Wikipedia:Teahouse

Nick Moyes, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)

Autoconfirmed and Extended confirmed

If I would like to be an extended confirmed user, I must make 500 edits and join Wikipedia for 30 days, and I know that. If I can’t make 500 edits in 30 days, will I be a extended confirmed user if I make 1,000 edits and join Wikipedia for 60 days? I just wan5ed to ask that, does the Wikipedia software work like this: if I can’t make 500 edits in 300 days, the software will wait until 60 days I’ve joined Wikipedia and see if I can make 1,000 edits, or does it simply see if you meet the requirements (they review all the time)? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 14:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery, You can request to be one at WP:PERM/EC. However, requests there are rarely accepted. Interstellarity (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery, the information about how extended confirmed protection works is here. It specifies "...registered users with at least 30 days tenure and 500 edits", which means that when an account is 30 days old, once it hits 500 edits it will be extended confirmed. It is not a check that runs every 30 days. If there is a particular article you would like to edit which has EC protection, you can always request edits on its talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery: Wikipedia doesn't play silly games, or make people jump through hoops for no reason. The purpose of Autoconfirmation and Extended Confirmation is to make sure that people editing the specified pages have been here long enough, and made enough edits, to be serious and (hopefully) understand what Wikipedia is about. So once you have been here 30 days (or more) and made 500 edits (or more) you will automatically have ECP rights. But I wonder, why does this matter to you? You haven't so far edited in any of the areas where ECP is applied; and if you do want to, you can always use an edit request. --ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Of course I know Wikipedia doesn’t play silly games, but I just want to know how I get to edit pages that are under extended confirmed. This applies for service awards and ribbons as well, right? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 23:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, Bank Robbery. I have no interest in service awards or ribbosn, regarding them as an irritating distraction from the business of creating an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Would you please answer the question I have asked above? ColinFine couldn’t answer my question. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 14:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bank Robbery: I don't understand the question regarding service ribbons. They are entirely self-granted, and can be used by anyone. If that doesn't answer your question, perhaps you can be more specific. What we're all wondering, though, is what article(s) requiring ECP you are so intent to edit, and why. You have to realize that any such articles are generally very high-profile (watched closely and/or by a lot of people) and any kind of controversial edits can get you in hot water pretty quickly. It's best to discuss changes and make edit requests on the article's talk page, which you can do now. Why does it matter who performs the actual edit? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I’m just asking anyway, and it does not matter me. What I really mean is not service ribbons but service awards like Novice Editor and Master Editor II. So now does it apply to service awards? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 02:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bank Robbery: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the question about these awards is. AFAIK, ECP and service awards are unrelated. The first award is for 1 day of service and 1 edit. See WP:SVC and WP:AWARDS if that helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Seems like you don't really understand what I mean. Of course I know the first award, Registered Editor is for 1 day of service and 1 edit, and that's why I posted it on my user page. Does the question I asked apply to ALL SERVICE AWARDS? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 07:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery, In theory, a service award is appropriate as soon as an editory has reached X edits and Y years of service. The edits may take significantly longer than the minimum time, or vice versa. This applies to all the service awards. But do remember tht unlike actual permissions such as ECP, no one and nothing monitors the placement of service award templates, and they have no consequences and grant no rights or privileges. An editor with 5 edits can place a service award claiming to have 100,000 edits and 20 years of service, if s/he cares to do so. It won't fool many people, nor matter at all. Has that clarified things a bit? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: So if a user reviews my user page, it will not be deleted even if I have put the award template for Master Editor III. So service awards don't really matter, and thank you for your help. If you see a problem in the first sentence (this reply), please tell me ASAP. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 07:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery Of course it's a problem. It's called honor. I can go buy a probably fake Silver Star medal at the local military surplus joint. What do you think happens if I wear it when I go visiting my friends at the local VA cemetery? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, could you please solve this question: is AlanM1 correct or DESiegel correct about the question I have asked above? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 10:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bank Robbery. Your original question was "If I can’t make 500 edits in 30 days, will I be a extended confirmed user if I make 1,000 edits and join Wikipedia for 60 days?" The answer is that, if you have not reached 500 edits in 30 days, then you will become an extended confirmed user when you reach 500 edits. It makes no difference if that takes 42 days, 78 days or any other number of days. The only numbers that matter are at least 30 days and at least 500 edits. I recommend that you concentrate on improving the encylopedia instead of worrying about such things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you for your help. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

New Albion Infobox question

I have a question regarding the New Albion infobox which you may find here: HERE.

I have just added the infobox as I realized that most wp:GOODARTICLEs contain such. And it does also, I believe, improve the article. Unfortunately I am having trouble with the line about the founder, Francis Drake. I am unable to arrange the word by on the same line as founded and Francis Drake--despite tinkering to properly manipulate the words. In short, I would like it to read all on one line as such: Founded by Francis Drake.

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to let me know my mistake or even perhaps correct the mistake. I truly appreciate any attention one may extend.Hu Nhu (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hu Nhu, and welcoem to the Teahouse. The problem turns out to be the length of the parameter value for |named for=. If that value is long enough to force word-wrapping, the width of the label names column is reduced, and "founded by" wraps. I have made an edit to correct this. It may be that there is a better solution. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)!~

Thank you DES. I appreciate your kind attention, and the correction is excellnt. I have been editing this article and believe it is suitable for recognition as a wp:GA. The information box is an item that I realized was lacking; an information box seems typical of of a Good Article.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am glad to have been of help, Hu Nhu. I don't do much work on getting articles to GA, and cannot advise on that aspect of things. Good luck. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Reducing an infobox image to a thumbnail size

My infobox image

William Oliver Williams
Born	1823 Worcester
Died	1901 Kensington, London, England
Nationality	British
Occupation	Artist
Spouse	Jane Elizabeth (Hughes) Williams
Parent(s)	William Williams, Jane (Oliver) Williams

is too large. Where do I put the word 'thumb' to reduce it? Sorry to be so simple and taking up so much space BFP1 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done That template has a field that can control the image size. I've added | image_upright = 0.5 to the article (William Oliver (artist, born 1823)). the 0.5 part means "50% (half) of original size", 0.75 would be three quarters etc. Tweak it to the size you require. - X201 (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Begoon (talk · contribs) has just increased it to 80% - X201 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

To be precise, upright will scale it roughly relative to default thumbnail size (it does some 'rounding'), so if your thumb size in preferences is 220px then 0.5 = 110px wide. I altered it to 0.8 = 180px, because 0.5 seemed very small in comparison to most bio pics, and it's not such poor quality that you need to reduce it to lessen flaws, but you can adjust further if you like. -- Begoon 16:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll know how to reduce if there are any complaints BFP1 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@BFP1: This has already been resolved, but please remember that since the file is licensed as non-free content it can only be used ("displayed") in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. So, if you want to discuss/refer to the image on any talk pages, etc., please only provide a link for the image (see WP:TPG#Non-free images and WP:COLON) or a link to the article where it can be seen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and noted Marchjuly. BFP1 (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Action Plans under Global Health page

Hi, I am a student at university of Edinburgh doing my Masters degree in Public Health. I wrote an article about Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Action Plans which was intended to be linked to the Global health page, however, I got a notification stating that the content is promotional and I have an obvious conflict of interest. I am an independent student trying to contribute to an open source knowledge base. Also, the content intended for posting is based on actions taken jointly by countries so far in achieving global health goals. There are no opinions but facts stated in a straightforward encyclopedic manner. Can anyone please help me understand this as I am finding it really difficult to wrap my head around this obvious conflict of interest bit and the content being promotional (of the World Health Organization??). Also, if this is promotional, then how does an entire page on World Health organization get published on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimanundy (talk • contribs)

Hello, Rimanundy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've had a frustrating experience. Unfortunately, this is quite common for people who plunge straight into the difficult task of creating new articles in Wikipedia without spending time learning about how it works.

