a poor reputation for accuracy, not "news stories" that are just rewrites of press releases, and not sources with any financial stake in the project. see WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH for more details. Unless several such sources discuss the project in significant detail, there cannot be an article under any name. Also consider WP:CRYSTAL, since Wikipedia is not the place for speculation on things that have not yet occurred.

If, after considering all that, you think that an article is warranted, then please follow WP:COMMONNAME, This says that the name most commonly used to refer to the project in reliable English-language sources should usually be used. If the name has changed over time, recent sources are usually favored. Other names can be created as redirect pages, and included in the article, if supported by reliable sources.

If you decide to go ahead, MMorel, I strongly urge you to use the Article wizard to create a draft under the Articles for creation project, so that it can be reviewed by anj experienced editor before being moved to the main article space.

I hope this advice is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

As DESiegel says, it's odd to be worrying about the name of the article (which can easily be modified later) without first checking whether the article is likely to be accepted. But, to answer your question, I suggest "Côté Gold mining project", with the accents and without the underlines. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Samrat Reddy page!!

I created a celebrity page for my friend and actor from Indian Cinema Industry. He is currently also a contestant of Bigg Boss (Reality TV show similar to Big Brother) and has done more 22 movies in Indian Cinema industry but his page is rejected under notable profile.

Please help me how i can get his page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amunnagkumar (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

link: Draft:Samrat Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Amunnagkumar: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were given the reason that the draft was declined- the sources offered do not adequately indicate how the subject is notable, as Wikipedia defines it. In this case, the relevant notability guidelines would be WP:NACTOR. What is needed are multiple independent reliable sources that offer in depth coverage of your friend and indicate he meets the notability guidelines.

I would also note that any article about him would not be "his page", but a page about him. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell about people. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Amunnagkumar, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is really only one answer: more and better cited sources. Currently the draft cites only two sources. One of them has only a single brief paragraph about Reddy. The other is entirely about a beauty award won by his sister, and not about him at all. That might be a start for an article about the sister, but is not relevant to an article about Reddy. Do not resubmit until you have found and cited in the article several independent published reliable sources about Reddy, that discuss him in significant detail. These should not be fan sites, purely local coverage, press releases, blogs or other one-person sites, interviews with Reddy, or things published by Reddy or his associates. The must not be mere routine or passing coverage, or inclusions in online directories or lists. Each such source should devote at least several paragraphs to Reddy or his work. They must together establish that he is notable in the special sense that Wikipedia gives to that term. See our guideline on the notability of actors. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Also note that as Reddy is your friend, you have at least a mild Conflict of interest and must be particularly careful in writing about him here. Any article must be neutral and fact-based, not designed to praise or promote him. Read our guideline on conflict of interest and follow it, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Amunnagkumar. Judging from the words you use, I think part of your problem might be that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. There is no such thing as a "celebrity page" in Wikipedia: there are many articles and some of these are about celebrities. Articles are one kind of page in Wikipedia, so it is not wrong to refer to them as pages; but I think that doing so encourages people to think of them like pages on social media: they are not, they are fundamentally and crucially different. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone hacked into my contributor account - what can I do?

Someone took over my contributor account ... do I have any options? I just registered a new one, but I would like to have access to my history. Please let me know if anyone has any ideas - thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronniebrown2 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ronniebrown2: There have been no contributions from Ronniebrown in a year and a half. Why do you think that your previous account was taken over?

Do you have an email address connected to the previous account? If so, you should be able to recover your password. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: My previous account was Ronnielbrown - the email associated with that account also has been hacked and taken over and Yahoo does not offer any human support for that, they just say to register a new account. The person that did this is just purely malicious - how do I add comments here? I just edited the source to add this in, is that how you are supposed to do it? ronniebrown2 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That account has only made one edit in two years, and had only 163 other edits before that. The best course of action would just be to post a note on the user page for your current account that you used to edit under that prior account, and maybe leave a note on that page that the account was compromised and a link to your current account. There's really not much we can do beyond that because we don't have any means of verifying who you are. You might want to add a (filled-out) Committed identity template to your current account so that you can recover that one in case of any future incidents. Instructions for getting a hash for that template (do not put your raw, unencrypted personal information in the template) can be found here or here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Pro pic

How to upload profile pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. YuvaKrishna (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, G. YuvaKrishna. The copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, should upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, using the easy upload wizard they have there. Please be careful about the use of the word "profile" because Wikipedia is not a social media site, and we do not have profiles. We have biographies of notable people and userpages for Wikipedia editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Abusive Admin

I have just started editing mostly on the talk pages. I am getting threats from an administrator who seems to have an agenda. I made some suggestions and this person attacks me.KirinMagic (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I would highly advise you to take their advice, or you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

