Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, 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.)

Did I just use the About template improperly?

Hi! I searched "NVSS" on Google with the intention of finding NRAO VLA Sky Survey on the wiki, but National Vital Statistics System came up instead in the results. So I added about templates to both the articles, linking to the other article, for easier access due to the identical acronym. Then I found the NVSS disambig page, and read that there were some guidelines for adding the About template, so... was what I did fine, or should I have done something else? —Undead Shambles (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles: Looks good to me. I added two more entries to the dab page, but they are titles containing NVSS instead of something for which NVSS is the complete initialism, so they don't need to be additionally mentioned at the other two pages IMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Alright, thank you! :) —Undead Shambles (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles and AlanM1: I disagree. The article titles of NRAO VLA Sky Survey and National Vital Statistics System cannot be confused. We don't use hatnotes just because an alternative title could refer to something else, unless the alternative title is a redirect to the page. NVSS is not a redirect but a disambiguation page so nothing had to be done. We cannot predict how people use Google, and then organize the whole encyclopedia after whatever is currently the first result on a Google search for a given user (it can vary by country and maybe other factors). People who enter NVSS in our own search box get the disambiguation page as they should. And for me, it is also the fourth result in a Google search, with no other Wikipedia pages in the first 100 results. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Doh! PH is, of course, correct. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Ah, okay then. In that case, would even a hatnote linking to NVSS be inappropriate, and I should undo those edits? I always thought hatnotes were nice for exploring the similar titles but I guess that's my bias. Even after reading the hatnote guidelines I'm still a little confused, so what about these two cases, just so I have examples to understand?:

1. The hatnote at the top of radio galaxy, linking to a radio network named Galaxy (I thought that one might be a bit of a stretch)
2. The lack of hatnotes for The Goldfinch (painting), The Goldfinch (novel), and The Goldfinch (film)

—Undead Shambles (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles: Yes, the articles should have no hatnotes according to Wikipedia guidelines. The principle is to only use hatnotes if the full title of the article (including a part in parentheses) or a redirect to the article can be confused with another subject. See Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. If you see the title "National Vital Statistics System" then you should know it's not about something else with the abbrevation NVSS. That's also why articles like The Goldfinch (painting) have no hatnote. When you see "painting" in the title you should know it's about a painting and not a novel or film. There has been suggestions that articles with disambiguated names should link to the corresponding disambiguation page but it has not gained consensus. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Okay, thank you for explaining! I'll remove the hatnotes I added. —Undead Shambles (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Submission got declined for Articles for Creation

Hi, I'm writing a page on a book called 'A Place for Us'. My submission got declined for not having reliable and independent sources. I think that may sources were reliable for this topic. I was wondering how I can improve my sources to get my submission approved. Kind regards, Gawande9Gawande9 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gawande9: I added some more sources; the book does appear to be notable but the article was missing good sources in independent publications. I trimmed some material that was not sourced. Other editors will read your question above and likely respond in more detail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Wow, thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it!! Gawande9 (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gawande9: - I've just re-reviewed and accepted the draft. It's been slightly renamed, so you can now find it at A Place for Us - well done! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Thank you so much for your help! :) Gawande9 (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Second Account

I have a second account, Rodrigo Valequez 2. I've created it because I can't use my normal account while I don't have access to my normal computer. My normal account (this one) has a really complex password (I also use this password for most of my other passwords on other websites) so I don't log into this account from other devices. Is that a problem? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rodrigo Valequez. That's not a problem, as long as you don't use the two accounts in forbidden ways (like supporting each other in discussions). See WP:VALIDALT. --ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Not specific to your question, just a bit of advice: it's generally bad security practice to re-use passwords. Many high-profile sites have been hacked, in some cases (incredibly) allowing the hackers access to plaintext passwords, which are then tried on other sites. Using strong, unique passwords will limit your damage when (no longer if) such a breach occurs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the information and advice. I came up with this password a few years ago and I’m to lazy to change it one by one, maybe I’ll do it in a few days.. Thanks again, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Rodrigo Valequez, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you considered using a password manager? There are several good ones out there that are free, and they allow you to have extremely strong and unique passwords on every site you visit (and even use gibberish for those “secret questions” that social engineering can often discover if you answer truthfully) while all you have to remember is a single strong password/passphrase that you never use anywhere else. A number of them also sync to your mobile device and can be used to log into apps as well as websites. Even if it weren’t more secure I’d use one simply for the convenience, as now I can use my facial recognition to log into many sites/apps even if the app doesn’t directly support it! CThomas³ (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice @Cthomas3:, maybe I’ll give it a try. Could you tell me the name of the one you’re using? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly! I personally use LastPass, but there are many others worth considering as well. CThomas³ (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Cthomas3:, I’ll have a look into it. Also, do you think you could help me with getting a deleted article restored? Thanks again, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Rodrigo Valequez, I had some errands to run today but now I am back. I am not an administrator and therefore can't restore any deleted articles for you, but I would suggest you visit either WP:REFUND (if the article was soft-deleted, for instance via proposed deletion) or to WP:DRV (if the article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion). I hope this helps! CThomas³ (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello again @Cthomas3:,I was thinking that you could help me to convince an admin to restore the deleted article. Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Please be sure to read WP:CANVASS. Your article was about a non-notable individual. No amount of administrator arm-twisting will make that article happen. Sad that I must be that blunt, but them's the rules.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Are there any exceptions to WP:NOR?

It seems to me that there is a lot of original research that flies under the radar. The example that comes to mind is episodes of popular tv shows that explain the entire plot-line of the episode without citing one decent secondary source. Just curious if there are different rules for these cases? Thanks! Mistipolis (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mistipolis! Yes there is, MOS:PLOTSOURCE. It goes for tv-series, films, novels etc. Basically you are meant to describe, not interpret when writing a plot-section on WP. This often works fairly well, sometimes editors disagree on plot elements a little (Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Mistipolis correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you for clarifying, Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Mistipolis (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Url / Name issues

Hello,

I've just made a page for The Night With... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With...) when I linked a friend to it on whatsapp whatsapp only saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With as the link, the elipsis was just seen as grammer.

