Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

David Biddulph, 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

How to handle undiplomatic participation in a discussion.

I am writing to ask what recourse one has when, in a discussion about whether to delete an article or not, an editor gets fixated on one's input/participation even if not directed at them, specifically. The editor seems to be questioning my intentions and mischaracterizing my responses to two *other* editors.

I voted to "Keep" the article (which I was one of the original creators for, four years ago), and stated my reasons. The editor in question responded to my "Keep" vote on why they think it should be deleted and I responded to let them know why I disagreed with their response (which circumvented the substance of my reasons to "Keep"). I feel that was the end of discussion with this editor on the substance of the piece and I moved on.

My brief responses to two OTHER editors since have been in the form of dialog as to what might improve the article (so they don't carry a connotation so much in favor or against it as it does addressing how the article could improve). This includes two posts toward the end of the discussion where I illustrate what I edited to help improve the article based on what the last voter articulated in their own comments.

The problem I am having is the person who had initially responded to my "Keep" vote in disagreement continues to respond to comments that are not directed at them but to the other editor who made suggestions as to what would improve the article. It's beginning to feel as though this editor is questioning my intentions (stating I am monopolizing the dialog and discouraging others from voicing their opinion - I have done nothing of that sort) and responding to even the most innocuous and neutral comment I post - in this case what I have posted is purely technical, e.g., "posted links, did this, did that, hope this improves the article" type of response. I almost feel they are trying to do what they are accusing me of doing.

This is the "delete" discussion I am referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Emad_Eldin.

One reason I tend not to edit a lot on Wikipedia is this type of unnecessary contention. Since making a number of edits to the article in question I had reached the conclusion I had done what I could to help improve it (and I still think it should be "kept," of course) and have moved on. So I don't have more to say about the article deletion debate itself but do find it undiplomatic dealing with this type of unnecessary response: this person stated why it should be deleted, insist it should be deleted, and that's fine - I have simply responded to other editors on the suggestions to improve the piece. I'm trying to understand how what I did monopolizes or excludes others from participating. Am I missing something here?--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, 1987atomheartbrother. Welcome, and thank you for setting the controls to the heart of the Teahouse. To answer your question directly - I don't think there's an 'recourse' needed, nor would any particular action on your part be appropriate, apart from listening to what other editors also say. For what it's worth, I'd say don't take it personally. I've just skimmed though the deletion discussion. My (albeit rapid assessment) leads me to suggest that it's not personal - and you shouldn't take it to heart - but they might have a point that accords somewhat with the essay called WP:BLUDGEON in terms of how much of the discussion you (and also one of the other editors to a lesser extent) have occupied - but those discussions looked quite healthy and acceptable up to now. Your responses to the Articles for Deletion discussion seemed ok to me, yet I see the perspective of the other editors who simply asked you not to come back to answer every single point, and has cited that essay. Sometimes, when an article has been in existence and edited by many users over quite a few years, a seven day deletion discussion (even with a number of editors commenting) doesn't seem enough time. But sadly that's how we have to operate. I think you're probably right to 'move on' now and to let others contribute to the debate. As I say, I don't think there's any 'recourse' needed. But that shouldn't stop you from improving the article if you're able, or responding to any new concerns expressed in that debate. I hope this opinion helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, thank you for the feedback - it is helpful. And thanks for the clever intro in your paragraph! My controls are indeed set to the Teahouse: it has served as a great frame of reference of the modicum of experience I've gained on this site! Thanks for taking the time to respond, I've taken your advice and have pretty much moved forward as suggested. Thank you.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome 1987atomheartbrother. I've learned a lot here, too, though I still make mistakes, of course, just as all most active do from time to time. Having looked at the article and the sources, I was going to leave a 'weak keep' !vote at the AfD but, as I had specifically alerted another editor to the discussion, I think it would be wrong of me to add my own voice on this occasion. I hope the article is retained, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes must be over 60, but 1987- must be listening to his fathers albums? MBG02 (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

MBG02 Cheeky! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Undid revision 859569058 by Bankster (talk) History has been updated by Telearuba employee previously on Sept 12th 2018

Hello,

We are trying to update a page of Telearuba13 on Wikipedia by adding the correct information as well updating the logo with the right one, but twice the changes has been rolled back by an editor, it is a little frustrating that the correct version cannot be updated because it has been rolled back already two time by an Wikipedia editor. Any advice what should be done or if there might be an editor that can give advice to have it done right that it would not be rolled back ? Thank you, Richinald — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telearuba (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, Please read WP:PAID Thanks. :) Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Telearuba Hello and welcome. You will also need to read about conflict of interest. As you work for the company, you should not edit its article directly, instead making edit requests on the article talk page(Talk:Telearuba 13). You should also see your user talk page for important information about your username. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for all the replies, No I am not being paid for, the reason for the update is because this month the station would celebrate it's 55 anniversary and would like to update the history page on Wikipedia of the station from it's start from 1963 up to now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telearuba (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if the editor that is doing the roll-back can't provide a specific policy statement to defend the roll-back (which isn't clear from the OP) than the roll-back counstitutes vandalism, and should be dealt with accordingly. USN007 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

USN007, please read Wikipedia's definition of "vandalism".   Maproom (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Maproom I've read the policy- it makes explicit mention of edits which are not "constructive". In my book, one ought to be able to adequately justify a reversion based for alleged reasons of policy, or else the edit becomes quite destructive. i.e. it is important for editors to explain the justification of their actions or else everything becomes quite chaotic, which is destructive to any internet forum, yet alone something like Wikipedia. Notably, arbitrary edits for reasons not firmly grounded in policy are also quite destructive, and where it is not obvious why an edit or reversion was made, it follows that one must necessarily conclude that the edit was made on an arbitrary basis not grounded in the editing guidelines or policies. ==User Page== (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

USN007, the key phrase in the definition of "vandalism" is "intentionally disruptive". The roll-back in question was not intentionally disruptive. Maproom (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the editor be asked to change their username. The current name (Telearuba) suggests an affiliation with the subject of the article they are editing (Telearuba13), which could mislead other editors (and apparently has misled at least one) into thinking that they have some authority for their edits which they now claim not to have. In this case that misimpression has worked against the editor, but it could work to inflate their influence on this or other articles. If the editor will do so willingly, they should visit WP:RENAME for instructions. If not, I can file a report at WP:UAA. General Ization ^Talk 01:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

General Ization, I would tend to disagree with that conclusion, as it is quite presumptuous in the sense that it suggests an affiliation with any particular entity, absent anything more concrete that would suggest such an affiliation, since we must also assume good-faith. USN007 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree with anything you like; our policy concerning usernames is that they should not imply affiliation with the subjects of articles being edited, or have the effect of promoting any company or organization. I did not imply anything other than good faith (I'd like you to explain how I did so); I pointed out that this editor's username clearly and not unreasonably led one editor to assume something that was (apparently) not true, and that is the definition of misleading. See the name of this section if you have any doubts as to the facts. General Ization ^Talk 02:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

help

Please help me in improving this artical It is having references please help Jahnavi Ellore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity (talk • contribs) 14:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iamheentity: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on the deletion discussion, where you may want to comment, there does not seem to be independent reliable sources that have extensive coverage of this actress, and she would not seem to meet the notability guidelines written at WP:NACTOR. If you have independent sources that have chosen to write extensively about this person, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: Apoorva (actress) what about this page can you help Iamheentity (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iamheentity: My knowledge in that subject area is limited, but that article appears to have the same issues as your first. You should review the notability guideline I link to above, and find independent sources with significant coverage of the person(not just press releases, brief mentions, or routine announcements).

As you seem to be getting an idea of, successfully creating an article is very difficult, probably the most difficult thing to do on Wikipedia. I might suggest that you step back from creating articles and take some time to get a better idea of how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. I think you may want to do this new user tutorial which will provide much information to you. Reading Your First Article will also help you. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please help me in improving this actical Vinay kuyya(channel) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iamheentity: Again, the same issues as your first two articles mentioned here. You need proper sources. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The source i lrovided is from times of india and deccan Chronicle and they are independent. Iamheentity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

That might be, but those sources only provide a routine, brief mention. The Times of India story mentions a warning by police, something which police all over the world do every day with tens of thousands of people and organizations. That is not the significant, in depth coverage required to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment, mischaracterising policy

One of the continuing situations with English WP is that its articles are from people using English as their primary language from sources that are primarily in English. There are many significant topics and people in the world that are unable to be qualified as notable when those that are deem something qualified do not know the non-English language. India is a very large nation with many different cultures the qualities of which can to varying amounts with many other nations and societies. As an example, the film and other entertainment industries. There are actors with a greater following than some English speaking actors yet their careers cannot be justified in the English WP because the sources are not in English and therefor cannot be evaluated as qualified because those that do that within WP do not know or understand the source or its quality or significance. That is not a negative statement on any one in WP but that it has its limitations. Unfortunately, some English communicating people think that the lack of English language sources is a judgment on the significance of the subject or person. I hope that this explains what may be encountered in this situation. One thing that would help the English WP is getting to know the levels of non-English sources common in India especially there being so many different languages and cultures..2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC) @2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC:That is an extremely unhelpful and incorrect reply sources do NOT have to be in English and the suitability of sources is in no way connected to the language they are written in. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC) That is not what I said and any characterisation as such is not unexpected. The respondent is using what is available. That does not seem to be acceptable. No one can deny that in India there are many things that are just as significant as in other places of the world but if those that judge what is an acceptable source are limited in their language choises then how can people who rely on English or western language based sources judge non-western language sources if they cannot be evaluated. Also, if significant sources in a non-English language are not understandable to those who communicate in English such as book publishes and communication mediums such as newspapers, journals etc then just how are Indian topics of significance to become known to the world when they are trapped in non-western languages. Like I said, I do not expect for anyone that is not up for a critical review of their weltenschaunng to understand this or accept it as anything other than an attack. I am not here to pick a fight with anyone and anyone who thinks it as an attempt at a fight are wasting energy. Knowledge can be controlled by what is available. Translation is not instantaneous and those things that are not translated may be lost to someone whose only communication is in one language. Thank goodness there are people in the world that communicate in many languages, translate and make known things of one language in another. English WP will always suffer from content that is suitable for it based on its significance but you cannot judge that significance if it is not in English and all you communicate in is English. No one ever writes a doctoral statement on a subject such as Russian literature without knowing how in some form being able to communicate in that language to some degree even if all it means is that they can translate and not compose. Yes, a subject matter may be popular enough in a language other than its primary but then for years the translations of Mesopotamian clay tables said to be love poems that were studied and in reality financial accounts.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC) 2605:, please read WP:NOENG. Non-English sources are fully accepted on the English Wikipedia. English-only readers may not be able to use them to verify facts for themselves, which is why English sources are preferred where they're available, but reliable sources written in, say, Hindi, are no less reliable for it. Expanding knowledge otherwise recorded only in other languages is one of the treasured accomplishments of Wikipedia. Also, don't reply to other people's questions at the Teahouse unless you're sure that Wikipedia's policies support you. Otherwise, you will mislead our newest editors, which is deeply unhelpful. › Mortee talk 21:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of an ediying process

Is it not the point of the talk page and the projects pages to draw from the WP comments and building consensus in order to reach that star quality that articles seek to be evaluated? Then TheOldJacobite makes an edit it is not reverted especially if in the plot and when any one else does the ubiquitous ":not an improvement" is supplied even when the issue has been brought to the talk age. It seems that this editor believes that it is not necessary to follow the WP guidelines of using the talk page to reach consensus. I have been told that despite the call to discuss the matter on the talk page that i must provide the basis that the new plot is an improvement if only for the reason that it is more concise. At least I have brought to both the talk page and the [project page so that there cannot other attempts to erase from talk pages attempts to bring about consensus building. Is there a set of rules and guidelines and policies for some WP editors and yet another for others?2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not the forum to lodge complaints about another editors conduct. That said, the editor you mention gave a reason for their reversion in both the edit summary and on the article talk page. If you disagree with it, it is indeed up to you to demonstrate your changes would be an improvement and discuss the matter with other interested editors to achieve a consensus. If discussion fails to resolve the matter, there are dispute resolution processes available for use. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

How are people to read the changes when they have been edited out of the article? That is the point of calling a halt to changes and discussing the item on the talk page. The editor in question is not abiding by WP standards. That is imposing their will on the entire WP community.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

