Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

GreenMeansGo, 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

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

We have many articles which do not meet our standards - usually because they were created some time ago, when the standards were less rigorously applied. "Other stuff exists" is never accepted as a valid argument. If you find an existing article does not establish the notability of the subject you are encouraged to:

• Tag it with a template such as {{notability}}
• If you are willing to spend the time, look for suitable sources for it, and add them (or suggest them on its talk page)
• If you can't find any, nominate the article for deletion on the grounds that if you can't find suitable sources, the subject probably doesn't meet out criteria for notability. See Deletion process.

Given what you have revealed about yourself, you may have a conflict of interest in involving yourself in those articles, but provided you are open about who you are, and you are seen to be trying to apply Wikipedia's standards, rather than attacking the competition, I don't see a problem. --ColinFine (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, as always, Colin.

I certainly don't mean to come across as attacking other TV shows; quite the opposite. I was merely addressing the notability question by comparing this particular TV show to others that have pages by citing the industry's governing criterion for measuring notability of TV shows -- namely, audience reach.

There is another consideration I neglected to include when addressing the notability question in my earlier response -- incomplete if not confusing information. When one searches "Matter of Fact" in association with a TV show, they find this page about an Australian TV show:

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

Again, this is in no way to suggest any de-legitimization of inclusion of the Australian show named "Matter of Fact" -- rather to argue it raises the merit of a page (of whatever length) clarifying that there is also a US TV show -- to "supplement the record," if you will.

Once again, I appreciate not only your time, patience and guidance, but your acknowledgement that (admittedly after a couple of fits & starts in terms of format/protocol) I've been forthright about my COI and tried to adhere generally to Wikipedia standards.

I would like to submit my article for consideration but I wanted to address the lingering concerns you raised before doing so. I'm happy to address any additional questions or concerns prior to submitting -- or, if you feel I should go ahead and submit, I will do so.

Thanks again.

Tcampo123 (talk) Tom —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

Hello? Again, the link works for me; what seems to be the problem? As I said when I added it, "Obviously the Officially released BitTorrent should be included"--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear IP, I think that next to the youtube link, an inclusion of http://bundles.bittorrent.com/madonna-revolution/ might be suitable as an html/plain-text landing page. Both the youtube and that seem to be ‘official sites’ of the distribution. The magnet link is not as suitable link. And no, it is not obvious that it should be added, our rules are stricter than that, and is still subject to WP:EL. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose http://bundles.bittorrent.com/madonna-revolution/ is a reasonable alternative, so lets go with that. Any objections?

PS Your comment is confusing. A lot of typos? WP:COPYVIOEL isn't a problem since this the torrent is official; I see nothing at WP:EL that says magnet links or links to torrents are disallowed categorically. As I see it, it is obvious that there's no good reason not to include a link, assuming one is aware that it is a link to an officially released clearly legal, clearly notable torrent. You are crazy if you think you can tell what's obvious to me better than I can. You are welcome to your own opinion but you have no business telling me what mine is. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:11, 20 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.[1][2] 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.[3][4] 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)

I gave it some more thought. The comma ending suggests an accidental deletion, and the "Made minor introduction changes" confirms that deleting it was not the editor's intent. Assuming good faith on the editor's part, the deletion was most likely accidental, and correcting it would therefore not be edit-warring. I'll reinstate the deleted reference now. Adelphious (talk) 21:44, 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)

Just a little suggestion anonymous user, what you are describing happens quite often. When this occurs, it will be fine if you create a new user name. Immediately after you create your new account, post a note to your new userpage stating that you had to create your new user account because you forgot your old username/password. Other editors patrol new account creations for users who create multiple accounts for questionable reasons. By explaining your reason for creating a new account, you can usually avoid being blocked from editing. Please write down your new username and password so this doesn't happen again. Creating a third username may be questioned. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I would also add that if you do remember your old details after editing on a new account, either abandon the new one or don't go back. Otherwise you'll be accused of sock puppetry. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:38, 24 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)

Hello NZFC and thank you for leaving your comment here at the Teahouse. The Teahouse is the place to answer questions from new editors about editing rather than reporting difficulties with other editors. I know it can frustrating but you can probably get a better answer from other editors who know how to deal with this kind of problem. Your contributions are still are appreciated. I see that you tried to work out this issue with the other editor on the the article talk page. You may want to leave a note for administrators at WP:ANI but be cautious and stick to the facts so that you aren't the one that gets 'in trouble'! Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:50, 23 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)

Hi Lewis buttery and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest not doing what you propose. Instead write the articles on Wikipedia one at a time, maybe just as stubs to begin with. Use your sandbox - you can create multiple sandboxes with any names you choose in your user space and link to them if you wish. See Help:Sandbox tutorial. You will need to show first that Otis meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, that is already well known as shown by multiple published references in reliable sources. See WP:CREATIVE for the standards. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

As a former systems analyst/programmer I don't see the need to re-invent the wheel when the entire structure is already there for me to use by cloning the FLW pages. I will find a way to do this .... Lewis buttery (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

By "clone the source code" you presumably mean "copy the Wikified text" (where "Wikified" means "using Wikipedia formatting of links and styles".) That is a very different thing from simply using the same structure as the previous articles; emulating the structure is fine, and you can easily do that by copying the table of contents, changing the headings, and using that as a skeleton for your text. Basing a new article on the text of a previous article is extremely inefficient. You must "reinvent the wheel" as far as the textual content goes. You cannot copy someone else's sentences verbatim to a new article, even if they should fit the content of the new article. You also cannot copy sentences and change a few words to fit that content. The text has to be written in your own words (except for direct, attributed quotes - but that does not apply here) and rewriting a text based on existing sentences is much more time consuming than simply starting with the information and writing in your own words. Even paraphrasing a single sentence can be frustratingly slow compared to writing a sentence from scratch, because it is an extra effort to completely disregard the phrasing and structure of the original sentence. This is not computer code, it is human language, and so different principles apply. (In addition, Frank Lloyd Wright is rather a long article and so would be impractical to use as a model for that reason.) More information here. --bonadea contributions talk 06:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, @Lewis buttery: the article Calvin N. Otis exists (as mentioned on your talk page, another editor created it as a well-sourced start article to help you out) and you will not be able to replace/overwrite that entirely with something you have created offline. --bonadea contributions talk 08:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that is not good news at all - I know David was trying to help by creating that stub but if I do create the complete set of pages for Otis then there needs to be a merge as I will have reams of content for Otis's bio than that stub provides

am I to understand that each time pages for a "New" architect (for example) are to be created they must be done from scratch ? I find that seriously hard to believe :( Lewis buttery (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lewis buttery: The vast majority of any Wikipedia article is continuous prose. There is very little markup or "code" (templates etc.) and so it doesn't make much sense to begin by copying an existing article. Some people do—and you are free to—we're just saying it's not very efficient.

As to your original question, you can write wikitext offline in any text editor, but again it doesn't make much sense to do so. Wikipedia is designed to be an iterative and collaborative project. Don't think that you have to upload finished articles or test things beforehand. You can just start writing the articles "live". Mistakes are easily fixed by you or others. That's how it works. – Joe (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I give up on Wikipedia I will plan on creating the Otis pages as webpages

I do NOT want to reinvent the wheel (structure) of these pages Lewis buttery (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Lewis buttery, what a fascinating problem! You are in the right place because you are a new editor wanting to make significant contributions. I can tell you that I work extensively off of Wikipedia to create content. I began to be concerned because it seemed that some editors were taking an intensive interest in what I considered to be drafts and works in progress. My drafts were critiqued and I didn't want to waste time responding to criticism by others and I desired a private space.

One way to see if your off-wiki draft is formatted correctly before anyone else sees it is to paste it into your sandbox and select preview so that you can see how it will appear when it does become an article. After you see the preview, just cancel the whole edit. That is how I check to see if I've coded my new article correctly. I've even used Word to draft up such articles. You probably will want to keep a copy of your article offline anyway.

You can also have your own wiki! I am not endorsing any commercial hosting companies but there are some available who will host your wiki for $. It can then become personal draft space for you to work in. I like your idea about using another good article as a template and I do that all the time! Once I am satisfied with my off-wiki article I just paste it into Wikipedia. Please know that your contributions are appreciated and valued. If you need any other help, please leave a note on my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:02, 23 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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranggio (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Pranggio. Welcome to the Teahouse. It's late here, so I'l keep this short. No doubt others will comment, too. This article is far too long. Too long for me to read through, to be frank. "Less is more" - so please cut out all the waffle. The lead paragraph only needs to be about three lines long, explaining who this person is and why they're notable. Give citations to support every key fact like awards and honours. i.e. prove they meet our notability guidelines for living people. There's lots of detailed biographical stuff which is uncited. Why is that? Please don't write from personal knowledge. Use only what published sources say - and these must be independent of the subject, not based his own words inside a book cover. I hope this helps - I suspect he may well meet our notability guidelines, but right now, yes, this article seems to much like an advert or a eulogy. Focus on the world-wide impact of his textbook, and supply sources to demonstrate this, if you can. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pranggio. As an acomplished academic Rubin should have an article, but everything in it needs to have been published elsewhere in a reliable source. I have a guide to writing articles about professors here that might help. I've added a link to Rubin's curriculum vitae and a link to his faculty web page at the end of the draft. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Confusion regarding Creative Commons

Hello, I recently uploaded many pictures on Wikimedia Commons, but some of them have been nominated for deletion. Those pictures are all screenshots from a Youtube video which shows that it is under Creative Commons 3.0. The video says "Do Not Re-upload" but it is released under CC 3.0 so I'm confused now. Didn't the uploader simply mean that the video shouldn't be re-uploaded anywhere? Because I've always uploaded screenshots from videos released under CC 3.0 and they've all been approved in the past. Can somebody please clear up this confusion? Jesstan01 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Jesstan01, great to have you back at the Teahouse. Good question, too! I'm afraid we can't resolve or formally advise on issues that relate to Wikimedia, as this has it's own separate rules, and copyright is a complex issue we can't offer advice on. You should really raise your concerns on the deletion discussion pages or, better still, seek broader input on the principle of YouTube's licencing at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. (You could also search their archives for past discussions on this topic (like this one, and no doibt there are others).

