Wikipedia:Teahouse

Template:Teahouse protected

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

David notMD, 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

New entries

Relying on publications may not be the ultimate wisdom. In a particular (german) case I had endless discussions due to the fact that Wikipedia would rely only on published sources, and to those rather blindly, but not on "common sense". I realize that taking what has been written may be easier than thinking, arguing, investigating, even judging oneself. But in this age of fakes and of articles that nearly always have a bias and like to emotionalize the readers, cool personal judgement of the reviewers might be needed.
 In the present case I wondered why I didn’t know what this thing was that I saw advertized on TV (on a harmless Bollywood channel, Zee one), and that "guaranteed orgasms". So I googled this womanizer: Lots of promotions, ads etc.. But Wikipedia had nothing on this subject, neither the German nor the US version. So I thought, maybe it’s too touchy a subject. Turns out "vibrator" is explained at length and without restraint. Now if you look at newspapers etc. these sex toys aren’t featured ("covered") as often as, say, cooking recipes.
 I would have liked to ask: Is womanizer on Wikipedia’s index, taboo? But then I tried to write an entry, I took time, produced a very factual short explanation, and still: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." What do you expect in a case like this? Or is it really better, not to mention the device? – In short: Please rely more on your own judgement, if something is important to know. This is a lexicon for the public, for those who want to know (quickly) what’s what, not a scientific, proof-fast thesis. And let us have a quick way to check if there is a chance for a specific entry. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Fritz Jörn. Almost all Wikipedia policy is determined by consensus, and very occasionally parts of it change, as people make proposals and persuade enough other editors that the consensus changes. You are welcome to try to change this policy: the place to propose it is at WP:VPP. --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin, for your suggestion. The rejects I got naturally came from one person, with a lengthy standard statement. Naturally disappointed I will try no further: I know what a Womanizer is, having researched elesewehere; if the useres of Wikipedia want to know too, is now less important to me, I’m afraid. And to change a well accepted and proven Wikipedia policy I would not want. I argue for sensitivity and common sense with new subjects that may not have "significant coverage". –~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz Jörn (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fritz Jörn. I have read your draft and did a quick research. I think it would have helped if you first developed the article further, outlining its distinction to a vibrator. This could entail reference to its inventor or origin/development and how the device works (e.g. how it stimulates through suction and pressure waves or how it mimics oral sex). A Huffington story also cited a study that showed the device can address orgasm disorder for menopausal women. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fritz Jörn, and welcome to the Teahouse! Just a quick note: The suggested HuffPost piece (here) was written by a non-expert contributor (RSP entry), and should not be used in the article because it is questionable. The line "I learned of the study when I was contacted by a Public Relations firm" also undermines the credibility of the piece. While the contributor piece would not count toward notability, Lifehacker's review is a little bit better and is usable in the article.

Please refer to the Referencing for beginners guide for an overview of how citations should be formatted. In most articles, the only link that should be in the "External links" section is the subject's official website. Reviews should be in placed in citations, instead.

Also, in Draft:Womanizer, the sentence "The womanizer is expected to replace the vibrator as sex toy for women." is uncited and promotional, so please remove it. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! ​​ — Newslinger talk 08:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

​Regarding your comments on the notability guideline, one of the reasons we require at least 2 independent reliable sources with significant coverage before a draft can be published is to prevent companies from using Wikipedia as a promotional outlet for run-of-the-mill products. If a product is unable to meet this requirement, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but please feel free to write about it somewhere else. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin & Fritz Jörn, interesting discussion. In an era where fake news is quite a prominent part of our daily lives, Wiki's policy of sourcing seems a tad sweeping. Why should anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel, especially in controversial news that has little educative value, which I presume is the primary motive of Wikipedians? Wiki is across the board a space of knowledge and inspiration and anything not pertaining to that must be flagged and removed by Admins, I feel. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayaki75 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me reassure you that Wikipedia policy is not that "anything that appears in an online or print media be taken as gospel", Nayaki75. Sources need to be evaluated on their merits and information cross-checked across sources. See WP:RS. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for your friendly replys. They warm my heart. But please understand that from afar I will not try to improve the entry with more citations (I just don’t have them in Germany), and to work on an entry that might end in the wastebasket. If I have triggered an entry for someone else to write I’m already happy, and your users will find an explanation of the rather unexpected use of the word womanizer. At first I just had tried to add it in the womanizer disambiguation with a short mention, but the system wouldn’t let me without a full-fledged Wikipedia entry. (I think it might be nice and politically correct to describe the harware piece completely chaste with a twinkle.) By the way I have no contact to the inventor nor do I work for a company any more, see Joern.com. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Fritz Jörn Welcome to The Teahouse (and welcome to the Wikipedia Runaround) I fully concure with your distain and flustration. Wikipedia tends to have a snobish "we know all, you know nothing" facade that gets irritating when hours of editing gets deleted with zero to little feedback, and what little feedback is given turns out to be generic "one or two keystroke" form responses that require additional hours of reading only to come to a WTF moment where you understand that no one understands your POV, but further you feel like Sisyphus because no matter how hard you try you end up no better off than before you first tried

I also have hit the conclusion that this site is next to useless.

sure there are many honest editors on this site but this site rewards activity with increased access to tools. which in turn allows those with ulterior motives to get faster promotions by "gaming" the system. I have no idea if you have encountered anyone who is trying to infiltrate Wikipedia upper eschilon but a way to leave a trail of these abusive edits (along with the real ones) without accusation one way or the other so patterns will be easier to find. They need a place inbetween "full published" Wikipedia and the incinerator called "revert"... i suppose some may think a sandbox does this but as you pointed out there is little access and no reliable way to disperse sandbox articles (you virtually need to contact every person before they find out where / what is in article) most bug report sites allow search of all articles written but if sandboxes are ignored there theoretically could be thousands of people writing about this womanizer but you have no way to connect with them since you cannot even link to a disambigous page.

you might want to persue a "sub wiki" that would retain your article with other rejects that includes infoboxes as why rejected, editor who rejected, those who concure, and those who help improve article, thus weekend editors could come to the (lets call it) Wikincubator to nurse their baby to health.

but I'm afraid i can only promise to support as i too have encountered the the quick click reverts personally and even saw one guy's article deleted because English was a second language for him (a few misspellings and many gramitical errors, the editor deleted the article instead of doing what a Wikian EDITor is supposed to do, EDIT!!!

so much for my rant, i hope you will persue further, if you do try then write on my "wall" or whatever it's called, I should notice in a month or two (i stopped visiting more often after my 3rd or 6th all-nighter was again reverted /or/ deleted) Qazwiz (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Qazwiz, know that you are not alone in this view as I have similar experience and frustrations. I hope, however, that these do not deter you from contributing and helping improve Wikipedia. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry but my observations in the last few weeks seem to be unfortunately deviant from what you say. My issues are the following:

1. 1. In an educational resource like Wiki that children of all ages use, why use yellow journal style material like Sexual Harassment allegations on any person's page no matter how well they are sourced or not? How can children be benefited by these 'information'? Certainly, Wiki is not to be used as a space by Admins or Editors for allowing these to be posted. They must be flagged and removed instantly. Those interested in gossip can find the relevant allegations in so many other online sources but they should never be part of Wiki.
2. 2. Why delete well sourced material that I (among several others) had personally researched and cited adequately in some pages like N Ravikiran with absolutely no effort to check the sources or point out specific sentences that may have needed citations?
3. 3. Why delete sections like awards without due diligence from any of the Admins in his page? Even a cursory google search would by anyone would have revealed that many of the deleted ones did not merit deletion at all.
4. 4. Why delete a whole page of Chitravina N Ravikiran - which I and presumably others used to researh into his compositions? I even pointed out that they be renamed as N Ravikiran Compositions. Any objective person would have needed only a couple of minutes to note that that page contained at least 30-35 citations from reputed media. Similarly it would have been obvious that barring one or two sentences that was similar to N Ravikiran page, the rest of the info was not only distinctive but study material for scholars about Indian classical's most prolific composer today. Yet, there were insistent moves to delete that page.
5. 5. I protested and was asked to transfer relevant content there to N Ravikiran page and when I did it, it was immediately summarily deleted even within a minute or two. How could anyone reasonable not see that the information was well sourced and contained facts like list of a composer's works?