The elipsis is part of the charity's name but I can't see a way to remove the elipsis from the url without also changing the page's title.

When I hit 'save' on this question Wikipedia drops the ... from the url as well in the same way...

Any ideas?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyoneneedscheese (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Browsers do tend to get confused by trailing period marks. You might try percent encoding in the url, so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With%2E%2E%2E might work for you; it will point to the article The Night With.... --David Biddulph (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that works as a link but how do you make that the standard format for the url on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyoneneedscheese (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't see a way to do that. I'll note that The Night With has been created as a redirect to the article, which seems like a reasonable solution. Firefox and Chrome handle the correct link correctly. The problem seems to be in how various apps try to auto-link something that looks like a URL when you send it to someone. I tried Google Hangouts, which linked to the title with no dots at all. gMail's sent link ended up with one dot, but I was able to send the correct link by using the link button, which lets you manually format a link and avoids any of its internal guessing. Please sign your posts at the end of the last line by adding a space and four tildes: ~~~~. This translates to your linked username and a correctly formatted timestamp that helps organize discussions. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Everyoneneedscheese: That is not possible. I don't know WhatsApp but many sites and programs have a way for a user to explicitly say where a url starts and ends instead of letting a program guess. The Wikipedia method is shown at Help:Link#External links but that method should not be used when Wikipedia articles link to other Wikipedia pages. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With...] produces [1], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With... The Night With...] produces The Night With.... Those links work but we don't use them. We just write [[The Night With...]] to produce The Night With... when we make internal links. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: yea I was trying a few options to see if I could do what I needed it to. Was just wondering if there was another way to make it do what I wanted but doesn't seem so frustratingly. As you say it is how different apps deal with auto-linking and each seems to do it differently. Hopefully I've signed this post, still new to Wikipedia so thanks for the heads up.

@PrimeHunter: Trying to get the URL right is more for other people who might be trying to link to the article from outside of Wikipedia rather than internal linking. Everyoneneedscheese (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Everyoneneedscheese: Just to summarize, if what you want to do is be able to copy the URL from your browser's address bar and paste it somewhere, there's no way I know of to change that URL. Just save somewhere the text of the link that David Biddulph gave above, which should work everywhere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With%2E%2E%2E
There's no way to make that appear as the URL in the browser (at least not Firefox or Chrome), which helpfully decodes any URL-encoded characters before displaying them. Giving people the redirect with no dots is fine, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_With
Lastly, there is now this tinyURL:
https://tinyurl.com/TheNightWith
Cheers. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thanks, for the help. Glad I wasn't missing something obvious! Now to tidy up the page. Everyoneneedscheese (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I post a article but it is rejected several time. I think I already make a lot of changes but they still think I violate the copyright.

I post a article but it is rejected several time. I think I already make a lot of changes but they still think I violate the copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Zzhu8516/sandbox&redirect=no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhu8516 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft was declined several times, meaning that, in the opinion of the reviewers, it was not acceptable as an article, but might become so if improved. Then it was rejected, meaning that the reviewer believed it its subject did not warrant an article, and any further work on it would be a waste of time. Maproom (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I rejected the draft because it was being resubmitted without any significant improvement, so that the submitter was wasting both their own time and the time of the reviewers.

The submitter is in a difficult situation caused by her instructor. She writes on my talk page:

She writes on my talk page:

Maybe i had violated the copyright.But i did not mean to do it. This is my first time to edit a wikipage. For my uni, i am studying a course which asks me to write a wikipage and need to post it. If it is not published or delete or there are any problems with copyright i might get a failure to this unit.So i am so urgent as the assignment is already due. Also, my uni is in a English speaking country and i have to edit in English. I also dont have the right to ask my tutor to ask in the education board. I think i have the ability to do this by my self.What i am trying to do now is that fix all the problems and try my best to let it submit succesfully.That's the reason i resubmitted several time yesterday and i do revised a lot of places .But i am feel worried that i still have not got passed.  

So it appears that the student has a problem with an instructor who doesn't understand Wikipedia. Does anyone have any advice for the student? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zzhu8516 and Robert McClenon: I am an administrator here on Wikipedia, and I would invite the student to pass on the following comments to their course tutor, pointing out that we have told her that (through no fault of her own) her course tutor's actions have created an upsetting and difficult situation, which we cannot resolve for her:

1. It is highly unprofessional for any course tutor to set any tasks which require any student to create a new article on this encyclopaedia.
2. To tell a student that their success in their assignment depends upon such a task is irresponsible and unfair to the student
3. It shows a complete misunderstanding by the course tutor of what Wikipedia is here for.
4. Wikipedia does encourage educational organisations to work with us, but this is not the way to go about it.
5. Your tutor can learn how to get students to work with Wikipedia by going to [2].
6. They should have made it clear to all student that simply copy/pasting content from published sources into Wikipedia breaches our policies; is intellectual theft, and teaches the student very little. All contributors here must write content in their own words.
7. Overly-technical articles that serve an instructional manual are not accepted on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTMANUAL
8. Creating an article in a student's own sandbox, or as a Draft, should be as far as any course target should ever go. Expecting us to accept every student page into mainspace is unreasonable, unrealistic and unfair on the student.
9. The hand drawn diagrams uploaded by this student are not of sufficient quality for an encyclopaedia, yet expecting any student to be able to create non-copyright, good quality imagery of skeletal structure is also unrealistic.
10. Notwithstanding the obvious breaches of copyright, this student's work clearly shows me that they have grasped enough of Wikipedia's procedures to create a draft, lay it out correctly, and can add suitable citations (though they could have been improved by adding authors and dates, and not citing a private site requiring login authorisation).
11. Had there not been copyright issues and a belief that this is too detailed a page for Wikipedia, I would have said this was not a bad effort by the student.
12. Setting a course target of publishing a paper has caused disruption here, and could have ;led to the student being blocked, yet this would have been the fault of the course tutor, not the student.
13. We already have an article on Hip dysplasia, and a short edit to this section of it might have been more appropriate - and still could be.