All changes to an article are saved in its edit history; you can link to specific edits by selecting them in the edit history and copy/pasting the link to them. If another editor is edit warring, that can be reported to WP:ANEW(though your own edits will be examined as well). 331dot (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not everyone performs due diligence and find what is needed to understand what is in question. Otherwise there never would have been allegations issued. Sometimes, it seems that it is rather difficult for some things to be accepted and incorrect information reinstated by reverts.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This guy has been pestering TheOldJacobite under multiple IPs. For that, he should be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I have control over my user identifier on WP. I use my IP. It is issued by my provider. I edit only a few things on WP. One of them is film plots. TheOldJacobite seems to have a very intense control over this area of editing. You really should understand a situation before calling for unfortunate actions. IP addresses are an endorsed means if identification on WP and to say that there is something wrong with that type of identification is erroneous on any one that believes so although you may have encountered people using IP's doing rather unwanted things on WP. OH, it was not my idea to erase and thwart film page discussions by erasing the posts from WP talk pages. TheOldJacobite did that on his own. This can be reviewed in the archives of the TeaHouse. If you have any other concerns please advise. 2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet, you really should disclose that you have a personal dislike of style of those on WP that do not use a "registered" name and therefore are not logged into WP by a registered name. Computer technology is at a point that use of a registered name or even being logged into WP will prevent people from doing unwanted things on the system. To advocate that would give a false impression of security. I can understand that this will not make you any more receptive to the status quo but that is an issue that must be overcome in time. I have no control over your thought process.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been WP:HOUNDING TheOldJacobite, which is the point I was making. For instance, without any proof you accused him of bad behavior, you post childish taunts, you called him a bully here, and you have repeatedly called for limits on him. You are wasting the project's time with this nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not here to pick a fight but it might be said that when someone jumps to a conclusion without due diligence then their judgement is questioned. When someone says something should be done merely because they do not agree with what is happening is not a legitimate conclusion. Yet when that judgement is questioned it is all the more easier to convince others that it is merely for picking a fight instead of resolving the issue. You called for someone to be blocked merely for IP =use without getting a better understanding of just what was going on. Or do you always come to the decision to block someone just because of IP use? I would believe that use of multiple user names, even registered user names is fir actions that others at WP do not find consistent with the intent of WP. That seemed to be lacking in your call to banishment. I cannot tell just what was the intent of your call to action because I do not know you or agree that IP user identifications should be banished from WP. At best for your purpose of banishment would not be served by edits that are not fraudulent.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Limits? Following standards and processes are limits? Of course you always have the option to disregard comments made in the TeaHouse. I do not compel you to respond to anything. That is up to you. I do not have to confer on you that right or responsibility. Again what you may not like is not an automatic justification to thwart others although it may be the most convenient to create the atmosphere desired.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet--You want evidence? Well, it is somewhere here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6) in February but for whatever reason there have been text deletions although the history of an action remains. As I post I did not want to make an issue of TheOldJacobite's actions but if others want to join in on his defense without regard to what have been his own actions then I guess you all subject yourself to the results and any potential ridicule of your judgment. His deletion on talk [page discussions did not happen just once but on three separate articles sometimes with edit summaries that said they did not contribute to an improved article. It is one thing to say something in response to what is posted on the talk pages but to delete them is rather irresponsible toward maintain the integrity of WP's guidelines and policies. I understand that you are being faced with questions that deserve an answer about something very fundamental about WP and they are coming from someone that you seem to think is not your WP equal about the integrity of WP. I think that TOJ is perfectly capable of defending himself but he has yet to even deny that he attempted to thwart consensus by deleting questions on multiple talk pages. His problem with this situation is that he cannot deny deleting and thwarting consensus building on talk pages because he did. And if he did deny it he would be lying which certainly would have a rather detrimental effect on his integrity within WP.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Binkternet--Youyare in luck thanks to the help of the WP community: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_725#Citations_for_Film_Plots. Like I advised TOJ long ago. I did not want to make an issue of what it is that I edit: film plots, and errors at spelling, grammar and fact. Yet it seems every time I go to edit a film plot there goes TOJ reverting with the edit summary (when on occassion provided) "not an improvement". But can every edit done to film plots not be an improvement? But to show what may be vindictiveness of some WP editors they latch onto a user name and they seem to revert every film article plot edit associated with it yet seem to miss a few because maybe they were functioning in in high speed mode? What, for some unstated reason one plot edit is not as agregious as another in the same plot? Not a negative statement--just a reflection on the situation. I understand you may not like that because it does not make you look good. But if you want to challenge people this is what may happen. Yes, I know this may not bt the appropriate WP section for this but sometimes you have to take the opportunity presented. You cannot throw tour cocktail into someone face and not expect to be slugged. Personally, you have already committed the assault and all I have to do is call the police and file a report anmd let the court system deal with it and you have a complaint record. I may be simple but I am not stupid.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A question about Talk:Jeon_Jung-kook

Hello. I previously asked about two articles being created for the same artist here in The Teahouse (see here). Recently Talk:Jeon_Jung-kook was approved as a redirect that ends in BTS probably because it's start-class. Just a day before I wrote to the creator and we were in discussion to work together to merge and improve our articles just before hers was approved. What I wanted to ask is can I merge my work draft:Jungkook with hers? What should I do considering it would be more appropriate for the artist to have his article under his stage name instead of full name knowing there's no other Jungkook on Wikipedia.

Is it possible for her to change her approved draft to "Jungkook"? I hope we can have some help in how to solve this. Thank you and I'm sorry for disturbing here so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovannaG (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• @GiovannaG: First of all, the purpose of the Teahouse is to ask questions, so it is not disruptive to ask anything in good faith (except maybe in extremely large volumes, think 10/day).

You should ask yourself "what" before asking "how". Here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungkook seems to show pretty clear consensus that no article should be devoted to the artist. The problem is not that the quality of the article was low (start-class or else), but that the topic should not have an article by itself. (Please ask again if you do not understand why after reading the discussion I linked).

I believe the way to go is to redirect the stage name to the band, just as for the real name, and posted a request to that effect.

You may edit the article about the band (BTS (band)) to add some biographical information about the members, but probably not as much detail as is currently in your draft, I am afraid. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Creation of an entry (or article): 'Akihiro Yamada - Wikipedia'

Dear Administrative Editors,

I am glad to find online a Japanese entry about me: ‘山田昭廣 - Wikipedia’. However, I think that an English entry would be of more use since I am a specialist of English literature, especially Shakespeare.

I know that I am not entitled to create it myself, so I wish you to be a host for the English entry titled ‘Akihiro Yamada – Wikipedia’ on your website. What I would like to state in it is very short and the text would run as follows:

Akihiro Yamada (born 1929 in Nagoya) is a Japanese scholar specializing in English literature and bibliography. He published some twenty books on Shakespeare and his contemporaries. For further information, visit him at http://researchmap.jp/yamada-akihiro-6002/?lang=english

Thank you. With best wishes. 124.40.70.66 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Akichan Yamada

Welcome to Teahouse. I'm glad you know that creating an article about ones own self is not considered appropriate. However, remember Teahouse is a place to ask questions related to editing on Wikipedia, and not suggestions about creating an article. If you are a notable person, someone else interested in this subject will probably create an article about you. Getting an article about yourself is not something to be proud of, since Wikipedia is merely an encyclopedia developed to help people know more about a particular subject. Thanks - Knightrises10 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Also this Anwser on Quora about having a Wikipedia article, I think is a good read. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

New To Wikipedia - Some Advice?

I'm new to Wikipedia. I've done a few edits, but the most I've received was (probably) an automatic message thanking me for my first edit. I'm not angry or anything (actually, I think an automatic welcome bot can be a good idea for places like this). I think I've tried to embrace the idea of a "bold edit" and I also contributed some thoughts on a talk page for an article. I guess I'm just hoping that I can get some sort of feedback - am I doing everything right? If I'm making mistakes, how do I fix them? Is there anything else I should know as a new Wikipedia user? Clovermoss (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Clovermoss and welcome to the Teahouse! Automatic welcoming bot isn't a good idea. Welcome messages from a bot are impersonal and cold, which is much worse than a welcome message by a human Wikipedia user. Also, the bot may accidentally welcome vandals or trolls which may become the motivation of them to vandalise.

Yes, your contributions are fine. Keep it up! You may read various policies, guidelines and essays listed here and here. Happy editing —AE (talk • contributions) 02:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I totally get what you mean by robots making it easy to sound cold and impersonal. I didn't mean that I thought welcoming should be solely an automatic process, but just that it might be useful to have an automatic welcome before a human can actually get in touch. I thought I should just clarify what I meant by that. Also, thank you so much for your reassurance! I kept trying to read all the links I could find from the initial notification and double-check and such, but there's just so many links I was kind of scared that I was going to miss something vital. I can see the links you sent being useful, especially since they're concise, informative, and easy to access. Sorry for my block of text, but I also have another question. What are the different ways people can (or usually choose) when contributing to Wikipedia? I got to learn a bit about templates through one of the links, and I've seen references to backlogs, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that those are usually used more often with experienced users and there are usually different paths that new users take edit-wise, at least initially? Clovermoss (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Clovermoss. Welcome to Wikipedia and to our Teahouse. We're here to help (mainly new) editors with any difficulties they encounter. You have started off exactly as we advise so many newcomers to begin. You've started slowly, making a couple of typo corrections and altered capitalisation, then you engaged with another user on a talk page to raise concerns over the meaning to be inferred in an article. What better could we ask for? In time, you'll want to make bigger and bolder changes, supporting each with evidence (citations) where necessary. If you do make mistakes, other editors may revert your edits, but don't be upset or reinstate them - chat to the editor and discuss any concerns. You might like to try The Wikipedia Adventure which is a fun way to learn some of the basics, gaining up to 15 badges along the way. Before you get around to creating a new page (it took me 9 months before I felt confident enough to do that!), bear in mind you have your personal sandbox (link at very top of the page). You can also work on draft articles in what we call 'draftspace' and submit them for review and feedback - which is the ideal way to go. Learn more at Wikipedia:Your first article. I've left a welcome and some useful links on your Talk Page. We do have our own special bot that also sends out a welcome message from the Teahouse, but that normally kicks in after a few more edits than you've made so far.

As suggested above, we do have a ton of policies and guidelines that editors to this amazing encyclopaedia are expected to follow. But let's just get you started and you can discover detailed stuff like WP:MOS (yes, we do love our hyperlinked shortcuts and acronyms here!) in due course, Just shout if you want feedback or advice on anything you get stuck with. Best wishes at the very start of your own personal Wikipedia adventure! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, yet again! Honestly, reading 'what better could we ask for?' made me feel a rush of pride. I'm going to try my best not to make mistakes, but it's nice to know how things work here and how to discuss them. In regards to sandboxes, I created one earlier but I'm not exactly sure how to use it for when I decide to (writing articles sounds cool, but I'm not sure I'm ready for that yet). If I do end up writing an article though, and I 'draft' it in my sandbox (would it be like the basic page editing everywhere else - save but it isn't actually a 'published' thing?) how would I make it not a draft, when it came to that point? I still don't know if I'll even get to that point, and it probably won't be for a while, but I like knowing answers to stuff like that just in case I do need it. Clovermoss (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have some other questions too, now. I've been going through the tutorials involved in the Wikipedia adventure, and I'm kind of stuck at a certain point. It's where your supposed to use wikilinks in regards to stuff like circumference on the tutorial Earth article in Mission 7. I think I was doing it right, but I don't know because I got to the point where it'd let ask me to write 'added relevant wikilinks' or something like that in the summary box and hit publish... I do that and then nothing happens. I wrote the same message they said to put in the summary box about three times, so I'm guessing I'm probably doing something wrong with the tutorial part itself. The problem is, I don't know what that "something wrong" would be. Anyone here have any suggestions for what I should do? Clovermoss (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Clovermoss, usually you'd want to create your draft not directly in your sandbox, but on a "subpage", basically a standalone page associated with your userspace area. This is to make it easier to just move the page into a normal article when you're done with it. There's a tool to help you with creating a draft that way at Help:Userspace draft, you can just type the title into the bar and it should make a draft page for you. You can also make your draft in "draftspace" instead of "userspace"—there's more information on that at Wikipedia:Drafts, along with another bar-widget thing.

As for how to make your draft article a normal article, you can either move it yourself or submit it to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, where it will be reviewed by an experienced editor, though this may take around 2 months due to high demand. You can move pages using Special:Movepage/<pagename>, like Special:MovePage/User:Clovermoss/sandbox, and it'll ask you to select a destination.