The above points out to personal bias and a desire to undermine a prominent figure rather than objectivity which I am afraid is not healthy for a site of immense value like Wiki. I hope that my concerns are addressed seriously and sincerely by all Admins in good spirit:-) Nayaki (talk)

Looking for music articles to work on

Relatively new to Wikipedia and just getting back into the swing of things. Can someone here who works on music articles give me some guidance on ways I can help? Sorry if this is a stupid questions. Grimothy29 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This one looks like a good starting point, and here is a page that may be helpful; it is an interesting walkthrough.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You might also take a look at the WikiProject Music. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding Grimothy29 so he sees there are replies. Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will check it out.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimothy29 (talk • contribs)

Category:Timelines of cities in the United States

Some of these places such as Timeline of Albuquerque, New Mexico could be moved to a shorter title Timeline of Albuquerque and still be unambiguous. Should I comply with the guideline WP:USPLACE or is it fine to apply WP:IAR to this? Mstrojny (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't got a reply in 2 days. How long does it take for a volunteer to answer my question? Mstrojny (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Normally you would get a reply rather earlier. My own view is that we ought to be consistent. The article Albuquerque, New Mexico is not entitled Albuquerque, although there is a redirect from the latter. WP:USPLACE gives a ref for a list of those cities which do not require the state name to be included, and Albequerque is not on that list. I would recommend that "Timeline" articles use the same naming convention as that for articles on the city directly, but I see no reason why you couldn't have a redirect from Timeline of Albuquerque. If you have a differing view you could discuss it at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names). --David Biddulph (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I have created a proposal here if you would like to have a say in the proposal. Also, can you notify other editors about this proposal? Mstrojny (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Undefined Rejection

Hello,

I recently submitted two separate articles for publishing and both were rejected for an undefined reason..

Could you please help me to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor talbot (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In each case the reviewer left a comment on the draft page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

And you are actually three for three on declined. Bluntly, your references are not good enough to confirm these businesses or people as notable by Wikipedia's standards. A couple were one-sentence mentions, when what is needed are longer, more detailed publications about the topics. One was a interview with the subject. What a person says about themselves or their business is not a reliable source. For Draft:Jersey Champs in particular, your 2nd and 3rd refs are both to the same interview. Your 1st ref is just a company financial profile. David notMD (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Professor talbot, I am sorry but I have deleted your drafts as unambiguously promotional. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

OP now blocked as a sock. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it OK to use self-published statistics?

When a website displays statistics, can you use those in an article or are they to be deemed as self-published and unreliable? Should one wait for a secondary source to publish the numbers? Asking on behalf of Draft:TSUKI_Project, as it has a counter of members (not right now, but when the draft gets a reply the official website may be out of maintenance mode again), but I'm not sure if it's OK to use its official member count, or just use the count specified in a secondary source (as the original author of the draft has done)... Anyone know what's proper to do here? ShindoNana (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@ShindoNana: That is probably OK. Wikipedia does allow using self-published info in some cases. See WP:ABOUTSELF. RudolfRed (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A subject's own website is not appropriate for establishing WP:Notability, but once independent WP:Reliable sources have shown notability, then the website can be quoted for a limited amount of basic facts that are not likely to be disputed. Secondary sources are usually preferred at Wikipedia. Dbfirs 22:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ShindoNana. I must disagree with RudolfRed on this matter. According to WP:SELFPUB, self-published material is allowed as long as "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". In this case, the topic is a cult with a deranged and delusional belief system. Such cults are motivated to inflate their influence and membership. I would not accept a single solitary thing this cult says as being factual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for that correction. I must admit I was thinking in more general terms and did not review the draft page. RudolfRed (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

... and I made the same mistake by replying in general terms and not checking the subject.  Dbfirs 23:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for the swift replies, that makes sense. I could definitely see a cult do that, so I'll stick to the used secondary statistic, then! ShindoNana (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help about how to prove that the subject of article is relevant enough to make it's own Wikipedia page

Hi, I would like to ask for your help to review this article I have made. First of all, I'm sorry if my wording or grammar is a bit off. There is (2) things that I need more guidance, in which it's about my draft article titled Lee Dae-hwi.

1) How do I prove that the subject of the article is relevant enough in the songwriting area? Lee Dae-hwi has made his name in the Korean Medias that he has been active in making, composing, producing songs. He already made 8 songs (1 unreleased in music sites, but has been played on broadcast). As he already active as songwriter, it is noted that he still has not released his songs with himself as the singer. I have added the online news links for the references, but it seems that the last review I got is that it's still did not show significant coverage and not enough to prove his relevancy in such area.

2) How do I prove that Lee Dae-hwi's released songs has been released legally / How do i credit them properly? As I got the review that my article has not meet the Notability of musician, I need your guidance in which part(s) that I should fix. I need to know if I need to put more details for the songs' copyrights.

Lastly, Thank you so much for your patience in reading my questions. I would very much appreciate it if you could help me. --Otterlyhwi (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Otterlyhwi. As was noted in the reviews of Draft:Lee Dae-hwi, it was determined in a deletion discussion that he is not notable as a singer separately from Wanna One. For the guideline for notability as a songwriter see WP:COMPOSER. The most likely criterion for him would be #1: “Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.” For the guideline for the notability of a song see WP:NSONG—a pretty high standard. Does one of his songs meet one of these criteria? (Do not worry about copyrights and legal release of his songs.) —teb728 t c 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyrighted contend

Hello!

My entry was deleted because there was copyrighted contend in it. I think the relevant content is a table. The owner of the original article asked me to put in there. So my question is if there is a way to upload the table with his permission even though it's copyrighted? If yes how could he give this permission?

Thank you! Gianna — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 07:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The process for him to release the copyright, if he wishes to do so, is at WP:Donating copyrighted material. Otherwise, you will have to reword things in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thans for the quick reply! Is there also a way to find out if there are other copyrighted phrases in the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Anything that has previously been published elsewhere is copyrighted (whether or not specifically labelled as such), unless specifically defined as free from copyright or released under an appropriate licence. There is further explanation at WP:FAQ/Copyright. The simple answer is to write the article in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

On your User page, you will need to declare whether your connection to the owner/author of the table is paid. If not paid, you will still need to indicate a conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

User:GiannaHenkel - I have several comments. First, the draft reads as if it was copied from a book, so it likely is copyrighted. You are responsible for ensuring that anything that you submit to Wikipedia is free of copyright. Second, the owner of the copyright needs to be aware of what is meant by donating copyrighted material for use in Wikipedia. It does not just mean approving the publication of the copyrighted material in Wikipedia with a copyright notice. (That is a reasonable misconception.) The owner of the copyright has to release the copyright for use subject to the Creative Commons copyleft by anyone in the world. Most copyright holders do not want to do that. Third, it isn't necessary to create three copies of the submission, as you have done. It wastes the time of the reviewers and annoys the reviewers. Please request that two of the copies be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Robert! Thank you for your answer! First of all: how do i delete submissions? I can't even find one anymore... (sorry that's my first time drafting something on Wikipedia). <-- i think i found the solution and deleted two of them! Secondly: the actually text I submitted is written by me and the author of the original articles about personal initiative. It is kind of difficult to find broader sources because until now he and a few other researchers at his department (most co-authors) are the only researchers in this field. That's why the submission is quiet close to the original articles. How could we solve this problem?

Thank you un advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiannaHenkel (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Article review on Talk Page

I have been requested to update an article on an Agribusiness company which is quite extensive. I would like to publish my update in comparative form to the existing article on its Talk Page. I have the updated article in my sandbox [1]. What is the best way to publish it on the Talk page? Gibmul (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new version of an article is rarely a good idea, you are welcome to make suggestions on the talk page, but beware the article is already plagued with conflict of interest paid edits, so I am not going to encourage you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What I am trying to achieve is this type of comparitive example for the Talk Page so that editors can decide which edits they would accept https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=742003912 Gibmul (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have properly declared PAID on your User page and the Talk page of the article. My suggestion is to start a new section on the Talk page of the article and for a section of the article, paste in the existing text and your proposed revision. Maybe start with History. Then, up to other editors to implement or not. Repeat. This will be a slow process, as there is not a lot of traffic to the article in question. David notMD (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance.Gibmul (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideas

How to get ideas of editing? If I want to make small edits like spelling mistakes, how can I find those? Drunkguyash (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, User:Drunkguyash! Check out the Typo Team pages to find lists of misspellings you can help us correct. Schazjmd (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drunkguyash: Can I ask, what are your hobbies and interests? One easy way to find things to improve here is simply to read articles about your favourite subjects. You might then follow links from that page to other ones (call it Wiki-surfing, if you will), or click the categories at the very bottom to find related articles. Along the way you're bound to stumble across spelling, punctuation and other things that cry out for some editor love and attention. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to add article for deletion

And I'm failing miserably. Using manual method. See today's list. Thanks. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Your afd3 template submission failed because you had nowiki tags and other formatting. I've fixed it, as you'll see in this edit. The easiest way of doing the 3 steps is to use Twinkle. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! I will try Twinkle next time. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple question but hard to answer it

How can I change a name of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. James Dimsey (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You move it to a new title. See Help:How to move a page. --Jayron32 19:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Bradley Steyn