If the course tutor wishes to engage with me for further advice, they are welcome to come to my Talk Page and I will clarify any matter for them. I will place a copy of my response on the student's talk page, as she may feel awkward about passing on a link to this page (which will be archived in a few days, anyway, so the link won't then function).Nick Moyes (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There are some points that i want to say: My tutor said very clearly about using your own words to write. It was me that made this mistake and i want to revise the aricle instead of rejecting it and denying all the efforts that i made.For the references, i could delete those private website and add author and dates. This aricle is about a surgery called Triple pelvic osteotomy which is caused by hip dysplasia,so it is not just explaining what hip dysplasia is.I explained some about the hip dysplasia in the aricle to make it more clear about the purpose of the surgery.If u think the part about hip dysplasia is unnecessary,i can delete them and make the text shorter.Everyone will make mistake and i did not mean to violate any policy. It is because it is about a surgery so i feel a little bit difficult to rewrite some of the theory. But now i understand. And can i still edit my article and can it be published if it is good enough? But under such a circumstance, even if i finish writing, i cannot resubmit as it is rejected. As what u said abot pic, i have tried my best to draw.If it is under the wiki standard. I can delete it. So what do u reconmmend to do next for me? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhu8516 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Hey Shalor (Wiki Ed), can you possibly help with this situation, perhaps as a liaison between the student, the tutor and us? Bkissin (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Bkissin, I've posted a welcome message to the student's talk page - as far as I know, the student isn't one of ours. Hopefully they'll pass on the content to the instructor. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

How to make this edit acceptable?

Newbie here. Made an edit to 3 pages (copy/paste so minor pronoun error) to reflect an important tax tribunal case. They were reverted immediately with accusations of vandalism. I deliberately kept them short in the hope that an experienced wiki editor would expand on them.

What would correct approach have been?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/942209892 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revertavid (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Revertavid Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that your edits were removed because the only source you gave was the tribunal decision itself, which is a primary source. Wikipedia should be summarizing what independent, secondary reliable sources state. Put another way, this decision needs to be covered in the news or other outlet with editorial control and a reputation of fact checking. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

In Joanna Gosling, you added a sentence that included a direct external link. Such links are not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. If you had instead used a reference, it might have been accepted. (Published primary sources are acceptable in some circumstances – but I suspect that this, a claim of misbehaviour by a living person, is not among them.) Maproom (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Revertavid First, I seriously object to your "hopes and dreams" that some experienced wiki editor will expand on your meager efforts. The reality (IMO) is that the existing set of editors cannot match the entropy rate. Anyway, while I am not suggesting by any means that WP is the place to air your view of what facts the public should be more aware of, I would encourage you to make your best efforts. Don't be afraid to do a rewrite and replace your original effort, but it is very likely that you are the best person available to properly present these facts which must not be overlooked!

Primary vs. secondary source: Well, I'm not going to go back and look at the rules on this. A primary source is not inherently unreliable. Actually, for matters of law, there is much to be said for a primary source. Specifically, it's actually authoritative. So I don't think that would be a very good reason to revert your edit.

I have two reasons I might have reverted this:

1. "She lost against HMRC in a tax tribunal case in reference to his BBC employment status under IR35 legislation."
   Is "she" a "he"? That's news. We all want to know if that's the case. I know it shouldn't matter. Now I apologize if English is not your native tongue, but this is just very distracting. Maybe you're talking about her husband? This might make me think it's vandalism (notwithstanding WP:AGF).
2. The more pertinent point is relevance. The subject is a newscaster and author, not some kind of tax law advocate or adviser, or someone who is particularly known for purveying extreme theories about tax avoidance. Will this ruling have a major effect on her career?
   Being from the U.S., I know nothing about the IR35 legislation, but merely the fact that she was a party to this case does not in itself make it noteworthy, nor does the fact that the subject lost a case with the HMRC make it noteworthy. In other words, although this case may be noteworthy, I do not believe it is relevant to this article. Based on that, I would be inclined to revert your edit.

BTW, note how different editors offer differing opinions and the explanations are not really aligned. If the explanations seem like a stretch, that may be true. This puts into doubt the idea that there is really objective judgement about what is proper for WP. Fabrickator (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Fabrickator (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing Discussions as a Novice User

Hi there,

Discussion on a move discussion for Royal and noble styles has petered out, without a consensus in favour of a move. I have read the relevant documentation on the procedure for non-admins, but I don't want to jump too far into doing such tasks without being confident in my judgement being correct.

So, my question is: When a discussion on a page move has not had any comments for well over 7 days, indeed over a month, should I close the discussion and place the relevant templates?
Are there any procedures or norms I may not be aware of?

Thanks! Balag12 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually non-admin closures are a prerogative of experienced users and as you stated above you are a novice. So, it is better to a ask another user. Ruslik_Zero 12:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Image Deletion Warning

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direk_Freddie_Santos

I recently updated the page of Direk Freddie Santos at his own request, specifically to upload his own photo from his Facebook page. So the request to upload the photo was made by the subject of this Wikipedia article/biography himself. I received a warning that the photo is in danger of being deleted. I'm confused because I didn't think I was violating any copyright laws, since the photo was given by the owner himself. How do I address this issue to prevent the photo from being deleted?

Thank you!

Note: I work using the Visual Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JenTat (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikimedia Commons image licensing policy at c:Commons:Licensing; the copyright owner needs to send a permission notice to Wikimedia OTRS for verification. Also see our policy about conflicts of interest since you seem to have one. Majavah ^(t/c) 17:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JenTat. Majavah has pointed you at pages that are relevant, but I thought I'd give you a more user-friendly explanation.

Many people misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia, and think it is like Social media, or a place to promote yourself or your concerns. It is neither: it is an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia's article about Santos does not belong to Santos, and he and his associates are discouraged from editing it directly, because they have a conflict of interest. (COI explains how they should proceed if they want to suggest changes to the article.)