About the difference between a draft and a live article, it is essentially the same editing process. Drafts are generally less strict on certain specific content policies such as Notability because it is understood that they are a work in progress, but otherwise it's basically the same. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

About adding wikilinks in TWA, it looks like you've done that fine here. If it's not showing up on your end, it's probably a glitch. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Clovermoss. The Wikipedia Adventure can be a bit glitchy. I cant test it for you right now as I'm currently on a mobile - and its not designed to work on them (hence the warning notice at the start). That said, I remember getting stuck and finding the only way to continue was to scroll right to the bottom of the page where I spotted a popup box in which to enter the next required bit of data. So do have a good look round the page and see if that will set you off on your way again. Regarding the use of a sandbox, you can, if you wish, treat it just like a scrap pad in which you add notes, ideas and bits of information as part of your planning process to eventually create a new article. I've got half a dozen or more on the go right now, like User:Nick Moyes/sandbox/S41 that's over a year old and still just random jottings. Had it been made as a proper draft, it would've been deleted after six months with no activity. So sandboxes are a great place to slowly compile your thoughts, references and statements that you might eventually want to turn into a better draft or turn directly into an article. In contrast, User:Nick Moyes/sandbox/Gouter is almost complete and nearly ready to go. Meanwhile, another page I've been working on as a proper draft (see Draft:National Pollinator Strategy still needs more work, but I make sure I stay working in it so that it doesnt time-expire and get deleted. Hope this helps a bit more. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It does! Thank you very much! Clovermoss (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Revising a moved link

Hi All, I brought vanilla wafers if anyone's interested in a little munch to go along with their cuppa. I've updated a link from

    cite web|
    last1=Glaser|
    first1=Kyle|
    title=Carolina League To Add Two Franchises In 2017|
    url=http://www.baseballamerica.com/business/carolina-league-will-add-two-franchises-2017/#zV3GaHcbMbU1IDIR.97%7C
    website=BaseballAmerica.com|
    accessdate=23 August 2016

to

    cite web|
    last1=Glaser|
    first1=Kyle|
    title=Carolina League To Add Two Franchises In 2017|
    url=https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/carolina-league-to-add-two-franchises-in-2017/%7C
    website=BaseballAmerica.com|
    accessdate=16 September 2018

Is it either required or preferred that a mention of the original link be made? If so, how? thanks! Dumboldboy (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dumboldboy! If the new link is the correct link is the correct one (and its contents support the material in the Wikipedia article), I don't think you need to mention the old link anywhere. People can always find it in the article's Page History. rchard2scout (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Rchard2scout - I really do appreciate all the mentoring I've received from this village Called Wiki Dumboldboy (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry for the suitable subject

Hello, It is sub-article for Trump-Kim summit: under aftermath, Please refer to the related summary information below and let me know suitable subjects below.

• Possible subjects:
• Delay in peace declaration leads to hostile rhetoric.
• Inside the dispute delaying resolution of the nuclear issues.

On August 29th, the Atlantic reported on an interview with Moon Chung In who is the special envoy from South Korea. His understanding is that the diplomatic team of Mike Pompeo is having difficulties discussing with the defense team National Security Adviser John Bolton; This divided stance between the US Diplomatic team and the US defense team may have played a significant role in the delay of the signing of the promised peace declaration. Diplomatic Team Secretary Mike Pompeo is strongly in favor of adhering to the agreement set out in the summit, whereas John Bolton insists that a complete denuclearization of the DPRK must be established first before a peace treaty can be formally imposed and thereby ending the Korean War. Also on August 29th, The Hill reported on the U.S. presidents verbal agreement with DPRK to end the Korean War, on both the June 1st meeting at the White House, and during the Summit held in Singapore. However, soon after the Summit meeting, the U.S. demanded denuclearization from North Korea before signing on the Peace Declaration document which eventually leads to an ever more hostile rhetoric from North Korea.

The deadlock above between U.S and DPRK was the repetitious events for over 25 years based on the report by USC Korean Studies Institute Director David. He summarized the previous efforts resolving the North Korea's nuclear and Military Challenge, there are several trials of agreement between the U.S. and North Korea in 1994 by Agreed Framework, 2005 and in 2007. The fundamental reason for the stalemate between the U.S. and North Korea's stance; the U.S. requested North Korea - “DPRK should disarm first; then we'll discuss security guarantees.” However, North Korea's position is - “we need the security guarantees from the United States first, then we will disarm. It appeared over 25 years ago, but it is happening again this year.

References

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Goodtiming8871. The purpose of the Teahouse is to answer questions about Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and the various techniques of editing. We do not get deeply involved in content issues, except as they relate directly to the purposes of the Teahouse. Content issues should be discussed on article talk pages, and there are various forms of dispute resolution available if you do not come to consensus there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How can I become an administrator?

Hi I want to become an administrator .How can I become? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs) 09:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kigagan: Hello and welcome. The process is described at WP:RFA. In general, however, you will need to build up an edit history that shows you generally understand Wikipedia guidelines and contribute positively to the encyclopedia, in order for the community to be convinced you merit possessing admin powers. This will likely take several years. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to give warning to a Wikipedia user?

If a user cause disruption how can I give him warning?Can only administrators give warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs) 09:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Any user may issue a warning. You may write one yourself on the user's talk page, or there are template warnings you can post, listed at WP:WARN. However, you may wish to take some time to learn more about Wikipedia. There is a new user tutorial you may find helpful. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a bot?

I want to know how to create a bot.And what is a ClueBot and SineBot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's good that you seem so enthusiastic about participating here, but I would strongly suggest that you take the new user tutorial and spend some time learning about Wikipedia before you get into very advanced things like creating bots. I've been here for many years and I don't know how to create a bot. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

ClueBot has retired. It used to detect and remove vandalism from articles, but has been superseded by ClueBot NG. You can read about ClueBot NG and SineBot on their user pages. Maproom (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What are ClueBot,SineBot and HostBot

Hey I have seen them editing many articles and learnt that they are not humans ?Then who are they? (Kigagan) 17 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs)

Hi! You have told about this earlier too. According to WP:B, On Wikipedia, bots are computer-controlled user accounts performing various tasks in order to maintain the encyclopedia. Bots are used for many purposes, for instance removing obvious vandalism and archiving talk pages. All bots must be approved by a special group before they are put into use.. You may visit that page to know more. Similarly, visiting the userpages of those bots will tell you about their tasks. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a bot?

I want to create a bot at any cost.223.223.138.222 (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Thanks for asking a question at teahouse.But I would strongly suggest you to read tutorials and log in or create an account otherwise you won't be able to create a bot.Kigagan (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to create a bot? 331dot (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, creating a bot is not an easy task. It requires some experience in programming. Secondly, contributing to the encyclopedia constructively is way better. This is what Wikipedia was made for, right? Creating a bot won't make you be considered a great user, but contributing in building the encyclopedia will develop trust among other editors. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Help

Help me in improving this artical Nayeem(gangster) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity (talk • contribs) 11:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Why does the full article coding not appear in the link?2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You have tried to create an article on your User page User:Iamheentity/Nayeem, a common new user error. Your User page is for a brief description of your background and intent as an editor. I suggest your Sandbox for the draft. David notMD (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I search the archives of teahouse to locate previously answered questions ai have asked?

I am looking for a message string concerning film plots that due to my changing IP address I am unable to locate. Is there a way of bringing up a string of IP dresses within a certain range? Thank you.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The first part of your IPv6 address doesn't change, so try putting 2605:E000:1301:4462 into the archive search box. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

or you can narrow it down further by using 2605:E000:1301:4462 film plot into your search. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What about reviewing questions made as far back as February? Does anyone have the ability to delete discussions before they go to archive? And how does the search capaboility go if the word film plot does not appear in the title of the question?2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the words appear in the title of the question, so long as they appear in the text of the thread. If they don't, then don't put them in the search string. If you want to be able to find discussions in which you take part but your IP address is changing, that is another advantage of using a registered account. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I would refrain from endorsing what is contrary to WP policy. Registered user names might be good for you but i have no need to go contary to WP policy when using it with my IP address even if that changes. How much of my IP number can be used in a teahouse archive search?2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You can just try the start of the IP address. Only search whole groups like "2605:E000:1301:4462" or "2605:E000". We don't know exactly how your IP address changes or which posts are from you. If you use another Internet connection then the IP address may be completely different. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, IP editor. Why not simply try it for yourself and learn in the process? You're the one with the changing IP, so you're best placed to determine what doesn't change. It took me 10 seconds to find this by including part of your IPv6 address. Is that what you sought? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're looking for a discussion in February, I found one in the revision history here, seemingly hit by revision delete. The actual contents appear to be untouched and can be found here. The archive it ended up in appears to be Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 725#Citations for Film Plots. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was seeking. Thank you. I will send the address to my provider as a reference records for any future use.. Again, thank you.

Moved from #Creating a new page. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There are no useful user links at the top of my talk page.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

David did not say they were at the top, because they aren't. They are at the bottom.You also should remember to log in before you post. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I am following WP endorse user policy. Log in? You seem to be under the impression that everyone has a "registered user" name. I use the endorsed WP IP address as my user identification and it is not necessary to log in especially if you are not a registered user name use of WP. I hope that you are not implying that all people that use WP need to have a registered user name and be logged in That is contrary to WP guidelines and endorsements. I can understand that you might have some issues with that user action but it i not contrary to WP, never should and would make WP all the more a closed network if that were imposed. That would be sad especially as WP is supported by tax deductible donations that if not paid to the state as taxes would certainly otherwise be used for the uses of the taxpaying public..2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

To 2605 - David B was answering Kigagan's question. Your query and responses are the previous section. David notMD (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

To the IP user, please consider this a final warning. Please stop bringing up your views on IP vs accounts on this page. It has already been suggested to you that you proceed to the proper forum to air any grievances you have about how IPs are treated or the benefits registering an account can have. I urge you to do so now. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this started to become disruptive a while ago, not just cooping unrelated threads into a discussion on the treatment of anonymous editors, but otherwise providing answers that are either wrong, or wrong rambling and off-topic. GMG^talk 12:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree too. These constant pointy responses are tedious to read and are now becoming disruptive. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Can someone please tell me from where I can start creating a new page? Kigagan (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You could start by reading the useful links which have been placed on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to block a Wikipedia user?

I want to know how to block a Wikipedia userKigagan (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Only administrators may block users. I will now ask you to take some time off from asking questions, and use the time to instead read some of the links posted on your user talk page, which will likely answer many of your questions. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

There are no links posted on my talk page.Kigagan (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kigagan: It's a lie. There obviously are, right here: User talk:Kigagan#A belated welcome!. --CiaPan (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kigagan: Maybe you have biscuit-blindness? Go to User talk:Kigagan and read the post entitled 'A belated welcome'. This contains useful links for newcomers to read. I can send you a whole shed load more if you really want them! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That was posted after the fact of drawing attention to their lacking. 2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

1. CiaPan: Lets not accuse people of lying. Thanks.
2. Anon, the links were posted on their talk page at 10:13 UTC. The thread here was opened two hours later at 12:31 UTC. Kindly refrain from providing unhelpful and/or wrong information here. GMG^talk 13:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for not seeing the whole page.Sorry for that.I will surely read them. Please don't block me.Kigagan (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries Kigagan. You may also want to consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, which can help better acquaint you with how things work on Wikipedia. As always, if you have any questions you've found the right place to ask them. GMG^talk 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks GreenMeansGo#top.Kigagan (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Made an article in a snadbox - what's next?

Hello everyone,

I have just created my first article in an area which I know best - music industry in Lithuania. I wrote about one of the oldest local record label however quite soon got a message froma another user that he marked my article for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article. I do not feel like it is promotional because before writing it I read many record label websites on Wikipedia and also used patterns from those. So I filled the contest the deletion form. However since then nothing happens. Neither my article was deleted from a sandbox nor it is publicly seen aor nobady contacted me. Can you please help me to understand how it all works. Maybe I just do not know where to find the correspondence. Many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skidpatch (talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The speedy deletion request was deemed invalid by another editor, as you'll see from the history tab on your sandbox. If you wish the sandbox draft to proceed to being published as an article, you would need to provide references, as shown in WP:Referencing for beginners, and then submit it for review. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. Before that you'll also need to address the point about conflict of interest and paid editing, see the message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

If sometimes I forget to sign after writing in a user's talk page Who signs then? Kigagan (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kigagan. There is an automated program called SineBot that monitors pages for unsigned comments and adds them when the user has forgotten. GMG^talk 15:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's the SineBot. But it seems now you deliberately unsigned this time. Why don't you go through those links and start making some constructive edits to some articles? Teahouse is a place to ask serious questions, not irrelevant random ones. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Teahouse is also intended to be the friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia, and the friendly bit is as important as the learning bit. GMG^talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry GreenMeansGo, but I just felt that the editor should now start editing some articles too, as they are the first step to learn about Wikipedia and editing. Knightrises10 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse participation

Hello there, I look forward to participating more in the teahouse forum and other noticeboards as well, but I am new and don't have the skill or experience to do so. Can you please advise how can I increase my presence here and what recommendations do you have or any feedback is appreciated. I do contributions to articles on a daily basis, maybe I can start from there? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Anon york. Certainly the first step in helping others is to become thoroughly familiar yourself, which you can do by helping to improve articles, and participating in talk page discussions regarding article content. It can also be helpful to hang around at the Teahouse, and read through answers, even if you don't know them yourself yet, because many questions here are asked and answered over and over again. So the next time someone asks a question, you might know the answer because you've read it before. When in doubt, it may be helpful to make a note of what you think the answer is, and then see if you were right, because a wrong or misleading answer can often just be frustrating and confusing to very new editors. GMG^talk 15:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GreenMeansGo. Can you or anybody else recommend a good website or documents where I can look for government figures, or finantial information about companies, stuff like that? Please let me know, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon york (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a bit?