Hello Teahouse, My rugby mate, Bradley Steyn has had an incredibly unique life experience that he is making a good faith effort to leverage into social change concerning violence in South Africa. His story has been covered by multiple news outlets and he is releasing a memoir, published by Jacarta, along with a corresponding documentary, potentially funded by Kevin Kostner. Please review the stub article that I have created for "Bradley Steyn" and help me understand how to present this information in a way that upholds the wiki's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esreekay (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: The article looks dangerously vulnerable to being deleted as an A7. You may wish to add an introductory section. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: I do tend to agree with A lad insane. I saw it half an hour or so ago at New Page Patrol, but decided to leave it a while as it had already been tagged regarding notability. There are lots of amazing people in the world (you and me included!), but for someone to merit a Wikipedia page, we need to see a number of articles that have written about them in quite some depth. (See WP:NBIO for details). I do think you will need more than what you've currently found about a witness to a massacre that, itself, doesn't yet have a Wikipedia page about it. The Pressreader article from Pretoria News seems moderately strong. Can you find any more like that to include? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Esreekay: In addition to what the others have posted above, you're also going to have to verify the copyright ownership of the image you're using in the main infobox. Generally, it is the person taking a photo, not the person being photographed, who is considered the copyright owner of said photo; so, I don't think you can claim that photo (technically those photos) as being authored by Steyn himself unless he can show that copyright was officially transfered to him. Moreover, you uploaded the image as a single file, but it actually looks like a montage of three different images. The montage itself might be considered a derivative work eligible for its own copyright, but the copyrights of the individual photos themselves also need to be considered. Commons will not be able to keep the file unless you can estalish that the person or persons who took each of these photos have given their explicit consent for his/her/their work to be uploaded to Commons under the license you chose when uploading the file. If obtaining this position seems too much of a hassle or unlikely to be granted even if you do ask, then my suggestion to you would be to tag the Commons file for deletion using c:Template:SD and request deletion per c:COM:CSD#G7. You can then (if you want) take your own photo of Steyn and upload that to Commons under a free license of your choosing.

Finally, you should also not really be creating any new articles or adding content to existing articles about Steyn if he's one of your friends because you would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to him for Wikipedia purposes. Please see WP:COISELF for more details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Koreans in Uzbekistan. What should I do ? How to deal with the statistics of dictatorial regimes that can be distorted?

I have a problem. There are official statistics of the Republic of Uzbekistan. However, it is clearly distorted. It does not reflect the mass exodus of Koreans from this republic between the years 2001-2016.

So from Uzbekistan 52 thousand Koreans returned to South Korea. However, in the state statistics of Uzbekistan this outcome is not recorded. The same statistics do not reflect the religious discrimination of Koreans in Uzbekistan - they are Christians of different denominations, and Uzbekistan is an Islamic country with a dictatorial regime.

The estimated real value of Koreans in Uzbekistan is 78 thousand. But official statistics show almost 100 thousand more.

What should I do ? How to deal with the statistics of dictatorial regimes that can be distorted?Hatchiko (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Hatchiko. Do you have published reliable sources for the correct statistics? If so use that —teb728 t c 02:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I see you have raised this issue at Talk:Koryo-saram#Figures_for_Uzbekistan, where you will probably get answers from more knowledgeable editors. Maybe wait until you get a reply there? Also, you should maybe make clearer that the issue is with the infobox number, not with any content of the article text. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I should say, that there should almost never be information in an infobox which is not already discussed and explained in the article itself. The infobox is a summary of the article text, and anything listed there should be in the main body of the article where it can be given context and expanded upon sufficiently. Infoboxes are not good places to do that, and especially where information is disputable or needs clarification. It may be in the infobox, but it should always be in the text before one puts it there. --Jayron32 19:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello?

Hello this is ToodyFoot what is his — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToodyDoot (talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to be a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible future admin nomination

How long does it usually take for someone to get admin nominated? I previously was nominated (but failed) on Wikivoyage. I know I have a checkered past on both sites, so if you tell me how long I should wait to apply, make it about double the normal time. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libertarianmoderate/Archive suggests you had/have sockpuppets, at least at Wikivoyage. You were also blocked, then unblocked in December (description you deleted from your Talk page). Highly unlikely you will ever make Admin. David notMD (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you spend the next three years (at least) making only constructive edits, and no silly comments. Also avoid creating or using any sockpuppet accounts, and show that you have a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies, then you might consider applying, and some editors might vote for you. I've been editing for more than ten years, and do not yet feel that I have a thorough enough understanding of some policies to apply for adminship. Dbfirs 09:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits like this [2] would suggest that you are not serious about editing here let alone gaining admin rights. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong - I think that editors like the one in question are always serious about wanting admin privileges, even if they are not serious about collaborative editing. That is why we need to be careful about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

How to make a meetup page

Hello! I co-organised an editathon last year and someone helpfully setup a meetup page for the event. I cannot find how to make a new meetup page for the new event, could anyone help me locate that info? I made a draft and tried to move it, which I thought would work, but there is no "meetup" space to move it to that I can see. Help! /Louise000 (talk)/ —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Louise000. I believe the namespace used for "Meet up" pages in the "Wikipedia" namespace. As for how to create the page, maybe you can find that information in Wikipedia:Meetup. You could also try looking at some of the pages in Category:Wikipedia meetups and see if there's one whose formatting you like; you can then probably just format the one you want to create the same way. My only other advice to you is to not add any non-free images to the page since doing so is not allowed per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #9; so, if you want to use images, you should probably stick to using those already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Marchjuly. Thank you, with your help I was able to figure it out. The info I needed was that yes it is indeed the "Wikipedia" namespace as you suggested and that it can be located into the meetup subfolder by just adding "Meetup/" before the page title, which is straight forward but not completely obvious. Glad it worked!!

/Louise000 (talk)/ —Preceding undated comment added 05:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Searching for a template

This template says something along the line of "This article only deals with TOPIC as it is in the United States. Expand it with international uses of TOPIC." I know it exists because I've seen it in the past year, but no idea where. I spent quite a while trying to find it in templates by category, such as Category:Hatnote templates, and learned many very interesting things about templates, but didn't find it. And I can't devise a search for it. The article I want to put it on is Game show. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like {{Globalize/US}}, one of a family derived from {{Globalize}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Including an Image to an Article

Hi folks! I hope everyone is having an excellent day. Being new to Wikipedia, I'm still having a bit of trouble dissecting instruction on how to handle certain formatting. On an article, does Wikipedia automatically generate the 'right side info box' images? Or, is this something I should manually include when creating an article? If this is something I should be doing, can anyone please instruct me as to how to format the infobox?

I do see the 'media' button at the top, but I wasn't sure if that simply embeds the .jpg into the article itself, versus the right infobox.

Thank you for your time!

-Mason, Animegearlab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read Template:Infobox book which should show you how to implement infoboxes. The image location like [[File:Example]] goes in the image = line

You may also find WP:YFA a helpful guide as writing articles can be hard. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 07:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is exactly what I was looking for. You've helped me a lot and I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Preventing vandalism.

Hi. In the ideal world, Wikipedia would be vandalism-free from when it started until the end of time. However, I'm pretty sure there's lots of vandalism in reality despite the best efforts of users and bots, all of which was probably committed by at least 100s if not 1000s of users. Why not create more bots to fight it (duplicating existing ones or ones made from scratch) or even being able to create an account that is meant just for this purpose?211.27.115.246 (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It is sometimes difficult for humans to distinguish vandalism from genuine edits, so bots certainly cannot operate with 100% accuracy, despite advances in artificial intelligence. The existing anti-vandalism bots (such as User:ClueBot NG) are often quick in reverting edits that are obviously vandalism, but Wikipedia relies on ordinary editors such as yourself to research the dubious edits and revert the ones that the bots miss. Why not WP:Create an account? Dbfirs 08:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond the bots that revert what appears to be vandalism, there is also mw:ORES which highlights potentially problematical edits for review by those editors who choose to use the "Revision scoring on Watchlist" option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• From Why not create more bots to fight it (duplicating existing ones or ones made from scratch), I infer that you assume every bot can do a limited amount of work. If so, you are mistaken: bots are automated processes that can precisely do lots of work quickly, unlike humans; they do not tire and do not have edit limitations. (And, as described above, unlike humans, bots can only do the really basic stuff.) Sorry if that was obvious to you, but I have seen people get confused with much simpler computer stuff. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Bots can run 24 hours a day 7 days a week, so once one is designed there is no reason to have another of the same design. The limitation is on the design. If someone can come up with a new test for vandalism that both detects a lot of vandalism and also doesn't lose us good edits then I'm sure we can get a bot writer to write a bot for it. For example we know that any edit that changes a school from being public to pubic is vandalism, and that edit including everything else done by that edit, the unusual name for the principal, the new school motto and the pink and sparkly colours for the football team can be reverted. The challenge is in finding such tests which can be coded into a computer rather than relying on humans to decide if an edit is vandalism or not. ϢereSpielChequers 16:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No cite button

Hi, I edit using visual editing on my iPad, and recently the cite button keeps disappearing, so there is no way to cite a source except for using source editing. The text & link features still appear at the top, but not the source button. Is this something I’ve done, or have Wiki removed the feature? Or a bug?