Secondly, the question of pictures. Adding a picture to an article is usually a desirable thing to do; but it can be difficult because of copyright. Part of Wikipedia's mission is as far as possible to make all of its content freely available to anybody in the world. Every time we insert text in Wikipedia, we are licensing it under CC-BY-SA, so that anybody in the world can freely reuse our text, in any way, for any purpose, without payment, as long as they attribute it correctly. Similarly with images: with certain exceptions which are not relevant here, we require that every picture uploaded be free for reuse in that way, either by being the public domain by reasons such as age, or having been explicitly released under a suitable licence by the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer or artist, not the subject). If the copyright holder of the picture you want to add is willing to license it in this way, they (not you) need to follow the procedure in donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Need assistance in writing a Draft.

To all member,

Is there anyone from the team that would be interested in helping me improve my article which was moved to a Draft. I have some confusion in it and I would be prefer if someone could help me develop it.

Thank YouTerminatorwil (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Terminatorwil and welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at your talk page and found Draft:Ahmed Emara. This is the draft that you're referring to, right? If not, can you let me know which one? It would be helpful if you could elaborate on what exactly you're confused with as well. Clovermoss (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Clovermoss

Draft:Ahmed Emara Is the article that I need help in improving it. I had created this article with citations and one of the editor moved the article to the Draft space saying it was too promotional. The confusion is how to make it neutral so that It can be moved back again.

Thank YouTerminatorwil (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Terminatorwil: Taking a cursory glance at the draft his early life is completely uncited and one line in particular (Those were the initial days were [sic] his training for his career had begun.) doesn't sound encyclopedic and sounds like it was taken from a promotional piece. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 16:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu If that is not cited, writing nothing about this early life would look too bland. Can we atleast add 1 line in it without being citedTerminatorwil (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Terminatorwil: The issue is that it's likely to be challenged, and Wikipedia has a stricter demand for sources when the subject is still alive. Where are you getting this information from? Has he been interviewed about his life? For further reading I suggest taking a look at WP:Citing sources, particularly the section When and why to cite sources.

As a side note I also have a draft on standby right now. I can't add any additional information to it for the time being because there are no sources reporting on it, meaning that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards (for now). --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 18:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Let me find any article that cite his early life and update it. What else do you suggest on improving the article. Since I have mentioned its a Stub.Terminatorwil (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Terminatorwil: Honestly? Finding more sources, citing them and expanding the article. If you're referring to tone, I would refrain from using words like "good" or "bad" to describe events and or people, but this is a very basic suggestion; nuances in wording can make sentences charged even though it may not seem so at first glance.

Please use indents when replying, as it makes it easier to follow conversation threads. You can do so by typing : in front of your paragraph. In this case, please type :: when responding to me below.--Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 20:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Terminatorwil. I'll try my best to help, although it might be a bit difficult as I do not understand Arabic. Sources don't need to be in English though, so if you have sources in other languages, don't hesitate to use them. Your draft was declined as being too promotional, as articles need to follow a neutral point-of-view. I would recommend removing phrases like "He has an online presence of more than 50 million views on his YouTube channel" unless his YouTube channel is discussed at length in reliable sources. An example of a reliable source would be a newspaper article. Even then, I would remove the "online presence" part and just write something along the lines of "he has a YouTube channel". There are other parts of the draft that could be improved, but maybe we could start with that? There can be a bit of a learning curve when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Note: I had an edit conflict with Tenryuu and I'd like to say that their advice is great. Clovermoss (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Clovermoss The first reference is in english and we can use it to gain more details about it. Do you think I should remove the line of the youtube channel and add something of that sort in the career section. What do you suggest?Terminatorwil (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Terminatorwil. Sorry for the delay, I was eating lunch. Tenryuu has offered useful advice, I'd suggest you follow it. As for the YouTube channel, I don't really think it's relevant to include unless there are independant and reliable sources covering it, as already mentioned. I'm also going to ping DGG as they declined your draft and might have more input. Clovermoss (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Clovermoss We are in a Teahouse and its ok for us to have lunch breaks. I have removed the youtube views text and i'll wait for further update from your side. DGG seems to have the longest list of people wanted to talk to him. Thanks Terminatorwil (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A thing to remember, Terminatorwil, is that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything that the subject of an article has said about themselves, or that their associates have said about them: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have published about them. For every statement in the draft, ask the question, "Where has somebody wholly unconnected Emara said this about them?" If you have an answer, cite that source. If there is no answer, then the statement does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine Your advice on the top is something that I need to follow and I feel that this would help me improve my way of writing drastically.Terminatorwil (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Another way of saying essentially the same advice: The first thing to do is to remove all adjectives and statements of praise or excellence. Then, you need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Of the English references, godubai is a press release--it says so right at the top. moderneast.com is a collection of press releases of people in his profession. saudi.com is a slightly disguised press release. .biztransform references the award, but we have no indication of how sigifcant the award is considered . The way to deal with the Arabic references, is to add a translation of the title of the publication, and of the title of the item, and of whatever is the key information very briefly. For example, going by Google Translate, which is often good enough to give a general impression, it's clear that the msn source is a report of a lecture he gave. This doesn't show his notability .

There's another factor: Most published articles about people in his profession are promotional; it is therefore very difficult to establish sufficient good references to establish notability here. We have about 500 articles in the Category:Life coaches and Category:Motivational speakers Some of them are notable because of other aspects of their career. Some are notable as authors for having written best-selling highly-reviewed books. About half are probably not notable. About 3/4 of the articles seem much too promotional. Many of them were written in early years when our standards were lower. At least 1/3 should be removed, and almost all the others rewritten (I've listed a few at AfD, just to get started). DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Question:

I'm new so don't judge please but how do you "LIKE" the page?Eliza Strutz (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Eliza Strutz. Wikipedia does not have a "like" button similar to Facebook or some other social media sites. However, you can "watch" various pages, which means you will be informed when those pages are edited. Please read Help:Watchlist which explains that function. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Will the ref system reject my reference entry if I put letters instead of numbers?