Hi I want to create a bit but how can I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigagan (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hit the self destruct button and you are on your way. Bye!2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring 2605, this is the second time today you have asked a Teahouse question about how to create a bot (assuming you meant that, and not "bit"). Please consider going forward as an article editor and not solely as a habitual teahouse querier. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Crew

When is crew singular and when is it plural? Thank you.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

In English, "crew" is always singular; the plural is "crews". However, it may be used to refer refer to one member or multiple members of a crew. You may be interested in WMF's online dictionary, Wictionary, which explains this and is a more appropriate place to find this kind of information. General Ization ^Talk 15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The confusion is that in British English (and presumably other Commonwealth variations), collective nouns like crew, team, etc. are treated as plural, because it's a collection of individuals. That is not the case in American English. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So what do you do when the subject is British English concerning an American aspect?2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

If it's an American topic, it should not be in British English per WP:STRONGNAT. If it's a British topic, then British English is fine (you might have noticed I didn't revert your edits that corrected "crew was" to "crew were" to articles on British ships). Parsecboy (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a bot? (redux)

I want to create a bot.But how can I do it?.Kigagan (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Already asked and answered. General Ization ^Talk 15:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

To the left of this page is a word "HELP". Click on that; locate the search box, enter bot and go to town.2605:E000:1301:4462:F495:A42E:3279:868B (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This editor is obviously not here to create an encyclopedia. He has taken no notice of the copious advice which he's been given. Hopefully an admin will take the necessary action. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Now has a you-may-be-blocked warning on Talk. David notMD (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

What if in adding sources from Articles, all I have are publications from online Newspapers and News Websites, can they stand alone as reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbibioEditor (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Depends on the sources you are using. Can you name some of the sources that you are willing to use? Kraose (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

trying to build a page called Derek Reese American singer-songwriter and musician

Good afternoon everyone, my name is Carol and i am trying to add an article about Derek Reese. This is a learning process for sure, but i was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to give it look and give me your opinion ? i hope it is ok for me to add a direct link to my article here ? Thank you all so very much, Carol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Derek_Reese_American_singer-songwriter_and_musician Carolcappetta (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have put the same content twice in your draft and you need to sort that out, but the content is certainly not acceptable. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and particularly you need to put references in the text, see WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much David for helping me. I deleted the double post, and i added the links throughout the course of my summary. I will keep reading, but i am hoping that what i did so far is an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolcappetta (talk • contribs) 17:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got a lot of misplaced external links in the next, but only one reference. When you do supply references, it will make the job of the reviewer easier if you supply reasonably comprehensive citation detail, such as by filling in relevant parameters in {{cite web}}, rather than merely a bare url. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Need help with changing name of page and redirect

Hi,

I created an article that was meant to be named— "Bullionville, Nevada", and I mistakenly named it "Bullionville". I usually can change names, but this time I am not able to. I also think there is a redirect page involved, because this page: List of ghost towns in Nevada, redirects the name "Bullionville" to Panaca, Nevada. Could you help me with this? thx MauraWen (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

MauraWen  Done GMG^talk 18:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo Thanks for the quick response! MauraWen (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all MauraWen. Thanks for helping us build a better encyclopedia. If we can ever be of any help, feel free to drop back by. Happy editing! GMG^talk 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles About Published Literature On Wikipedia?

Hi again. I know I had an earlier section, but it's getting long and I was kind of afraid if I was to update it at this point someone scrolling through the Teahouse might not see it. Anyways, my question is about another topic entirely. Basically, I'm interested about creating an article eventually, and I was thinking I would like to write an article on a published book that doesn't yet have an article on Wikipedia. I was wondering some basic do's and don'ts users at the Teahouse might suggest on an article like that. I'm thinking that I should mention stuff like publication date, publisher, and the funding involved in helping research and write this book. I remember seeing Wikipedia articles with tables before... how would I include them? Or should I just be bold and try to start my initial draft first and get some advice here after writing it? Clovermoss (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Clovermoss. I've written a few articles on books, like There There (novel) and Death Traps. The biggest thing is, just like any other Wikipedia article, do you first have enough sources to write with, without including any original research. Usually the types of things you're looking for are interviews and reviews in major publications. Technically, the plot of a book (if it is a novel) can be sourced to the book itself, but I still personally prefer to rely on reviews for that too, because it ensures that I'm not giving an inordinate amount of relative weight to comparatively unimportant parts of the book. As to tables, they're not really required, but Template:Infobox book, which I use on both those articles can be handy, especially for identifiers like ISBN and OCLC. GMG^talk 19:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! The template seems useful... I'm not quite sure if I'll be able to figure out how to use it, but I really like knowing it exists in the first place! Clovermoss (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Clovermoss, you can look at the articles I linked to above for examples of how to use it. If you don't have the information for one of the parameters, for example, if there's no | website = , then you can just leave it blank and the software will ignore it. GMG^talk 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright... I will try, I just sometimes doubt myself! Thank you. When I finish my draft, could I post a link and maybe get some advice on here? Or would there be a different place I'd want to ask for advice like that? Clovermoss (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries Clovermoss. You're always welcome to ask here, and you can always pop on over to my talk page and I'll try to get to it as soon as I can. GMG^talk 20:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Reusing same ref - How?

Having trouble getting a previous reference to appear on the named references list. Subsequently have a list of the same reference repeated below. I have looked at the help files and they weren't much help to me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxfan1918 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I fixed the ref error. Has to be an EXACT match. You used Stehman and stehman. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

please tell me how to uninstall the Opera program

please tell me how to uninstall Opera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:52D0:1620:7835:4A5:A469:BC7E (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a place to learn about editing Wikipedia. Try the Reference Desk. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

a little help editing ?

File:Derek Reese 2.jpg

Derek Reese - image currently nominated for deletion

Hello everyone, Is it possible to get a little help editing ? I am still in the draft stage of course, but i am trying to add a picture and other important information to my page, but the picture will not show up ? The photo is on wiki media commons. Any help or advice would be most appreciated. I have read a ton today regarding uploads, but sometimes we all could use a little help from another human :-) Thank you all, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Derek_Reese_American_singer-songwriter_and_musician Carolcappetta (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Carolcappetta, welcome to our Teahouse. Normally, it wouldn't be too hard to explain how to add an image such as this one of Derek Reese to a draft article. Unfortunately, it appears that an editor on Wikimedia Commons has nominated all images recently uploaded by Derekreesemusic for deletion, as "Promotional spam, not educationally useful and as such, out of project scope." You should comment on the deletion nomination at this link. Once images are nominated for deletion, they cannot be inserted via a quick 'insert file' link into pages. But normally you would look just above the image on Commons for a link with a W logo which says "Use this file". Click on that and you get a line of text to copy and paste into a page (though it has to be modified if you want to insert it into an Infobox).

Since posting my first version of this reply, I've corrected your draft so that the infobox works, and so it displays his image until such time as it gets deleted. I was unable to automatically copy the link to insert his picture into my reply here, but have done so manually.

At first glance your draft on David Reese seems unlikely to be accepted as it seems to fail to meet our notability criteria for musicians. Nor is the title appropriate - it simply needs to be 'David Reese (musician)' That said, the retention of at least one such image on Commons would seem justified -so do argue for that. Maybe it's a coincidence that one user has uploaded images, whilst another user has started an article on the subject at precisely the same time. But I see no reason for at least one image to be retained on Commons. Unfortunately, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are two separate bodies, and we have no influence over their oftentimes weird, wacky and wonderful ways of handling image concerns. Does this help? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC) '

Yes that was extremely helpful, thank you. I managed to upload a new photo and have replaced the photo that is up for deletion. I also followed your instructions on appealing the deletion, so we will see. Im not sure where i can change the Derek Reese American singer-songwriter and musician to simply, Derek Reese Musician. That tittle was a bit long lol. Anyway i will keep plugging away, thank you for your help, Carolcappetta (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Derek Reese (musician) is what should be used as the replacement title, as that would distinguish him from other people with the same name. David notMD (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Carolcappetta. You can rename the draft by moving it; but you won't be able to do this until your account is four whole days old. But I would not worry too much about the title of the draft: when you submit it for review, the reviewer who accepts it will move it to an article with an approprite title. Just note for future reference that we only use a qualifying expression where it is necessary to distinguish the subject from others of the same name; and then we put it in parentheses, and make it as general as we can. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How to correct an error in a diagram?

I noticed an error in a diagram (an image file) in an article that I'd like to correct. I just posted a question on the talk for that page, but it's also a general question I am curious about.

Do I need to create a whole new image from scratch to fix an error in a diagram? I could do this, but it seems pretty work-intensive. Are there any recommended tools to create a diagram, and some way of posting both the final image and the file that created the image? If there is such a tool, it seems to be a good method to create new content that can be easily corrected in the future. (Can SVG files be used for this?) Thanks! SmokeyVW (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SmokeyVW, welcome to the Teahouse. Well spotted! The typo is not in the Wikipedia article, but within the image which was inserted into that page. It can be found on Wikimedia Commons here]. Now, you could leave a comment in that image's 'discussion' page, or try to contact the image creator, but I note they haven't been active since 2015. The image is freely available for re-use, and you could download it, add in the correct text and upload it to replace the original via the 'upload a nnew version of this file' link lower down on that page. Having said that, the original image is not great quality. I disagree slightly that it would be a 'huge' amount of work to recreate a better version. I don't know what others would do, but I would simply create a similar version in Powerpoint quite quickly, then save it as a jpeg, then upload it. I would probably wish to credit the original image creator on which you based the revised and improved image. I used the same PowerPoint approach to create [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mont_Blanc_massif_(west).jpg this rather complex map of the Mont Blanc area. I can't comment on SVG files, but I'm sure others can. Hope this helps a bit. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it helps a lot. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyVW (talk • contribs) 00:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This must be about File:Block diagram EN.jpg . I'll fix the error myself within a few hours, if no-one else has got there first. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. That was very easy. (I love the idea of a "flattering filter", for use on portraits.) Maproom (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• @SmokeyVW and Nick Moyes: about SVG files: in short, if you do not know, create a SVG whenever you can. The long read is at commons:Commons:File types. As a format, JPG only really makes sense for photographs, everything that can be in a vectorial format ("infinitely zoomable") should be SVG, and the rest should be PNG.

Diagrams such as the one at hand here should really be SVG if your software supports exporting this. I believe Powerpoint does not, but it can export to PDF (which is vector graphics) and that can "easily" be converted to SVG.

If you intend to create a lot of diagrams and the like (say 20+), I can recommend Inkscape (which directly saves to SVG). I do realize learning a new software just for one diagram is a tall order though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyVW: When you see some image needs an improvement, correction or another work, and you do not know how to do it yourself or you have no appropriate tools, you can put a request at c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. --CiaPan (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have created a new SVG file for the block diagram. I went over to the image page, and for some reason I was not logged in on that page. I guess that is a separate server? So I'm stuck. I feel like I'm just bumbling about here. Is there a walk-through or tutorial on the general process of editing wikipedia? Many Thanks! SmokeyVW (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

If a user vandalises Wikipedia and I revert the edit how can I talk to him? Kigagan (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kigagan: Someone reverting vandalism can either just leave an explanation within the edit summary if they wish, or they can take it a little further by going to that person's talk page and creating a new topic, perhaps entitled 'your recent edits', or something similar, ensuring that you link to the article or to the diff showing their edit. Those of us with Twinkle enabled can make the process much easier as it facilitates the automatic posting to an editors talk page of a serious of escalating warning templates for repeat vandals, finally allowing us to report the editor to WP:AIV for an administrator to block if necessary. Often times I re-edit the warning notice to better explain my concerns

That said, anyone reverting vandalism really needs to know how to recognise it, and the best way to do that is to gain experience of editing articles. Despite all your questions here, you have so far only made this one tiny edit to the encyclopaedia itself, which was soon reverted. I suggest worrying less about vandals and other matters at this moment in time and simply focus on gaining that personal experience of improving articles on topics that interest you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

User indef blocked as sock. David notMD (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How to fix?

A vandal at Madonna singles discography. Been there 4 days. I don’t know what will happen if I click undo. And what about any other crap he’s done?