Thanks. – Joesimnett (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joesimnett, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not experiencing any issue seeing the 'Cite' button using Visual Editor on my old iPhone5S, still using iOs10. Despite always receving a wiki-alert that my browser (Safari) is not officially supported, the cite button is certainly there. To test it I went to both the Ketchup and Visual perception articles in desktop view and clicked the top 'Edit' tab. Sure enough, there was the Cite button and its two big quote marks in both pages. It functioned OK. Had I wished to I could certainly have cited sauces sources, or even cited sight sources. Maybe others can suggest a reason you're not seeing it. I should probably crawl away now... regards Nick Moyes (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why the refusing editor doesn't wait a moment to see if some growing is happening.

Why the refusing editor doesn't wait a moment to see if the following ist happening. " A Wikipedia entry is a good idea. Would you maybe like to start it and let others improve it? No Wikipedia page needs to start off polished. Once it's there it's easier for people to add drive-by improvements." I was very disapointed because the invention of Melinda ist really a break through. I'm sure thet the refusing editor doesn't understand the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.92.161 (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi anonymous editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. The above is the only edit from your IP address, so we don't know what article you are talking about. In general, it's a good idea to start an article in your sandbox, at least until you have found WP:Reliable sources to establish WP:Notability. Once notability is established, the article should be safe from deletion unless there are copyright or libel issues, and it is then available for other editors to improve. Dbfirs 11:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm Confused...

DAWNSEEKER2000 left me the following message:

"Hello, I have noticed that you have been using Wikipedia as a source, but the encyclopedia is not considered reliable. Please discontinue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask." Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 17:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dawnseeker2000 18:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Help me to understand because I'm under the impression I am under evaluation for the possibility of having my account terminated. Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smittypots (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Smittypots, All that is being asked of you at this point is to not use Wikipedia articles as references in other Wikipedia articles. This looks like it has been going on for a while. You need to find sources that are not associated with Wikipedia to support the information in Wikipedia articles. You should go to WP:ANI#User Smittypots and explain you understand that Wikipedia articles can not be used as references and that you will not do that any more. ~ GB fan 13:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Smittypots: To elaborate on the above: you should never cite Wikipedia articles as references because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you found claim X in article A and want to reuse it in article B, either article A cites an acceptable reference which you can then re-cite in article B, or it does not, and then you should look for an external reference to use (if there is none, you should remove the claim from article A). You may use wikilinks instead though.

I doubt you are at any serious risk of blocking ("account termination") (based on your current actions at least). I think Dawnseeker2000 (ping) overreacted big time in taking you to ANI (which should be reserved for serious and/or long-lasting conduct problems), and made a fairly poor job of communicating what the problem was to you. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not give a chance?

Hello everyone, I find a friendly atmosphere here at Teahouse so I am encouraged to join.I created an article "Draft:Alliance School Kermanshah" a few days ago and I put "in use" at the beginning. It was put in draft just as i clicked the first publish button.The person did not give me a second to continue. I wish to know what the problem is and what I can do. thank You Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Alex-h. As the message on your user talk page said, the article was moved to draft space to give you an opportunity to prepare it for article space. When you believe it is ready for article space, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button, and if the reviewer accepts it, they will move it to article space. —teb728 t c 15:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me add Alex-h, that the purpose of the {{in use}} tag is not as an excuse for entering an unreferenced page in article space (if that is what you are thinking) but rather to alert other editors to avoid edit conflicts by not editing the page concurrently. —teb728 t c 16:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Alex-h. I'm really sorry to hear your frustrations. You did almost everything right (apart from where you started from), and teb728 makes a good point about the template. Perhaps I can invite you to look at if from the other perspective? As soon as you put content into the mainspace part of Wikipedia, we all expect a minimum standard of quality, content and references. So despite the 'in use' template, there really wasn't enough there to start with, and so the best place to construct an article from scratch would have been in Draft or your personal sandbox. I must say, you did do the right think by very politely questioning Cabayi on their talk page. I'm sorry you didn't get the courtesy of a quick reply there, but hopefully our response here will satisfy you. So, as teb728 says, you are still absolutely free to continue working up the article as you were hoping to do. I believe criteria for school notability have got a bit stricter in recent times, so do read WP:NSCHOOLS and check that you are able to supply references that demonstrate notability is being met before you expend too much time and effort on a page which would stand no chance of making it.

But speaking personally, I would never risk creating a brand new article from scratch in the main part of Wikipedia. It's inevitable that they start out dire. I always work on pages in my sandbox to ensure they're at a reasonable standard before moving them into 'mainspace' (i.e. the proper encyclopedia part of Wikipedia). Sometimes I can take over a year to get one ready; other times I do it in an evening! Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:@Teb728:, Hello and thank you for your warm response. I am glad I put my question in Teahouse. First for I have received your valuable guidance which I will use in my future work,Second, because I have found friends like you. Thanks again. Alex-h (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we as a company create a wikipedia page?

Hello,

We would like to edit page for our company. We have seen there are several conditions which have to be fulfilled. Who will control these points? We respond to one of them which is enough.

Thank you for your answer.

BR

Pat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precipart2019 (talk • contribs)

Hi Pat. Welcome to Wikipedia. Goodness, where to start? I'm assuming you represent www.precipart.com? If so, have a read of this notability guideline on what criteria allows us to include an article on a company. Do you think you meet it? Can you supply three or more references to independent sources (books, magazines, journals, newspapers) which talk about Precipart in detail. If you think you can, go back from your mental list and remove all insider trade journals, blogs, syndicated press releases, company websites and so forth, and consider the question again.Then, because we strongly discourage users from writing about themselves, post only those links to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. Then, if a non-connected editor is motivated to write about your company, they may do so. But do not expect this to be a quick process. If it is deemed to be a genuinely notable company, someone will undoubtedly want to create a page about it. Should you then be motivated to edit that article, resist the temptation. Instead, read and follow our two policies on Paid editing and Declaring a conflict of interest. Follow those guidelines and if you then want to make changes, place an {{edit request}} on the talk page of that article.

A less urgent thing to tell you at this time, which is very easy for you to follow as you have only ever made one edit here, is to cease using the account and create and use another one which only one person (you) can ever use. We don't accept usernames that appear to have more than one editor accessing it, or promoting a company. So "PricipartPat" would be fine - just not the company name on its own, please. I'm sure I've missed something - maybe another host will add further advice. We all work as volunteers to maintain this encyclopaedia. It's important to appreciate we only include 'notable things' in it. It's not for WP:PROMOTION, so you will have to proceed with care. Does this help? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Fredrikson Stallard

Hello, I have passed my 100th edit on this article and think it is now ready for publishing. Would someone please help?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise lost 90 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As the template says, just be patient and it will receive a review soon. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Goodness, Paradise lost 90. I'm sure you've made more than that! This was your first edit to Draft:Fredrikson Stallard, and only the fifth edit this account name had ever made. It added 22,350 bytes to the new page; not bad for a beginner. Are you sure you haven't edited here before? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: Conversation has somehow moved to my talk page at User_talk:Nick_Moyes#Question_from_Teahouse Nick Moyes (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Need mentor for a new user KenGohan

I am just here to ask for a mentor for this user. Apparently he is editing on this article. All I know about him, that he has lack of experience in adding citations or referencing sources. I have left two messages in his talk page regarding this issue. Other editors also informed him but it seems like he doesn't want to or can't understand. This request might have some grammatical issues since English is not my first language. Thanks
Sincerely,
Masum Reza(talk) 15:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit not saved

Hello. Trying desperately to add an item to the requested articles page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Arts_and_entertainment/Literature#L I started getting an error, edit not saved when I tried to include links to amazon.com. Then I tried reference tags but messed the closing tag, and now I can’t even fix that because even if my item has no links, I still get the not saved error, possibly because of the other links in other items of the same section. Halp! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorlahey (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I have corrected your referencing error. As the error message said, the closing tag should be </ref>; you had <\ref>, which isn't the same. I don't understand what you mean by the "not saved error"; at what stage are you seeing that? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused new user

I am working on creating my first Wikipedia page. I have created an account. When I first started to create a page, there was no SAVE button - only Publish. So, the content I have written exists - but I'm confused on a few items.

First - on business pages, there is a right column on the page where company info appears. How do I create that on a blank page?

Second - how do you insert photos into the text so that the text wraps around the photo?

Third - when the page is done, how do you submit it for review and comments and (hopefully) posting?