Hello. I've come across a scholarly reference book (a furniture dictionary) where the pages have letters instead of numbers. More specifically 3 letters for the article starting a page and 3 letters for the article ending the page with a dash in between them, giving something like this: "Bul-Bur" where a page number should be. Will the ref system reject my entry if I put those letters instead of a number in the page field of the ref form?--AlainV (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlainV: Hey, just tested the {{cite book}} template in my sandbox and can confirm that letters are allowed. Just be sure to add no-pp=yes to the template.

Example code: {{cite book|last=blah|first=blah|title=Blah|pages=arp-erp|no-pp=yes}}

Result: blah, blah. Blah. arp–erp. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You may need to use the page parameter instead. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not using that template, I'm using the friendly looking blue citation form that pops up when I click on the choice "Book cite" among the four choices of templates offered to me. Where in that friendly looking blue citation box should I be putting no-pp=yes ?--AlainV (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AlainV. Because page numbers in books often include Roman numerals and people use commas and dashes in page number fields, the software allows a wide range of characters, not just standard numerals. It doesn't make any difference if you use a template manually or use a software tool to simplify the process. The documentation is at Template: Cite book. Test the process in your sandbox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I just went ahead and put in the letters as you suggested and it seems like it gave an excellent result. It's ref number 4: Bonheur du jour --AlainV (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD for Recently Created Article

Are Wikipedia editors allowed to nominate AfD if the article was just created? I think the article I'm looking at was created a few hours ago, but I can't find that it meets any notability requirements after going through WP:BEFORE. It only has 3 sources on the wiki article itself, 2 of which aren't independent (the own product's website and the Google Play store).

I've only been able to find two other articles online (so there are only 3 independent sources I can find in total mentioning it at all, and 2 of those are only passing mentions).

I've seen articles nominated before quickly after they were created without sufficient WP:BEFORE, but I'm concerned that this article doesn't meet any notability requirements and that it might be promoting a product instead. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: If the article is in main space, then it is eligible to be deleted. If it is not a copyright violation, then it can probably be moved to Draft space so editors may work on it until it is ready to be moved to main space again. RudolfRed (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you for your help! I appreciate it c: - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ubiquinone

Hey

It is not possible to ask anything in Wikipedia in Finland, so i am making a correction request here because it is not possible to edit Wikipedia in Finland either, because all users are blocked. I have a lot of problems with Wikipedia knowledge, but I'd love to start with an easy one.

Wikipedia pages in Finnish say:

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubikinoni

Ubiquinone is an orange powder. It is odorless and tasteless.

But this is not true, ubiquinone is a strongly flavored orange powder. You can taste it yourself, so you don't have to rely on research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:20:95D6:7073:773F:7922:45D9 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This is the edit link: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubikinoni?veaction=edit, so it is possible to edit it. Perhaps that Wikipedia does not allow IP editing? You could create an account, if that is the case. RudolfRed (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I was able to edit the article as an IP (though didn't try to save). Perhaps it was a temporary problem? You'll have to be more specific as to why you can't edit or post your request there. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. You make the mistake of believing that what you happen to know or have tasted for yourself is far better than statements in scientific papers. Did you read the reference which supported the statement that "Ubiquinone, chemically 2,3-dimethoxy-5-methyl-6-polyisoprene parabenzoquinone (Figure 1), is in its natural form an orange lipophile powder, without odour and taste." Many things have a taste when they're contaminated and, I for one, would certainly have to do an awful lot of research in order to lay my hands on the pure chemical and determine for myself whether it has a taste or not. I'd never even heard of it until today. Please don't try to change anything on any language wikipedia unless you can back it up with good quality sources, or at least show that two good quality sources take a different position on something. What you personally know to be true is of no relevance on English Wikipedia, nor on Finnish Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

First time user, wants to object to a page

Hello!

Thanks for taking this on.

I just landed on a page which seems so shockingly biased that I don't know where to start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_envelope

This reads like a propaganda release from the government of Israel,not an objective description of this region. More to the point, I cannot find anyone outside of extremely-devoted Zionists who even *use* this phrase.

What would be the most efficient way to begin lodging my objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernicebro (talk • contribs) 02:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pernicebro: Welcome to Wikipedia. You should start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Pernicebro Please be aware that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state- any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. If you have independent reliable sources that describe the Gaza envelope differently, please offer them- this does not mean that the article will be worded the way you think it should be, but you can discuss your concerns with other editors to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say and in what manner. Wikipedia does not necessarily give equal time to all points of view, coverage depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

To be honest the current article is mostly sourced to Israeli governmental sources and as a consequence is not neutrally worded (most blatant instance: incessant terrorist attacks). I left a POV tag and a couple of sources on the talk page but I am not sure what to do with the article text. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added three reliable, and neutral, sources and reworked the article. I have de-tagged it as I believe it is now sufficiently NPOV, but please feel free to re-tag if you think it needs more work. Best, QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Please anyone can help to create an article for Thug Life vodka and cognac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlv333 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tlv333: Your title says "Contested deletion," so would I be correct in assuming that you may have a WP:CoI on the subject in draftspace? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 05:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tlv333. Your draft has been deleted as a "test page", so the deleting admin must have thought that that was all it was. But, judging by your user name, you should start by reading NOTPROMO, and WP:COI, and then WP:Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

creating page

I am Poet/Author & lyricist . I want my info page on Wikipedia. How to create information about myself? Regards, Prakash Patil

Hi Prakash. You would have to find reputable sources on yourself in order to create an article that is up to Wikipedia standards. However, this is strongly discouraged as you would have a major conflict of interest. Wikipedia hosts articles, not social media pages, so I am very certain that you will not be able to do what you intend to do on here. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 05:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but Wikipedia is not a venue to promote yourself and is not a social media website. It is a neutral encyclopedia. Please try Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Tumblr, Twitter or Instagram to advance your career. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rejected submission due to promotional doubts

Hi, I am helping to add an English translation of an already existing German profile from an artist who won an International Arts Price 2019 and already presented works in SF MoMA. Are there additional requirements and how to increase the relevancy of this rejected translation?