However, I can certainly see your confusion. The YouTube video description under 'Show More' clearly indicates a Creative Commons licence (though it is unclear to me whether YT distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial use - their link takes you to this CC licence explanation), whilst the video itself contains scrolling text saying please don't re-upload to any other website, as its copyright. Of course, even under a CC licence, the creator always retains the copyright - the CC licence doesn't give that away...it just requires attribution to be made whenever it's reused. I have had my own YouTube videos downloaded and re-uploaded, which is quite annoying, so I can see why they ask this not to be done. I wonder whether they made a mistake in the licence they uploaded it under? But, there again, other videos on the Bugaboo.TV channel also show the same Creative Commons licencing. Whether screen shots from a Creative Commons upload should be deleted because of that scrolling text is a matter for discussion at Wikimedia, not here. But do feel free to raise the points I've outlined above on Wikimedia, taking care to provide the link to show which Creative Commons licence YouTube is referring to. They will be able to interpret and advise. Sorry we can't. Regards from a K-Pop-rich household. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jesstan01, but Commons is a separate project, and you need to take the question up there, not here. FWIW, I agree that the source appears to be labelled inconsistently, and I do not know how to resolve it. I suggest you ask at commons:COM:VPC. You might also add a comment at one of the relevant sections in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/2018/06/15 explaining that the source claims CC-BY-SA, and that you have asked at COM:VPC. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes and ColinFine: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that Wikimedia-related questions couldn't be asked here. I'll do as the both of you have advised. Thank you for your help! Jesstan01 (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jesstan01: Don't worry at all - best way to learn. There's now a question on that YouTube video asking the same question. Doubt it'll get a response though. Can't imagine who put it there! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Hahaha, who could that possibly be? ;) Jesstan01 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

References

So, and yes this is a newbie question. I've been using VisualEditor to create my first Wikipedia article. I've been putting in reference citations at the end of sentences, paragraphs, specific quotes from authors/experts, etc. I've been inserting the pieces I'm referencing to as I've gone along. However, how do I populate these references sources in the reference field using VisualEditor? I'm not sure if I have to create a Reference list and populate the references one by one, or if there's a way to auto-populate this field. Any advice? Thanks again, from the super newbie.

p.s. I appreciate the welcomes, the advice I've received so far, the patience, and your continued help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Mattketchen Welcome to Teahouse, I could not find any article which you mentioned you have added the references as above besides you work on a few TWA exerices - see here [5]. If you have done so using an IP address prior you signed up, then kindly provide the article name. To show the references cited under the "References" section in an article after inline citations are provided in the body text, what you could do is to add {{reflist}} under the "References" section. Once the edit is saved, then you would able to view them. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove speedy deletion template on Kwao Lezzes-Tyt

I recently had a tag on one of my articles I wrote on a person to be deleted. The Wikipedian said there is a form of advertisement in the writings which indicates some violations in the Wikipedia rules. Changes have been made to the page Kwao Lezzes-Tyt. Can someone here help me with going through the page and getting the template removed?? Shammahamoah (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

You work for FFHypeTeam. This article has been spammed and deleted multiple times. Are you trying to add the article as part of your work? Guy (Help!) 23:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Revdel

Is edit summary deleted in a deleted page?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Thegooduser and welcome once again to the Teahouse.

Deletion and RevDel hide the deleted material from ordinary users and editors, but the material remains on WP's servers and can be viewed by administrators. Some things, removed under OVERSIGHT are removed even deeper; I don't know for certain if that material can still be found by oversighters or if it's really, really gone. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• I read Thegooduser's question as asking whether the edit summary of revdel'd edits can be accessed. Per WP:REVDEL: RevisionDelete can hide the text of a revision, the username that made the edit or action, or the edit summary or log summary. However for 95% of revdels the edit summary does not need to be hidden, since only the edit itself contains a copyvio or doxing or grossly disruptive material. On the other hand, sometimes, only the edit summary is revdel'd. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated

Hi everyone. Really trying to be patient and do everything I can to get Jamie Tate , a very well known and notable producer and mixer in Nashville over the last 20 years ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jamie_Tate ) . It was declined under the pretense that the Grammy claim could not be substantiated ( at least by Wiki standards). So the changes were made. Now I was just advised that a Wiki or Discogs ref is not a " reliable source " . Discogs and All music not reliable? Aside from that, many if not most of album credits are not officially documented by the industry online. And moreover, this guy has received many many official plaques and recognition from the RIAA; one of the few real and legit sources that officially recognize producers and mixers but the RIAA do not keep on online record. So we can't use allmusic or discogs, we can't show documents and awards that are on in his possession and letters from the Grammys or RIAA mean nothing. And what really confuses us here is if you look at many of his peers who have been accepted ( if you need examples there are plenty ) and who have had less success are published without much being referenced , and many being wiki links. So what do we do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.80.186.39 (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2018‎ (UTC)

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse.

Producers are often unsung heroes and one consequence of that is there is very little published about them on which to base an encyclopedia article. In order to meet notability requirements, it's not sufficient to point to their work, credited, award-winning, or important. Without published references, no WP article is possible. A photo of the award, listings of his contributions to Grammy-winning recordings, personal testimonials - all of this falls short of what is needed for an article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kensei Taba

I would like to know the basics of setting up a profile for my instructor Kensei Taba

i am up for deletion of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelsan (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Peelsan. The article in question, Kensei Taba, is an unreferenced biography of a living person. This is contrary to policy and so it must be deleted unless you fix it promptly. An acceptable Wikipedia biography summarizes what published, independent, reliable sources say about the person. Your personal knowledge is not acceptable for the encyclopedia. Also, your article has obvious errors. You wrote that the war in the Pacific started in 1944 and ended in 1948. The correct dates are 1941 to 1945. If you make such obvious mistakes, how can we trust the rest of the claims you make? Please read and study Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Peelsan. Your choice of words "setting up a profile for" makes me think that you have a (very common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. That phrase is appropriate to social media, or a directory. Wikipedia is neither: it is an encyclopaedia. What we do here is not "set up profiles for": instead, we write articles about. An article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them - Wikipedia has very little interest in what a subject says about themselves, or what their friends or associates say about them. If there is little or no material published about them by people unconnected with them, then it is impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about them - the jargon for this is that they are in that case not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

thank you I will work to make it as yo have asked and did not mean any disrespect, and am thankful of this opportunity of your help and guidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelsan (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nicky Summer

Hello, please can you let me know how I amend the page in question so that it is not deleted? Although I had saved it, I had not even formatted it yet :-) thanks for your help. Iona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iona Lewis (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume that this is about User:Iona Lewis/sandbox? If this is intended to be a draft for a new article, you need to read the useful links provided to you on your user talk page, including WP:Your first article. The important thing is that an article must be referenced to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Heinz Nigg

Hi, someone form the help desk suggested to me that I could move the page Heinz Nigg from draft space to article space myself. I did so. Here the linkk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Nigg. Would someone please check if I did that correctly, because I am not very familar with Wiki editing. Best, visualstudies Visualstudies (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Visualstudies. Yes, you moved it correctly. There were just some AfC templates at the top to remove, which I've just done. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Whoever suggested that you to move it was mistaken or confused. The most recent review declined approval of the draft. You need to address the matters raised in the review, then resubmit for further review. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: That is not true. AfC is an optional process and Visualstudies is entitled to create articles in mainspace just like any other autoconfirmed editor. Worldbruce correctly advised them of this at the AfC help desk. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. There is one problem left. One of the pictures of the draft did not move to the article space. Here the link to the photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zürich_Opernhaus-Krawall.tif The photo should be added right after the citation (11) together with the following caption: Still from the video about the Opera-House-Riots. Could you do that? That would be great. Best, Visualstudies (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Visualstudies, you removed that image from the draft yourself, in this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I could sort this out. The photo is back now. Thank you! Visualstudies (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

After I edited the photo I had to redo the changes I did before. And now this text has come back as well: "This article, Heinz Nigg, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon. WARNING: Draft:Heinz Nigg is 14,608 bytes. If it is not a redirect with only 1 edit in its edit history, this may be a "copy and paste" move. To avoid losing the edit history, administrators should consider merging the history of the AfC draft into this article. Non-administrators should consider placing {{Histmerge|Draft:Heinz Nigg}} at the top of this article before removing this AFC submission template." What to do? Visualstudies (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Visualstudies: You re-added the AfC templates that I had previously removed. I'm not sure how. Perhaps you made your changes to an old version of the page (thereby restoring it), instead of the most recent one? In future please use the "show preview" and "show changes" functions to make sure that you're making the changes you intended and no others. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I added the photo to the new version, but it was a photo that I had used in an older version. So maybe that was the reason for the drawback. Anyway, without your help it would have been difficult to get things moving. Thanks to the TEAHOUSE EDIT WINDOW! Best, Visualstudies (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Joe Roe is techically correct, you can move a draft to mainspace yourself. But by doing so, you run the risk of its being deleted. I've tried to check the references in Heinz Nigg, and not found any that are clearly of reliable independent sources; so deletion is not implausible. Maproom (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Here I have another question. Someone added this on the article: "Authority control: a template to link Wikipedia articles to various library catalogue systems". But the template does not seem to work properly. It should link to the libraries where the books of Heinz Nigg are located like the 'British Library' (bit.ly/2DVqks4) or the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (bit.ly/2rZRE2I). Can anyone help me to place the template correctly? Best, Visualstudies (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Stuck creating a basic wikipedia article on Ballerina (programming language)

Looks like I need help creating Draft:Ballerina (programming language) article.

While I have created and edited some wikipedia articles in the past - I am stuck with that one. :)

I believe that this programming language has enough traction to deserve an article of its own:

• It is an open source project that already has 224 contributors,
• IDG listed it as number one in their "Top programming languages you should try".
• There is an upcoming BallerinaCon conference in July,
• There are articles in The New Stack and InfoQ - these are well-known and well-regarded in the tech community - just see the number of wikipedia articles already using InfoQ as a source.
• It is supported in Microsoft developer tools,
• Already referenced in some other wikipedia articles, e.g. Comparison of programming languages.

Thanks in advance! Dmitry — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSotnikov (talk • contribs) 09:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to declare your conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi DSotnikov. Notability is the concept we use to determine whether a subject should have a Wikipedia article, and is concerned purely with the availability of reliable sources on that subject. So most of your points are not something we would take into consideration. However, I'm inclined to agree that the articles in Techworld, The New Stack, and InfoQ, establish notability. I'll publish your draft for you now.

However, if you do have a conflict of interest as Guy suggests, please refrain from editing the article further. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling some experienced editors to prevent edit war

As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dennis_Prager, there is a conflict wherein an editor is forbidding the use of The Atlantic as a source. Since The Atlantic is very reputable and used as a source throughout Wikipedia, I think the editor is wrong. But I don't want to edit-war. So can someone else weigh in? You can also see the issues in the page's history of changes https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Prager&action=history Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Localemediamonitor. The Dennis Prager talk page warns about attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints, and you're recruiting editors who think The Atlantic is a reputable source. I have my own opinion about the back and forth. I'll start a Dennis Prager section on your talk page. Adelphious (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Review and Publish Robert_Miller_Gallery Page

Would it be possible to have more detailed feedback regarding the creation of this page? Any immediate tips on how to improve it?

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

Thanks and Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tns0321 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tns0321: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft currently does little more than state that the Gallery exists and is associated with notable people. Unfortunately, notability by association generally is not sufficient to merit an article. The subject itself must have in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, indicating how it is notable on its own, in order to merit an article here. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Clear Genius

Has anyone heard of Clear Genius? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Mayo (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope. At least, not until I Googled it. Please don't think about trying to create a Wikipedia page for it unless the product clearly meets our Notability criteria. See also WP:PRODUCT. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

References and categories.