Thanks Ken Crowhurst — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse KJ010110. The infobox on the right is created with a template like {{infobox company}} (click on that link for the parameters). See Help:Files for how to upload and use photos. When your draft is ready for review, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top. —teb728 t c 16:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your userspace draft, KJ010110, I need to comment that Wikipedia is not for promotion: articles must be written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 16:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Ken. Many people confuse Wikipedia with a business directory, or advertising medium. I suggest you will find it helpful to replace "create a business page" in your mind with "write an encyclopaedia article about a business". Wikipedia has little interest in what you say or want to say about your business - all it is interested in is what people who have no connection with your business have already chosen to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded a Poster Image to Wiki Commons and it keeps getting kicked back saying that it is a possible copyright violation.

Hi Guys,

I've uploaded a Poster Image to Wiki Commons and it keeps getting kicked back saying that it is a possible copyright violation. Firstly, it is my work, secondly, it has been in the public domain for 20 years, please help! here is the link to the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beyond_the_Pale_Release_Poster.jpg

And here is the link to the page where the Image currently resides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Pale_(film)

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbotstown (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Abbotstown, Thanks for your question. Your image might be protected by copyright laws. Please don't upload in Commons instead upload in Wikipedia using File Upload Wizard or other tools. Please follow the guidelines and instructions there. Thanks
Sincerely,
Masum Reza(talk) 16:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

 looking into it... RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I can actually see it was uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free media and was deleted as it wasn't being used on any pages which is required for this. You can see the relevant deletion criteria here. I'm going to ping the deleting admin as I'm unsure if there was any other issues and will leave a message regarding image policy on your talk page. (pinging @Explicit:) RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Abbotstown. The issue in Commons, you need to take up in Commons, not here; but I notice that there, you assert that is it PD, but give no evidence of that; and the IMDB source specifically claims copyright. Unfortunately, whether it is your own work or not is not relevant, unless you own the copyright.

If you successfully contest the deletion in Commons (presumably by adducing evidence of its PD status) then there will be no problem using it in Wikipedia. If you cannot do so, then in order to use it in Wikipedia, it must meet all the criteria in WP:NFCC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Distributing your own photograph of a copyright poster is illegal, so it would be wisest to delete the image from the article and from Commons, then reload a low-resolution version to Wikipedia and use it in the article under a WP:Fair use rationale. Dbfirs 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Hello Abbotstown. On Commons you said the poster was in the public domain because "The image was released to all media as part of publicity for the film." The fact that it was released to the media does not mean that Maiden Voyage Pictures does not hold a copyright on it: it just means that the media are permitted to use it for publicity. Wikipedia and Commons require greater permission than that. See Masum Reza's advice above for how to use it as non-free content. —teb728 t c 17:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

New page creation

I am new to Wikipedia and whilst I've attempted to ensure that content is true and neutral, the page have been instantly deleted. I believe that the content is of interest especially given the move towards lightweighting within the automotive sector. The title regards the introduction of this new technology - not the promotion of a specific company or product. It would be helpful if those issuing speedy deletions could provide more assistance rather than placing threats on my admin ability or future edits.

Please help Graham M Jelfs (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Graham M Jelfs. Not being an admin, I can't see the deleted article. But your wording above sounds as if your purpose is to tell the world about something. That is precisely what we mean in Wikipedia by "promotion" - not all promotion is commercial. It might sound paradoxical, but Wikipedia is emphatically not for telling the world about things: it is only for summarising what the world has already been told about things: this is why we insist on subjects of articles being notable. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Graham M Jelfs. I hear you when you say you attempted to be neutral, and yet the article was about as close to pure advertising in tone and content as I've ever seen. It was filled with what I would term corporate ad-speak – praising HFQ in glowing terms to convince the reader of its wonderful virtues ("The multiple benefits enabled by HFQ® Technology ... HFQ® Technology enables investment reduction... adopted across a vast range of applications and markets... involving major players across the global ecosystem to offer a compelling full-service proposition..." and so on. The fact that it sounded like a commercial follows from the fact that you copied and pasted much of the content from external sites authored by HFQ, where it's promoting itself. I've noted the copyright violations in the deleted page's log history. I will leave a message at your talk page about that issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Guidance for publishing frequency.

Greetings,

I had a question regarding the frequency of publishes an editor should be performing on behalf of an article. For example, in my past five edits I made two changes within 1 subheading. One edit was regarding the current title of a board member. For a second edit, I listed a factual and relevant statement regarding board member going on leave of absence.

As a best practice, and aid to future editors, should the above actions be a single or double publish?

Thank you for your time. Vcpecon (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Entirely up to you, Vcpecon. It's a good idea not to do too many changes in one go, but if it's just a couple, you can do them in a single edit, or in two. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Business page creation

Hi.

In response to a question I posted earlier today, I just received the following response:

"Looking at your userspace draft, KJ010110, I need to comment that Wikipedia is not for promotion: articles must be written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 16:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Indeed, Ken. Many people confuse Wikipedia with a business directory, or advertising medium. I suggest you will find it helpful to replace "create a business page" in your mind with "write an encyclopaedia article about a business". Wikipedia has little interest in what you say or want to say about your business - all it is interested in is what people who have no connection with your business have already chosen to publish about it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)"

I now fully understand the criteria that needs to be met for a page to be accepted.

However, I have a question for you. A competitor of ours is called OtterBox. They have a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtterBox

Is their page allowed due to the numerous references (i.e., listing in Forbes, article in Reuters, etc.)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJ010110 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@KJ010110: Welcome to the Teahouse. You have hit upon one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia, that articles need significant coverage in reliable sources in order for there to be an article written about them. We even have a guideline for the notability of articles about businesses. Media sources like Forbes and Inc with a reputation for solid journalism are a great way to establish notability. I would also note about the OtterBox article that it is written from a neutral point of view that states facts rather than tries to tell a story or make value judgements, which can be difficult to do if you have a conflict of interest in regards to the company (and if you do, you must disclose this fact, see WP:PAID). There are several problems with your draft, as ColinFine pointed out in his decline notice, and it needs to be rewritten from scratch to comply with our guidelines. Right now it reads like an advertisement. Hope this helps, shoy (reactions) 18:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Lost sandbox file

Hello, I’m still a newbie. I tried to update an existing page and all of my updates were rejected for mostly good reasons. So, OK, I decided to create a new page that I could tweak and test before trying to replace the old wiki entry. I created a new file called User:Gretchencotter/sandbox. I have now entered data twice but every time I come back in order to add more data, the file no longer exists. My slow, tedious typing efforts have vanished. I don’t think my file is being actively deleted, I just don’t think it is being saved when I use the Publish button.

Any help would be appreciated. I am trying to recreate the biography of Liv8ng people for Shimon Gibson (at his request), but so far with zero success.

Thank you Gretchen Cotter User:Gretchencotter Gretchencotter (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Gretchencotter/sandbox appears never to have been created. If you typed something there, then you don't seem to have clicked on "Publish" to save it. You should not recreate an article with the intention of replacing an existing article, but instead make valid changes to the existing article. You have a WP:Conflict of interest, and possibly WP:Paid status, so you should suggest edits on the talk page of the article Talk:Shimon Gibson instead of trying to edit the article directly. I see that you have already used that page to ask about the photograph. Wikipedia has no interest in whether the subject of an article likes the page, and no permission of the subject is required, but if there are inaccuracies, then you need to find WP:Reliable sources that report the correct information, and post those on the talk page. If there are existing statements that are untrue and unreferenced, then please let us know so that we can remove them. Dbfirs 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: I thought the issue was that they pressed the button but it didn't save it. @Gretchencotter: what message were you shown after you clicked the button? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If they did, then it didn't work. I occasionally click on the publish button and nothing happens, but I blame my ancient computer and slow internet for that. Dbfirs 20:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gretchencotter: On the bottom left there's a blue button that says publish changes. You have to click it when you are done. Per above, if you have a conflict of interest, you can always ping me by leaving a comment on my talk page and I can review your changes and see if they are properly sourced and neutral. I also left you info on Dr. Gibson's talk page about uploading a new photo for the article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Biography Page

Hi I am Kelsey Murrell and I am new to wikipedia and I would like to get help with creating a biography page. How do I get started? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelzmurrell (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kelzmurrell: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want to write about yourself, I think that you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Autobiographical edits are strongly discouraged per the Autobiography policy written at WP:AUTO. Not every person merits an article here. If you meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and merit an article, you should allow others who take note of you in independent reliable sources to write it.

If you mean that you want to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use, you do have a userpage where you can do that, but it is not meant for you to give your entire biography; please see WP:USERPAGE for what is acceptable user page content.