Thanks and regards, Neomys (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Neomys Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that what is acceptable on one language version of Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on another; each language version is its own project with its own editors, practices, and policies. In this case, the vast majority of the citations are to the artist's own website- this is not acceptable for establishing that this person meets our special definition of a notable artist. What is required is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How to Cite a Page or an Article

How to Cite a Page or an Article on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreenkhan988 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Noreenkhan988: See WP:CITE. In short, you use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>. However, we generally do not cite Wikipedia articles because circular sourcing is a bad idea. See User:Ian.thomson/Guide#Finding_sources for suggestions on how to find sources (among other things, such as how to link to other articles on the site). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Noreenkhan988. I think you may be asking about citing a Wikipedia article outside Wikipedia. If so, please read WP:Citing Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Noreenkhan988: Note also that there is a "Cite this page" link in the "Tools" section in the left-hand margin of Wikipedia articles, which leads to sample citations in various styles. Deor (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Corporate notability

Hi all,

I need help with my content on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ReTyre. It has been declined 3 times even though I'v changed based on Editor's suggestions.

Can you guys have a look to see what else I should change?

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryam Khawaja (talk • contribs) 10:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Maryam Khawaja: Before anything else, you must disclose your employer per the instructions I've left on your user talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: thanks for your note!

Is this article capitalisation improper?

This is a bit of an English check/ manual of style check before jumping into move requests/mass moving of pages which could potentially be disruptive. There are a few dozen articles with "Parliamentary" in the title, but preceded by "List of" e.g. List of Parliamentary constituencies in Avon, List of Parliamentary constituencies in Bedfordshire, ect. If my understanding of English is correct Parliamentary should be decapitalised here, because it doesn't start the sentence and isn't a proper noun. For example, in this sentence from the UK Parliament website "The United Kingdom is currently divided into 650 parliamentary constituencies." Is this correct or am I missing something? Thank you, Editing with Eric (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It's correctly capitalised as it is a proper adjective. In the context of Parliamentary constituency, it relates to Parliament as the institution. See the linked article: In general, an adjective is capitalized if its meaning is "pertaining to X", where X is some specific person, place, language, or organized group. Most capitalized adjectives are derived from proper nouns; for example, the proper adjective American is derived from the proper noun America. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! This is one of those rules of English that I know but wouldn't be able to name. I think some confusion arises because parliament can be either a noun or a proper noun depending on context, and at time commons usage just ignores the related proper adjective. I did some further searching and found very conflicting usage. For example the above Parliament.uk sentence uses lower case; the Guardian and Observer style guide suggests it should be lower case, but the Gov.uk style guide recommends capitalisation of parliamentary (giving the examples of Parliamentary committees and Parliamentary report) but even the Government isn't consistent because the Government Communication Service Style Guide indicates it should be lower case (even more ridiculous, it cites the Gov.uk as a reference source!). Anyway, it seems like either capitalisation preference is generally accepted. Editing with Eric (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Article Declined

Hi there.

I'm obviously disappointed that my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Enda_Grace_(Television_%26_Film_Producer) has been declined.

Can anybody shed some more light on the reasons for this please? I thought it was fair, balanced and of public interest as the subject draws a lot of attention here in Ireland.

Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Productionguru (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Productionguru. I don't think that anyone can make it any clearer than the wording in the grey box at the top of the 'Submission declined' pink box that has been placed on the draft.

You need to click on each one of the first 5 (of 7) links (words in blue) in that grey box, and carefully read the contents of the pages that they take you to: these will explain the Notability criteria it is necessary for a subject to meet in order to qualify for an article here. The further 2 links in the grey box will similarly lead you to general advice on how to try to address the draft's current shortcomings.

If despite this advice you cannot find suitable sources (online or offline) that demonstrate the subject's notability (as Wikipedia uses the term), then a Wikipedia article about them is simply not possible. However, if what you say ("the subject draws a lot of attention here in Ireland") is true, you should be able to find suitable sources in newspapers, magazines and so on. Remember that sources need to be specifically about the subject, not just about things to which the subject has contributed and in which they are mentioned or listed in passing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.162.227 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Cleaned up draft, but I agree that it does not yet meet criteria for notability. Needs more content based on citations ABOUT Grace, not descriptions of his accomplishments. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Declined submission even after attempt to address notability

Hello, my article draft has been declined twice - the first time around it was for a lack of significant coverage, as many of the sources cited were not entirely about the subject at hand.

In the second draft, I made sure to include published articles/sources that were specifically about the subject as well as its founders. I found these articles to fit wikipedia's requirement for sources - published, reliable, secondary and independent of the subject.

The language used in the article is very matter-of-fact and not hyperbolic or promotional at all. I can't see why it was denied a second time after these changes. The editor who reviewed the 2nd draft (Theroadislong) didn't leave any notes as the first editor (DGG) did, they left only the same boilerplate message that was left in the first place, with no further clarification - even after I tried to address the issue with the first draft.

Can you help me? What can I do to improve my article? Where am I going wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Goodshop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk3142 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Jk3142, there is no rule that sources cited "must be entirely about the subject". However, for a source to help establish that the subject is notable, it must be independent, and include in-depth discussion of the subject. Which three sources cited in Draft:Goodshop do you think best do that? Maproom (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Maproom, these are 3 sources that I think show the criteria you mentioned: https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/credit-cards/goodshop-give-charity-holiday-shopping-12790628 https://blogs.wsj.com/holidaysales/2007/11/23/good-shopping/ https://risnews.com/goodsearch-supporters-turn-innovative-ways-help-their-favorite-nonprofits-holiday-season — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk3142 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Jk3142, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse! We don't write about every company, only those that are notable. There are billions of businesses, and we can't possibly write about every one, thus we have to have a minimum standard for inclusion. Proving notability is done by finding quality coverage that is independent of the subject and from reliable sources. Most of the sources you have are just PR, and not actually independent coverage. The WSJ article could be good, but the link is dead so I can't evaluate it. If you can't find enough sources, that may mean that the subject just isn't notable. That's not a reflection on you or the company, it just means that the media hasn't paid it enough attention to warrant an article. So: if you can find some more quality sources, please do, and add them. If not, then you may wish to edit in another area; creating articles from scratch is the hardest thing on Wikipedia. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you CaptainEek. I've added multiple sources and resubmitted for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk3142 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This happens so often. The sources aren't good enough, but the creator of the article misunderstands why the draft was declined, and adds more, equally poor, references. What is needed is better references (and preferably fewer references, so a reviewer can find the good ones). Maproom (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

For the second decline, Theroadislong left an Edit summary: "Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines." David notMD (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Need attention here!