The general answer is that if you think that the people who deleted your article and challenged you are wrong, you should engage with them in a discussion: either on their talk pages (User talk:CASSIOPEIA and User talk:Jimfbleak or continuing it on your own (but WP:ping those editors if you do).

I'm not an administrator, so I can't see the deleted article. But from the comments, my guess is that it was either not referenced, or referenced only to sources connected with the subject. That is (part of) what makes it promotional: Wikipedia isn't interested in what anybody or any organisation says about themselves, only in what people unconnected with the subject have published about it. (If you look at World Health Organization you will see that many of the sources are independent of WHO).

As for the COI: again, I can't tell for sure. Jimfbleak evidently thinks that you work for the organisation which behind the GHSA: if he is wrong, then you can explain - but you may need to address whatever it was that caused him to think so. That in itself won't address the question of promotional text: it may be that CASSIOPEIA will be willing to restore your text as a draft for you to work on, unless they think it is irredeemably promotional.

My suggestion would be that you read your first article, and then start again, creating a draft in Draft space. But do follow and read all the links in the messages on your user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rimanundy. The draft was deleted as promotional. I don't know that I would have done that, but it was not, as writen, suitable as a Wikipedia article. It began:

In order to attain goals of global health security, eleven Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Action Packages were identified in May 2014 at the GHSA Commitment Development meeting ...

Wikipedia articles normally begin by identifying or defining the subject of the article: Joe Blow was an 18th century English artist. or {Harris Associates is a holding company specializing in transport firms. Here the draft should have started by identifying the Global Health Security Agenda, indicating who created the Agenda and why, and why it is significant. The tone should be descriptive, and all statements of opnion should be identifed as the opnions of specific people or entities, and cited to their sources. Statements such as The Action packages aim to encourage member countries to take on leadership roles do not make it clear whose aim this is. Correcting these issues of format and tone might make it clearer that the draft is not intended to be, and is in fact not, promotional.

I could start a discussion aimed at overturning the deletion. But so little of the deleted draft would actually be useful in a new draft, that I don't think it is worth while. Perhaps Jimfbleak will comment here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel. Even the choice of article title shows that the editor has plunged straight in without reading anything about editing. No sources, and its basically regurgitating what the organisation says about itself in uncritical tones, aims and visions rather than facts. The article looks like a text dump, but since it seems to be based on a US federal page, not worth checking for copyright violation. Rimanundy, I'm prepared to AGF and accept that there isn't a COI here, but there's little worth keeping there, better to take time to read WP:YFA and WP:MOS and start from scratch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability of an article that I cannot find sources for

Is this article notable? Henri_Vincent-Anglade I was going to nominate it for AfD after finding no sources that demonstrate SIGCOV through google, google books, google news, and google scholar, but this article (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.montmart.org%2Fvincent-anglade) said his works were published in "major magazines of the time" that I could not find. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The painting is notable, but I think it might need to become a drag unit more sources have been found. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Taewangkorea and Elijahandskip: I rather suspect this artist is notable, but i can't be sure. If you couldn't find online sources, it may be that offline ones are needed, such as could be found at a university or museum library with a good collection on art history. Or it may be that sources are in french, rather than english. Or both. It certainly could be moved to Draft, but it would be better if some specific editor agreed to make some effort on it, otherwise that might just be a slow deletion via WP:CSD#G13. Or it could just be left alone for the moment -- there is no rush. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

By "drag unit" do you mean "draft until"? —Tamfang (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I did a quick google on his name and find that his art is being sold at auction for $500 to over £1,200. To me that bespeaks notability: https://www.invaluable.com/artist/anglade-henri-vincent-6f2zajw7yk/sold-at-auction-prices/ perhaps there is mention of him in some early 20thCentury French Newspapers. Does France have an equivalent of newspapers.com?Oldperson (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

would ri be notable?

Would ri (Ri_(administrative_division)) be allowed to have an article (notable) under the notability guideline for geographic features? Ri is an administrative subdivision for myeon (township) (List_of_townships_in_South_Korea). However, I noticed that hardly any of the myeon have article, let along ri, so I was wondering if I was allowed to create articles on ri that wont be deleted.205.175.106.30 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Ri (administrative division) currently exists as a page. Some individual Ri may be notable per WP:GEOLAND. But to be honest, if you were going to work on creating articles, you might wish to focus on the Townships first. Do you have a particular Ri you'd like to create, or were you just thinking of creating them in general? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just curious. Maybe I should create the articles on townships. Also, why do other people's contributions show up for my contributions and what happened to my old contributions? 205.175.106.30 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Howdy hello! Likely because your IP address has changed. You can fix that problem by creating an account which will allow you to hide your IP address and also have sole attribution for your edits. Your old contributions can be found at your old IP address, whatever that may have been. For the townships, yeah, that'd be very useful! The list of townships is a good place to start, as there are many redlinked pages there. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd think they'd probably pass provided that they are legally recognized entities; we have articles on all the townships in the U.S., for example. Although I agree with CaptainEek, myeon would probably be better to create first. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: New Article Review

Hello everyone,

I have just created an artist page for the first time and requested for review.

Can someone check this page Draft : Rinosh George and let me know if everything is in order as per the wiki guidelines so that it won't be rejected while being approved.

Thank you in advance.

Rienzie.

Can someone check this page Draft : Rinosh George and let me know if everything is in order as per the wiki guidelines so that it won't be rejected while being approved?

Rienzie06 (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Declined, edited subsequently by Rienzie, resubmitted. In my opinion will be declined again because of weakness of refs not establishing notability for musician/actor. David notMD (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing Map Sheet- Site Map

Problem: Hello all- I have been working on colonial period maps of Taiwan this week that I believe can help English-speaking readers have a better understanding of Taiwanese geographical concepts during Japanese occupation. However, I can't find one of the sheets of the map series I have been working on (from map series Formosa (Taiwan) 1:50,000 AMS Series L792). I previously encountered a similar problem with sheet suirembi-2418-iii of the map series which is not listed on the index of sheets of the map. I was able to blindly guess out what the url was.

Using my guessing method, I have previously found at least one other map sheet in The University of Texas' maps of China that is similarly already scanned and uploaded but not linked in their index of maps. Unfortunately, sending them my feedback has proved fruitless- they haven't corrected the problems yet.

I feel strongly that the map I am looking for (sheet 2115-iii) is probably already scanned and online, but I just can't guess out what the URL would be.