If you mean something else, please clarify. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If your intentions are not to write about yourself, may I suggest that you spend a couple months editing existing biographies prior to creating a new one? Our criteria for new articles is called notability, and it is a rather difficult concept for new editors to master. There are literally dozens of ways to show notability and most are dependent on who you are writing about. Notability is not a factor in adding information to existing articles. John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the page Changtu, Liaoning should merge into Changtu County

There's only one place called Changtu, which is a county in Liaoning. Changtu County is the original entry; while Changtu, Liaoning is partly another entry that describes the same topic. I think Changtu, Liaoning should merge into Changtu County, but I don't know what to do.Honoka55 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's info about how to start a merge Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. FWIW, I think you're right. Tieling is the prefecture-level city in the Liaoning province that includes Changtu County. I don't think there is a city named Changtu in Changtu County. The hard part will be sourcing this. I'd start a discussion on both talk pages per the merge instructions. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Honoka55: forgot to ping user. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Getting full Wikipedia on a mobile device

Is it possible to avoid the ".m." version, and get full Wikipedia on my mobile phone? The constraints of this "mobile version" are driving me crazy. The latest example is that I wanted to look at a page's edit history. That is so easy on the desktop that I figured "how hard can it be?" I can't find it anywhere on the mobile site. Worse still, when I select the option to use the desktop site it doesn't! The layout is slightly improved, but it still uses the ".m." site, with no history. Even when I manually edit the URL to remove the ".m." it automatically puts it back in to prevent me from being able to use the system. I have gone through the mobile editing instructions and I just can't find a way to force it to do the right thing - any pointers? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Here may be a solution.Tamanoeconomico (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tamanoeconomico: thanks for that. Wow, that is so complicated for something that seems like it should be so simple. At least it makes me feel better about not finding a solution myself. Not knowing anything about Java, it makes me a bit nervous - is that process safe? Have you tried it out?--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: For what it's worth, for me there's a link at the bottom of Wikipedia pages that says "request desktop version" or something very similar, and that works. I'd be more definite in the details but my cellphone's out of charge. (Iphone, using Chrome.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: thanks, I tried that. It displays a somewhat improved layout, but it still forces constant changes over to the ".m." version of the site, with no option to see the article's history.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

hmm, here's another technical article that makes no sense to me;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

For myself, I'm very glad we have plenty of folks that understand that stuff, so I don't have to. Here's what I do, Gronk Oz, and I edit almost exclusively on an android device.

Use your browser to navigate to Wikipedia (I use Chrome), whatever page you usually start at and sign in (I use my watchlist). Scroll to the bottom of the page and select desktop version. This is the important part....once you are on whatever page you like to start with, signed in (with the stay signed in box checked) and on the desktop version, use the three dots thingie on your browser and set a desktop shortcut. From then on, at least until you sign out or are signed out, the desktop version of that page will open from the shortcut, and any link you open from that will be desktop version. Works just fine for me. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Works for me, too. I do most of my daytime editing on a small iphone in desktop view. Apart from the lack of the keyboard there is no difference. But then I do have the advantage of being able to dictate what I write, as I've done here. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I do the vast majority of my editing on an Android smartphone, and I always use the fully functional desktop site on my phone. I ignore the mediocre mobile site and the apps, except for occasional testing. I have been recommending for years that the misleading term "desktop site" be abandoned, because it implies that you need a big expensive heavy computer to use it, and that is false. It works perfectly well on modern mobile devices and should have a better name. It should be the default for all users, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I thought I was the only one - thanks for the moral support. I am trying to follow John from Idegon's directions on my Android (Samsung S9+) using Chrome, but I am experiencing technical difficulties - the mobile site is fighting against me all the way. First, there does not seem to be any way to get to my Watchlist (never mind, that would be nice but not vital). Then trying to log in, I enter my userid and password. There is no checkbox to "stay logged in". I press the Login button. But it pops up a window insisting that I choose whether to perform this action using the Wikipedia mobile app, or Samsung's internet browser (there is no option to continue using Chrome). I chose the latter. This takes me to a "Central user log in" screen, which displays the following error message in red: "No active login attempt is in progress for your session." I have no idea how to proceed from there... P.S. I was typing this message on my desktop while trying to get the mobile working, and the mobile crash described above also logged this desktop session off. I will have to copy what I wrote, log in, and paste it back here...--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be solved! The missing step was to force Android to use Chrome as its default browser, instead of Samsung Internet (Android Settings > Apps > 3 dots > Default Apps > Browser App > select Chrome). Then after rebooting the phone to clean everything out, I was able to follow John from Idegon's directions! Now, time will tell whether it keeps working - but since so many of you are able to do it then I'm sure it will be okay. Thanks, again, everybody! --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad you're sorted and you're certainly not alone. I agree with Cullen328 about the poor choice of wording for 'desktop view' - maybe 'full view' and 'mobile view' would be more helpful. Isn't it time we made noises to WMF to get it changed? (As a complete aside - but relevant to browser choice - anyone trying to edit pages using Puffin browser will get a rude shock when they suddenly discover they've been blocked. It panicked me at first, but relates to the browser using a proxy server to access Wikipedia, and that's not allowed as it enables untraceable vandalism.) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Art pop genre of music

Why isn't artists of this genre get enough airplay here on mainstream radio in SA but the other side of the world knows about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ana jerie. The Teahouse is generally a place for asking questions about Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem as if your question has anything to do with editing Wikipedia at all. You could try asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment; however, if you really want to why radio stations in SA (maybe you mean San Antonio?) don't play the music of certain artists or certain types of music, you probably should try directly contacting the radio stations themselves and asking them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry what I meant was why doesn't Wikipedia have audio samples of what an ARTPOP song sounds like just a 30sec sample sorry for the misunderstAnding A.jerie 10:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs)

Ana jerie I've transferred your post here from the Teahouse talk page(which is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse, this page). Please keep follow up questions here. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ana jerie. The article Art pop has three fair-use samples. Two of them are clearly precursors (The Beach Boys and the Beatles), but the caption to the sample of Kate Bush says "According to The Concordian, "Running Up That Hill" was part of the most distinctive and revolutionary works of 1980s art pop, containing "darting drum rhythms" and Bush's "dogged vocals". So it looks to me as if the answer is that it does have a sample. If you think it should have more, or more recent, the answer is "because nobody has put them there": anybody can do so. I suggest you identify a significant track, and post a request on Talk:Art pop. Remember that the criteria for fair-use on Wikipedia include "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"; and also that "multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information", so it is possible that a new sample ought to replace one of those already there. (Actually, I'm wondering whether it is justified to have both the Beach Boys and the Beatles clips there. But I know nothing about the field). --ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Help with a site thats up for deletion

Hi

The will gray wiki page as been flagged up for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Gray

I've been talking to one of your hosts and he wrote/suggested the below and to get in touch with yourself if there were any questions or help needed.

"Except, that is, for the rather select membership of the Inner Magic Circle. It's just possible that that might be deemed suitable under WP:ANYBIO. That could potentially be a clincher, so can you supply any evidence of this membership other than the Will Gray website? Newspaper articles etc?"

I have two PDF's one which is the letter from the president himself congratulating Will on being promoted to MIMC which is an outstanding accolade and one of the Magic Circle minutes where it is mentioned in the secretary's report.

Would they be best to be put on as citation links or just links. Should I link these myself while its under discussion or can these be linked by another host or author.

I did put a citation link to Will winning 3rd at The Magic Circle Close up Comp which is no easy task either.

I'm really hoping it doesn't come down to deletion but do understand why these things happen any further help would be great.--Vanishingrabbit (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid neither of those sources will do, Vanisgingrabbit. All information in Wikipedia articles must be available in a published source. It doesn't sound as if either of those is published (and uploading them would not change that, as well as probably being a copyright infringement). Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin I'm not sure what to do then, I'm sure you're aware how private the magic circle is and doesn't allow anyone thats a non member to see their membership list or private section of their website. When you say published do you mean somewhere on the internet or in an article i.e. magazine or a photo of the actual certificate. --Vanishingrabbit (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A source needs to be possible to verify. It need not be free, cheap, or easy to do so, but it needs to be possible. A private letter or private meeting minutes probably would not fall under that category unless it is published somewhere publicly available. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Four of your sources make no mention of Gray, all sources MUST support the actual content they are placed after. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you I see now thanks for the help, I've corrected three of them which now go to an independent news page which mentions Will winning the awards there next too. I have copyright to a photo of Will actually being presented his MIMC would this help verifying that if on the page.--Vanishingrabbit (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Missing links

Hello I was trying so many times to click on this previous page but couldn't get through was idoing something wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. What page were you trying to go back to? This sounds like a browser problem though. Maybe you openend a page in a new tab or you didn't open anything before this page. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Mercury

That's how life would feel like if there was no earth because there are so many planets but only earth can have life has one ever thought about how life would be like living in mercury just try and think about it if there's proof that mars can be our earth surely you can Believe that mercury is more than capable than being our third world everyday something changes but we as humans on earth don't realise it but as you think about it maybe the realisation that mercury can be a world where we can live without a shadow of possibility everything and anything isreally inevitable so think about it mercury as our third world maybe it is possible but not unthinkableA.jerie 12:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana jerie (talk • contribs)