Hi, there's a discussion going on over here, VF Corporation Talk page, about creating a separate page for Draft:Kontoor Brands. The company is listed on NYSE and has been covered widely by independent and reliable news media outlets. If some of you can please respond there, then we can proceed with the publication of the draft. Thank you so much in advance. FelixtheNomad (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Why so many Vodka articles!?

The decline of a draft for Thug Life Vodka led me to List of vodkas, which is a list of 150 brands, each with its own English Wikipedia article. To me, that fact is appalling. (But then, I also find List of whisky brands appalling.) Many of the vodka "articles" are stubs or sub-stubs with minimal or no referencing. Would a "PROD" cleansing be appropriate? Is there a vodka expert in PROD-land able to make such judgements? David notMD (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @David notMD:, I’m thinking the articles could be merged into one article or we could delete some of the brands (I’m pretty sure that most of the brands don’t even meet the notability guidelines.). We should look into this. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you appalled that there are so many articles on vodka brands or that so many of the articles are so poor? I don't see how this is different from List of automobile manufacturers, List of publishing companies, or any of hundreds of other lists of companies. If the brands aren't notable, their articles could be deleted, but I don't see the problem with having articles on individual vodka brands.--Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Help With Sources Being Trivial Mentions?

Hello Everyone!

As a quick disclosure (this is also disclosed on my Talk page), I currently work for a company called Logitech. I've been in the process of trying to have a Wikipedia page made for our CEO Bracken Darrel. My draft was rejected due to it having too many trivial mentions as sources, but the sources I included were full profiles from publications like the New York Times and Bloomberg. What counts as a trivial mention? I'm just a little confused on what else I can do to get this page published and would really appreciate some guidance from the editor community.

CiaraAislingLoughnane (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

CiaraAislingLoughnane hi there. Hope you are well. Personally, I think the mentions in the sources (e.g. [3]) aren't trivial, but let me explain. In this source, the mention seems trivial; it briefly outlines the life of Darrell, a few comments from De Luca, and a fairly short quote from Darrell. That isn't to say the source isn't useful as it does contain information, but perhaps not enough to contribute to our notability guidelines. As reviewers, we don't always have the time to thoroughly look through sources, so we can make mistakes (especially with WikiAviator being fairly inclined to decline [4]). You can put the article back up for review, but please add more sources before. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@CiaraAislingLoughnane @Willbb234 Hi, I have to say that I am NOT inclined to decline but the it is that most AfCs aren't up to notability standards. For your article, some sources are quite problematic:

[1]: I doubt if Engadget is a credible and independant source. Also, its talking about the company more than him in person.

[2]: OK

[3]: OK

[4]: The Bloomberg website is trivial since it is routine mention about the company (see WP:CORPDEPTH).

[5]: Same problem, this is trivial. (See explanation in source 4)

[6]: This is an undercover ad, if you go to the website of Citybizlist, there is a "promote" section for companies to disguise their ads and news as news articles, so I don't think its credible.

[7]: Alumni profiles aren't credible sources.

Therefore, only 2 sources meet the requirements and you have to find more credible sources before your resubmission. WikiAviator (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CiaraAislingLoughnane. I haven't looked at all the sources, but from the ones I have seen, it appears to me that the sources which aren't trivial are also not independent. The question you need to ask is, Where has somebody wholly unconnected with Darrell and with Logitech, and unprompted by them, chosen to write at some length about Darrell (as opposed to about Logitech) and been published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking? If you have a couple of such sources, they are your primary sources for establishing his notability. If you haven't then he is not currently notable, and no amount of material based on interviews or press releases will change that. --ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@CiaraAislingLoughnane: The Bloomberg page is just a profile (values from a database with no human-written prose) and the NYT cite is an interview. Neither can be used to establish notability. Note that reviewers choose the drafts they want to review, so if someone declines a lot of drafts, it may simply mean that they choose a lot of decline-worthy drafts to review. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How do you add userboxes?

So, I want to add a userbox to my userpage to show that I'm in Wikiproject Video Games, and I don't know how. Could someone show me how? Thanks, King of Scorpions 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Try Template:User WPVG. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! [finds WP:UBX and starts exploring it ...] King of Scorpions 20:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

spelling

do we use english spellings of words or American spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOreo123 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at MOS:ENGVAR. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, KingOreo123, we do. Also Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, Irish, Indian, South African etc.

Less flippantly, we can use any of them. If the topic of an article is strongly associated with one of those places, then we use that spelling; otherwise we use whatever spelling the article was first created with. See ENGVAR for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Biographical data of a person.

Does Wikipedia publish biographical data about people. I am the aunt of an EMT that was murdered in NYC in the line of duty. Many newspapers and media coverage since we still in the process of getting justice for her. A street, a park, has been re-named after her and I would like to have a small biography about the hero that she was, so that when we are no longer here, and people wants to know who she was, when they see her name, they can search it in Wikipedia and get a glimpse of her. I know this sounds far fetched, but nothing its impossible. Please don't disregard my message. A simple no will make me understand. Thank you for at least reading my message.By the way her name was EMT Yadira Arroyo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliah5736 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Aliah5736 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am very sorry for your loss. Please understand that as I give the rest of my reply- as it is hard to convey feelings through text. The answer to your question is not a straight "no", but it isn't a straight "yes" either. The role of Wikipedia is not to memorialize those who have passed. It is to build a collection of human knowledge, about subjects that receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. It certainly sounds to me as if either your niece or the events surrounding her passing might warrant an article, especially if there is a great deal of coverage in independent sources. Such an article might not be as you envision it- it would be pretty dry in terms of talking about your niece- only discussing what the independent sources have said about her and her life. You wouldn't be able to put your personal recollections and memories in it(unless those are discussed in independent sources).