But their advice is a threat. it is on the talk page and it is a suggestions. Are you saying an administrator can threaten. I thought that was against Wikipedia rules. Sounds like he is an Antifa facist himself You could block the administrator insteadKirinMagic (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You have not been attached, KirinMagic, nor threatened. You have been editing on some rather controversial topics, including at least 2 which are subject to Discretionary sanctions. This is a general rule, not for you alone, and not only for those of a particular PoV. You have engaged in disruptive editing, adding negative content without citing a reliable source that supports the statement. You have added outright defamatory content to at least one article, which was reverted and revision deleted. You have been warned that continuing in this pattern will lead to a block. This is a proper warning, and not at all abusive. I advise you to heed it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will add that Sounds like he is an Antifa facist himself is a personal attack. Makign such attacks is in and of itself grounds for a block, KirinMagic. Comment on content, not on contributors, and do not engage in Casting aspersions. All you need to do is edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies, and there will be no blocks. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Des check my talk page. And I put one edit on a main page and it had two sources and had one poster agree. Calling Antifa a hate group is like calling the KKK a hate group. Since when is the ADL not considerate a legitimate source? I advise you three to respect the rules as well.KirinMagic (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked KirinMagic indefinitely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) KirinMagic, I read your talk page fully before posting in this thread, and several of your recent edits as well. The merits of the edit(s) are for the article talk page, but it is my view that the ADL did not say that, at least not in the cited source, and your other "source" is nothing of the sort. You need to back off on this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This account is a sockpuppet of User:MagicKirin, who was blocked indefinitely way back in 2006 for engaging in the same type of behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Who is vandalizing Secretprojectrevolution, if anyone? I stand accused. What makes which edits vandalism?

Good thing I'm anonymous. This vandalism accusation seems to be a slander! --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Another IP editor incorrectly described your edits as vandalism. However, you twice tried to add a BitTorrent link that does not function properly. I tried the links without success. So, it was correct to revert your edits, although the reason given was not correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP Editor ....170. vandalism is an edit intended to harm the project, intentionally introduce misinformation, intentionally remove valid sourced information, or the like. Classic blunt vandalism is the replacement of an entire article or section with profanity. subtle vandalism can be changing a few numbers in a table so that they are no longer what the source said. In short intention is important. Any change that is intended in good faith to improve the project is not vandalism.

However, as Cullen328 explained above, many edits that are not vandalism are nonetheless nor appropriate and should be reverted. Inserting non-working links is one such case. and as per WP:ELNO, most BitTorrent links are not appropriate even if they work.

Please be careful with terms like "slander". We have a poli9cy against making legal threats on Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The vandalism accusation still hasn't been retracted.

This bullshit accusation that I added a link that does nothing seems to be levied by people without a bittorent client. In a normal system with a normally-installed bittorrent client, the client starts; I tested it before saving. Again, if there's something wrong with this magnet link on wikipedia, show us one that does work and we can compare. Seems some other users are fighting over it now... 50.201.195.170 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The other IP editor who accused you of vandalism has been blocked and experienced editors have acknowledged that your edits were not vandalism. What more do you want at this point? Have you read WP:ELNO? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I was coming here to make note of it, but now I see the account of the person who accused me of vandalism has NOT been blocked, and is defending their telling me to fuck off and claiming I was, I kid you not, spamming! : https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IndianBio&diff=prev&oldid=846201311. I will. What more I want remains clear. In a normal system with a normally-installed bittorrent client, the client starts; I tested it before saving. Again, if there's something wrong with this magnet link on wikipedia, show us one that does work and we can compare. And deal with that account? 50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I delete User:Ejey adroit?

How can I delete my user page article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejey adroit (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ejey adroit and welcome to the Teahouse! Only administrators can delete pages, so I have gone ahead and treated it as a U1 deletion request (meaning you requested it) in addition to the fact that it was a copyright violation (G12). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let us know. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Translation from 'Books' section of Japanese WP article - help wanted please.

I have done my best to translate the titles of Hideo Haga's many books from his Japanese WP entry into English using Google Translate. I am not certain how accurate the result is, or whether I should simply have transcribed the original titles using the original Japanese text instead. What is the usual procedure? Can other editors fluent in Japanese assist please? Jamesmcardle^(talk) 08:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd go the extra mile, Jamesmcardle, and first:

1. Check if some of these books have actually been translated. I.e. 『日本の祭』 is probably Japanese Festivals. 『ラ・フィエスタ 世界の祭りにこがれて 芳賀日出男作品集』 may (or may not) be La Fiesta: All the World Loves a Festival.
2. Next, check if secondary sources have already translated the titles of Japanese works. I.e. Sons of God, Worshippers of God is given, probably for『神の子神の民』.
3. Then, give the rest in the original Japanese and, optionally, romanization and/or your translation. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Finnusertop. I'll check his titles on Worldcat and hope the dates and my rough translations line up. Good to know you think it ok to use original Japanese for those for which I'm unable to track down a reliable translation.Jamesmcardle^(talk) 10:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious deletions (twice) of my contribution

I've twice had the same contribution deleted without explanation from "OKEx" since April 22, 2018.[2][3] My contribution is half a sentence that cites a study critical of the article's subject, a cryptocurrency exchange. For various reasons, I suspect the deletions were made not to improve Wikipedia but to improve that company's public relations, foremost among them my discovery that the first time my contribution was deleted, the entire article had been overwritten by copying directly from the company website's "About Us" page, and without identifying the company as its source.