Sheet 2115-iii definitely exists in paper form- it is referenced in several places in the 1945 book "Gazetteer to Maps of Formosa (Taiwan) Map Series AMS L792, Scale 1:50,000" and it the area it covers is highlighted in yellow in the Index map to Series L792.

Question: Is there a tool that can show me a list of ALL of the urls that have ever existed that start with http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/formosa/? If I can find that list, then I could probably figure out if sheet 2115-iii was uploaded but not added to the index of sheets (similar to suirembi-2418-iii), or if sheet 2115-iii was never uploaded at all. If not, is there another way I could find this map without contacting the library directly? You can't email them, their feedback system gave me no results and calling them would be a little expensive for me. I have tried my guessing method (not yet exhaustively), but have yet to hit it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: The index page claims to have Saigaen as 2115-iii, but the link actually points to 2215-iii, which is the correct number for that Saigaen sheet according to the image, and 2215-iii does not appear elsewhere in the list.

Archive.org has archived 133 URLs in that series, and they don't have a 2115-iii. This may simply mean that they archived the ones that were present/referenced at Wikipedia, and didn't do 2115-iii because it wasn't. As you said, it would be worth reconciling that list with the UT list.

I found the following relevant sources, which may give a clue as to the name of the missing map. It might be useful to look at how other known map names from the UT list compare to get an idea of the types of differences to expect in the name transliterations.

• [1] has:
  • chikushiko
  • chikushiko-kei
  • kashiryo
  • kyukoko
  • midako
  • shinsekishi
• [2] has:
  • hsin-chiang-kou
  • shin-koko
  • kuang-ho-tsun
  • kaentei
• [3] and [4] have "mi-to"
• [5], [6], and [7] have "mida"

I'm surprised there is no way to reach the UT map collection people – it's a well-known map resource and I know I worked with them some years ago on some issues. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've emailed them. I'll use chat if I don't get a response in a week or so. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1:: Thanks for your incredible and information packed response! It was 'mida' after all [8] [9]. Thanks for offering to reach out to UT on this issue. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Advice on a recently revised AfC draft (revived)

My appologies if this isn't the correct way to go about this but the previous section was archived before being resolved so I'm re-posting it. ImberAlacritas (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, As my first contribution to Wikipedia, I've made an attempt to resolve the remaining comments on the draft for the Draft:Water_Wall_Turbine page. I believe that I've resolved the tonal and reference issues reported by previous reviewers, but would very much appreciate feedback on whether some issues remain. Thank you for your time and expertise. ImberAlacritas (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Water Wall Turbine appears to be about a type of water wheel. It does not make it clear in the draft how a Water Wall Turbine differs from other water wheels - in one place it says that they can capture potential energy as well as kinetic energy from water, but in another it claims they are suitable for extracting power from currents. However, the consistent capitalisation of "Water Wall Turbine" suggests that it does not designate a type of water wheel at all, it is a brand name used by Water Wall Turbine Inc. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Declined four times. IA, the recent editor, is not the creator, and in a Talk page reply, declares does not have a COI. My advice to IA is to state no-COI on own User page, and if intending to continue, aim toward neutral point of view, as I agree this still has a promotional bias. I did some editing. David notMD (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback, especially to David notMD who made useful edits to the page directly. I believe that I've made some further improvements given the comments here and would appreciate it if you could take another look. I've also added a no-COI statement to my user page as suggested. ImberAlacritas (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Status is edited since last decline, not yet resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

David notMD - I was hoping to get some feedback and a sense of whether you think it has a chance of passing the review prior to changing the status since it was rejected immediately last time. Is this not a good practice? Thanks! ImberAlacritas (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not a reviewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

why my page deleted?

i have submitted my company page eDelta enterprise solutions, but it was deleted. can anyone help me to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.chopada (talk • contribs) 02:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sagar.chopada: The answer is in your Talk page — see the section Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:EDelta Enterprise Solutions there, and compare the speedy deletion criterion WP:G11 linked there. --CiaPan (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Sagar.chopada, and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was speedy deleted under criterion G11 as promotional or advertising, and in my view this was an excellent call. Such language as {XXX} is a company founded by two young entrepreneurs with a peerless passion for software development. Our talents cover a vast array of fields, ranging from web development to mobile application development. is the purest form of marketing speech, and does not nbelong anywhere in Wikipedia. Also, if it is "your company" you have a conflict of interest are really should not be editing an article about the company at all, and if you do, it should be done only after openly declaring your conflict as explained in the guideline I just linked to. If you are editing Wikipedia as part of your employment, then you must disclose that in compliance with our guideline on paid editing.

Please read Your First Article and our guideline on the notability of buisnesses before trying again, and then seriously consider not trying to write about this particular company, please. Please understand that any Wikipedia articel or draft must be neutral, describing facts but not giving opnions or value judgements, unless they can be attributed and cited to named individuals or organizations. Articles must be based on independent published reliable sources. No sources were cited in the draft. But promotional language will not be accepted, even if supported by sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

How to request bot to trim down fair use image?

How do I request a bot to trim down the resolution of this fair use image? I know there are many bots who do this.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 08:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sit back and wait is the easy option. You can add {{Non-free reduce}} to hurry things along. - X201 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Help me: status

I can't change my status. The pages that are related are User:Bank Robbery/skin.js, User:Bank Robbery/Status, and User:Bank Robbery/sandbox (go to testcase 2). It always displays somewhere. How? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

​Try renaming skin.js to common.js. It should then automatically update to the correct value when you click on the buttons (you previously wrote "on" when the template only regognizes "online", the available values can be seen here) – Thjarkur (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Right (I think). Somehow, the user was able to create an actual User:Bank Robbery/skin.js. If you try to go to your own Special:MyPage/skin.js, it's supposed to take you to the correct page for your skin. I.e., because I am using the Vector skin, when I click on User:AlanM1/skin.js, it takes me to User:AlanM1/vector.js (which, in my case, doesn't exist because I put everything in common.js instead). So, moving that skin.js to common.js (or, e.g., vector.js if you use the Vector skin), without leaving a redirect, should work. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

​ ​ So how can I move the page without making a redirect? or is there another way to do that? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 06:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ordinary users (as distinct from admins) can't prevent a redirect from being generated by the move process, but you can tag it as U1 to get an admin to delete it. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

​ I found the thread. It works now. Once I update it, {{StatusTemplate}} works. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 13:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding a website to a Wiki page

I am managing a page for my boss and I want to insert the box that appears on the right of some pages and has info like name, born, age, website, etc to her page that is already created. Is this an easy task for someone that does not know coding (I just try and wing it)? I just want to be able to list her website up and I tried doing that via a "Contact" section but that was taken down due to (from what I understand) "your edits give the apparence that you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you editing that involves being compensated by a person...". I am the editing on behalf of the person the wikipage is about and adding the website is just another bio about her- nothing is being sold on it? How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelVerwoerdPA (talk • contribs) 09::39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelVerwoerdPA:, welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that making a formal disclosure of your paid status is not optional, and you need to do that before making any other edits to any Wikipedia pages (unless you need more clarifications about how to make the formal disclosure – in that case you could post a {{helpme}} template to your user talk page and ask your questions there). Please read the information on your user talk page carefully. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MelVerwoerdPA (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you should visit either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to make a request to change your username as soon as possible. Role accounts are not permitted; each account must be used by a single, specific individual as indicated by the username; your real name is not required, just something individualistic and specific to you.