How many vandals are female? MBG02 (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MBG02, and thank you for drawing that non-constructive edit to our attention. I'm surprised that over-chatty addition (not really vandalism) remained there for so long. Anyhow, I've taken the normal action and have 'undone' the edit. Nothing bad would have happened had you undone it yourself. Had you made a poor judgement call, someone else might just as easily revert your change. This is how we operate here, albeit not by constant revert-re-reverting -reverting again. I undid the edit by going to 'View History' and selected that edit and the one before in order to view the difference. Having appreciated that it was not really appropriate or helpful to the page, I 'undid' the edit, leaving an explanatory edit summary, suggesting that this was opinion and over-chatty in tone, and not appropriate to the encyclopaedia. I didn't feel there was any need to warn the editor, as it was probably done in what we call 'Good Faith'. What I then tend do do is visit that editors userpage or talk page, and select 'User Contributions' from the link at the far left of the page. That displays a list of their recent edits (see here), and I can click 'diff' from each of the ones shown as current and make an assessment of each. I also look at their Talk page for signs of past and especially recent warning and blocks (there are quite a lot (see here), but I also note this is an IP address of Frontier Communications, so no doubt innumerable different users have edited from this one IP. My conclusion is that the recent suite of edits from this IP are not vandalistic in nature, but have reverted a couple of minor additions made in good faith, and was happy to accept others they'd made. Oh, I don't think there's any way we can answer your question about the breakdown of vandals between the sexes. Very few vandals announce their gender, though we do know we have historically had more male editors here than female ones, and that we do need to redress the balance and to work to attract more women editors and to create more articles on notable women, hence the Women in Red WikiProkject. I hope this breakdown is of some relevance. Next time, why not have a go at undoing a bad edit yourself -you'll gain in confidence that way, and can always come back here and seek further opinion from us. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

obsessed

Just how is it that this the use of this word is a "by" explanation and not "with" as the person with n infactuation is the active partner and not the intended "victim"?2605:E000:1301:4462:B12C:D9EF:8299:5A76 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about the details of editing Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions, please try the Reference desks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If you do take your question to the WP:REFDESK, you might like to consider rewording it. I've read it three times now, and it still makes no sense to me whatsoever, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I believe that the OP is asking about the different connotations of "obsessed by" as opposed to "obsessed with". But I could be wrong. They OP may not be a native or fully fluent English speaker. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that could explain this small edit. I think I prefer the original version, but probably wouldn't have felt the need to revert it back to 'fascinated by' from 'fascinated with', as both seem to work in that context. My apologies if my reply came over as rude, IP editor. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

From draft to article

I just finished a translation and I wanted to publish it but I just managed to create a draft... how can I convert it into a proper article? here the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stefano_Cucchi#Note — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakatacat (talk • contribs) 10:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nakatacat: That article is very clearly a machine translation, and bears many of the flaws of machine translation (improper verb tense, inconsistent and at times incoherent language, etc.). For that reason, we ask editors not to use machine translation, as it is not up to the task of translating complex prose like an encyclopedia article. Translations should be done by hand, by an editor fully fluent in both the source and target language. Please do not attempt to "publish" it in its current form. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nakatacat. What Seraphimblade says is right, but there's nothing to stop you using your draft as a basis and improving the English. If there are sources in English, it would be preferable to use those, but if not, the Italian sources are acceptable. (If you do change the sourcs, make sure the article reflects what the source actually says!) When you think the draft is suitable, you can submit it for review by inserting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Bot requirements

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am creating a bot.So I want to know what are the requirements of a bot?Kigagan (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Welcome to the Teahouse Kigagan you can read about bots here Wikipedia:Bots, but you might be better advised trying some actual edits to Wikipedia main space before attempting any thing so adventurous! Theroadislong (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Hello! I don't know if really have found it easy to create a bot. Nevertheless, this is what WP:BOTREQUIRE says, "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it:is harmless,is useful,does not consume,resources unnecessarily,performs only tasks for which there is consensus,carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines,uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users". Also, you cannot operate a bot until your approval has been accepted at WP:BRFA. I still doubt that you are creating a bot. I think it's yet another Just-for-fun question. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC) I am really creating a bot which reverts personal attacks.And his name will be AttackBot.And those who make fun of other's work they are not eligible to edit Wikipedia.Kigagan (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC) The mechanics of programmatically reliably identifying personal attacks (which I suspect is far more difficult than you think, and every bot must be reliable) aside, I don't see naming any bot "AttackBot" as a good idea. General Ization Talk 16:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) If you all really want to help please suggest me few names of a bot which will be approved.Kigagan (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

User blocked as a sock, this conversation can be ended. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How do I see what happens to my additions?

I am really new to this, I just started editing yesterday, and I have just been correcting small grammar mistakes and other minor stuff. Where can I see when one of my changes gets deleted or something like that? Do I get a notification? Thanks, cpscm! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualcpscm (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Actualcpscm, and welcome to the Teahouse! There is "something like that", but you will not (in general, but see WP:UNDO, if someone does that to one of your edits, you get a "ping") be notified when someone edits your edits.

At Special:Contributions/Actualcpscm you will see some edits marked current which means nobody has edited the page after you.

If you add articles to your WP:WATCHLIST you can check that now and then, and see who did what to which article. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If you add to your watchlist any articles which you edit (which is, I think, still the default in Special:Preferences), you'll see any further changes flagged in the watchlist. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Actualcpscm, and welcome. I want to acknowledge you for that approach. Many new users start straight in with trying to create new articles, and that often leads to frustration for them and others. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Actualcpscm. Can I just make a very small observation about your username? It might be absolutely fine, but something about it hints to me that it could have been created by you on behalf of an organisation (such as the Center for Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, for example). Should that be the case (and I'm not suggesting it actually is), you ought to be informed at this early stage that we don't allow usernames which imply shared use by more than one person - see WP:NOSHARING. It can be got around quite easily by simply abandoning one account now and choosing a different user name (cpscm(Nick) for example, Nor do we encourage that account to edit on topics related to it without declaring an interest. I'm not in any way trying to discourage you from editing, but just wanted to highlight a potential issue that might arise in the future. One way around any other nit-picking editor like me asking questions is to introduce yourself via your userpage (which you've not yet created), and you can tell the world a little about your Wikipedia editing interests. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Controversial Structure for a drug under Clinical Trial

Today I found discussion about a drug Balovaptan in a social media. I checked its Structure on PubChem and Wikipedia. But surprisingly the structures are whole lot different. See talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balovaptan#CHEMICAL_STRUCTURE_CONTROVERSIAL. Requesting Dispute resolution and scientific review. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia shows the following image:

Wikipedia used this image

Balovaptan current wikipedia image screenshot

Whereas PUBCHEM search result shows a whole lot different image https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/46200932#section=2D-Structure

Evidence Balovaptan Pubchem Search Result screenshot

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments at Talk:Balovaptan and made some updates to the article. It looks like you are correct. Any further discussion is best continued on the article's talk page. Thanks for catching the problem and reporting it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Edgar181: Thank you for your response; but this controversy was shocking. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Youtube videos

Can youtube videos be posted to wikipedia pages? My understanding is that videos on Youtube are in the public domain. 18:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)~

Most videos there are protected by copyright. See the guidance at WP:YOUTUBE. RudolfRed (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Attn: User: Gonzofan2007

User:Gonzofan2007, Why do you keep deleting Dave Roller's well written article? It is not a stub as all information is factual and the source is straight from Dave Roller himself and taken from articles he has presented to verify. There are no links to use as sources to such information on these articles from 30 years ago as all have been archived. I have personally read these articles but have no way to link them to his Wikipedia page. It is VERY DISAPPOINTING that you keep deleting his Wikipedia information, especially since this article on Dave Roller has been on Wikipedia for over 10 years. All that changed was the format and he has received numerous compliments on the format. Everyone likes the new format as it is easier to read. He is VERY UPSET it has been deleted twice! Rather than just delete his information it would be nice to inform what exactly is wrong so it came be corrected. And how to correct it would be a lot kinder than just deleting the information altogether.

This question is directed to user Gonzofan2007 because the user deleted the information on Dave Roller but I would appreciate any help or advice from anyone. I think the information that has been provided is very resourceful and has proven over the past 10+ years to be of great interest to those that follow Dave Roller's career. Please instruct as to why this information all of a sudden (after 10+ yrs) is being deleted. All that is stated is it is a stub.

Thanking you in advance to anyone willing to help explain what is suddenly wrong with Dave Roller's information and any help or advice on how it can corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmm1313 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mmm1313: Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Sources must exist, but they do not need to be online. See WP:REFB for how to cite sources. RudolfRed (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the Dave Roller article at a point prior to G's deletions. It had lots of details (perhaps too many), but the essential failure was that it had no references. None. The fact that it existed for a long time does not matter. In fact, it had a needs work template dating back to 2013. This has nothing to do with format, or Mr. Roller liking the format. It is Wikipedia's article, not "his" article, and it has to meet Wikipedia standards. Statements of fact can be restored as long as references are identified. All of the deleted content is there, in View history, so not lost. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Separately, it is clear from your comment that you have - minimally - a conflict of interest, given that you know how Roller feels about what happened. In the Talk of the article you should describe your relationship with Roller. If it in any way is paid (see WP:PAID) then you must describe the relationship. David notMD (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I have responded to Mmm1313 on my talk page. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If I edit a page on something, will I get in trouble for it?

I don't know if I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashurman100 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Bashurman100, welcome to the Teahouse. It's hard for me to know what it is that you're worrying about, but providing you're not adding utter nonsense or rude words, or silly stuff like that, you should be fine. Just go for it! You can always come back and post a link to your edit if you want reassurance. We have a saying here: "Be Bold". The worst that can happen for one mistake is that another editor reverts you and might leave a gentle reminder on your talk page. The worst thing you can do it to not edit anything because you're afraid of putting a foot out of place. Have a read of Help:Getting started, or why not try out The Wikipedia Adventure? There are 15 badges you can collect along the way as you learn the basics of how Wikipedia works. Hope this reassurance is, errm, well, reassuring! Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Sugarloaf Parkway look constructive. They cite a reference, but not quite in the recommended way, and the result is an error message in the article. I tried to browse to the source cited, so as to be able to improve the way the citation is done; but I can't, because I am in the European Union (for the next six months anyway), and the web site cited won't let me for legal reasons. I hope some non-EU editor can fix the citation for you.

You certainly won't get in trouble for that. At worst, you will get advice on the preferred style for citations. To get in trouble, you would have to do something wrong (which you haven't), be told not to, and then do it again, repeatedly. Maproom (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You were missing the ref close code, which is </ref>. Originally you just had <ref> without the slash. Also, the url goes in a url= field - you had it in the title= field, generating an error. I also added website, date, and accessdate parameters.TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

NitroType Article

I recently created the article NitroType. It is a stub and I was wondering if someone could review the article and make suggestions for improvements. Thanks,  mrwoogi010  (Talk) 23:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, mrwoogi010, welcome to the Teahouse. Someone has already reviewed it and found it wanting. I'm sorry, but it fails to meet our notability criteria for software/games and has been nominated for speedy deletion. You can of course contest this decision, but the only way really to save it is to demonstrate references showing that it has been written about in depth by independent sources, not promotional websites. I'm sorry about that - it can be disappointing. Maybe next time you might wish to work on a draft and then submit it when you're ready to Articles for Creation. Do have a read of Wikipedia:Your First Article. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article and unfortunately the subject is going to have a hard time meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG. I can't find any third party media coverage of the game. I thought a merge with Typing.com would work, but that article is in draft, and similarly difficult to source, so it's not likely to be approved either. The NitroType article has been nominated for speedy deletion, a process you can read about here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Sorry for having to break the bad news. We've all (or most of us) have had early articles deleted. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing article about my husband

Hi, Some kind person wrote an article about my husband and his new book. I have supplemented his version with factual information, but wikipedia has flagged the article as having contributions by someone close to the subject. I can add citations throughout to support the statements, but I need help with the editorial process. Where do I add the citations? What is an acceptable format? I would greatly appreciate help from any of you with expertise in this process. Many thanks, Ellen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellenoffner (talk • contribs) 01:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Advice has been given by another editor at User talk:Ellenoffner#Your conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I need my profile page in Wikipedia

Can you help me, how to create — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.97.194.47 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social media platform and does not have profile pages. It is an encyclopedia with articles about notable subjects. Registered users may choose to generate a user page with information about their Wikipedia interests. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Article declined, need help