Others planets were life is possible and may exists.. Maybe there's some planets that are way more advanced than we are. We don't know, and we can't be sure at this moment. Maybe life is just a computer simulation??? It's not possible to check if we do or don't live in one. Can we? TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ana jerie: Please don't spam. It's NOT a forum. --CiaPan (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ana jerie: What CiaPan means is that you are welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse about editing Wikipedia, but you may not post random thoughts, musings or personal observations either here or on any article talk page (which you have been doing rather a lot of!) This must stop right now as you are, unfortunately, now dangerously close to being blocked from editing for repeatedly leaving such trivial comments. Just try and appreciate that we are all here for the serious task of building an amazing encyclopaedia about notable subjects. None of us are interested in what any individual person happens to think. So you really must not leave comments like these ever again. Best wishes and good luck with your Wikipedia journey. If you have any questions about how to edit, feel free to ask them here. Did you manage to access the Wikipedia Adventure in the end? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing page contact and adding references

Hello all,

I have never worked in Wikipedia before, I am trying to make content changes to some existing pages and I need to add references for the content. I have been typing the new content in sandbox, do I post the content first and then add the references? Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivanlab (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. It's probably best to cite your sources while writing the text, instead of doing it after you published the text. If you publish a article without citations to the main article space (not your sandbox) it's very likely to be deleted within a couple of hours, see WP:NRSNVNA. If you want to know how to cite a source see this tutorial: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. If you have any further questions feel free to ask. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

PS. Please sign your posts with four ~~~~ next time.

@Sullivanlab: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your edit history indicates that edits have been made from your account since December 19, but you say that you haven't worked here before. Please clarify. I would also note that if "Sullivan lab" is an organization, you will need to change your username(instructions on how to do that are at WP:CHU). 331dot (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. As requested, to clarify I am new to wikipedia entries and every attempted edit has been rejected since December. Regarding adding the references, thank you for your advice-after I have edited the existing text how do I add the references? Do I simply number them and type them under the edited text? I am working on a small section of an existing page where other authors have contributed their content and their own references exist on that page. I do not want to mess up their references. Thank you wikiaccountssa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccountsa (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please read this tutorial on how to add references (see the part about the refbar it's the easiest way). Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused! Is Sullivanlab the same person as Wikiaccountsa? Neither username sounds like that of an individual, though it might be? Dbfirs 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you started in December adding content to articles (under one name) - all reverted because you did not provide references. Then, you deleted large sections of two articles without providing reason - also reverted. Now, you are attempting to create a new article as a draft (Causes of ADHD) when that topic is well-covered in the ADHD article. Your User name change is OK as long as you stick with the new name and never use the old name. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want to work on a section of an article, one way is to copy to your sandbox, work there, then replace what is in the article with your revised content. That is different from creating a draft. Whether you are editing in place or sandbox and back, if you are using the proper procedure for references, yours are inserted into the list of references, and all references following are automatically renumbered. David notMD (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you update the number of Oscar nominated movies for Film of th e Year, since you have teh new ones at teh bottom of the page

The new number of Oscar nominated movies is eight more than the total (546) you have on your site. The number is now 554 movies have been nominated for movie of the year, and the new winner (the 91st) will be announced on Feb 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:36DD:8000:0:0:0:44E9 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit Revert

Hello,

My name's Ajani and I recently made some updates to Photographer Chris Buck's Wikipedia page as some of the information on it is outdated or grammatically incorrect. The changes I made were reverted twice. I'd love to know why this may be as thy were minor changes. Perhaps it interrupted with the Wikipdia guidelines? If so, I'd like to know exactly how and work towards updating those changes.

If I can hear back as soon as possible, that would be fantastic.

Cheers, Ajani— Preceding unsigned comment added by AjaniD (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ajani Take a look at the edit history for that topic. The editors who reverted your changes explained the reversions in their edit summaries. Both of them suggested you use the Talk page to discuss the major deletions that you want to make. Get consensus on the Talk page for your changes, and then you can make the edits without being reverted. (Edited to add:) Also, a "minor" change is fixing a typo or punctuation; your changes were not minor.Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As User:Darren-M has told you, you are removing sourced edits and editing against the WP:MOS. I'm trying to get in touch with him to see if he can explain better. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding photographic content

I've used Wikipedia for years, but have only recently created a login so that I can contribute. My primary interest is adding photographic content where it is needed. How do I discover articles that would benefit from photos? Thanks, -Ilgamoot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilgamoot (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ilgamoot: Category:Wikipedia requested images should be helpful. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the pointer. That's quite a list. I noticed that there are "wikiprojects" that might help me filter or constrain the list a bit by my location. Unfortunately, when I searched for "San Francisco Photography" etc within the projects, I didn't find anything relevant. Can you suggest a better way to find a group working on photos in the SF Bay Area, US? --Ilgamoot (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ilgamoot, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject_California/San_Francisco_Bay_Area_task_force but it is a bit dormant. You could try the parent California wiki project, or go to commons:Category:San_Francisco_Bay_Area and see what is missing. WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ilgamoot, just found this, Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the San Francisco Bay Area to see requested photos for the bay area WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Update Biography Photo

I would like to replace the biography photo of my wife Deborah Chase Hopkins with a more current photo. How do I do that? THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopflys (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hopflys, You should read the WP:COI policy first then use {{request edit}} on the article talk page. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, Hopflys, you need to be aware of copright issues. Wikipedia requires that most pictures be licensed in a way that anybody can reuse them for any purpose. If you, or your wife, or somebody associated with you has (i.e. holds the copyright of) a suitable picture, and is willing to release it, it would be most welcome. They should go to the Upload wizard, and upload the picture to Wikimedia commons; then it can be used in an article. See donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hopflys, if you take a photo of yourself, you could release it under an appropriate license. Usually professional photographers do not release their photos under a license acceptable to Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 19:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Who has access to make needed updates to a page?

The Eldorado, Texas page needs to be edited. Who can do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.97.83.34 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. Link: Eldorado,_Texas. Anyone may edit that article, including you. You can Be Bold or discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Any changes you make must be supported by citations to reliable sources. You might want to start with WP:TUTORIAL. RudolfRed (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

William Sherrill

Can an admin please tell me what was here? I don't like to overwrite things. I assume it may be about a non-notable person with this name in the contemporary film industry or possibly the Minister from North Carolina? Thanks. I am about to redirect to William L. Sherrill FloridaArmy (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It was a biography about someone nonnotable from the 18th century. Based on the text I think you are safe to create the redirect. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Port of Key West Essay to Encyclopedic style

Hello. I am wondering what needs to be changed about Port of Key West. I know thee is something wrong with Port of Key West but I do not know what it is. Whether I am told or a more experience editor fixes the problem, the problem is fixed. Please fix this. And notify me (or perhaps not the latter!) Also, a rating on the Importance Scale may be helpful. (Mr. Holup (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

Edit summaries, and minor edits

How important are summaries? Should I always write one as a rule?

Also, what exactly constitutes a minor edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelson21101805 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Nelson21101805 Welcome to Teahouse. It is a good practice to leave a edit summary to briefly inform (a way of communication) other editor of the nature of your edit as Wikipedia is a collaborating work among many editors. An minor edit is defined the edit is superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions such as bold a word. However, it is always encouraged to provide edit summary even if it is a minor edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nelson21101805. Help:Edit summary suggests always leaving a summary, and tells you what to do if you forget to leave one. Help:Minor edit explains what we mean by "minor edit", usually typographical errors. "Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit." Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

stopping inappropriate content

Could someone tell what to do when incited content and bad links get reverted over and over again?Stevenvieczorek (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Stevenvieczorek Welcome to Teahouse. I believe you were referring to Bluestone by an IP editor. You would give warnings to the editor (disruptive) using Wikipedia:Twinkle. The IP editor has received their last warning - see Here and if they continue to edit the same fashion as before you could report them to WP:AIV. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What's the best way to work with users who repeatedly remove verifiable content?

Last year, I edited the 88rising page. Since then, various users have removed a verifiable fact (Jaeson Ma is a founder) in a repeated (multiple times) and focused (often, the only edit was to remove Jaeson's name from the wiki) manner.

Several times, the edits not only removed mentions of Jaeson from the page but also removed the verifiable sources. In addition, editors were anonymous, and their edit history is only removing Jaeson's name from the 88rising page.

I've reached out to users as appropriate citing the sources and have resolved misunderstandings with some of them, but I'm at a loss for how to work with anonymous users who remove this verifiable information in a manner that blatantly disregards Wikipedia's principles.

I am escalating this to the Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) but was curious if anyone has any experience with this. If so, what would you suggest doing?