After that, you must review and comply with the paid editing policy and the conflict of interest policy, as you say you are editing as the representative of your boss. You should also review how to make edit requests, as you should not edit about your boss directly.

Also please understand that while your and your boss' input is welcome, you have no more right to the article (not just "page") than any other editor. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added {{Infobox person}} to the article, which is what I think the OP was asking for. - X201 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Change your User name. Declare paid on your User page. A website for a person or organization can be added after the references in a section titled External links. David notMD (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Terrible mobbing in German wikipedia

I made a rather good contribution to "Psychiatrische Klinik"/Diskussion where I was attacked with deletions by WAH, further attempts to publish it back again resulted in the cancellation of my writing-rights by Regi51 in the whole German wikipedia.

Lutz Fehling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.237.220 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the German Wikipedia is separate to English Wikipedia, with different rules, processes and help boards so this isn't really the best place to ask for help. I am sure that there are similar help boards on the German Wikipedia and, if you are blocked there, I expect there is a way you can request an unblock - probably by posting on your talk page. Hug^syrup 14:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Lutz Fehling. As Hugsyrup wrote above, Wikipedias in different languages are separate projects and the community of enwiki can help little with issues at dewiki. Please try ask your question at German Wikipedia helpdesk at de:Wikipedia:Fragen von Neulingen. Regards, CiaPan (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If something like that had been possible I had done so

Lutz Fehling

Draft article revised

Hello. I think entry on Jonathan McCollum may be publishable now. Please advise. Thank you! Here is link: Draft:Jonathan_McCollum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luresblow (talk • contribs)

@Luresblow: if you think the article is ready, you will need to submit it so it can be reviewed. However, I'm afraid I don't think it will be accepted. Almost none of your sources meet the standards of a reliable source - they are mostly a mix of primary sources, blogs, and non-independent content. What you need are good quality, independent, reliable sources: respected newspapers and journals, and published books are really the gold standard. Hug^syrup 14:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I added references to academic journals, a newspaper, some professional organizations. I would like to try to submit for review, but I am not sure how.

You can paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Hug^syrup 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

TRADEMARK

Greetings,

I own a Trademarked name of a Wikipedia page and I would like to know my options for protecting the page? I have just joined the Wikipedia family and therefore I am not an administrator. The page that I am inquiring about was not created by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It would help if we knew which article you are referring to. - X201 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Earlborgert: just so I'm clear, you are the owner of a Trademark - presumably a company or organisation of some kind? - about which there is a Wikipedia article? And what do you mean exactly by 'protecting' the page?

I can tell you that as the owner of the company, you should avoid editing the page directly, but if you wish to make changes you can request them on the talk page of the article. You cannot, however, prevent other editors from editing the article - this is an encyclopedia and if your organisation is notable, Wikipedia can have an article about it, your Trademark does not give you any rights over the content on Wikipedia. If the article is being vandalised or otherwise damaged, don't worry as other editors will be very happy to prevent this. Hug^syrup 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ivan the Gorilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_(gorilla) is a trademarked name & some of the information contained in the page is inaccurate.

Earl

@Earlborgert: Alright. Please suggest changes on the talk page, not all of us have the time to go through the page in its entirety hunting issues. The trademark does not affect wikipedia in any way, and while you are here, you should simply forget about it. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know it was possible to trademark the name of a deceased gorilla. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

331dot, Me neither, I'm just going with it, because they clearly think they can. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess it could be done in order to sell things with the gorilla's image or name on it. Maybe. In any event, it's immaterial to protecting the article, which won't be done for this reason. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

331dot, And that indeed appears to be the case. See trademark 86913298, which happens to be owned by this guy. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback & the inaccurate content is not harmful, I just wanted to inquire about my rights in general since Ivan was my family member. Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs)

EarlborgertWhat info about Ivan is inaccurate?, please discuss on the talk page. I remember Ivan well, saw him each time I visited your family's World Famous B&I Circus Store.Three painted concrete walls and a large plate glass window for customers to view him.Always felt pity for him.Oldperson (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Earlborgert: You have the right to request changes to the page at any time if you find any issues. You can also edit it directly like any other editor, but it may be reverted for Conflict Of Interest related reasons. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again for the advice but one last question. Why would the truth be reverted for a Conflict of Interest reason? Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs)

@Earlborgert: Generally, if you abide by wikipedia policy, it won't happen. The problem is people with a COI have trouble adhering to policy like Neutral point of view. I recommend you read one of our essays on these policies, Verifiability, not truth. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for the clarification. I will review the article. Earl

@Earlborgert: It might also be reverted if your source is merely your own personal knowledge. For example, you might know that Ivan's favorite fruit was mangoes, but unless that is mentioned in some sort of publication we can't say it. In most cases the source should also be independent of the subject. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

For transparency, you should post on your User page the nature of your connection to Ivan. And as Khajidha stated, Wikipedia requires verification. Truth without verification is not sufficient. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe an entire page is invalid, what to do?

I recently came across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Trafficking_Standards_Initiative_(HTSI), it has a few warnings and so I went fixing the issues. Doing a bit more research into the topic I noticed that the "Human Trafficking Standards Initiative" does not exist! Both looking through any mention of it on the internet other than this page and the non-profit linked. What is standard procedure? Thanks! Someguywithahat (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Someguywithahat, Mark it for CSD as a hoax. I have done so. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted it, but not as a hoax. I don't see any direct references to it, but I do see traces of it in third-party websites, and since the article is four-and-change years old, I don't see any reason not to assume that this was a legitimate sub-project of the NGO that has since been shuttered. Certainly not notable, and the article makes no claims of significance for the project itself, so it's eligible for speedy deletion under A7, but not G3. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Someguywithahat (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

upload to the commons

So Ive found an image I want to upload to the commons of a US Army tank from 1937, since its do so old do I need the permission from the uploader??(http://ftr-wot.blogspot.com/2013/04/revised-american-tank-destroyer-branch.html First image on article). Id imagine its public domain by now right?--Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The question is one for Commons, rather than for us here at enwiki, but you may find the table in WP:Public domain useful. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the copyright law definition of "old" is "before 1924". If the picture was taken in 1937, you'll need to find the date of death of the photographer. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Texas-Dude1914: as Maproom said, the magic date is (this year - 95 years) = 1924. However, If the picture was taken by an Army photographer it is in the public domain anyway, since "publications" (including photograph) by US government personnel are in the public domain. -Arch dude (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude: So I'd need to figure out that it was taken by an Army photographer or do you belive it would be safe to upload now? Because when reverse image searching I cant find anyone claiming responsibility for the photo.--Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Texas-Dude1914: Sorry, but you cannot upload it to commons. We are obliged to follow the law, even in a case like this were the law leads to a ridiculous result. I personally think copyright law is in such a mess that it should be repealed and replaced, but I'm not in congress. -Arch dude (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a template for citations?

Specifically Cite web. Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 16:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

{{cite web}} Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Unable to access Wikipedia on Google Chrome

I wrote about this before at the Help Desk and at the Village Pump, but got no response.