For some reason, I creating Draft:Ultra-Ever Dry sees a number 2 and 3 whenever I am calling {{reflist}}, even if the same content is put in the <ref></ref> tags. How do I call reference number 2 twice? And, what exactly is a "hidden category" and what qualifies it as a hidden category? Is it even a category? What makes it so hidden? It is hidden? Like, really? 154.5.169.5 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, IP user. It looks like you've gone and got yourself blocked. But anyway, it's an interesting question which others might like the answer to, and you can use when your block expires. The trick is to give the reference a name, and then call up that name each and every time you want to use the reference. There's a short explanation of the process here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Organization Name Change

I am working on editing the Wikipedia page for The Children's Center for Communication/Beverly School for the Deaf. Unfortunately, the overall page is under the old name of the school, Beverly School for the Deaf. I have been unable to find out how I can do this because the current displayed name is no longer correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Swett (talk • contribs)

Hi, William Swett. You're very welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse, but please don't ask the same question in more than one forum, as you did two minutes later at the  Help Desk. You're are paid to promote your school - but we're all volunteers here, so duplicating answers is not something we wish to encourage. Sometimes it can take a day for a user to receive an answer. That's not an unreasonable time to wait for help, though we normally respond a lot quicker than that. Please also note that you have a clear Conflict of Interest in editing for your school, which you should declare in accordance with the policy I've just linked to. Not only that, we do require you to declare that you are remunerated under our WP:PAID policy. Non declaration can lead to editors being blocked, but it's a simple process to ensure you stay within our guidelines. Finally, in future, please would you also remember to sign every post you make with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. It adds your username, the date and time. That way we know who said what, and when. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Why does my article not meet notability requirements?

Hello all. I recently submitted an article Draft:Chele Farley which was declined on "notability" grounds. According to the guidelines, "Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I provided the editor who declined me exactly that- coverage in mainstream published and reliable sources like Politico, NY Post, NYDN, and multiple local papers across the state - Here are a few examples. She is the *only* other major party nominee in an upcoming election for United States Senate. I understand the basis for the rule of notability when it comes to politicians - not every city council member or county legislator needs an article. However, Farley is running for United States Senate, and thus is an important topic for millions of New Yorkers trying to decide where to cast their ballots in November, and Wikipedia is one of the first places that many of them will look to. She has been covered in numerous publications, both national and local. What else do I need to change to this article to get it published? YankeesFan85 (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi YankeesFan85 -- based on your description and the draft, I agree that it appears Farley is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. While it may help administratively, I think the drafts process is unnecessarily harsh to newcomers sometimes. In general, I think a good strategy for addressing topic-specific criteria is to acknowledge if they are or aren't met, but then always make a clear case for WP:BASIC which overrides any topic-specific notability criteria like WP:NPOL anyways. I'm not too familiar with the drafts process as I never wrote one, but maybe you could edit the article to more clearly point out and use the big name sources you mentioned, add some others you can find, and then resubmit with a note for the reviewer noting what changed but also anticipating what wiki policies apply with a good reason if you think they shouldn't. Best, Habst (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the word of support. I am more than willing to make whatever edits necessary to increase the quality of the article, but I am concerned that the exact same editor will simply decline my draft again (see their talk page), as they have stated that they will not change their mind. What am I supposed to be doing here? YankeesFan85 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with Habst. It is well established that merely seeking a political office does not merit someone an article, which would mean that Farley would need to be notable for something else in order to merit an article, and I'm not really seeing what else would merit her an article. If she beats Sen. Gillibrand(which from what I know is probably unlikely) she would merit an article as a sitting US Senator, but she doesn't as a mere candidate. I understand that Wikipedia is often used as a source of information for current events like campaigns and elections, but it is not a voter guide just as it is not a business guide. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the article to mainspace based on my and Habst's assessment. If someone disagrees with notability, proceed with WP:DEL. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think deletion should yet be considered necessarily, but the article should remain in draft space until the outcome of the election is determined. I've seen this done for other similar articles, and I've suggested this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at Talk:Chele Farley, and further discussion should probably occur there, or at a deletion discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs}

How do I begin

Hello Teahouse friends. Matt the newbie again. So, I'm ready to start my article. I would like to use VisualEditor. I've got my content written and edited in Word. I've cited several noticeable references. But, now what? Do I draft my article in the sandbox and move it over once I'm satisfied? And if so, how do I move it over and publish, or request to publish? Thanks again for your help. Hopefully I'll be providing the help once I learn what I'm doing. I guess you have to start somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattketchen (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Mattketchen, welcome back. No need to rush - take your time (you've still got 14 more badges in Te Wikipedia Adventure to collect yet!) Whilst you can go straight to create a draft through this Articles for Creation wizard, you might find it just as easy to copy the preliminary text into your own sandbox page. You can save those edits (it's called Publish changes - but it's not publishing it into the main encyclopaedia yet). Work on it there, looking at how other people have written similar articles, ad how they're laid out. When you think it's near to ready, you could pop back here for some friendly feedback. If you go down the AFC route, you'll see a special 'submit review' button. One difference is that drafts get deleted after 6 months if they've not been edited, whereas you can keep your sandbox for as long as you like. And yes, you're absolutely right, you have to start somewhere. Most people take the cautious route and start learning how Wikipedia works by making small edits to other existing articles. Creating a new article from scratch is the hardest thing for a new editor to achieve. So, without that little bit of practice and experience, it can be a bit disheartening to be told you're nice new article fails to meet a critical guideline here. Hope this helps - and good luck! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Note also, Mattketchen, that under recently changed rules, if an AfC draft is declined and resubmitted multiple times without "significant progress" towards a finished article, it may subject to deletion if it is judged to have little chance of success. Under the circumstances, I must now advise all new users not to use the AfC process at all. Note that you can make a userspace draft, similar to a sandbox, but with a specific name at a page such as User:Mattketchen/Topic Name (Replace "Topic Name" with an appropriate name for the prospective article). This makes it easier to work on several different prospective articles and keep them straight, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyright ok from heirs: how to clear with Wikipedia?

Help. Back in March, I uploaded my article from my sandbox for comment. I also inadvertently uploaded images of Martha Simpson Eastlake's paintings and sculpture without clear copyright approval. I finally tracked down her niece, Dr. Joan Simpson Burns. Martha had no children. She left her estate to her brother, George Simpson Eastlake (who is on Wikipedia) who in turn left it to his children. His daughter was quite unaware of the copyright issues. See text below. How/where do we do this? I've been away from Wikipedia for some months and having to relearn a lot, so any clear directions are much appreciated! Thanks in advance, Carolyn Leigh

Dear Carolyn, That's great. Marty did some fine art and she was a remarkably wonderful person. I will try to send you some images of her work that I have hanging in my house and that I am very fond of and that I believe are truly art. I'm assuming that whoever has some of her works owns the copyrights to them. You can use whatever I send. You may be interested to know, if you didn't already, that she gave up her art in order to help Bill Eastlake and always said if she would have any claim to fame it would be because of him. Typical thinking of a woman and infuriates me. Ran in our family -- Anne Roe and GGS, Joan and James MacGregor Burns. Bill divorced Marty when she got too old for him; Anne never managed the career she could have had if she had been able to devote herself to it instead of helping GGS, I, Joan, have been working hard to achieve what I should have much earlier, having divorced JMB after helping him for twenty years. Marty thoroughly deserves her own Wikipedia article. Joan Burns — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolynLeigh (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CarolynLeigh, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but You can use whatever I send. is not a sufficient release of the copyright. To be eligible for Wikimedia commons (the preferred location for free images) The image must be released under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA. The license must run to anyone in the world, permititng anyone to reuse the content for any purpose, including commercial uses, without royalty or other fee, and permit anyone to create derivative works. The only restrictions are that th work must be attributed properly, and reusers must release under the same license.

Furthermore, i am informed by an editor who works with the OTRS team (the group of volunteers that confirm such licnese grants) that forwarded emails are no longer accepted in most cases, as they have been faked in too many cases in the past. The copyright owner should send an email directly to the permissions address "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample release email, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the process]], and see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the process whn started by the copyright holder. Be aware that some of these pages speak of forwarding an email to the permissions address -- my understanding is that this is out-of-date.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help in my first article

My hello to all valuable contributor,

After a long research and hard work. I have created an article Spandana Palli. but as a beginner I made a mistake in uploading photo of the subject. some issue has been raised by volunteers and I am unable to resolve it due to little knowledge. I request you all to kindly help me. I am ready to follow all the steps to remove that issue. Please help me. I have great expectation from you.

Bdatech (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You can start by reading WP:PAID. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User denies paid, has changed name (bdatech is a website) and the attempt at a Spandana Palli article deleted. She was contestant in 2018 Miss India contest, but not the winner. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Spandana Palli has been converted to a redirect, but has not been deleted. Should additional sources or reasons for notability come to light, it can be changed back to an article and improved by any editor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

my username was consisting of first letter of my name and Tech represent my love for technologies. but I got notice on my name as bdatech is a website. I don't have any connection with that website. I am an individual. I have changed username in order to resolve issue raised by @331dot. Coming to being paid I have already clarified that I am not being paid for this article. (No one will pay to my type of content writer). I read many articles on beauty pageant in wikipedia and took reference of Sana Dua for my article (as this is my first article). I tried my best to follow all the guidelines. After that I am being targeted from different source on my article, Even on my username also. I was expecting that I will get help from the volunteers but here it difficult to keep leg straight.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am2623 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Am2623 and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry that there was confusion and misunderstanding. Wikipedia now gets quite a lot of paid promotional editors, often wanting to promote marginal "celebrities" or businesses. This has made many volunteers wary.

When you uploaded the picture, you marked it "Own work" which should mean that you held the camera and clicked the shutter button. But the same image apparently appeared on Palli's instagram, which led people to conclude that either your statement of "own work" was incorrect, or that you must be closely associated with Palli if your pic appeared on her site. If the image is to be used in future, that would need to be clarified.

We do want to help new editors who intend to contribute to the Encyclopedia. But many people try to edit in ways that are not acceptable by Wikipedia's standards, and a good many of them get rather stubborn about it. There are good reason fro the various rules and practices that you ran into, but they aren't obvious at first, and in my view we don't do as good a job of explaining them as we might. It is not easy. Are there further issues that I or we can help you with at this time? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate the your concern and thankful to you for your clarification. I will keep your points in mind in my next articles. Coming to nobility of my article, Spandana Palli as a Indian girl, has achieved a lot in his carrier. But unfortunately news coverage is less because of low digital awareness. She is always in local Newspaper (Paper format). Can I use different newspaper as reference. Am2623 (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Am2623. You may use any independent published reliabrl source as a reference. This will include most newspapers. A source does NOT need to be online -- offline printed sources may be used. A source does not need to be in English either, although if equal-quality English-language sources are available, they are preferred. See WP:CITE. For offline sources, you should provide: the name of the publication (newspaper, magazine, or whatever), the date of publication, the title of the article, the page number, the name of the author (reporter) IF that is stated in the publication, and the location of [publication (unless that is included in the name of the publication). A citation Template such as {{cite news}} will offer a convenient way to organize this information, but this is not required. If the source IS online, please provide all the same information, plus a link to the online version. The template does this with the |url= parameter. For an online source, please also give the date it was checked or retrieved. The template does this with the |access-date= parameter. You can read Referencing for Beginners for more details. If you have further questions, feel free to ask here again. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As you instructed I have given reference from newspaper in | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spandana_Palli#the_subject_of_the_article_doesn't_fails_WP:NPERSON | page. Requesting you to kindly edit my article Spandana Palli from redirection. So that I could add more reference in that article. (One of contributor warns me not to edit by myself so please help me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Am2623 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Note that three editors redirected the article in question. You would probably have more luck creating a draft or editing your sandbox.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I delete an account?