Popovy Sisters

Hello, I was trying to write an article about Popovy Sisters, but for some reason my content was blocked and I was sent to this section. Can anyone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia mji (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

hello, Julia mji - welcome to our Teahouse. The article you wrote under a correctly-declared Conflict of Interest/Paid editing statement on Popovy sisters was declined, not blocked, in 2017. An attempt to resubmit it at Article for Creation was declined earlier this year, and the draft deleted. I'm sure you've seen the notifications about this on your Talk Page which explained the reasoning? Not being an admin, I am unable to view the deleted content, but it appears that not only had you copy/pasted copyrighted text directly from your employers' website, but the feeling was that the page was purely promotional in nature, so the draft was declined. This is why we discourage anyone to take payment to write on behalf of others, as gaining neutrality is never as easy as it is with a non-incentivised editor. The only help I can give you is in the form of advice we give to everyone. If you can find a number of reliable sources that write in detail and in-depth about the subject, then you might stand a chance in creating an article. This Vogue article shows they have been taken note of by serious media, but sadly it's in the form of an interview, so we ignore the writings of the subjects themselves. Similarly, this Huff Post page is in the same format. Maybe you can source others and ensure neutral, encyclopaedia content in any attempt to recreate/review the page? If you're unable to do this then I'm afraid you will never get a page here, no matter how much they might want you to write one for them. I hope this helps a little. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes, I am art manager of Popovy Sisters, I do work with them, but I do not get paid for articles. It is my own will as they are a very notable artists who have been published internationally, won several awards, and collaborated with some important Artists and Designers. How can I restart writing the article again? Julia mji (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Julia mji: You could start a new draft. However, to keep you from wasting your time, I would suggest you very carefully read the advice above. It is required that articles be written mostly from reliable and independent source material. That material should be substantially or entirely about the article subject, not just name drop them. If a substantial quantity of such material exists about that subject, write a draft in a neutral tone, and ensure to stick only to facts verified by reliable references, not any personal knowledge you may have. If a good quantity of such reference material doesn't exist, they are not an appropriate subject for an article. In that case, you might want to consider writing about them elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Julia mji. If you are their 'art manager', then you are most definitely paid, but that really isn't a concern here because you've correctly declared your working relationship on your Talk Page, so thank you very much for that. If they've won awards, find the references that prove this; if they've been featured in international exhibitions, show the sources that demonstrate this. Find the mentions in books or news media. You are, of course, (as has just been said above) able to start another draft and resubmit if for review (or you can keep one for as long as you like within your own personal sandbox) but my advice would be to avoid repeating the approach you took last time, whatever that was. I often advise that 'less is more' - just get past the hurdle of Notability for artists, and don't puff up an article with irrelevant references that just seem intended to promote. I thinks that's all I can offer you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up to articel genrated wrong place?

Dear Team. I generated an article about corn sauce. It was rejected. I would like to know the comment about the rejection to learn more. Where can I find it?--WuHaiJie (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, WuHaiJie. You have the information you need (supplied by Cullen328) on your talk page at User_talk:WuHaiJie#Article_Corn_Sauce. He indicated that you had wrongly created a draft article directly on your User Page. We never place drafts there - so it was moved to Draft:Corn Sauce. To me, it looks overly detailed, very under-referenced and rather essay-like. A good start would be to remove anything that can't be supported by sources (no pun intended, sorry!), and to place inline citations (including page numbers to book) after each statement of fact. Get rid of the gallery with huge charts, and put the images as 'thumbs' per WP:MOSIMAGES. That should do for a start, and ensure that the page doesn't duplicate any other page. I hope this helps? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Help:Contents has links on how to write and reference for Wikipedia. Looking at Soy sauce should provide ideas for sections. David notMD (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear both. Thanks for the guidance. --WuHaiJie (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've done some work to make Draft:Corn sauce comply with Wikipedia's standards for an article. But the referencing needs a lot of improvement. Reading Help:Referencing for beginners would be a good start. Maproom (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How to contribute to Wikipedia

How can I contribute on Wikipedia to write content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morkieflash (talk • contribs) 06:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Morkieflash. There's lots of ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for some suggestions. However, edits like this, this and this are not constructive and are going to be seen as a type of spamming. One of the quickest and surest ways to find yourself having problems as an editor is to try and use a Wikipedia article to promote someone or something. It's OK to make a mistake once (maybe even twice), especially when you're new to Wikipedia, but please don't do that type a thing again.

In addition, your choice of username does not comply with Wikipedia:User name policy#Promotional names, so I suggest you change it asap before your account is blocked. I've posted more specific information on how you can request such a change on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How to create a company article

I am trying to create a company page on Wikipedia. This contains general information about the company and not any promotional content. Still I am receiving the "speedy deletion" message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipro.enterprise (talk • contribs)

Hello Wipro.enterprise, welcome to our Teahouse. Oh dear; I'm afraid you've made quite a number of really fundamental errors - details of which are on your talk page at: User talk:Wipro.enterprise. Let me try to summarise:

• Your Userpage is only there for you to say a few words about you as an editor, not to write an article about your company. So has been flagged for immediate deletion. It contravenes our policies, explained at WP:USERPAGE.
• Your Username contravenes our policy on implying shared use and must be abandoned and changed immediately. (Wipro.Nick or Wipro.Jamshed would be acceptable forms) See WP:NOSHARING
• Writing about one's own organisation is seen as a 'Conflict of Interest', and an employee paid to do that is obligated to declare it on their individual userpage. See WP:COI and WP:PAID for details on our requirements from you in that regard.
• Your article on your userpage is hugely promotional. It would never be accepted as a Wikipedia page in that form. We only care about companies deemed to meet Wikipedia's 'Notability' criteria, and must have been written about in-depth and in independent, reliable sources. Please read this page on Notability for organisations to learn more.
• There is already a page entitled Wipro - this could be the place for brief, factual statements about the company or subsidiaries to be made and fully referenced.

I'm sorry I can't be more encouraging here, but I hope this brief explanation helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Academic titles in film plot

We have an unresolved discussion on the talk page about whether it is sexist to call the female academics in the plot by first name, while calling their male partners by last name. Related, my recent edit "adding academic title to female characters in the cast (male characters are already listed with academic titles" was reverted as being tied to that discussion. Please add your opinion to the talk page, where the discussion is not moving on: Talk:Interstellar_(film) : "Calling adult female scientists by first name and all male counterparts by last name is sexist" thanks --Vigilius (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Neoteric Evolutionary Theory

This Wikipedia page was deleted apparently because there was 'no activity'. The content was intended - as in a dictionary - to be seen as a reference available for scrutinity. If a strong objection to its content arose, surely as 'flag' of some kind would alert the author of the submission to 'trouble a'foot'? If not, why delete it? Is every submission treated this way? What is the heirarchy or ordering process that determines the submission has a fleeting 'shelf life' or some measure of permanence if suitably argued? How to publish and 'have it stick?' Sorry if I fail to comprehend the subtle mechanisms behind Wikipedia's modus operandi; byzantine or machiavellian? DeQuinceyMalden (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey DeQuinceyMalden. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a dictionary. For an open source free dictionary, see our sister project Wiktionary. Furthermore, for a subject to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and be suitable for its own article, it needs to have received sustained in depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, usually things like books, magazines, newspapers, and academic publications. If the subject has not yet received this type of coverage, then it is probably too soon for it to have its own article. GMG^talk 13:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles are not deleted from the encyclopedia because of "no activity". The article Neoteric evolutionary theory was deleted in July because editors reviewing it "[couldn't] find mention of this in the literature and the term is not used in the references cited. It currently seems to be wp:original research." We require scientific theories and other concepts to be documented in reliable sources, and for that documentation to reflect significant support from experts in the appropriate disciplines, in order to retain them here. See Original research and Fringe theories. General Ization ^Talk 13:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Also: the creator of the article would have been notified that a nomination for proposed deletion of the article had been submitted and invited to respond. General Ization ^Talk 13:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the OP saw the notification at User talk:DeQuinceyMalden#Proposed deletion of Neoteric_evolutionary_theory. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The article has now been undeleted per the OP's request and I have opened an AfD to consider the matter further. Further discussion of this matter should occur at the AfD. General Ization ^Talk 13:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Merged Pages

Is it possible to see all the pages which have been merged into a specific article?

I want to know because I'm looking at the page theme music which in my opinion should be called Theme Song or Theme Tune (both of which have been merged into it) and wondered what other names the music at the start of a radio/TV show/film/video game, or a celebrities entrance (aka Entrance Theme, Entry Theme, Walk-On Music, etc) could be referred as.

Danstarr69 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Danstarr69. You can use this tool to see all of the current redirects to that page. You will have to check them manually to see if they were created as redirects, or if they were created as articles and then redirected and merged. GMG^talk 14:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How do you start

How do you even start this? I am so lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadiantTiger (talk • contribs) 15:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey RadiantTiger. It looks like you've already found our interactive tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure. I'm sorry you've gotten lost, but maybe if you could be more specific about what you're trying to find or trying to do then we can be more helpful. GMG^talk 18:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Biography Page for a Hacker

Hi, I just wanted to know how to properly create a Wikipedia biography page about a few hackers. Is there any template I could follow? I wanted to make a page similar to Snowdens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angogaru (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Angogaru: Hello and welcome to Teahouse. First, you will have to see that if the subject of your article is notable and if it has received enough coverage from reliable sources. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." So after reading WP:GNG and other guidelines, if you think that the hackers are notable you may create an article. Otherwise, Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted. As for how to create, the method is same as you would create any other article. You may read WP:YFA for more help regarding article creation. Thanks, Knightrises10 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

About drafts

Are drafts about content which obviously aren't notable able to be proposed for deletion, or do they have to be submitted for review first? CoolSkittle (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey CoolSkittle. Any page can be deleted if it meets one of the General speedy deletion criteria, although being non-notable isn't one of them. Alternatively, you can nominate a draft at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. GMG^talk 18:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Am I allowed to contribute to wikipedia if i only contribute articles about CD Projekt Red and The Witcher

Or do i have to edit more things than just CDPR and Witcher--GeraltOfRivia2077 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey GeraltOfRivia2077. Anyone can pretty much contribute in whatever topic interests them. But it does look like you might enjoy participating in WikiProject Video games, which is a whole community on Wikipedia dedicated to improving the quality of our articles on video games and gaming culture. GMG^talk 19:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

1st Documented Church Shooting in the US

I am a police officer preparing a class on church violence - including church shootings. Although I've conducted research for the "first" documented church shooting in the US I cannot find anything. Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.216.199 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You might have some more luck finding information at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities board. Regards SoWhy 20:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at the articles that are members of Category:Attacks on places of worship in the United States? General Ization ^Talk 20:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The earliest that I can find is Daingerfield_church_shooting in 1980. You can also read this report which states that there have been 139 shootings on church properties from 1980 to 2005. Ruslik_Zero 20:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

74, you might want to rethink your approach here. Places of worship (and limiting yourself to churches, which by definition are Christian houses of worship is clearly a distinction that serves no purpose in the analysis of a particular type of violence) have been significant gathering places for, well, forever. There were churches attacked on the frontier during the so called "Indian wars". If the class your prepping for is for church leaders, that is a rough subject, because whatever sound advice you have for them will have to be tempered and filtered through the congregation's and the denomination's interpretation of Jesus's teaching on brotherly love. I will say that since the incident in Texas, there are always at least three people that are carrying concealed at every service in my church, and sucky as it is, the leadership has drilled in responses to armed attack. Thanks for everything you do. John from Idegon (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Question on Reverting Vandalism Efficiently

Hello, I want to ask in kind how I can be able to revert vandalism with efficiency without trouble. Is there anything I can do because its admittedly hard to so manually since I tried. Also can this article Felix Brych get protected for a while. It's been vandalised repeatedly since today's incident. I hope to get a response 6Packs (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello 6Packs, welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. I can understand your frustration when you see articles being vandalised but it's actually very easy and quick to deal with vandalism, revert the changes, get vandals blocked, or get pages protected by one of our Admins.

In case what follows below seems a bit complicated, do have a read of this page about dealing with vandalism.

If you do see a page being vandalised, go to the View History tab for that page where you will see every past edit. There, you can compare the differences between recent edits to see if it was made in good faith. If damaging, you can hit the 'undo' button to restore to the earlier, undamaged version, leaving an edit summary like "undo vandalism" in the edit summary box. The process of reverting and warning vandals can be speeded up using a tool called "Twinkle" which you enable by clicking the 'Preferences' link at the very top of every page, near the logout link. Go to the 'gadgets' tab and scroll down and tick the box to 'enable Twinkle'. Having saved your changed preferences, you'll now find you have the extra option when you view history of 'rolling back' vandalism via a bright red link. Having rolled back/reverted a damaging edit, you are then taken to the user's talk page where you can leave them either a personal message, or use the Twinkle tool to automate the warning process by leaving an escalating series of warning notices. (you find the tool by looking for the letters 'TW' just to the left of the Search Box when in desktop view. The various Twinkle drop-down options let you 'Warn' editors or report them (ARV) for administrator attentionor, or even request page protection (RPP) when on an active and heavily-vandalised page. Its important the first time you see vandalism by an editor that you treat it carefully, assuming a degree of good-faith and leave the lowest level warning message. But this can be increased if they repeat their damaging actions. The same tool allows you to report vandals to administrators for their attention. Once that editor or IP user has been warned 4 times and you report them via the Twinkle tool, an admin will review the complaint and decide whether to block the user.