As of 13 November, I can not access Wikipedia from Google Chrome. I get an error message that reads

www.wikipedia.org normally uses encryption to protect your information. When Google Chrome tried to connect to www.wikipedia.org this time, the website sent back unusual and incorrect credentials. This may happen when an attacker is trying to pretend to be www.wikipedia.org, or a Wi-Fi sign-in screen has interrupted the connection. Your information is still secure because Google Chrome stopped the connection before any data was exchanged. You cannot visit www.wikipedia.org right now because the website uses HSTS. Network errors and attacks are usually temporary, so this page will probably work later.

If there is anything I can do on my side that will address this issue, please let me know. I am using Microsoft Edge right now, but I really would prefer to use Chrome. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I am using Chrome now and I am having no problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable, Hi. Have you tried en.wikipedia.org instead? Basic things to try when browsing error occurs that doesn't make sense (which in this case would be because you're already signed in to the router and your ISP, and you are trying the actual address of the website and haven't made a typo in there), would be to check that the computer's calendar is up to date (both date and time, may be even the timezone), update the browser, turn off VPN, clear browser cache, restart the computer, etc. Which of these have you tried and hasn't worked? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It's obviously not a Wikipedia problem, but a problem with your Chrome settings. You could ask at WP:RD/C, or there are plenty of results if you do a Google search. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable IOW, does it work when you use this link: en.wikipedia.org? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Makeda Cheatom article

I edited my rejected article and resubmitted it, at least I think I did. I can't find evidence that it is sitting in line waiting for acceptance/rejection. Online I find it up as Everybody wiki which apparently is only viewable by me. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolog10 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Makeda Cheatom has not been resubmitted. When you have addressed the problems identified in the previous review you can then use the blue "Resubmit" button. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons copyright rules

The questions I have don't exactly apply to Wikipedia but you might have the answers. I would like to use images from Wikimedia Commons and put them in another social platform which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. What I am asking is to know if this is allowed. If so, what do I need to do? Should I just copy and paste the image then place the name of the creator and license that owns it beneath the picture or something else?Prana1111 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Prana1111, Follow the rules of the license given on Commons. With CC BY SA 4.0, you just have to say the creator and license, yes. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Prana1111. The relevant guide is C:COM:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

EverybodyWiki

Hi,

I am not sure this is the right place to ask this question but I could not find any other. So, if it is not, please direct me to the right place.

My question concerns a new website, EverybodyWiki, that has copied a draft of an article I submitted to Wikipedia, Draft: Virage Simulation, which is currently under review.

The poor spelling and grammar on the EverybodyWiki website raise my suspicions.

How can they simply copy my draft article from Wikipedia and use it? Is there some arrangement with Wikipedia?

DriverSafety (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

EverybodyWiki is one of countless mirrors of Wikipedia. Details are at WP:Mirrors and forks/DEF#EverybodyWiki. They do provide attribution, so it is in accordance with the licence under which you published the material to Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, DriverSafety and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia licenses its content under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. Anyone may legally copy any or all of that content by complying with that license, which basically means providing attribution (credit) to the original author(s) and granting the same license to others. As a ptactical matter, anyone may copy form Wikipedia even without complying with the license, because the chance of anyone paying copyright registration fees, court costs, and hiring a lawyer to sue over a copied Wikipedia page is small. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for a list of sites known to copy content 9at least some content) from Wikipedia, some compying with the license, some not. Many other sites could be added, the list is rather out of date. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the information. DriverSafety (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Help

how do i talk to someone that leaves a message?B.Perrine (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

B.Perrine, you can use their talk page such as User talk:CAPTAIN MEDUSA or User talk:B.Perrine. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If they've left a message on your user talk page you can reply by clicking the edit link at the top of that section. It's worth reading WP:Talk page guidelines if you haven't already done so. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

B.Perrine, be bold when leaving a user a message. Wikipedia:User pages this covers everything you need to know about userspace. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

B.Perrine You might want to consider giving them a ping, as I just did for you, so they get notified. Make sure you sign your post by typing four tildes, that triggers the ping notification. If it's me you're wanting to reply to, I always appreciate a ping, because my watchlist is too large to be useful in keeping track of a conversation. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Deleted and shut down by Itti

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made a rather good contribution to "Psychiatrische Klinik"/Diskussion but was mobbed away and disabled by Itti (German wikipedia) who accused me of vandalism which is what Itti does IMHO

Lutz Fehling

@89.15.238.133: Please sign your posts. Also, since this is the English Wikipedia, the editors here have no control of what happens in the German Wikipedia. If you want, address your concerns there, not here. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 20:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See section #Terrible mobbing in German wikipedia above. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This one had ended with me being enabled again

Lutz Fehling

Do you have a question? UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

• If you have anything actionable against the German Wikipedia and you feel that it's too moblike to tell them directly, you are free to take it to the Meta-Wiki. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The cutting away from text is even here in the Teahouse

Lutz Fehling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.237.102 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Lutz - I'm sorry that you feel aggrieved, but you are starting to become disruptive by continuing to create new sections, with non-specific statements about a topic that appears to relate to an entirely different Wikipedia. If you have a question, and if that question relates to the English Wikipedia, then please do ask it, and we will genuinely be very happy to help. If not then, as several users have already told you, there is simply nothing we can do to assist you here. Hug^syrup 15:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't call me "disruptive" (you're arrogant); 2nd: What "new sections" are you talking about ?

Lutz Fehling 89.15.237.102 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

But the Teahouse is Wikipedia, isn't it ? The German wikipedia is, too ?!

However, if you say English wikipedia can't help with the German, OK, I'm alright with this.

Lutz Fehling 89.15.237.102 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You're speaking of more then yourself: "we" ?

Lutz Fehling 89.15.237.102 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Lutz. Please do not reformat my text and insert your responses within it. This makes the conversation impossible to read, as well as coming across as rather rude. In answer to your points:

• The 'new sections' I am talking about are the bold text above. When you first created those, each of them was a brand new section. Myself and another editor reduced them to just be regular bold text to prevent this.
• The Teahouse is English Wikipedia. The German Wikipedia is a different Wikipedia. Both come under the umbrella of the Wikimedia foundation but are otherwise entirely separate.
• When I say 'we' I am referring to myself and other editors who regularly reply at the Teahouse, all of whom I assume would be happy to answer specific questions.

I hope this helps. Hug^syrup 15:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Inserting text wasn't meant to be rude at all and was or is common when answering emails.

Lutz Fehling89.15.237.102 (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weird symbols on category pages

I've seen on multiple occasions symbols appearing on category pages with pages under them instead of the first letter of the page (As I assume they're supposed to be). For example, on Category:Lists of monarchs, the List of living former sovereign monarchs and Lists of monarchs are under no letter or symbol, it's just blank, and Template:Lists of historical monarchs of modern countries is under the symbol for the Bangladeshi taka.