Hello. I have an account called Hi im Gosu which I cannot remember the password to. I did not link my email address which was a mistake, I have realised. So I want to delete the account as having two accounts on Wikipedia is not allowed (also because I think the name Hi im gosu in itself is violating the Terms of Use, as there's a popular League of Legends Twitch.tv streamer called Gosu, but I am not this person), but I don't know how to. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks. - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Biscuit-in-Chief. It's not possible to delete user accounts and I don't think you need to. There's nothing wrong with having more than one account as long as you don't use them disruptively or deceptively. I have two. If you stop using your old account (easy if you don't remember the password!) and make a note on your new talk page that you used to edit under that name, you're fine.

I also wouldn't worry about WP:IMPERSONATE because gosu is a generic nickname and the person you mentioned isn't very well known. – Joe (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I'll write a small note on my User Page about me having two accounts. This "not very well known" gosu has 1.2 million subscribers on YouTube and 1.4 million followers on Twitch. Isn't that quite well known?
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Thanks for the answer. - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not matter, Biscuit-in-Chief. You have abandoned that old account, so forget about it. If your two accounts were to express opinions on the same thing going forward, that would be a big problem. But if you have forgotten the password, that is not possible. Forget about it and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I was mainly just curious about all this notability and stuff. - Biscuit-in-Chief (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggested page

Can an admin make a page called William Byron (Stock Car Driver)? Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Cowboysfan3214, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any autoconfirmed user can make a new article, but none should unless there is good reason to think that the subject is notable. Can you supply sources that will pass WP:NBIO or in some othe way demonsatrate notability? Or better yet, why not just create Draft:William Byron (Stock Car Driver) yourself? Any editor can create a new draft. Then see if you can add enough sources to establish notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I just joined so I don’t know how to make pages. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Cowboysfan3214. Click on the red link I added to this thread, and start typing; it is that easy. However, I advise that you first read Your first article, Wikipedia's golden rule, and Referencing for beginners. Reliable sources are the life blood of Wikipedia articles, and they are what is needed to demonstrate that a topic is notable. Without notability, no article will be created, or if created anyway, it will not last long. Citations (also known as references) are how reliable sources are ti4ed to statements in an article, so you need to learn how to do them. I hope that this helps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like William Byron (racing driver) has existed for the last three years anyway. Rojomoke (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I get a page for my friend?

Hello,

I am super new to this. I have a producer friend of mine who recently passed away, he is an Emmy award winner and co-writer and producer for many hit shows in the 90tys and in 2017. At his funeral, someone made a good point. All of his accomplishments are on Wikipedia, but he is not on Wikipedia. Therefore, I would like to know how do I get him a page on Wikipedia?

Thank you for your help Shimira — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nearmira305 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nearmira305. If your friend won a national Emmy award in his own name, then he is probably notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography. If the Emmy was local or given to something he worked on without mentioning him by name, then he may not be notable. It all depends on the quality and depth of coverage in the published independent, reliable sources that describe him and his life and career. Please read Your first article, and come back to the Teahouse if you have other questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Page notability - help needed!

Since March 2017 a page I have been working on Draft:European_Beat_Studies_Network has been rejected multiple times. I do not agree with the most recent notability rejections, which seem borderline and based on semantic distinctions. My argument is that the EBSN effectively is its conferences and publications, and that the sources are independent of the subject, even if they contain testimony from members of the EBSN. Since the conferences have been discussed in national newspapers and elsewhere the EBSN does constitute a notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you apply the rule that all members of the EBSN constitute the subject, then effectively anything written in the media about any of the members can constitute notability material for the network - which is absurd! I hope Teahouse members can see my problem/frustration. The last review rejected the page without mentioning notability (it questioned sources, which turned out to be fine) - so does that mean the issue is now resolved? Can anyone help or suggest ways to improve the article? I expect to be told to give up on this article, which seems a shame... many thanks in advance. Cowmanonemanband (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cowmanonemanband and welcome to the Teahouse.

One of the hardest concepts that new Wikipedia editors have to come to grips with is the particular way WP thinks of notability. They have to get past their preconceived ideas that fame, importance, or other forms of worthiness are good indications of notability.

In order for EBSN to be notable, it has to have some visible impact on the greater world of scholarship outside its particular bailiwick. If we were to see this, it would appear in publications that are wholly independent of EBSN members. If a national newspaper covers a conference but does not go into depth about the organization sponsoring the conference, we don't have a good notability reference for the organization. And press reports based primarily on interviews with the organizers and speakers at the conference fail to be notability references because they are insufficiently independent.

I see that there is an MfD discussion on this draft, but it's unclear how that will turn out. Notability will be discussed, but, ordinarily, lack of demonstrated notability is not a valid reason for deletion of a draft. Minor errors in the referencing syntax and the presence of a few peacock words in the draft should be easy to fix.

When a reviewer declines a draft with more than one problem, they still have to choose a main reason for the decline. I'm afraid that it's not possible to conclude that other potential areas for a decline are resolved unless the reviewer explicitly says so. Reviewers are supposed to consider submissions according to a hierarchy of considerations, but I don't find that this happens consistently.

The fact that this article has been declined so many times (at least 8 times that I can count) is troubling. It means that there hasn't been good communication between you, the contributor, and the reviewers about what the actual deficiencies of the draft are.

So what should you do at this point? At a minimum, you should post your view in the MfD discussion. You should find, at the AfC Help Desk that there are editors willing to go over the draft in a detailed fashion, consider each section and each reference. You should be able to explain there exactly how your draft meets the standards of NORG and that discussion can be a permanent record you can point to when it comes time to submit the draft again. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

As jmcgnh notes, there is a deletion discussion at Miscellany for Deletion, because the draft has been submitted 8 times and declined. At that deletion discussion, I observed that the submitter appears to be trying to bring the draft up to standard, but may be "stuck" and needs outside advice. (Often MFD has an obviously non-notable topic whose submitter is just tendentious, but this is a case where the topic organization may be notable, and where the submitter is clearly trying to bring the draft up to guidelines.) I advised the submitter to come here for that advice. Is someone here willing to try to help Cowmanonemanband? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

There are days when I am willing to go over a draft and give a detailed review; I'm just not up for that at the moment. This draft is now on my watchlist and in my thoughts, so I will likely get around to it if nobody else gets there first. I'd like to see the MfD discussion closed as well. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• If you don’t agree with the rejections (actually “declines”), then move it to mainspace yourself. AfC and draftspace is not required. I recommend that no one use it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Want to expand the article Jarnail Singh (footballer)

Hi,

I am new editor in Wikipedia. While going through the article on Jarnail Singh (footballer), I felt that a new subsection should be added to highlight the fact that apart from being considered as one of the best defenders of Indian Football, his goals in the 1962 Asian Games Football semi-final and final matches helped India secure the gold medal. If a viewer or a reader wants to get an information on Jarnail Singh, the footballer, he/she would inevitably reach this page and would know that he played in the defence but wouldn't know that he also scored goals in the crucial matches which I have mentioned above. I would like to add that subsection mentioning the goals he scored in the Asian Games and their significance. Please suggest how to goa about it and also a suitable heading for the proposed section

Regards, Dipanjan Datta — Preceding unsigned comment added by DipanjanDatta1974 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DipanjanDatta1974 and welcome to the Teahouse.

• The first thing you need to do is identify reliable sources, such as accounts in major newspapers, that describe the matches and Singh's actions in them.
• Next you need to describe those actions. You must be careful to be neutral and not go beyond the sources. If , for example the sources do not say that Sign's actions helped his team win the gold medal, then yiou cannot say that either. You must be particularly careful that the text you write is factual, and doe\s not seem intended to promote Singh.
• Add your text to Jarnail Singh (footballer). A new section entitled "1962 Asian Games" might be a good place to include such text.
• Cite your sources in the text. I urge you to read Referencing for Beginners first. The citations should allow any reader to verify that the added text is factual.
• Optionally, add other info to the article. For example, the ye3ar of Singh's birth, the name(s) of the team or teams for which he played, and the years during which he was active. However, be sure to cite sources for any content that you add.

I hope that is helpful. Oh, in future please sign comments here and on talk and discussion pages with four tildes. (~~~~). The site's software will convert this to a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you set one up) and a timestamp. This is very helpful to other readers of the page, and to some scripts. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Linda Redfearn. How do i create my first page about actress, Linda redfearn and make it stick ?

I was told by member Xx236 that I could not create my first page because it was not up to your standards. Is it because she is not popular enough to be acknowledged on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvn1 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Stvn1, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's because not enough has been written about her in reliable sources. Naturally, "popular" subject tend to be written about in the press, academia, etc. more than "unpopular" ones, so you could say she's not popular enough. But strictly speaking, it's about how much has been written about her, not how many fans she has etc. You can read more here: Wikipedia:Notability. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That might still be the case, but actually Linda Redfearn was deleted because it had no text at all, just an empty page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article David notMD (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi guys,

I had an article rejected as the sources were said to be unreliable? However the majority of the sources were Irish newspapers websites, Official University links to their website, and personal websites of people mentioned in the article? I'm not sure how i can make my sources more reliable?

Is it possible for someone to review my submission through here and offer advice? I'd like to begin adding a lot more articles, but this is a bit of a step back.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corkmusichistory (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's ask the reviewer. Can you be more specific, Chrissymad? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Corkmusichistory. I don't know what Chrissymad will have to say, but I have a few comments:

• None of the cited sources provides full bibliographic information, such as the date of publication, the name of the publication in which the article appeared, or the publisher. This is helpful in evaluating sources, and in fixing linkrot, although it does not of itself make sources more or less reliable, and is not a reason to decline a draft.
• https://tomcreed.org/festivals/ This seems to be a personal site, and so not a reliable source. In any case, it barely mentions Eat My Noise, and does not so much as mention Duffy by name.
• http://www.alexpetcu.com/biography.html is the personal website of someone who worked with Duffy, and so is not independent. In any case it does not mention Duffy by name, and does not seem to mention any project on which Petcu worked with Duffy.
• The link http://www.alexpetcu.com/biography.html is not working for me.
• https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsfilmtv/review-theatre--gentrification-365498.html mentions Eat My noise in passing, with no detail, and does not mention Duffy by name at all.
• https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsfilmtv/a-question-of-taste-peter-power-429812.html is an interview with Peter Power, an associate of Duffy's, and so is not independent. The intro by the reporter mentions Duffy and Eat My Noise in a single passing sentence, with no detail. Even if the interview were independent, it never gives any detail about Duffy or Eat My Noise.
• https://www.ucc.ie/en/news/archive/2014andbeyond/2005pressreleases/headline-1810-en.html is a press release announcing various performances, not usually considered a high-quality source. But it doesn't matter, since neither Duffy nor 'Eat My Noise are so much as mentioned.
• https://www.facebook.com/rteradio1/posts/408031465921229 has only two sentences about the album Broken Conversations. It does confirm that this station made it "album of the week", but has only a single sentence of rather generic praise for it, and never mentions Duffy by name. No cited source confirms that Duffy was a member of The Hard Ground. (This is a Facebook page, which is not a favored site for citations here, but seems to be the official page of a broadcast outlet, so it is considered reliable.)
• http://www.rte.ie/radio1/playlist/programmes/2014/0328/605144-playlist/ confirms that The Niall McCabe Band's album Part of the Light, was album of the week, but has no review or evaluation of it at all, nor does it mention Duffy by name. Indeed again, there is no cited source to so much as show that Duffy was a member of the Niall McCabe Band.