Now, all this might sound a little complicated, but it's easy doing so in practice, though it may take some practice for those completely new to Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll get other advice and further tips for helping to deal with an important problem here. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes thank you 6Packs (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating an article

How do I create a Wikipedia article from scratch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owensetty (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article. General Ization ^Talk 22:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

RS book

Hi How can I find out if a articular publication on a publisher list is considered RS If it isnt how can it be added as? The book I am asking about is Light on Life by Hart de fouw & Robert E Svoboda SBN: 9780940985698 published bu Lotus Press www.lotuspress.com ThanksKahouna Dreaming (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kahouna Dreaming, and welcome to the Teahouse. Having just looked at the Lotus Press website, it appears they specialise in what I personally regard as the weird and wacky end of publishing, so I am not really qualified to answer your question. The book appears to be about Astrology, which is nothing but a fanciful pseudoscience, so do be extremely careful how you use its content, and in what context you apply it. However we do have Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where you can ask for more specialised advice. I would advise you to tell us (or them) precisely what statement it is that you want to use this reference to support. That should elicit a far better answer for you. Hope this helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. Can you pass my enquiry on to someone in Wp who does not think that the subject of eastern philosophy including yoga as weird and wacky' If such a person exists! Kahouna Dreaming (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kahouna Dreaming. There really isn't a concept of "pass my enquiry on": all communication in Wikipedia is done through Talk and discussion pages, so it is up to you to find people you want to work with. That said, you might find WP:WikiProject Astrology helpful. As Nick implied, but didn't say explicitly, whether a source is regarded as reliable or not depends partly on what information it is being used as a source for, so it would be helpful to know what the information is in question. But the WP:RSN is the best place to ask, as Nick said. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I was hoping to use part of a chart analysis of Adolph Hitler which times events in his rise and fall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahouna Dreaming (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

a few questions

are we allowed to talk to people and ask stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmanclaw (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Catmanclaw. It's fine to contact other editors on their Talk Pages to ask about editing, the reason for their edits, or to seek consensus over editing or content, and so forth, but it's not OK to chat generally about a subject, or try to meet/befriend people, talk about last night's TV show etc. See WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. If an editor tells you that your contact with them is not appropriate for Wikipedia for some reason, then you should be very wary of continuing, or you could find complaints made against you. But we work by consensus here, so contacting others to discuss how we build this encyclopaedia is fine. If you want to ask general stuff, here is not the place, though we do have a WP:REFDESK which tries to answer certain factual questions for people. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Still don't understand

Why my emails keep changing and still getting tons of spam and fraudulent emails. Scared to open any email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merhansen (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Merhansen. The Teahouse is generally a place where people come to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. It's sounds like you're question might be more related to a problem you're having with your email account than a problem you're having with Wikipedia. So, you might be able to find someone who can help you out at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Just pick the category you think applies to your situation and post your question there. Now, if your question about emails does have to do with Wikipedia editing in some way, please clarify how so that it will be easier for a Teahouse host to try and help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing a new article from my sandbox to the encyclopedia

I wrote a new article about the singer "Oshri" it is in my sandbox: User:מיקרוז/sandbox, can anyone here guide me how to remove the article from my sandbox to the encyclopedia? (whenever I try to open a new headline it refer me back to the sandbox) thank you מיקרוז (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi מיקרוז. The first comment I have is about your signature. While some people do use non-English characters for their username, try and remember that this is English Wikipedia and most likely not many of the users are going to be able to read Hebrew (I'm assuming that's what language is being used); so, they might not know how to refer to you in posts. So, it might be best to tweak your username as explained in WP:NONLATIN.

Regarding the page move, it's technically quite a simple thing to do as explained in WP:MOVE, but you might be better off submitting the draft for review first via WP:AFC. When you directly add something to the article namespace, it's there for all to edit (for better or worse). This means it's also there to be deleted if the community feels it's not up to Wikipedia's standards. Having the first article you ever create being quickly tagged or nominated for deletion can often be quite a shock for a new editor, Currently, your draft appears to be a good start, but it's not really clear how this person meets WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO since the current sources cited don't appear to be sufficient for establishing Wikipedia notability. There are also some formatting fixes as well that can be made, but the main issue appears to be questionable Wikipedia notability. If you submit the draft for review to AfC, a reviewer will look it over and assess it. Even if the draft is declined, the review will leave suggestions on what things need to be improved to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. There's no guarantee that your draft will untimately be improved, but it will at least give the chance to get some feedback. There's also no guarantee that anything you submit via AfC will never be deleted, but drafts approved via AfC generally seem to survive more often than those directly added to the article namespace by their creators. AfC is option and whether you choose that route is up to you, but writing a proper Wikipedia article is quite hard and many first time editors unfortunately really come to understand this only after their first attempt at an article has been deleted.

If you decide you want to submit your draft for review to AfC, the first thing you will need to do is move content in your user sandbox to the draft namespace. You can create a draft by following the instructions in WP:DRAFTS#Creating and editing drafts. You will need to select a name for the draft according to WP:COMMONNAME, but "Oshri Elmorich" is probably OK. Once you've created the draft, just copy-and-paste the content from your sandbox into the draft and leave an edit summary explaining what you did. Just follow the instruction on the draft creation page since it seems fairly sel-explanatory. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Marchjuly for your answer, as you suggested I removed the article from my sand box to Draft:Oshri it is now on a waiting list for review, it mentions that it might take some two month to be approved, I can add more refernces but I think The Article is in right standarts. is there any way here to speed it? מיקרוז (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again מיקרוז. There's no real way to speed things up. AFC reviewers are WP:VOLUNTEERs like the rest of us and occasionally get WP:BUSY. Moreover, there aren't really any firm WP:DEADLINEs when it comes to draft approval; so, all you can really do is wait for it to be reviewed. While you're waiting, you can continue to improve the draft or work on improving other articles; you can even work on sorting out the issues with your username. Try taking the WP:ADVENTURE to learn more about editing and then maybe join a WikiProject to find articles that of interest to you which need improvement. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

THank you Marchjuly מיקרוז (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

How to: a) handle apparent vandalism-only account (4th offense); 2) revert last spam after another's innocent subsequent edit; 3) warn x4 ; 4) notify admins

Hi, I've never personally dealt with handling vandalism and may have just stumbled across a simple case that could help me learn the ropes.

I saw a spam link (to laxmi.edu.in/) on one article (Citizen Schools and corrected it. User contribs showed only four edits to four articles, all adding same non-relevent link. As most were most recent edits, reverting worked fine for first three: 1) View history -> 2) Compare selected revisions -> 3) Rollback Vandal

But vandal's most recent edit was followed by another user's edit that I don't want to clobber.

Also, I need guidance on how to send 4 escalated Talk page warnings as apparent prerequisite to reporting user to Admins for blocking account.

Thanks. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. - I've looked over WP:VANDAL and am looking for guidance in this specific case. Thanks -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Paulscrawl: Hello! I see that you are using Twinkle. It's a great tool. You can easily revert edits by Twinkle; there are three options for that. Rollback Vandal, Rollback, and AGF. For warning users, you can again use the Twinkle options, it gives all four levels of warnings. If you want to warn them manually, you may see these warning templates.

You can also report a user with the help of Twinkle.

If a vandal's edits are followed by another user's constructive edits, you can simply undo the vandal's versions.

As a summary to your subject; a) Report it using Twinkle by checking 'vandalism-only account'. b) You can undo the versions. c) Refer to those templates or use twinkle. d) Twinkle had the option.

Beside this, you may also wish to get trained from one of the trainers listed at WP:CVUA. Thanks,Knightrises10 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Knightrises10: Thanks, I never did delve into why I installed Twinkle, but thanks to your recommendation I'll be going to the Academy! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Paulscrawl: I'm also getting trained at the moment from Mz7 . There are 3 trainers, you will have to leave a message to any one of them at their talk page. Knightrises10 (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Photograph on wikipedia page so disgusting I wanted to vomit - could someone cover it up please?

This was the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_surgical_procedure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.90.125 (talk) 04:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:NOTCENSORED. MarnetteD|Talk 05:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi 82.69.90.125. If you peruse enough Wikipedia articles, you're probably going to come across an image you don't like. Best advice I can give in such a cases is to simply just make a mental note of the article and avoid it in the future. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project with people from all over the world contributing to and reading; so, there's not really a practical way to ensure that every article and every image does not offend everyone who ever looks at Wikipedia. As MarnetteD posted above, Wikipedia doesn't censor content except when it's clearly in violation of relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

If you create an account, you can then suppress the display of images if you want to avoid potentially seeing an image that offends you. Please read WP:NOSEE for information on how to do that(once you create an account). 331dot (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Article

I wish to ask if my article below will merit publication under the NASA Page: Thank you.

not the place for draft content

Latest NASA programs The NASA launched a planet-searching mission to discover alien worlds. It launched the TESS or Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite in April 18, 2018 on top of SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-spearheaded NASA mission conducted an all-sky exploration survey for passing or transiting (extro) planets. These planets move in front of stars as observed from telescopes. https://tess.mit.edu/ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/when-planets-transit The space telescope analyzes many bright stars in the sun's neighborhood. It looks for minuscule dips in brightness resulting from the passage (or "transit") of revolving planets as small as the planet Earth across the stars. https://www.space.com/41882-nasa-tess-first-exoplanet-evaporating-super-earth.html Scientists utilized the TESS data in discovering another planet around the Pi Mensae star or HD 39091 located roughly about 59 light years from the earth in the Mensa constellation. http://www.solstation.com/stars2/pimensae.htm At the beginning of 2018, NASA maintained two space rovers on the planet Mars. However, the Opportunity ceased communicating with earth because of the huge dust storm that engulfed the planet. This cyclone prevented sunlight from reaching the solar panels. Since June (2018), NASA has not heard from the craft even if the storm has stopped. The Curiosity Rover also experienced a technical issue prompting space engineers to shut down all scientific instruments temporarily while performing troubleshooting functions. NASA tried to rescue Opportunity in August but shelved its plans. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/09/curiosity-opportunity-nasa-rover-problems/570769/ https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/status_opportunityAll.html https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/mars-rover-curiosity-mission-updates/ Like the TESS telescope, the NASA Parker Solar Probe radiated first light data recently. These referred to images from a set of four instruments meant to analyze the sun’s corona. The data provides NASA the opportunity to inspect all systems. https://www.cnet.com/news/nasas-mission-to-touch-the-sun-beams-back-first-images-parker-solar-probe/ The Wide-Field for Solar Probe (WISPR) opened its protective door on September 9, 2018. It allowed Parker to take its first image of outer space. The WISPR includes an inner and external telescope at the back of Parker’s sophisticated heat shield. https://www.sri.com/work/projects/wide-field-imager-solar-probe-wispr The Probe also transmitted data from three instruments aboard the craft. These are ISOIS, FIELDS, and SWEAP. ISOIS refers to Integrated Science Investigation of the Sun. https://spacephysics.princeton.edu/missions-instruments/isois The FIELDS Experiment checks the magnetic and electric fields around the sun. http://fields.ssl.berkeley.edu/ SWEAP or Solar Wind Electrons Alphas and Protons take specific measurements of the solar wind. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/sweap/ The Parker Solar Probe flies through space. It will finish the first of seven flybys of Venus on October 3, 2018. This accomplishment will put the Probe in an elliptical course around the sun that will last for around 150 days.

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the place for draft content so I have collapsed its display. If you want to include content in an article you will need to format references appropriately, see Help:Referencing for beginners. If you want to suggest changes and hope for others to implement them, the place is the article talk page, so if you are suggesting changes to NASA you would need to do so at Talk:NASA. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Help For The Creation Of Article in Mainspace

Hey There!

It's My Pleasure To Contribute the knowledge through wikipedia, But Now I want to understand all the process to create a Mainspace Article on wikipedia so please Notify Me For that Procedure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susung (talk • contribs) 07:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

See the section #Creating an article above. Please also note that English does not put a capital letter at the start of random words in a sentence; see MOS:CAPS. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Look into

Can someone look into this article Wikipedia:Unusual articles. There is an IP user who has messed it up. I warned him but he has continued on his disruptive path. I am struggling to put revert vandalism on my preferences attached to my account so I am only reverting articles manually 6Packs (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted & IP warned again. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How can I upload my profile on Wikipedia. Please help .