Any information on why this is happening would be appreciated because it's bothering me. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Helloimahumanbeing. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. A space as sort key means no heading is shown. It's for the main article(s) of the category. The Bangladeshi taka '৳' should have been a Greek tau 'τ' for a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Help please and clarification needed

• Scarlet Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

I was asked to remove a defamatory statement in Wikipedia by the person who the page is about (Scarlet Rivera). One editor has nastily changed and falsely reworded a review in Wikipedia and cited the source. When I looked at the source, I found his review has been maliciously changed by this editor in order to degrade her work.

• I read anyone can remove a libellous statement without discussion, so I removed it as was asked to do by Scarlet.*

But the editor just kept changing it back (EVERYTIME) as soon as I remove it. Previously we had lodged a complaint against this person prior for this same exact thing, but this editor constantly reverts to their false statement, which is libel. They have changed the wording of a music reviewer's review, which no-one bothered to check. I checked and on my Talk page I quoted the reviewer's actual wording and provided the actual link to the review as reference - but that same editor has just changed it back again citing they took it directly from the source, which is not true.

Because I was paid by the subject to do their website, I've been told I'm not allowed to edit their page. But yet I read in Wikipedia's own Policy and Terms of Use, anyone finding a libellous statement, anyone can remove it immediately without discussion.

Everyone wants to constantly tell me what I'm doing wrong - but am not getting any help in getting either the statement removed or it added exactly as was written, so they're allowing this editor to change wording and created a libellous statement and leaving it on the page and nothing is being done about it!

I'm reading and being given conflicting information.

I was barred for 36 hours for "edit warring" when I was just removing the false information as was asked to do by the subject of the page. I'm not in Wikipedia to be an editor, just to remove the libellous statement, and was also asked to update her information. I do not get paid to do this. But this editor still continues to add their own wording instead of the actual review, making it defamatory - and no-one will help change it back, since I've been told I can not edit this person's page due to Conflict of Interest. Again - I DON'T get paid for this. Scarlet wanted the false libellous statement removed.

It appears any editor can say and write anything regardless of Wikipedia's own policies (and the law), and my removing a libellous statement is being ignored when I remove it as again I point out - Wikipedia states ANYONE can remove false and libellous statements immediately without discussion. This same editor also changed the lay out of Scarlet's page. It previously had different sections under "Career", and they removed all the different sections. It appears this editor has an issue with the subject and is using Wikipedia to try do her reputation harm.

What's the deal? Why is it acceptable for editors to deceive and nothing be done? If I try remove it - I get blocked and told I cannot edit this page. It appears editors do not follow policy nor the actual law and admins do not keep them in check, nor do they help when I ask the libellous statement be either removed or stated exactly as was written.

1. Can I remove this libellous statement?

2. If I can't remove it (which would be conflicting from Wikipedia's own Policy and Terms of Use in regards to removing libellous information), then how do I get it removed or written EXACTLY as was written by the reviewer?

3. How do I stop this nasty editor from constantly adding back their libellous statement EVERYTIME I remove it? And the fact they are lying saying they got it exactly from the source - when that's untrue and have proven that fact?

4. Can I add current information, eg: "Scarlet continues to record and perform extensively."

5. Do I really have to add a template saying I was paid to do Scarlet's website, when it has nothing to do with removing that libellous statement and for wanting to add "Scarlet continues to record and perform extensively"?

6. I also wanted to remove a previous statement I'd added as I believe it'll be used by this editor to try yet again add derogatory statements about her at some stage, so wanted something more basic (as in "5.").

Hoping someone with some sense, that knows the law and follows Wikipedia's policies can give me the correct information and help us get this sorted once and for all.

PickledPilot (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

PickledPilot Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can answer some of your points: Yes, you must comply with Wikipedia's paid editing policy if you are a paid representative or employee of Scarlet Rivera. This is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory; you can be blocked if you are a paid editor and do not do this. Libelous statements in articles should be addressed by following the guidance at WP:LIBEL. Whether that occurs or not, you need to discuss your concerns on the article talk page to establish a consensus with other editors. Please understand that Wikipedia content is based on what published, independent reliable sources state. You cannot just add current information for the sake of doing so; information must be found in independent sources.

You were blocked because you edit warred to keep your preferred version of an article. Please review edit warring. This is not permitted, even if you are correct in your edits. There are dispute resolution procedures that can be used instead of disruptive edit warring. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You should also review conflict of interest. As Scarlet Rivera's representative, you have a conflict of interest(COI). This does not mean you cannot make contributions, but you should not do so directly, instead making edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. How do I add this, what do I have to add and where? Again, I'm reading you have to disclose if you are being paid to edit in Wikipedia, of which I am not. It's not part of my having done Scarlet's website.

Also, why wasn't the other editor not also blocked for edit warring? PickledPilot (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding the statement: Robert Christgau wrote in Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies that the album was regarded by some as "the worst record of the year" and that the session musicians on the recording "stretch out one or two acceptable melodies and some should-be rejects into an instrumental LP." The source is critical of the album but speaks around it: Those who call this the worst record of the year (I've met two) must only listen to sidepeople's albums when the sidepeople are Dylan's (or "his," as the notes here would have it.) In fact, many sidepeople stretch out one or two acceptable melodies and some should-be rejects into an instrumental LP. Although come to think of it most of them come up with eight cuts, not six. And most of them can improvise some. The review does imply all of the points (that it is bad or that it is stretched out) but does not say it directly. I'm personally not quite sure whether this implied statement is direct enough that it should be included, but I don't feel it's quite libellous either. One of the bad things about having an article about yourself is that negative reviews will also be included. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. The ACTUAL review states: "Scarlet Rivera

Scarlet Rivera [Warner Bros., 1977] D- Consumer Guide Reviews:

Scarlet Rivera [Warner Bros., 1977] Those who call this the worst record of the year (I've met two) must only listen to sidepeople's albums when the sidepeople are Dylan's (or "his," as the notes here would have it.) In fact, many sidepeople stretch out one or two acceptable melodies and some should-be rejects into an instrumental LP. Although come to think of it most of them come up with eight cuts, not six. And most of them can improvise some. Hmm. D- "

It DOES in fact constitute libel when changing wording. Also Wikipedia states: “Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation; With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;...” [1] PickledPilot (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

References

This is a major reference work so their negative review does warrant an inclusion, maybe someone else here has a suggestion for how we can summarize a negative yet hypotheticalized review. One thing you could do would be to find other reviews in reliable sources about this album to add to the article. You can suggest edits on the article's talk page using {{request edit}}, citing reliable sources of course. Since this isn't blatantly defamatory (from my point of view) I'd recommend taking more care in wording your posts in a calm and concise manner, it is much more likely to be fruitful than calling other editors nasty. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

PickledPilot The paid editing policy requires you to disclose any paid relationship you have with a subject that you are editing about; you don't have to be specifically paid to edit Wikipedia. You put such a notice on your user page(User:PickledPilot); the paid editing policy has some suggested ways of doing this, but a simple statement is enough. As to other editors edit warring, a variety of editors reverted your edits from what I can see, not a single editor. It's also irrelevant, as only you can control your own behavior. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No-one seems to understand the definition of Libel: "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation" Nowhere does Robert Christgau's review state it is critics or other reviewers and simply states he's met TWO people - (who didn't like the album). They could be his neighbours for all we know. I was asked to remove it by Scarlet. It is mainly one editor that keeps changing it back since June and claiming they got it directly from the source. Robert Christgau's review also does NOT state "THIS ALBUM". Can the REAL unedited review please be added in its place? I'm kind of over all this, it's very frustrating, I asked it to be simply changed to the actual unedited correct review. I'll get Scarlet's people deal with this. PickledPilot (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems this has moved (or perhaps started) past what the Teahouse is for, which is basic help with editing Wikipedia, right 331dot? It also seems like a good time to mention WP:NLT. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanking fellow contributors?