In short, some of these sources do not look reliable, and none of them do much to establish Duffy's notability. Sources that more directly and extensively discuss Duffy or his work would be needed.

Oh Please refer to Duffy by last name in the body of the article, not by fist name, and please sign posts her and on talk pages (not in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). I hoipe these comments are helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC) @Corkmusichistory and Finnusertop: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit account

how can I edit my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyere Ezekiel (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Iyere Ezekiel, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am not clear what you mean by edit my account. You can change many things about how Wikipedia appears and behaves for you at Special:Preferences. Your user page User:Iyere Ezekiel, reads as if it is the start of a Wikipedia article. Please do not do that. It should describe you as a Wikipedia editor. It can say a little bit about who you are, but it should not read like a resume or an advertisement or an article. It may describe your interests or work done or planned here. See our guideline on user pages for more detail.

Oh, in future please sign comments here and on talk and discussion pages with four tildes. (~~~~). The site's software will convert this to a link to your user page (or your custom signature if you set one up) and a timestamp. This is very helpful to other readers of the page, and to some scripts. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hello everybody! If I am right, I guess the Alpine pika does have its record on Wikidata. This is because its class is not mentioned GA but has a question mark similar to the DYK symbol instead. If you could suggest how to amend that I would be much grateful. Thank you! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, {{|Adityavagarwal}}. The Wikidata item for Alpine pika is here: d:Q4524. It has the English Wikipedia article marked as a Good Article; scroll down and look for the "badge" symbol next to the link to English Wikipedia. Why Wikidata uses these badges rather than the Good Article icon is beyond me as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Adityavagarwal. I'm not sure what you refer to. Is it about the icon at "en" at wikidata:Q4524#sitelinks-wikipedia? I see a silver badge https://www.wikidata.org/enwiki/w/extensions/Wikidata.org/resources/images/wb-badges-silver.png?01870 with hover text "good article". It appears to be the normal Wikidata icon for good article. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please review my draft?

I wrote a draft expanding the Wikipedia stub "Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery" for a college writing class I am taking. Can someone please review my draft and provide feedback/improvement suggestions? This is my first time writing anything for Wikipedia. Here is the link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saramichha/sandbox

Thanks so much! Saramichha (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Salutations to a fellow NU Husky, Saramichha! Truth be told, with the caveat that my medical knowledge is scanty, it looks good. You're using straightforward prose, you've sourced things well, this is a good job. Ravenswing 20:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Saramichha: I see (a bit late) that you copy-pasted your sandbox contents into the article Functional endoscopic sinus surgery by this edit. I understand that it was a bit hard to edit the live article especially if you need to separate your own contributions for grading. However, if you intend to edit other articles (which I sure hope you do), that is usually frowned upon because it screws up the page history (we do not know who edited what when if the various edits happened in a lot of places). It also has some risks, because if you do edits A, B, C and D in one monstruous edit, another editor who disagrees with A and D might just revert the whole thing rather than carve out and save B and C.

It is especially problematic if you copy-paste the result of other editors' edits because of the need for attributing material to their authors (but here it is ok since you made all the edits that you transferred). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• • Thanks for letting me know! I kind of had an idea that I shouldn't be dumping so much in at once, but I didn't really know how else to get around to it. I will definitely keep this in mind more in teh future Saramichha (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating an article

how to create an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iyere Ezekiel (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Iyere Ezekiel: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The process of creating an article is discussed at Your First Article. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You may find the tutorial at WP:ADVENTURE helpful to learn about how Wikipedia works. Most successful new users also started small by editing existing articles, to get a feel for the process. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Masaji Ishikawa

hello i had received a message on my talk page about my article which was not published.I want to know why it was not being published despite being an essential an important article.I am new at wikipedia, lacking knowledge about how things work around here.I really appreciate the helping hand lend by teahouse thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd masum reza (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sd masum reza: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The message you speak of included a reason- that the sources offered do not indicate how the person is notable. To merit an article here, a subject must be written about with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. You may find reading Your First Article helpful, as it describes the process and what is being looked for. You may also find using the tutorial at this page helpful. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

An autobiography of the person who is the topic of the proposed article is not acceptable as a citation. References need to be for stuff written about the person by other people. David notMD (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD and Sd masum reza: It is not correct that, An autobiography of the person who is the topic of the proposed article is not acceptable as a citation. Such an autobiography is s Self-published source It is generally an acceptable source, and is not infrequently the best source, about a particular topic. There ar some restrictions on using such a source: it can only be used if 1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2)t does not involve claims about third parties; 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources. Related to point 5 is the further restriction that such sources do not contribute to establishing notabili8ty which must be done through independent sources. That is why other sources should normally be sought first. Then, once notability is clearly established, self-published sources can be used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledging I misinterpreted guidelines here (and at another Teahouse comment). Per DESeigel, the article still needs independent sources to establish notability according to Wikipedia's rules. David notMD (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Notability Question

Hi all. I created an article, a few days ago somebody checked it and added the following: I have since edited it and I believe it should now be fixed. My question is, what is the process now? As I am unsure what I must do. Many thanks for any help, I really appreciate it.

{{notability|date=June 2018}} {{primary sources|date=June 2018}}

Article created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercharge:_Unboxed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconik123 (talk • contribs)

@Falconik123: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The sources added to the article still seem to be primary sources; primary sources do not establish notability. What is needed are independent reliable sources that have chosen to write about the game with in depth coverage. The sources in the article currently seem to be press release type articles or blog postings. There is no hard deadline to resolve the tags, though the longer they are there, the more likely deletion will be proposed for the article. I would suggest that you continue to look for appropriate sources. If you cannot find any, it could mean that the game does not merit an article at this time. I noticed that you are part of the video games WikiProject, perhaps users there would have suggestions for you. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the reply and for explaining the matter to me. I think I understand now. I actually never knew how addicting creating Wikipedia Articles can be, especially given the fact that I am contributing to something great, it's a topic I enjoy and helps to improve my writing! Anyways, I realise you'll be very busy, but I took your advice and did some more digging. If I have understood correctly, I have now found and added more "in-depth" coverage references. Would it be okay for you to check and see if this has now improved? Thanks once again and take care. If not, I'll jump on over to the video games WikiProject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconik123 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett has removed the templates from the article, so I think that answers your question, Falconik123. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconik123 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone review/edit "Robert Malenka" article?

I just added quite a bit of information on Robert Malenka's page for one of my college classes. If anybody could edit it that would be much appreciated!! Here is the link to my article: [[6]]

And to my sandbox User:Madelinehartman/sandbox

Madelinehartman (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• The article improvements look good to me, Madelinehartman. Another editor added some links and touchups, but that's pretty clean prose and well-sourced. Ravenswing 20:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

But we already have an article with this name here Robert Malenka. Theroadislong (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That's the article that Madelinehartman has edited, Theroadislong. This isn't a question about a draft for review, but about additions to an existing article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry... I'm not the sharpest tool in the box. Theroadislong (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Sorry I should have made that more clear User:Theroadislong

main articles vs not main articles

The article on Child [[7]] has a section “Child mortality” and that section has a kind of sub-heading in italics that contains blue-letter links that lead to other Wikipedia articles, it says: “Main articles: Child mortality and Infant mortality”. My question is whether there is a manual-of-style regarding determining what gets labeled a main article? What is the opposite of “main”? (is it “sub-article”?) What criteria decides whether an article is “main” or “sub”? Thank you. Wenceslauscloud (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wenceslauscloud. I don't think there's really an opposite of a main article. Rather, each article is the main article for a more or less specific aspect of an overall topic. So, in this case, Child is the main article about children, whereas Child mortality and Infant mortality are the main articles for those more specific aspects of the topic, which Child can only summarise. See Wikipedia:Summary style for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, Cordless Larry, I appreciate your thoughtful response. So, if the question is: “What determines which of two articles is the main article?” — which seems like a fundamental and defining question for an encyclopedia — apparently the answer is that there are no guidelines and no principles. So, if someone thinks (for example) that an article on "victims of violence" is a subset of "weapons", and another person thinks that it is the other way around, and a third person thinks the question is not proper … then Wikipedia’s answer to all three is: “argue it out”. The same answer would apply to anyone who thinks that “your philosophy is a subset of my religion”, or “your newspaper is a subset of my political party.” One problem, it seems to me, is that “argument” is not the best "tool" in Wikipedia's "toolbox". It often seems to be the turf of trolls. But perhaps that's just the "nature of the beast".

So, if an editor sees an article wrongly tagged as a “main article”, I guess the editor can simply edit to delete the tag, and then of course, wait and see if anyone disagrees? Wenceslauscloud (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Wenceslauscloud, the main article hatnote always determines the relationship between a section and an article. What it says is: "there is an article matching exactly the subject of the section you are reading". So no, Child is not the "main article" of any section in Child mortality, unless there was a pointlessly off-topic section about what children are.

The best piece of guidance can be found on the template's documentation page, here Template:Main. As it says, the template is quite often misused. Often Template:Further information is intended. Often it's worth changing the "main article" template to this "further information" one.

The confusion here is probably that, to reiterate, the main article hatnote determines the relationship between a section and an article, so it's relational, and not absolute. The "main article" of a section called "Causes" in World War II is Causes of World War II, although it's evident that World War II is the larger topic. This kind of hierarchical, absolute organization is represented by Wikipedia:Categories. It's confusing because the "main" article is often something that is hierarchically below the article you are reading. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Finnusertop, got it. Wenceslauscloud (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted images question

Hello everyone,

Recently I approved James Cyriax with page curation, but the article wasn't quite where I wanted it to be, and so I decided to have a go at actually editing article content (I usually stick to the GOCE and NPP). I found several images of the man in question, such as this one, this one, and this one, but I am not sure if any of them are considered fair use or not. All of the images appear to be from a source other than the hosts of the content, but do not provide a source. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Non-free content page mentions not to use non-free content of living people, but does not mention the deceased. Thanks for any help, Xevus11 (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Xevus11 see WP:NFCI§10 of that page. This is a standard use of non-free images. The main requirement is that you have made a reasonable effort to find free photos first, but didn't find any. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

FinnusertopAh, missed that. Thank you! Xevus11 (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Recently edited Alex Ozols then it went up for deletion

Hello, new user here!

So I recently got into Wikipedia its a little confusing I am still trying to figure it out. I recently made an account and I am trying to get my edits up so I had my TV on in the background and I saw a lawyer on there that I see weekly talking about cases in San Diego. I thought ok I can maybe add edits to his page. So I go to it, add some citations where they were lacking I think like 2 or three and the next day the article is being considered for deletion. I then was like ok well this is cool because its a learning experience for me and I can learn more about wikipedia. So I read a ton and I posted my "keep" opinion on the talk page for it.