Thank you! Gcheng94 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Investigating... RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to protect it here RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm interested in English Wikipedia. But do not know that how I contribute... — Preceding unsigned comment added by شادان خان (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'd recommend to read the tutorial Help:Getting started, there's a bunch of links to other tutorials in there to get you started. Another great tutorial to start with and get familiar with the Wikimedia software is Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure. If you have any further questions feel free to ask. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposing an Addition to Country Info-Boxes

What is the formal process for proposing an addition to country info boxes? The info boxes are already quite amazing for quick glances relating to economics, linguistics, demographics, geography, etc. but they seem to be lacking in political science information. The Democracy-Dictatorship Index (DD Index) and the Polity IV Dataset are used extensively throughout the field of comparative politics and international relations yet their coding for each country are only available on their respective pages. Up until recently the DD Index coding was not even available in the article (I have since added it).

The info-boxes already contain the "official" categorization of each country's government and legislature but these are largely not used within the field of political science. There is however abundant information already available for economics and some international politics like GDP, PPP, Gini, and HDI. I would like to propose adding additional information to the info-boxes either immediately after the "Government" and "Legislature" sections or immediately after the "Gini" and "HDI" sections: the DD Index categorization (there are six possible) and the Polity IV ranking (both number and categorical name).

As I've said, DD Index and Polity IV are used extensively throughout the field of political science and especially comparative politics. Polity IV is updated every year and while the DD Index hasn't been updated since 2008 it is currently in active progress. I don't think this is too much of a problem as some countries have Gini coefficients from the 1990's.

I just want to know the official route I can go down to propose this? I'm a bit new to the background workings of Wikipedia but I've been editing for quite a while. Thanks --Olfbir (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Olfbir. The proper place to discuss your proposed changes is Template talk:Infobox country. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Olfbir. To some extent it depends on how broad an audience you seek; the formality you want involved; whether you just want to dip your toes, or lay out a concrete proposal with some degree of formality. I mean you could start with a post to Template talk:Infobox country, which has 247 page watchers. Or maybe you might start by asking the folks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics for some input. A wider forum though would be the proposals section of the village pump. There are also ways to escalate discussion; to seek a wider audience regardless of which forum is chosen to first raise some matter. For example, the discussion can be done through the auspices of a request for comment – and such an RfC can be made very broad by advertising it through {{Centralized discussion}}, or for some really huge issue, a site notice can be placed. (I am just give you a picture of the playing field – I'm sure you realize I'm not suggesting [nor would it be appropriate] to start at the top of the mountain). I would test the waters with a post at the template's talk page and maybe the village pump afterwards, if that garners very little comment (the fact it has 247 page watchers probably means only about 50 of them or less are active). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Changing name of cities into their official name.

I tried to change the English accent names of Karnataka state cities into recently changed official names. But my edits were reverted. What's reason behind reverting as the names were officially changed by state government itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwanath K G (talk • contribs) 08:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. When you make changes in an article it's recommended to explain what you changed and why in the edit summary, this way other editors know what and why you changed something. I think it's best to discuss the changes you want to make on the article's talk page and provide proof that the name has been changed (such as a newspaper) so your edit won't be reverted again. If you have any further questions feel free to ask (: Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Vishwanath K G. The article naming policy says to title an article from the common name rather than the official name. See WP:COMMONNAME. —teb728 t c 09:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see you didn't move the articles to new titles (as I had assumed) but just changed the text. Anyway the same principle applies. BTW, I notice that your mechanical changes broke links in at least one case. —teb728 t c 10:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Information in the article on Saint Marcella seems to be plagiarised.

The article on Wikipedia on Saint Marcella seems to be mostly lifted from "Parade of Faith: A Biographical History of the Christian Church" by Ruth A. Tucker https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Hb-S41iWo7oC&pg=PT106&dq=Marcella,+Jerome&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiypJ2G4JfgAhUHbisKHZc2CJoQ6AEIQjAE#v=onepage&q=Marcella%2C%20Jerome&f=false

Or is it the other way round? Could Ruth Tucker have plagiarised Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret Mowczko (talk • contribs) 10:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Whilst a lot of people - and websites - do indeed use Wikipedia as a source, and some fail to credit us, I suspect in this case we have seen text copied and pasted into Wikipedia against our policies on copyvio. I say that because the really useful WikiBlame tool allows us to search for when specific text strings were first added. I searched for It was at the home of Marcella that Jerome first met Paula, a devoted and scholarly woman who would become his long-time intellectual counterpart. WikiBlame indicates that User:Holyvincent pasted in content without an edit summary in this diff dated 19th November 2011. Tuckers book online appears to be dated as epublished in July 2011. It would therefore be appropriate to speedily remove the copyright text, leaving a very clear edit summary as to why, leaving a url to the ebook for others to find. But better still, if you have interests in that page, why not write (in your own words) a summary of facts that you can extract from that book, and add it as a reference source? Thanks for raising this issue, and do please remember to sign all talk page posts with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). In this instance, because you included line breaks in your post I found it really hard to work out whether one person had asked a question and another person had answered it. Signing every post avoids that kind of confusion. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

~~~~ Thanks Nick, I'm still very new to this and unfamiliar with the protocol in these conversations. I'm not sure that I have the time to remove all the copyrighted material. From a quick look, most of the article has been taken from Ruth Tucker's book. Perhaps, the article can be reset at an earlier date (for want of better terminology.) I'll see what I can do. Marg Mowczko ~~~~

From looking at Saint Marcella, the one edit by User:Holyvincent in 2011 nearly tripled the length of the article. The content was added without an Edit summary and also without citations. There have been more than 50 subsequent edits by others, so it may be difficult to extract/reword the copyright content. To Marg, what Nick meant by signing is that when you type four of ~ at the end of your comments, your User signature will be added. David notMD (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

How to create page for not for profit social organization ? Can I get such template ?

How to create page for not for profit social organization ? Can I get such template ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporterbihar (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Consider first if your non-profit "fits" under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If not, what you write will be deleted sooner or later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted a quick second/third opinion if possible

Is the title of this article suitable - University of Farmington scam, or does anyone have any better title names? (The page was created just now). Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"Scam" usually indicates illegal activity. In this instance a fake university was created legally as an undercover operation to catch non-citizens who wanted to be in the U.S. knowing that their student visas would be a sham. On a different note, Hudson University is a fictitious university used in dozens of television shows. Filming is on real college campuses, but the location always identified as "Hudson University." And on another different note, there is a real University of Maine Farmington. David notMD (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: An interesting point to note, thanks - that the fake university is legal but the immigration "pay to stay" scam is illegal. So considering this, the title is not entirely accurate. And yes, I had come across the real University of Maine Farmington while developing the article... Hmm... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This file is missing evidence of permission.

Hi Diannaa,

You sent me a message regarding my wikipedia edit for VPP Wikipedia Draft. The file in question is for a logo fd-io_red_white.png. We use in many of our documents. I believe it was created by the Linux Foundation Marketing team and I think it is open source. Is an email from the Linux Foundation marketing team enough to get permission or is there a better way to get permission to use this?

Thanks so much for you review. Jdenisco (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)jdenisco

Hey, Jdenisco, and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, an email from the Linux Foundation to permissions-en should do the trick, but just from looking at it, I'm not sure that such permission will be forthcoming. It seems that, while the Linux Foundation releases their software under open-source copyright, they don't do the same for their logos and trademarks. Their site says that: A copyright license, even an open source copyright license, does not include an implied right or license to use a trademark that may be related to the project developing the licensed software or other materials. [...] your right to use any specific trademark of The Linux Foundation is not determined by your use of software made available under an open source license. Basically, the open source license that the software might be released under does not extend to the logos and trademarks associated with that software, and several of the restrictions that their trademark policy place, such as no commercial reuse and no modification of the original image, would conflict with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Writ for the quick response. I will try and get permission. If I can't get it quickly can I just remove the logo from that box? The box has some useful information. I will also make sure I get the VPP license correct. Thanks Jdenisco (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)jdenisco

Recent Changes

Is there a setting which only shows problematic edits?Cedric White (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Cedric White, There are a variety of filters available, see WP:RC for more information. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the setting that I find useful for me when monitoring live edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories

Hello,

I just created Manpreet Bambra, and I was having issues with the category additions. I added the ones that I could remember existed, but I was wondering if someone could help correct/amend/add more. I’m aware Bambra is of Indian descent, not sure if that has any specific categories. She also lives in London.

Thank you!

– Joesimnett (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I think the categories are alright, you can of course add more categories as long as they exist and are relevant. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding a picture to an article

Hello, I'd like to add some pictures to an article about my father. Could someone offer any assistance ? Thanks

Ross Perry — Preceding unsigned comment added by RossAPerry (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

RossAPerry, You can use Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard to upload the file(or I can do it for you) and then I can help you add it to the article. What is the source of the photo? WelpThatWorked (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

New Article Rejection Question

Hi.

 I submitted an article on "Stanton Cohn" (now in my sandbox).  It was rejected because of a lack of inline citations.  I've added appropriate citations.  How do I resubmit for evaluation?

many thanks Meeplistener