Two Wiki editors just did a wonderful job of upgrading my first Wikipedia post. On the history page I can see all the changes they made. Is it polite to thank them for each individual change they made? Or just thank once per batch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TateRay (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

​A single thank-you is enough, they show up as seperate messages in the inbox which makes multiple thank-yous a bit much. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It depends a bit on the number of edits involved. There's no hard-and-fast rule, but as a guide of thumb, once per batch/editor is generally quite sufficient. That said, if there's some specific edits in that batch that stand out to you that you really want them to know you especially appreciate, thanking twice or so is not generally an issue either. Thanks spamming, on the other hand, is generally less appreciated, especially when involving large amounts of thanks (results in notification spam) or giving the impression you're following an editor around (can cross into stalking/hounding/harassing behaviour or give that impression, even if not intended). (P.S. Remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes at the end. ) AddWittyNameHere 01:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! TateRay (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chukwunonso Ezekwueche - Changed references

Hi, I found some new links pertaining to this topic, which came across as being more reliable than the previous ones that were mostly interviews. So, I removed all the old references, barring the University degree, and added these new links - there are about 4 and one picture gallery of the event. Before I re-submit, I would like an opinion on whether these new references are valid and if they would count. Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tycheana: if you think you have sufficient reliable sources, you should submit the article for review. It's not really the role of editors at the Teahouse to provide a 'pre-review review' of your article. What I will tell you is that (based on the source numbering as the draft stands at this time) source 2 is not independent as the article subject is one of the authors, and source 4 is in no way a reliable source and should be removed. The assessment otherwise hinges on whether we consider 'glamafrica', 'glitzafrica', 'tmghlive' and 'gistreel' to be reliable sources. I personally am very skeptical that they have adequate editorial standards and are not simply regurgitating press releases, but I am also not an expert on either African journalism or fashion journalism so I would probably choose not to review this article and to leave it to someone who might be more familiar with the sources. Hug^syrup 10:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Hugsyrup:, thanks for reviewing. The 2nd source is a University degree, and yes, he is the co-author who wrote on the topic related to pharmacology. This reference has been used to prove that the subject attended the University and did a course on pharmacy to become a qualified pharmacist. 4th source is a collection of pics related to the event published by an unrelated source, so it is independent. These sources mostly pertain to Africa, but then the person in question is a Nigerian, so might be that he has received coverage in his own country, something that I have realized about other Nigerians too. I hope my clarifications are satisfactory, thanks once again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC).

How to make more accessible a list of translation resources

I stumbled on the following:

Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week#Translation machines and dictionaries

I tried unsuccessfully to find a similar list that was not language-specific. Does one exist?

If not, what can I do to make this more accessible to people not interested just in Spanish translations? deisenbe (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Deisenbe, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wasn't aware of that page, which is the work of a particular collaborative project. If you look at the categories at the bottom, you will see Category:Wikipedia translation by language, which has some similar projects. (It's a redlink because nobody has written any descriptive text for the category; but it still contains several pages). But each of these was created and maintained by a particular group of Wikipedia editors interested in that particular language. I doubt if there is any such resource more generally. If you can see a need for such, and have the interest, perhaps you could start as WP:WikiProject? --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Corrected spelling in redlink. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe - it's also worth noting that the list was created for a particular activity which now seems to be inactive and hasn't really been touched in a couple of years. Not that that should stop you creating your own list if you think it would be useful, but just something to keep in mind. Hug^syrup 11:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

But where would such a list go? deisenbe (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

On a side note: we have pages for translation which is in dire need of people dealing with the backlog there. Regarding your specific question: I for one am not too fond of translation machines; for Wikipedia-purposes, machine translated texts need so much work that they are nearly useless in producing viable articles. Lectonar (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a WP policy that a machine-translated article is worse than nothing. Where they are useful are circumstances when the goal is not a published translation but a general sense of what a piece of writing is about ("jisting"). deisenbe (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

How to align text in a column

I've been editing/updating some wikitables. I know how to align text in the whole table as well as in an individual cel. Is there a way I can align text differently in a whole column in 1 go? Dutchy45 (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dutchy45. Help:Table#Column_operations doesn't mention alignment as a possibility at the column level. As far as I can remember, CSS does not provide a way of doing this directly, so I would be surprised if WikiMarkup did. I think you just have to set it for the cell in each column. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Dutchy45 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft for CEO Mark Okerstrom

Hi, my name is Victoria and I am a representative of Expedia Group. I am a paid employee of the company and therefore have a financial conflict of interest. I've submitted a new article draft for Expedia Group CEO Mark Okerstrom and it was declined, with the editor commenting that there was a lack of reliable sourcing. This confused me as in the draft I was careful to properly cite all statements with quality sourcing such as The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph, The Seattle Times and Financial Times. (Also, I did make a mistake in missing my COI disclosure but I've added that now.) I've responded to the feedback on my AfC request, but I have not heard anything back. As a new editor, I'm not quite sure if it is best for me to resubmit the draft or get other input first? Can Teahouse editors advise? Thanks! Victoria at ExpediaGroup (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Victoria at ExpediaGroup Welcome to The Teahouse. I tend to agree that the sourcing in the draft looks adequate, and if I were reviewing it, I would probably accept it. However, I'd be interested to know if @Robert McClenon: sees an issue with the sourcing that I have missed, or has a different perspective. For future reference, adding a comment on the draft isn't necessarily the best place to discuss this sort of thing as reviewers don't always watch a draft once they have declined it, and usually the same reviewer won't review a draft twice. If you want to query a decision, you're better off going to the reviewer's talk page, or the AFC helpdesk. But in this case, unless Robert or another user offers a wildly different viewpoint to mine, I would probably just resubmit your draft in a day or two. Hug^syrup 16:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victoria at ExpediaGroup. I'm not convinced that I'm seeing the multiple reliable independent sources that are needed to establish that Okerstrom is notable. Source 1 is based on what a colleague said, so not independent. Sources 2, 4 and 6 are based on what he said himself, so not independent. Sources 3 and 7 are behind paywalls, and so I haven't been able to check them; maybe they're acceptable. Source 5 looks good. Source 8 is based on what a company spokesperson said, so not independent. That's a total of one "yes", five "no", and two "maybe". Maproom (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The FT one is decent, although like most such business profiles it has some quotes from the subject mixed in. I don't see that as fully undermining the source though, particularly insofar as it's being used to establish basic notability. If the FT or WSJ does a profile on someone, that goes a long way to establishing notability, regardless of whether the profile includes quotes from the source. I completely agree, of course, that specific facts should not be sourced to parts of an article that are simply quotes by the subject, and this may need work. However, bear in mind that the core criteria when reviewing a draft is not whether it is flawless, but would it pass an AFD. I would be very surprised if this article, given its sources, would fail an AFD. Hug^syrup 16:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears that User:Maproom and User:Hugsyrup have done more detailed reviews than I did, and I thank them. In hindsight, it appears that I didn't do a detailed review because I was annoyed at the lack of a conflict of interest declaration, and because I know that I have a difficult time giving a neutral review to a draft by a paid editor, so I don't always try. As to how to get comments on a draft, I agree that adding them to the draft is not usually the best way, but would add that one of the best ways is this, to ask for advice at the Teahouse. I agree that it should pass AFD, because I won't vote to Delete, and I am something of a deletionist. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now approved the draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I felt there was enough there for notability as well, but entirely understood the original decision. We at the various helpdesks are, sadly, deluged by promotion; being human, it's hard not to paint a contribution with the same brush if they don't follow all the rules. Glad it worked out in this case.