When this type of thing happens, what happens next? how long is it considered for deletion? who makes the final decision?

The last question is, did this happen because of any edits I made. I have never met this attorney but I have seen him at least 50 times on local news in one week handling a case and now usually weekly. He is probably the most well-known lawyer in all of San Diego and handled our biggest criminal case ever in San Diego history. I would feel terrible if me trying to add to the page messed things up for his page.

Thanks for creating this awesome place for new users to ask questions !Californiadreamin87 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Link: Alex Ozols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Californiadreamin87, welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Ozols, usually for a week or more. Eventually an admin, or an experienced editor who is not an admin, will "Close" the discussion, and mark it as "Keep", "Delete", or "No consensus" (or there are some other less common possible outcomes). If the consensus is to delete, then and only then will the article be deleted. Note that it is not just a matter of counting up the number in favor of one outcome or another, but the strength of the arguments, and the degree to which each is soundly based in Wikipedia policy. Often, and probably in this case, the key policy is notability and the various guidelines indicating what will or may make a topic "notable". You should be aware that Wikipedia uses the term "notability" in a special sense, rather different from the way it is used elsewhere. Do read the policy page and the other pages linked from it to understand this better.

I don't know why the editor chose to nominate this page for deletion at this time, but I doubt that it was because of your edits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Awesome advice and a great detailed explanation, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiadreamin87 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Minor edits reversed by another user?

I made a couple of very minor edits (removed an errant bracket (]} and fixed a broken link, but another user reversed the changes as not constructive. The page is David Fair. Also, in reversing the changes, the other user reinstated an old photo that had been replaced by a more recent one. Is this acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rudard, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like the other user made an honest mistake. He probably only viewed your latest edit [8] at the time. Your change from "Philly Homes for Youth Coalition" to "Philly Homes 4 Youth Coalition" was unsourced and sounds like a type of vandalism we often get but the odd name with "4" is correct according to a Google search. Since the editor incorrectly assumed you were not constructive, he used a tool which reverts [9] all your consecutive edits to the article. Users who review recent changes have a lot to do and mistakes can happen. You are free to reinstate the edits but I recommend including a source for "Philly Homes 4 Youth Coalition". PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

PrimeHunter is correct, I only saw the "for" to "4" edit when I reverted. Edits such as these are generally done as vandalism, which is why I assumed that this one was. Sorry about that. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it. I really appreciate your help! Rudard —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

How to add a pic to a Commons category?

I recently uploaded File:Glerolle Jean-Benjamin-de-La-Borde1784.jpg. It belongs in commons:Category:Château de Glérolles. My edit attempting to put it there does not seem to have taken. Now what? Narky Blert (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Narky Blert. You uploaded it to the English Wikipedia so it cannot be added to a Commons category. The English Wikipedia has far fewer categories for images, e.g. Category:Images of buildings and structures and Category:Images of Switzerland. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

As a faithful 1:1 reproduction, you could likely upload the image to Commons with Commons:Template:PD-scan (see link for details), although some more information on the image's origin would be helpful (i.e. details about its first publication). Are you sure, that Jean-Benjamin de La Borde (cross-linked in Glérolles Castle) is the engraver? The linked Wiki-article describes an aristocratic musician, but has no mention of any other artistic activities (just checking). GermanJoe (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: It's the same man all right - the name is an unusual one, and fr:Jean-Benjamin de La Borde quotes a letter he wrote from Vevey (about 3km away) in 1783, the year before the engraving was published, which mentions a visit to "la tour de Glérolles". I could find no more details about its original publication. Narky Blert (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not how to add a reliable source properly.

Hello and thanks for inviting me on the Tea House I have a question that how to add a reliable source properly. When I edit any page on the topic Indian Cinema I edit the gross/budget of the film when there is not given or given but wrong so when i want to add a reliable source it shows that it is wrong, I except my mistake that I am not giving the reliable source so please please help me so I can edit freely. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light Of Won (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Light Of Won, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may use any independent published reliable source as a reference. This will include most newspapers. A source does NOT need to be online -- offline printed sources may be used. A source does not need to be in English either, although if equal-quality English-language sources are available, they are preferred. See WP:CITE. For offline sources, you should provide: the name of the publication (newspaper, magazine, or whatever), the date of publication, the title of the article, the page number, the name of the author (reporter) IF that is stated in the publication, and the location of [publication (unless that is included in the name of the publication). A citation template such as {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} will offer a convenient way to organize this information, but this is not required. If the source IS online, please provide all the same information, plus a link to the online version. The template does this with the |url= parameter. For an online source, please also give the date it was checked or retrieved. The template does this with the |access-date= parameter. Note that for an online source, please give the name of the publication, and not the online domain or web address in the |work= or |website= parameter if using templates. If an online publication does not have page numbers, omit them, do not make something up. You can read Referencing for Beginners for more details. If you have further questions, feel free to ask here again. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Embraer

In trying to delete unnecessary periods from the article's infobox I somehow messed the infobox up so it doesn't show properly on the page & I can't see how to revert what I did. William Sherman, Esq. (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@William Sherman, Esq.: You accidentally deleted more than just periods. See Help:Reverting for how to revert your own edits in the future. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. William Sherman, Esq. (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Joe Yuele post

A few months ago, I submitted a bio on a famous drummer friend of mine, Joe Yuele. I received a note that I needed to verify my sources. My source was Joe himself, who provided me with his bio. How do I cite this as a verifiable source? Thanks. -Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Klingtone (talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@J. Klingtone: Even if Joe was a professionally-published media source that anyone else could access (instead of a person who pretty much only you can access), because he is the subject of the article, he's not independent enough to establish notability.

Because you are his friend, you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing or writing articles about him.

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here's the steps you should follow:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

You have another problem, in that a lot of what is in your draft is very similar to a Joe Yuele bio at http://www.judytotton.com/printable/current_promotions/biography_john_mayall.htm That could be a copyright violation, and even if revised, not a suitable reference, as Judy Totton is in public relations, i.e., it is not a published source about JY. David notMD (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD and Klingtone: That is a published source. See Wikipedia:Published, where among the examples of a published source is A webpage on the Internet, including public web forums. Wikipedia:Published says: For Wikipedia's purposes, published means any source that was "made available to the public in some form". The question is whether such a publi9shed source is reliable and whether it contributes to establishing notability. In this case, the page should probably be considered as the equivalent of a press re4lease, which means that it is a self-published source, just like the subject's own web site. That means it is reliable for non-controversial facts about the subject, but not for controversial statements, not for exceptional or excessively self-serving claims, and not for anything about anyone else. It also means that it does not help at all to establish notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

I’d like to edit page WWE do to the fact the they were once called the World Wide Wrestling Federation. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Cowboysfan3214. This is already mentioned in the section "Prior to Titan Sports". If you'd like this to be included in the lead section, post your edit request on the article's talk page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I mean on the template. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, the infobox. Same thing, ask it on the talkpage at Talk:WWE. I don't know why it's not included. Maybe there's a reason. Maybe they just forgot. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

cannot see my post

Lew Sid(born Clinton Derrick Cuffee in Virginia Beach on March 21st., 1990) is an American rapper. Awarded first place in 'Howard University's Hottest music category while attending Howard University in 2012 as a student-athlete, Lew's release 'Whole Squad' caught fire in VA, spreading to clubs in NC, NY, DC, and eventually becoming the warm up music for the Portland Trailblazers NBA home games. 'Whole Squad (with well over 125,000 streams on Spotify) was recognized by Norfolk, VA’s 103 Jamz radio station as the number 3 record of 2016. Posted to WorldStarHipHop, this popular video picked up over 22,000 views in one day. Lew's hot release 'How you Feelin' was reposted by Royce Da 5'9 on Instagram where it was liked by Usher. Featured in numerous Hip-Hop blogs, including Thisis50, Hype- FreshMag, and HipHop, Lew Sid opened for rapper Busta Rhymes and T.I at the Norva in Norfolk and also for rapper Rick Ross in Norfolk Va. in 2016. Known as a strong lyricist in the rap music business, this notable banger is currently working with his indie label Aspire to release future Inspire Music Group originals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helplord13 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Helplord13, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is at Draft:Lew sid. But I'm afraid that, in its present state, it has no chance of being accepted as a Wikipedia article, and if you moved it to article space, it would probably get quickly deleted. Writing a new article in Wikipedia is hard, and I suggest you start by reading Your first article, and go from there. But to give you some pointers about what the problems are with your draft, the main ones are:

• There are no references. Put bluntly, Wikipedia has no interest at all in what you, or I, or any random person on the internet, knows or thinks or believes about Lew Sid: it is only interested in what has been published about him in reliable sources (such as major newspapers, books from reputable publishers, or websites with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking). If you can't find a published source for some information, don't put it in an article, period.
• It is not written from a neutral point of view. Phrases like "caught fire" (unless literal, obviously) and "Known as a strong lyricist" never belong in any Wikipedia article, unless they are direct quotations, properly cited, of reliably published material from people who have no connection with the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello,

I am new to the world editing, need some assistance linking a word to a website on Wikipedia.

thank you, IpMan13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipman13 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Ipman13, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you are trying to add a wikilink to the article Interpersonal deception theory, making the existing word "micro-expressions" link to the article microexpression.

The basic way to do this is by putting the name of the article in double square brackets thus:

[[microexpression]]

but that will display the name of the article precisely, microexpression, and you want it to display differently.

The general method is to put the display text after the "pipe" character (|) inside the brackets:

[[microexpression|microexpressions]]

This will display as microexpressions, but point to the article as before.

One shortcut is that if all you want to change is to add something on the end of the word (such as a plural 's') you can simply write it outside the brackets (without a space):

[[microexpression]]s

displays as microexpressions.

Here there seems to be a problem that the target article does not hyphenate the word, while the link is hyphenated. The best solution to this sort of problem is to eliminate it by making them consistent: if all (or most of) the sources spell it one way, then the Wikipedia articles should spell it that way. But sometimes this isn't possible for various reasons. In that case you'll need to use a piped link, as I think you tried:

[[microexpression|micro-expressions]]

which displays as micro-expressions.

Finally, please sign your posts on talk and project pages (but not articles) with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

New editor question

Heading inserted by ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that have just edited my first article,how will i manage to write the second up to ten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyut Domie (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Vidyut Domie. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. You haven't edited an article at all: you have made some edits to your user page, which is not an article and must not look like one: it is a primarily a place where you may share information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor: please do not try to write an article about yourself there, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. If you're looking for help in getting strted as an editor, I suggest you try The Wikipedia Adventure. --ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

/* External links */

Can you please permit me to add a few useful references to researchers in various subjects under physics on published BREAKTHROUGH RESEARCH papers in journals. articles in researchgate, Principia Scientific International ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmanchiraju (talk • contribs) 23:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Lmanchiraju: - understand that there is a difference between external links and references, with the latter being generally preferable. If you are editing content in an article, and wish to add something based on this research, then cite to it with a reference, provided it is reliable sources. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to edit the main articles. Please permit me to add few BREAKTHROUGH RESEARCH published in Journals, researchgate or Principia Scientific International on subjects of Physics in External links as shown below as an example:

on page Sunlight

External links

I would like to add the title of the paper published and URL:

Discovery of Self ¬Sustained 235¬U Fission Causing Sunlight by Padmanabha Rao Effect,

PLEASE PERMIT ME TO ADD THE ABOVE IN EXTERNAL LINKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmanchiraju (talk • contribs) 23:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lmanchiraju: It appears you are trying to promote this paper. Are you by any chance the author? If so, this whole exchange is considered conflict of interest and promotional disruptive editing.