Actually I create a profile on Wikipedia. And login. But there is no option for upload the details. How can I do that. Because I wanna do it now. Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLK VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

User blocked. Promotional username, promotional edits. GMG^talk 10:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove Wiki Loves Monuments banner

Is there any way to set my user preferences to remove the Wiki Loves Monuments banner (and all banners) from appearing? I've accidentally clicked it many times when its loaded a second after the rest of the page. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey LukeSurl. If you exit out of the banner via the little x in the corner, it should stay gone on that account for that device. I believe there was a way to disable banners across the board, but I can't seem to find it now that I'm looking for it. GMG^talk 10:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, under the section "Browsing", one can disable central notices (which'll disable wiki loves etc) and fundraising banners. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, Perfect, thank you. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the best practice to cite an old reference document only available in hard copy and/or scanned version?

There happens to be an old certified (duly signed) hard copy of an official document which is now successfully recovered & scanned as PDF document. This particular reference happens to be an official press release duly signed by an authority (then director). Unfortunately since it's old, there are no available web reference stating the facts mentioned in this official document.

How can I go about adding/uploading this particular reference (PDF file) to wikipedia and cite it as a reference in an article of my choice?

*Truth* (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey *Truth*. When was the document made and by whom? It may be in the public domain, and so we could upload a copy to Wikimedia Commons. GMG^talk 11:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

If it was published you merely need to cite the details so that an interested reader can (in principle at least) find the document, and it may well be a copyright violation to try to upload a copy. If it has not been published, then it is not acceptable as a reliable source. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi David. The document (press release) was published by the President's Secretariat in 2002 regarding a certain individual duly signed by an official from the office of the President. Since it's a press release, it is a public document - then available to mainstream media however since it's almost 2 decades old, there aren't any web source confirming the same facts as stated in the said document. To my understanding, it's a reliable source and I'll go ahead and upload the same to Wikimedia Commons.

Dear David could you please help me understand how do I cite a reference on an article using the same document when uploaded on Wikimedia Commons? *Truth* (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait. I'm confused. Our guidance on copyright in India seems to indicate both that works of the Indian national government are public domain after 60 years, but also indicates that works of the Indian national government may be uploaded under c:Template:GODL-India. I'm not really sure whether this would be public domain or not. GMG^talk 13:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Uhm. You're right, however c:Template:GODL-India states the following exemptions: The license does not cover the following kinds of data: a. personal information; b. data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive; c. names, crests, logos and other official symbols of the data provider(s); d. data subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade-marks and official marks; e. military insignia; f. identity documents; and g. any data that should not have been publicly disclosed for the grounds provided under section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Since the said document is a press release (neither non-shareable and/or sensitive nor marked not to be publicly disclosed) , irrespective of it being the work of the Indian national government it should still be applicable to be uploaded under public domain. Please correct me if I'm wrong David. *Truth* (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi JK-RULZ. If the document is a press release, then it's value as a reliable source regardless of its copyright status may be suspect. Press releases often are written in a promotional tone or self-published, so the WP:RSCONTEXT needs to be considered. In addition, press releases are often considered to be WP:PRIMARY sources and such sources need to used with care. This is especially the case when dealing with article content about any living person as explained in WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. You might want to ask about the reliability of the source at WP:RSN.

As for how to cite such a source, sources don't need to be online; they only need to be WP:PUBLISHED and accessible to others. Something found in some government or library archive which can be accessed by the general public is probably OK; something in a private collection or with limited access by only certain persons, on the other hand, is probably not. There has to be a reasonable way for the source to be verified, and being available online does tend to make verification easier though it's not required. See WP:SAYWHERE and WP:CITEHOW for more details on how to cite sources which aren't available online. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"Kaam" Page

Hi There, I came across a very common hindi (Indian national language) word called "kaam" which has a completely wrong interpretation and definition as currently laid out . Even if the description is correct, the term to be used should be "kama" and not "kaam".

"Kaam" simply means "work" in Hindi, India's national language and below are the citations to support this. , , , , .

I tried making the edit but was overturned by a Wiki user. How do I make this change? The page needs to be corrected as "kaam" is a very popular Indian word and should have the right meaning reflected on Wiki. I am new to Wiki editing - would really appreciate any help anyone can provide.

Best, Nparwani (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Welcome to our Teahouse, Nparwani, and thank you for raising your question here. Actually, the best way to proceed would have been to have raised your concerns on the Talk page of the article itself. Explaining why you are concerned, what you propose to do, and the evidence upon which your concern is based - just as you've done here - would have been most sensible. What you actually did was delete all the existing content of the page and insert your own view. Twice. And the way you wrote the replacement text did not conform to the way we construct encyclopaedia pages. So, almost inevitably, your edits were twice reverted. Sadly, this is not an area I know anything about. But there seems to be two questions worth asking:

1. is the current article explaining the meaning of Kaam wholly incorrect and improperly cited? If so, maybe it should be proposed for deletion at WP:AFD, or at least discussed on the Talk Page with maybe a view to renaming the article?, and...
2. If not, is there a second meaning in a second language which can be proven with citations and inserted as an additional section within the article, and the lead paragraph modified to summarise both meanings? In other words, does the article deserve to contain two completely different meanings of the same word to two different cultures? 

Gaining the consensus of other editors is always the best way to proceed. I hope this small observation might be of help. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

help

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Nayeemuddin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Iamheentity Please note that Wikipedia policy of WP:CANVAS prohibits editors from trying to canvas others to join a deletion discussion to influence the outcome. If you need any other help you should state that clearly. Simply saying Help and asking others to figure out what help you need is not very effective. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Changing username

How do I change my username? I want to change it to "IFlameI". 🔥flame🔥^talk 14:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Page semi-protected

Hey LFlamel. See instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. GMG^talk 14:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Banner

Hi, a Wikipedian friend of mine passed away a few months ago. Recently, I got permission from their family to add a banner to their Wikipedia user and talk page to indicate what has happened. I got a link to a WP page about it, but I lost it. Can anyone help me? Thanks a lot. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 14:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Miss Bono. See guidance at Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. GMG^talk 14:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Photos

I want to know if (and how if possible) if it is possible to upload new photos on iOS iPhone (SE is the model) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbobtron2007 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The type of phone shouldn't matter. Just load Wikipedia in your phone's browser and change to desktop view (bottom of page option). Then click on upload file on the left and go through the wizard. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jimbobtron2007: I've uploaded images (like this one) from my iPhone5S which is older that yours, but bear in mind that you'll need to ensure the image from your phone is a .JPG file, not one of the new HEIC formats that I believe Apple introduced with iOS11. I believe there's an option in the software to select the format you need, but I can find nothing on this Wikimedia page to suggest that that format is actually supported. So stick to jpeg or another compatible format. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking to hire a Pro to teach me 1 on 1

Hi,

I have been using wikipedia as a resource since day 1. I have a degree in history, and a lot of experience researching and writing proposals, and blog articles, but feel kind of lost here. I tried adding/citing references to my article, and kept having a hard time adding them for whatever reason. I now saw that it isnt a good idea to write an autobiography, and feel like I just made a big mistake (Wish I read the guide more clearly first before trying to dive in and write).... I did it to clear the air about some nasty rumors about me, in addition to practicing a bit, but I feel like I failed miserably... Would love if there was some kind of 1 on 1 tutoring class on mastering wikipedia with someone, or to teach me how to navigate wikipedia like a pro :( ... In other words, H E L P Please! I want to be a contributor for both editing and writing, as wikipedia is like a giant library, and a historians dream. Thanks in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solonz1 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Solonz1: Have you heard about Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure? It's a fun way to learn the basics of editing. Regards SoWhy 19:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You'll also want to check this out: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Solonz. I guess you now recognise that we don't encourage editors to write articles about themselves, and that you've rather walked into that trap. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. This might sound harsh, but I'd suggest you blank all the different version of your biography from your various sandbox pages (don't panic - deleting the text still keeps a copy in the history of each page, so you can retrieve bits later if you wish (or save them off-site). Then just write four of five factual lines, showing why you should be regarded as 'notable'. What that means is that you must either meet our WP:NBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN criteria. - simply put, can you demonstrate with links to Reliable, independent sources how you meet those criteria. If you headlined President Clinton's farewell concert in 2001, there must be lots of news coverage and stories about you - though I fear I couldn't find anything, except your own website, which we'd have to ignore. To insert a reference, look in the editing tool for a 'Cite' button which then gives you various templates to fill in (source details, newspaper, date, author, article title etc). It's quite straightforward once you've found that Cite button. Having done that, you'll have a short skeletal framework with none of the hyperbole and unprovable childhood trivia that you've currently included. It'd just be the bare bones that shows why you, amongst a million other musicians, merit a page here by having been written in some detail about by others. We base all articles here on what others have written about the subject, not what the subjects wants to say about themselves. Having done that, you could go to Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters and invite non-connected editors to write about you, and provide a link to those key references on your sandbox. Just bear in mind that, if there are nasty rumours out there about you, and the stories have been reported, you will have absolutely no control of any Wikipedia page that might be created about you. Both the good stuff and the nasty stuff, if reliably sourced, will probably end up in it, and you can do absolutely nothing about that, nor delete the bits that upet you (assuming they're true and reliably cited, of course). The 'Requested Article' process can take a very long time indeed, so it's good that you have your own website to promote yourself, as that's most definitely not what Wikipedia is here to do for you or anyone else. I hope this helps a little. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy Formation and Purpose Edits

I originally asked to replace this quote:

"Like the KKK's children's groups, the UDC utilized the Children of the Confederacy to impart to the rising generations their own white-supremacist vision of the future."

With this quote from the same source (Kristina DuRocher's Raising Racists) “The object of the organization included uniting the “children and youth of the South in some work to aid and honor ex-Confederates and their descendants.” The Children of the Confederacy was intended to “indoctrinate southern youth into the culture of the Confederate ‘Lost Cause.’” Another editor offered these two quotes, which I also think might work better that the DuRocher quote currently on the page:

    "When UDC took up the cause of history they did so as cultural guardians of their tribe, defenders of a sacred past against Yankee-imposed ignorance and the forces of modernism. They built moats around their white tribe's castles to save the children from false history and impure knowledge." (Blight)
    "the perpetuation of conservative class values, as well as a pro-southern version of history" in oder to "creditably fill the place of men and women who have in the past given the [South] both name and fame."  (Cox)

galndixie (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)--galndixie (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This belongs on that article's talk page. The RFC will summon other uninvolved editors. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

subcategory

how do i make a subcategory for articles?? i have some articles i want to list. thanks! Huff slush7264 19:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Huff slush7264: Sub-categories are merely categories that have been categorized themselves, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization. The same guideline also explains how to create new categories and what to pay attention to when doing so (see also Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts). If you are unsure whether a certain category makes sense, you should consider asking for more input at the talk page of a related WikiProject. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Silver Flying Cross awards list

Hello, I am questioning your list of the Silver Flying Cross recipients. My dad have received 2 but he is not on your list. How do I need to change this?

Thank You

Kristal Tighe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.146.128 (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kristal. As far as I can tell, we do not have any article about a "Silver Flying Cross", or indeed any mention of such an award in any article on Wikipedia that I can discover. Are you referring to the Silver Star?

If you are not, please reply below with a link to the article you do mean.

Please be aware that lists of recipients in most articles about awards are not meant to be a complete list of all recipients, only of those that have a separate article about them on Wikipedia because they are "notable" (in Wikipedia's special sense of the term, please read the linked page) for reasons other than just their receiving the award. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.81.75 (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

move wikipedia pages

I am unable to move any Wikipedia pages. Can you please fix that setting to allow me to do so.Newyorkelection (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In what way are you unable to move pages? Your account is Autoconfirmed, so you should be able to. How are you trying, and what happens when you try? --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to ping Newyorkelection. --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Newyorkelection. It appears from this edit that you are confusing WP:REDIRECT with WP:MOVE. Also, since you're fairly new to editing, it might be better for you to submit Draft:New York State Senate 34th District Democratic primary, 2018 to WP:AFC for review. An AfC reviewer will look over the draft and offer suggestions on how it can be further improved if it's not quite up to Wikipedia's standards; on the other hand, if the draft is accepted, the AfC reviewer will move the page to the article namespace for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the formation and purpose of the UDC

It's been on the talk page for months now, and the same group of editors over and over will not allow it to be edited. It's been an RfC, and the same group of people are doing the same thing. They won't even change it to the quote they suggested. I don't understand this process, and was told that Teahouse could possibly help with this. Please, can you look at the talk page and tell me what to do next? --galndixie (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Galndixie. It really helps to provide links to pages you have concerns over. This makes our lives so much easier in answering you, as not everyone knows what UDC even stands for. You seem to be referring to United Daughters of the Confederacy, this talk page discussion plus the ongoing RfC you opened immediately beneath it. It looks to me like the RfC has not yet been closed. I will leave it to others to wade through the discussions and offer suggestions as my excuse is that it's very late here in the UK, Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)