Is there a discussion/study going on anywhere as to how to reduce the unreasonably large percentage of bad article attempts? Are we somehow not putting up enough red flags along the way? Maybe a quick 10-question multiple-choice test that demonstrates an author's understanding of the rules before they create? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Making additions to a page related to the CIA's Medal of Merit

Good morning. I would like to add one more name to the list of noteworthy recipients of the CIA's Medal of Merit. The site in question is: Intelligence_Medal_of_Merit

I took a look at the "edit" link, and found all the machine language to be daunting. Can you help me make an addition to this page. The name to be added, and the caption, are: William Gregory, former Commander of the CIA’s U-2 detachment, for his service during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Very much appreciate your help. Robert Richardson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.242.107 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Robert Richardson can you supply a reliable source, showing that Gregory has received this honor? Also, we list not all recipients, but only notable recipients, that is those who have, or readily could have, a Wikipedia article about them. See our guideline on the notability of individual people. Thank you for wanting to help uupdate Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Blog citing "wikipedia" as an image source

An article I found says that the images are from "Wikipedia commons" and "French Wikipedia". I know there is something about the CC license that means that this isn't the right way to credit the images. What should I do next? Is there a page about "how to use images from Wikipedia" that I can link to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.107.218 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. Here's a guideline that might help: WP:IMAGES. Interstellarity (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, not all images are under CC. You will need to check the license on each image to determine how to credit it correctly. RudolfRed (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You can for example link them to this page [10] or [11]. You can also just give them a friendly pointer that they need to give the name of the author (or a link to the original page on Commons) and a link to the CC license. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

BrE vs. AmE

Does Wikipedia use British English or American English? I have seen instances where users are in dispute over whether British or American spellings should be used, such as here and here. I would like to know, so that I can avoid getting into such disputes myself. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiWarrior9919, It's complicated. Essentially, use whichever the article you're editing uses. If you're making a new article, use whichever you prefer. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf Alright. Thank you. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiWarrior9919, There are exceptions to this. For example, an article on New York City uses American English because it has strong national ties to the article. London is written in British English for the same reasons. Please read: MOS:ENGVAR for more info on this. Interstellarity (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity Got it. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If you find an article where both varieties are used (and there is no obvious choice as described above), then the one to choose is the one that was first used in the history of the article. This might require a bit of research to determine. See WP:ENGVAR for details. Dbfirs 19:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to lean towards WP:TIES in toss-up cases. If someone creates an Indian placename stub with AmE, and there is signficant addition in InE since, I would make it InE consistenly. Note that English variety changes are often controversial, but particularly so when they are to the non-WP:TIES variety. Date formats have similar issues. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the TIES test should come first, but there are many articles that have no ties to any particular country. In the case cited above, the British spelling programme should be used under both tests. Dbfirs 07:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability Question

So I had the idea to write an article on a song called "Keep it 100" by the band 3For3. The band has a Wikipedia article but the song doesn't. Before I spend hours working on the article I want to get opinions if it will be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to expand it. See WP:NSONG for notability requirements for songs. If it fits, follow WP:YFA to start on the article draft. RudolfRed (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to "LENI WYLLIAMS" re-write blind-siding

I've noticed as indicated below that LENI WYLLIAMS has been included in the category AMERICAN WOMEN CHOREOGRAPHERS . . .

18 November 2019‎ Vycl1994 talk contribs‎ 16,369 bytes +86‎ +Category:American women choreographers;

LENI WYLLIAMS was a MALE African-American dancer/choreographer. Hoping the ultimate categorizing will reflect this! THANKS!

Paynethymaya (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Paynethymaya

 Done by Icarusgeek. Thank you for pointing out the error. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Defunct organisations domain bought by a porn site - references need deleting.

This is to advise you about the reference no 14 on Libby Houston's page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libby_Houston - which reads

"Site Report for October 2010 – visit to field around Victory Park, Brislington, Bristol" (PDF). brislingtonarchaeology.org.uk. Brislington Community Archaeology Project. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 February 2014. Retrieved 21 August 2012.

Brislington Community Archaeology Project ceased in 2016, and the person who was supposed to take on the domain name didn't: it was subsequently bought by a porn site, where the links now leads. I can't find any way to remove the reference myself: can a moderator do it? Or can you advise how I do it myself?

Thanks in anticipationThe OriginalAlestrel (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

In general, such citations should not be deleted, _The OriginalAlestrel, but rather an archived copy should be found, and used to update the citation. See WP:DEADREF for instructions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

When an archived copy is found, you can set |url-status= to usurped to prevent the original link from showing. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello there - you seem to be clicking the hyperlink in the words 'the original' in the citation. If you click the actual first link in the citation itself, it should lead you to this wayback machine link of the PDF. Easy mistake to make, I've done it myself. Hope this helps. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the url-status to usurped, so the porn page is no longer linked. Case closed. Fabrickator (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Choice of words for parenthetical disambiguation

Hi y'all!

When there's been ambiguity between the name of a rapper and something else, I've generally seen the article on the rapper be moved to <rapper>_(rapper) (e.g. Eminem_(rapper)), but today I encountered Face_(rap_artist). Assuming Face_(rapper) would is the de-facto correct title for the article, is it worth moving? And if not, is there some sort of standard on what words should be used in parenthetical disambiguation?

Tiraboschi (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tiraboschi, the title policy for articles is at WP:TITLE. WP:DAB also has valuable information. And, it's not as simple as putting a rapper's biography at "Name (rapper)". As you'll note, Eminem doesn't have a (rapper) after his name. That said, I do agree with your observation and reasoning in this particular case. I managed to reach WP:SINGERDAB starting at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, and it specifically recommends your choice. Hence, I endorse your proposal to move the page, and of course, also recommend you read/bookmark the policy/guidelines pages I just linked, for future reference. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks}, I wasn't aware of WP:SINGERDAB. I'll keep it in mind! I've also moved the page :) Tiraboschi (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced Claims about the Voynich manuscript and Chinese

Dear all- I have just now deleted a large section of material on the Voynich manuscript page which was comprised of three paragraphs and an image which were nothing but unsourced claims about alleged connections between Asiatic languages and the Voynich manuscript. The content had been on the website essentially unchallenged since 2004.

I invite you to take a look at my triage work on that page ([12]).

Thanks for any input. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)