Any recommendations for how I should pursue this? It's possible that the company is perpetrating a fraud and covering it up, but it's also possible that my seemingly credible source is wrong and being unfairly critical of the company, or at worst deliberately seeking to harm the company. No one will discuss it with me.[4][5] I refuse to engage in an editing war, but I also want to help protect Wikipedia from abuse. Adelphious (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

When someone deletes referenced content, with the edit summary "Made minor introduction changes", it certainly looks suspicious. I see you have started a discussion on the talk page, as is recommended. I suggest you wait a few days, then if you get no response, restore what was removed. Maproom (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Maproom: Thanks for responding, Maproom. The second deletion ended the sentence (and paragraph) with a comma, suggesting the deletion was accidental. Furthermore, my latest talk page comments date May 23, whereas the second deletion occurred later, on June 7. I therefore have no reason to think that editor will see my talk page comments, and some reason to think the edit was accidental. Does that make a good case for reinstating my contribution now, or would you still suggest that I wait a few more days? Adelphious (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

forgot both username and password

Does anyone know what can be done if one forgets one's username and password. I have tried everything and it rejects me every time. There must be a way to retrieve one's username so one can create a new password. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:4048:BA00:DD2B:8FC:95E1:D505 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you assigned an email address to the account, no.

Do you remember any of the pages or articles you edited with that account? If so, you might be able to figure out what the user name was.

But again, if you did not assign an email address to the account, it's lost. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

One practical approach is to click the "View history" tab of an article you contributed to in the past and find the name associated with your contribution. More general advice offered by many security experts is to use a password program like KeePassXC that stores all your passwords in an encrypted form accessible by one master password. So long as you keep a backup (e.g. via email) of your tiny password database (a few dozen kilobytes in size) and keep a written copy of your master password someplace safe, you'll never lose another credential pair again. Adelphious (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

References

I have made several references/citations, etc. throughout a draft article. Is there a way that this can automatically populate or do I need to create a specific reference section typing up each reference one-by-one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mattketchen: You can repeat a single reference throughout the article by naming it.

For example, <ref name="somethingsomething">{{cite book|title=Book Name|last=Surname|first=Author|publisher=Company}}</ref> could be repeated in the article as <refname="somethingsomething" />. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Mattketchen. Reference sections are automatically created and populated when you use the inline syntax <ref>{{...}}</ref>. See the Examples and Variations sections of Wikipedia:Citation templates for inline and other approaches to citation. Adelphious (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Dori Monson

Is what is going on, on this page enough to report the user OnceASpy for edit warring? They are trying to downplay a controversy by saying the show is a comedy one but its political and what they keep adding is unsourced. I'm not the only user to revert them and have warned them for warring on their talk page and tried discussing on the articles talk page but they just keep adding it back in. I don't really want to get myself in any more trouble by reverting it again as unsourced. NZFC^(talk) 20:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing Wiki Pages Offline

I plan to create approx. 40 pages for the architect C. N. Otis

I plan to clone the following pages from Frank Lloyd Wright as a starting point and then edit that structure to apply the content for Otis and his 36 buildings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright (edited for Otis content)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frank_Lloyd_Wright_works (edited to link to Otis's 36 buildings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_D._Martin_House (cloned/edited for 36 buildings)

What is the best working environment to clone the source code for the above pages and then revise for the Otis content ?

This working environment should allow for linking among the 40 pages to test everything before submitting the 40 new pages for inclusion in wikipedia

I have tried Wikidpad and Zim but they don't seem to allow the source code as a starting point

Any advice would be appreciated

But no, I do not have any need or interest in starting "small" by editing existing pages my sole goal is to create these pages for Otis

Thanks

Lew Lewis buttery (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Article on Emanuel Rubin

Hi,

I have been trying to create an article about Dr. Emanuel Rubin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emanuel_Rubin), a pathologist who made an impact in the field of pathology research and education. I wrote the article using the existing article about James Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson) as a template. I have added all the sources from the internet I could find. Also, I asked Dr. Rubin to photograph some of the evidences, so to support the article with proofs.

Nevertheless, the article did not pass the review, and at this point I need some help to correct it. I am not sure how to make a neutral point of view and other requests by the reviewer. Please see the comments I got: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emanuel_Rubin

Thank you for your help!