Aside from that, this paper is not suitable as an external link on the Sunlight page. First, it's too technical to be considered as a useful place to send general Wikipedia readers. Second, it has earmarks of FRINGE science and would need to be vetted by independent experts before we could refer readers to it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a matter of permitting, it needs third party published sources about your research by people not at all connected with your research. Coryphantha Talk 02:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• There are many reasons this would not be included. It's a paper in a predatory open access journal written by someone outside the relevant field of study, proposing a new effect with their own name but which has not been picked up and reproduced by anyone, as far as I can tell. Rao certainly has a well-developed sense of persecution, but Wikipedia is not going to report this unless and until someone else publishes an independent reproduction of the findings in a high quality journal. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Givi Javakhishvili

Is it proper to use the photo of Givi Javakhishvili when he was a baby to illustrate him in the article, Prime Minister of Georgia?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jeromi Mikhael and welcome to the Teahouse.

While I don't think I can give you an exact manual of style or policy that forbids it, it certainly doesn't sound like a useful way to illustrate the article. Are you unable to find any suitable photos of him as an adult? I realize that you can't use most copyrighted photos, but it might be possible to get a photo of him from a public event, put up by someone who has released it under Creative Commons. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

[10]If you see here, the photo is located in the top of the search query, and it is the only photograph to be ensured of its copyright status, and as you see here, there is no photo of him between 1919 and 1954 (the 1919 photo itself cannot be ensured of its copyright status). --Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Creating Wikipedia for my friend

I have content from on own website that is created by me.is any issue on using my own content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansain bashir (talk • contribs) 05:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hansain bashir. Your personal website is a self-published source. It is not acceptable to use as a reference on Wikipedia unless you are a widely recognized expert on the topic who has previously published material through a traditional publisher. Also, you have a conflict of interest in trying to add material from your own website. This is highly unlikely to be acceptable to other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictures

How to add pictures in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbaz khan Tanoli (talk • contribs) 12:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Arbaz khan Tanoli. To add an image to an article, add a file like this: [[File:Example.jpg]] but you would instead add the name of the file instead of "Example.jpg". If you want to upload a file, see WP:UPLOAD but you must be autoconfirmed first. Until you become autoconfirmed, you can use Wikipedia:Files for upload. — MRD2014 ^Talk 12:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Summit

Do We have a Wikipedia Summit coming up in recent times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birsanagarwala (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Birsanagarwala: Wikipedia:Meetup lists some in-person Wikipedia meetups happening worldwide. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Information

Where do y’all get your information from, I’m working on a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorr55 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Books, academic journals, newspapers. It depends on the topic, but Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources always applies. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Editorr55, and welcome to the Teahouse. Would this be about Draft:Ski Mask the Slump God? Some of the sources cited there look to me as if they might not be reliable, but this is an area I do not know particularly well, and I cannot be sure. Note that fan sites, blogs, and other sites run by a single person are usually not considered reliable unless the person is a notable expert in the field. In any case there is no one source or list of approved sources that one must use, but as Finnusertop says above, all sources should be reliable.

Also, please sign posts on talk pages and discussion pages like this one using four tildes (~~~~), although never sign any article. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The issue regarding the page of Vlorë

To whom it may concern.

I just edited the information regarding my home city and also provided sources for it. I do not understand how are Greek Nationalists allowed to do all this vandalism and post articles written by greeks themselves. Don't you think the sources and the information should be impartial? I can find around 50 books written by Albanians about the Albanians in Greece and the Cham Albanians, which have a different point of view than what the greeks have regarding the matter. Nevertheless, not me or any albanian go to greek wikipages regarding cities located currently in Greece to present one sided, biased facts, since we do not edit the greek pages by any means! On the other hand, it appears from these edits from the side of the greeks that almost all south Albania should have been greek and as if we do not belong there!! Nationalism aside,if third parties read the Greek wikipedia pages regarding the cities which were formerly inhabited by Albanians in Greece,they get the idea as if no Albanian ever set a foot there, let alone to be an undeclared minority, and wrongfully classified as a Greek, based on his religion, as it is often the case. On the contrary, if third parties read the pages regarding cities and villages in south Albania, they get the idea as if these places were, are and will be a place where indigenous ethnic greek majority lived there ever since! Please, before allowing such one sided vandalisms to happen, at least double check the sources cited, and the user citing them. At last, i kindly invite you to my city, Vlora and the southern villages and invite you to see that there are no more than 5 villages in the dropull region with a greek speaking majority. I have lived the last 28 years in this region, and lived from Himara, to Vuno and many other villages because of my family, and I can assure you that the overrepresentation and the importance being given to this minority does not have even half of the scale that the reality offers. Last but not least,as already mentioned above, PLESE DO CHECK the truthfulness of the sources provided and the user editing the page, in order to offer a realistic, non biased view to third parties wanting to know more about this region and i URGE you to leave potential political views aside when assessing these pages. I am up for every constructive,objective, non biased discussion on this, given that these editers are trying to give 3rd parties their own views, instead of at least non biased, third parties views, if thot those of the official government of Albania, which strictly speaking, in the wikipedia pages regarding greek cities, the views of the government of Athens are provided ONLY, unlike in the case I just mentioned. Thank you in advance!Gjergj Zogaj128 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Gjergj ZogajGjergj Zogaj128 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Gjergj Zogaj128]. The appropriate place to initiate discussion about Vlorëwould be on Talk:Vlorë which you have done, and was the right thing to do. Your edit on the article Vlorë was reverted because, although you do not like the content that you removed, it was well sourced and neutral. Please read WP:AGF and WP:Civil and come back to the Teahouse anytime you have a question about editing. Coryphantha Talk 16:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Setting up a new page

I was hoping to set up a page for my not for profit organization Human Access Project. We have been in both local, national and international news so I will have plenty of sources to pull from. We are also referenced on other pages within Wikipedia that I can point to.

Thank you!

Willie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangstaoflove (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Gangstaoflove: See WP:COI for why you should rethink that plan.

If you're going to write an article about something else, here's the steps you should follow:

1) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

2) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

3) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

4) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

5) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

6) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

7) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gangstaoflove, and welcome to the Teahouse. I endorse everything Ian thomson has said, but wanted to give you another perspective. Your choice of words "set up a page for" suggests to me that you have a (very common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. That's not what we do here: rather, we "write an article about". This might seem nitpicky, but I think it will help you understand what is going on. "Setting up a page" is something appropriate to social media or a directory: this is neither. An article about your organisation will not be for it (or against it): it is required to be neutral, summarising all views about it in reliably published independent sources. If there happen to be criticisms of it in the sources, these must be given appropriate weight, whether the organisation is happy about it or not. And if there are not enough independent reliably-published sources, then there cannot be an article. This is because Wikipedia has very little interest in what any subject says about itself, and no interest whatever in how it wants to be presented. If the sources you mention are truly independent - somebody with no connection to the organisation has chosen to write about it - they can provide the basis for the article; but if they are merely passing mentions, or are simply reporting what the organisation says about itself (eg an interview, or an article based on a press release) Wikipedia is not interested. Finally, if an article is created, you and the organisation will have no control whatever of what subsequent edits are made to it: you will be welcome to make suggestions for changes to it, but the decision will rest with a consensus of uninvolved editors.

In summary - it sounds as if what you are trying to do is to promote your organisation: that is forbidden on Wikipedia. (Yes, I understand that it is a non-profit. Telling the world about it is still promotion, and you may not use Wikipedia for that purpose.) --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Legion Etrangere

Legion Etrangere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.219.15 (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. What is your question about that redirection page? (I have added a header to separate your posting from the previous section). --ColinFine (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ben Gruber

Hi, How do I find a previous WP:BLPPROD discussion/archive? It seems like the aforementioned article (the title of this thread) was nominated for such, but I don't know what the outcome was and based on the article itself, I don't know if this was a draft article moved too soon or if this was all the author intended to do (it's certainly a stub). I was initially going to mark it for deletion but noticed the prior PROD and wasn't sure if I should just then tag it for *BLPRefImprove* or notify the author for further expansion or what...? Not sure how to proceed... Snickers2686 (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snickers2686, I think there usually is no discussion for a PROD delete proposal. PROD is one of the weakest ways to delete an article, in that anyone except for the original article creator can remove the tag for any reason (without explanation) within seven days and then the PROD is permanently closed. The only difference with BLPPROD, is that you just need to add at least one reference before you remove the tag, which I see someone has already done for Ben Gruber. See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion for further info. So I don't think that specific BLPPROD is anything you need to worry about, though the article can certainly be improved further. --Habst (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Snickers2686, and welcome to the Teahouse. Proposed deletion is intentionally a very liughtweight process. Usually ther is no discussion, and when there is, it is on the article's own talk page. Ben Gruber was proposed for deletion as an unreferenced article about a living person in this edit and the proposal was removed again in this edit after a single citation was added. I don't see any discussion, although you could ask WWGB, the editor who poth placed and removed the PROD tag. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Habst, User:Snickers2686 - Anyone, even the original author, may remove a regular PROD tag. A BLPPROD tag may only be removed when a reference is added, but anyone may remove a regular PROD tag. If a PROD tag is removed without addressing the reason, a nomination for Articles for Deletion often follows. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake about the original author comment. I was thinking about speedy deletion templates. Thanks for the clarification. --Habst (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Rsjcsdg

About this userpage...Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia, Thegooduser. Do you have a question about that (blocked) user's userpage? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

YesThegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello again Thegooduser and welcome back to the Teahouse.

That is a userpage for a user who was blocked as a sockpuppet. While the user page is rather useless, it was present when Oshwah did the block and may have contributed to identifying the disruptive user. Since the contents of the page are not in and of themselves grossly offensive, we don't have a strong need to delete the page. If you see pages like this, often the best course of action is to ignore them and move on. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Found another userpage not sure if it needs to be deleted User:SzymejThegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Teahouse is really not the best place to report what you think are questionable user pages, Thegooduser. WP:ANI might be better. But if you do make such reports here, notify the users involved on their talk pages, just as you would be required to do when mentioning them at AN or ANI. I have notified Szymej on your behalf. I will add that I don't see any reason to delete User:Szymej, not even as much as there is to delete User:Rsjcsdg. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Thegooduser - If you really think that a user page should be deleted, you may nominate it for deletion at Miscellany for Deletion. You will be expected to provide a good policy-based argument for deletion and to defend it. Otherwise the discussion will result in a Keep and you may even be advised that you wasted your time and that of the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Email

How I view the log of emails I've sent to other editors?Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser. There is no feature for that. The email form has a box "Email me a copy of my message". If you select that and the mail reaches you then it may be stored in the archive of your own mail service. It cannot be used to detect previously sent mails where you didn't click the box. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How do I revert edits on my phone so I can fight against vandalism?

Title — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaReen (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JoshuaReen. I do most of my editing on my Android smartphone. I use the desktop site, which is fully functional. When you visit Wikipedia from a phone, you will automatically be taken to the mobile site. Scroll to the very bottom, and you will see a link that you can click to reach the desktop site. Your phone will function like a miniature desktop computer and you can carry out all editing functions, including reverting vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vandalism and Help:Reverting for general information not about mobile devices. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn

I received Draft:Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn and declined it on neutrality grounds. It was at the time clearly written in order to praise its subject rather than to describe him neutrally. Since then the submitter, User:Lettucecup, has posted to my talk page, saying that they hare thoroughly “scrubbed” the article and have referenced and cited it throughout. (I hadn’t criticized the references in my original review.) I am being asked to review the draft again, but I do not normally follow a draft through the review process, and I know that I may be biased after reviewing a peacock draft. (I sense a great deal of enthusiasm for the subject by the submitter, for which the good-faith assumption is simply a great admirer, and I find myself pushing back.) Will another experienced editor please comment on the draft?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I worked with Lettucecup on IRC, trying to explain notability refs and the need for neutral writing, so I feel a bit involved with this draft. The last paragraph seems aimed at exonerating DSK rather than saying something about the subject, MSK. Overall, it still feels rather promotional. I have little doubt that the subject is notable, but the refs to substantiate it aren't well marshalled to do the job. A lot of work remains to be done. Should it just be promoted to articlespace where a presumably larger crowd of editors can rapidly bring it into conformance? I would hesitate to do that on my own authority. [And why ask here rather than, say, WT:AFCR?] — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The draft still needs work. The section on a building in Paris, with only a tangential connection to the subject, should probably be deleted. I assume the intention of the final paragraph is to tell the reader, "no, he's not that Strauss-Kahn". Maproom (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

REFERENCES, Cite Website and article name etc.

How do I fill in the Template? i.e. What tags are essential? Aviva Butt (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Aviva Butt and welcome to the Teahouse.

While you can get away with just a URL, you should try to fill in all of the fields that you can. Title is important. Date is important. Some identification of the source, whether it's work=, website=, or publisher= is important to have, as the the URL itself is not displayed. If there's an identifiable author, please give them credit. Try to reduce the amount of duplication in the cite: don't keep a copy of the website name in the title, as sometimes happens when you copy a title from a website. If the website name and the publisher name are essentially the same, choose one, not both. Since websites are not static, having an accessdate allows someone researching a topic to try to find an archived version corresponding to that date. Saving an archive when you add a reference is an additional step that some people take to nail down a saved version that shows what they were referring to. All of this is covered reasonably well at Template:Cite web. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Aviva Butt Another good way to learn, that I found very helpful, is to take a peek at the cite ref code in one of the articles to see how it was done. Click on the link, look at the different tags and compare the news article with the cite ref to see how the previous user filled them out. They make great examples. Maybe there's one in an article that you're already working on, just scan through it. After a bit it will become easy. Coryphantha Talk 02:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

CONVERTING SANDBOX ARTICLE TO ACTIVE ARTICLE

Dear madam / sir, How do I CONVERT my SANDBOX ARTICLE to an ACTIVE ARTICLE? piquantex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piquantex (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Piquantex and welcome to the Teahouse.

As a very new editor on Wikipedia, you can't do this yourself. With a few more edits, your account will become what is called "autoconfirmed" and you will be able to MOVE your sandbox to an article.

That being said, the sandbox you've been working on is quite far from being ready to become a full-fledged article. One way to get help on it is to submit it to Articles for creation for review. An experienced editor will provide some feedback and, if they feel the article is ready, will accept it as an article. To enter this process, place {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft and save it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Piquantex we have serious problem with the sandbox you've been editing. It appears to be very largely a copy of the subject's "about" page from their website. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

HOW DO I ADD A 'CONTENTS' TABLE?

Dear madam / sir HOW DO I ADD A 'CONTENTS' TABLE? piquantex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piquantex (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Piquantex and we're glad to see you asking questions at the Teahouse.

The table of contents is automatically generated by the Wiki software, but it uses properly formatted section headers as the entries in the TOC. The sandbox you've been working on does not follow the correct convention, but that can easily be fixed. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

HOW DO I ADD A SUMMARY BOX?

Dear madam ./ sir HOW DO I ADD A SUMMARY BOX? - as most articles have on the right upper corner, with a picture and basic info. Thanking you. piquantex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piquantex (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Piquantex and I hope you feel like you're getting your questions answered here at the Teahouse.

The word we use for those boxes is "infobox", which is created using one of the {{infobox}} templates, probably {{infobox person}} in this case. Since the information in the infobox is supposed to be taken from properly sourced text in the body of the article, you should hold off a bit on trying to create one. The sandbox your are working on has no proper references so far and that is a far more important matter to get right than having an infobox. I also suggest postponing the idea of uploading a photo until you can do so without running into permissions problems. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Teahouse edit suggestions to improve article: John Fischer - mountaineer

Dear Teahouse Editors,
I received this message below (see: Quoting), and do want to continue the page because I believe John Fischer made a substantial contribution to climbing in the Sierra Nevada. My article has been criticized for a lack of references which I believe I can correct, however, the references are in out of print books, not ebooks and I have to track those down.

Can you tell me how many references are needed to make the article acceptable?
Also. Can you please suggest content edits that would make this article better for the public and would meet Wikipedia's standards? Link to article. Specifics will help. Link: Draft:John Fischern I have found this article very helpful, Link: Wikipedia:A_primer_for_newcomers but not a specific number of sources.

quotated standard biolerplate G13 notice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quoting: "Hello, Yosemite4. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John Fischer". In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the code. {{db-afc}} If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. In Memoriam A.H.H. What, you egg?. 22:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)"

Yosemite4 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Yosemite4

Hello, Yosemite4, and welcome to the Teahouse. The main thing needed by this draft is to add additional independent published reliable sources that discuss Fischer is some detail, say at least 3-4 solid paragraphs or more in each source. Secondly, remove promotional and emotional text such as John Fischer died June 5, 2010 doing everything he loved. unless it can be supported by an independent source that says exactly that. Even then, it should probably be trimmed. Similarly word pictures such as ...covered in moss, born of the Gulf's humidity. should be removed unless sourced directly. Most stated facts should ideally be supported by a cited inline reliable source, except for obvious easily verified facts. See Referencing for Beginners for more on how to add citations. See You don't need to cite that the sky is blue for more on obvious facts.

The request for speedy deletion was withdrawn within 2 minutes, by the way, but you will be well-advised to continue to improve the draft, and not to resubmit until you have made significant improvements in line with this advice and the advice of the previous reviewer. resubmitting "too many" times without making "significant improvements" can now be treated as a reason to delete a draft. And a draft that sits unedited for 6 months is considered eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G13. (That last is not a recent change.)

Note that references formed using <ref>...</ref> tags should usually be placed inline, where it is clear what content they support.

The previous reveiwer wrote: Could be notable, but reliable sources are sparse or barely mention the subject. Please properly add reliable sources before resubmitting. Thank you. That is good advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to ping Cullen328 as he has written numerous articles on mountaineering, and is a host here to boot. Perhaps he can offer Yosemite4 some topic specific help. John from Idegon (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, John from Idegon. It is hard for me to be neutral on this topic since I too climbed in the Palisades Range in my 20s, including Temple Crag, though at a much lower level than John Fischer. I never met him but certainly heard about him for many years. Make that decades. If you Google "John Fischer" + Palisades, the range he was associated with, quite a few reliable sources come up. It is a matter of reading the best of them, and adding them to the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

How to move an article from draft to my sandbox

I need help in moving article from the draft to my sandbox. The draft has been nominated for deletionUddhav9 (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Uddhav9 and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid we're too late to make a copy of your draft, since it is already deleted. When you're developing something in a sandbox or in a draft, it's often a good idea to make a backup copy on your local computer. Since the reason for deletion was G11 (promotion), you may be able to ask the deleting admin to restore a copy or email a copy to you. The name of the deleting admin will show in the deletion log if you try to bring up the deleted draft. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox error

I have created an article in my sandbox , but something is wrong with the infobox . Can anybody help ? Kpgjhpjm 06:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kpgjhpjm and welcome to the Teahouse.

It appears that in editing the template you have introduced whitespace characters that are not recognized by the software as spaces. I don't know what platform you are editing on, but you need to find a way to edit so that whitespace remains spaces, not tabs or other more exotic whitespace characters (such as might be used to render proportionally-space fonts, for instance). I don't think I'm in a postition to try to fix that for you - even if I went through and replaced the spaces, your next edit is liable to mess them up again. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've removed a host of unnecessary non-breaking space characters. You should also note that you are trying to use a parameter Pole_Speed which doesn't exist in the template. The non-existent parameter will be ignored, but flagged up when you preview after an edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing a page on wikipedia

Hi,

I am writing from ACG and our Wikipedia page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACG_Worldwide.

We have recently undergone a restructuring internally where the company name has been changed to ACG from ACG worldwide.

Also, there has been business wise changes. I wanted to update the Wikipedia content. However, every time I am trying Wikipedia is rejecting it.

Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.6.90.157 (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Can I just correct you on something. It is not your Wiki article. It is Wikipedia's article about your company. You do not own it, control it or have any right of veto on its content (except for blatant errors of fact). I'm pinging @DMacks: as a courtesy so that they know about this discussion. DMacks was the administrator that blocked you(assuming you're the same person) and reverted your edits for being promotional. - X201 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to read what you were told at User talk:Madhurima1234. Read about conflict of interest and about paid editing, and also about the prohibition of promotion. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Help on a new article on a school

Hi, I need help in organizing a new bunch of volunteers to write an article on a school in kolkata: Taki_House,_Govt_Sponsored_Multipurpose_School_for_Boys. I've forgotten most of my wikipedia formatting skills I had just started gathering almost 10 years back when I had become one of the first few (probably 4th or fifth) admins of bengali language wikipedia (bn:User:Dr.saptarshi ). I am supposed to lead my schoolmates who are mostly even more naive.. I would like to make some sort of a wiki-sub-project for this page and enroll some friends or students to specific sub-tasks.. Can someone guide please.

1. Would this be a stub or a start (what is the definition) ?
2. can you help about improving the templates on the school page and the talk page.
3. How is importance scores assessed and updated? How is importance of a school article defined ?
   1. I reviewed a few schools eg SPHS & Hindu School, Kolkata. These seem to have quite arbitrary looking importance scores.. I wonder if some general user just altered some of the importance score assessments in the SPHS page?? Where are the criteria for objective assessment of WP:School templates (I speculated some on the talk page of this school, so you may leave the relevant part of your response in the talk page of that article.
   2. Can template displays be protected ie not just the template but the whole box with the values, but not the whole page? So that someone with a biased or conflicted purpose can not simply change the assessment decided eg by the consensus of the assessing team ?

Thanks in advance for your help --Dr.saptarshi (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Please Help me

please tell me in detail what i have to edit in my article. Actually i want to create a page or article for my website roxstarindia. Please guide me in detail what i have to add and what i have to edit. And also tell me what reference i have to add in it, but i don't have any reference so please tell me the list of reference which i can add in the article. My Article is Draft:roxstarindia