Nothing I have said here is meant to be harsh, even though it may sound that way- I apologize- and again, please accept my condolences on your loss. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Article Creation

Hey there. I would love to make my first proper article on Wikipedia. I searched around and no one has made this article.

I would like to make a article on the Rivalry between the Brooklyn Nets and The Toronto Raptors.

I need to know if I can make one. Thanks in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 16shubam16 (talk • contribs)

16shubam16 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there are independent reliable sources that discuss a rivalry between the Nets and the Raptors, an article might be possible. However, successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. You will be more successful at it if you first spend much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what it expected of article content. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings- I don't want that to happen to you.

If you still want to attempt to create an article, you should first use the new user tutorial and then read Your First Article. You can then visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review- this way, you work out any problems first, instead of later when the draft is formally a part of the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@16shubam16: If I were you, I'd first discuss the rivalry on this talk page. Talk:List of National Basketball Association rivalries. I follow the Celtics in the Atlantic division with both the Nets and Raptors, and don't think you can make the case that they have a rivalry yet. The info here and above this link will help too, for perspective. Atlantic Division (NBA)#Rivalries Maybe next year after Irving and Durant come back - now it's WP:TOOSOON (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.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Why???!!!

Why does Wikipedia even exist? I have looked at Wikipedia articles saying that it isn't trustworthy. IT IS LITERALLY THE STUPIDEST THING EVER!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyurgr8 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Heyurgr8: You can read about the history and creation of Wikipedia, here: Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Heyurgr8: And your two edits did nothing to improve that, changing an already-correct caption for an image, and intentionally mis-spelling "defamation" as "merdure". Why exactly are you here? If you don't want to help, just enjoy the fruits of the millions of man-hours of free labor we put in every year, maybe say thanks, and move along. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's an opinion on that: Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Declaring COI

Hello! I am new here and I have a question about a page I created that was recently approved. When working on the draft, I declared my COI (I work at the University) on the reviewer's talk pages. I understand I also need to officially declare the COI. I added this to my talk page, but I wanted to make sure I am doing this correctly. If so, is someone able to remove the message template on the top of the page? After working with the reviewers, I believe I have addressed all of their concerns and that the article is now written from a neutral point of view. Any advice or guidance about moving forward would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your help! Marissascavuzzo (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article is Paul J. Tesar. David notMD (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Often, the COI is on the editor's User page rather than Talk. I took the liberty of copying it to there.

The template was added this month, so fresh. If, over time, editors not closely associated with the article (meaning other than you and Gemma100) contribute to the article, then at some point in time an editor may decide the tag is no longer warranted. Alternatively, if no significant edits are made to the article, that represents a silent consensus that the article is valid and neutral point of view as it exists. Either way, time is key. Too recent to remove the tag. David notMD (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Publication

Hi just wondering how do I know/how can I make my page public for everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hariyan Ross (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hariyan Ross: You have only made 2 non-deleted edits on Wikipedia. I think this is about your user page. It has been deleted by Alexf LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hariyan Ross: Your page is public by default, as almost every other page in Wikipedia. In this particular case your user page was deleted (therefore earlier edits not visible), due to misuse of Wikipedia as social media, as noted in your user talk page. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hariyan Ross: Please note that your user page is for facilitating your work on Wikipedia, not a general "profile" page like that on social media (see WP:UP). Also note that it will not show up in external search engines, like Google. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Move article to mainspace

I created a new draft for Lis Smith. Ordinarily, I would just move it to mainspace myself since I have the permissions, but there is a redirect for "Lis Smith" to the Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign article. How can I remove the redirect and publish? Do I need to formally request a page move? Thanks 9H48F (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@9H48F: Yes, post a request at WP:RM. You'll need an administrator to move a page over a redirect. RudolfRed (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks! 9H48F (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Information

Hello, I am trying to acquire 16 hours of Community Service by the end of Thursday and was wondering when is the earliest I can start? If I can't, any information outside of the companies link I am going to provide will be greatly appreciated.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/participate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikementzer19 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikementzer19 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you are asking- are you asking how to volunteer for the Wikimedia Foundation? You would need to contact them directly for assistance. If you just want your volunteer work to be editing Wikipedia(not sure that counts, but you would know better than I), you don't need anyone's permission to start. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is essentially anonymous, I doubt you could use editing Wikipedia to satisfy a criminal sentence of community service. John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

However, we cannot give legal advice. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Info regarding semi protected article

Hi How can edit a semi protected article or tell them to delete and re add the info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsonz (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Williamsonz: You can read more about this at WP:SEMI. You can only start editing semi-protected articles when your account becomes autoconfirmed. If you would like to request edits on that page, you can place this template on the article's talk page. Cheers! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding wikipedia page rejection

Hai everyone, please help me to give appropriate reference and citations, as I wants to get approved. This is the second time I posted my page for review, and they rejected it due to some reference issues. THis is the message I got from team "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanadikavu vishnumaya (talk • contribs) 06:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kanadikavu vishnumaya: Your sandbox article has only 4 references despite being relatively long - and there are many sections that do not have references. (e.g. your section on the details, and what is it famous for, and the main deities - they are completely unreferenced.) I do know that you probably have contextual knowledge of the temple - but you really need more sources to back it up. Try your best to find more sources, and by that I mean reliable sources - sources that are unbiased, official and verified. You can read more about this at WP:RS. I would also like to mention that your sub-headers are rather inappropriate (refrain from using rhetorical questions). If you have to, you can refer to other similar articles and follow the format there. You can also read about this at WP:MoS. Cheers! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 06:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kanadikavu vishnumaya, but your sandbox reads as very promotional. Remember that Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said by the subject about itself (and here, that would include anything said by its adherents). It is only interested in what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it: any article should be based almost entirely on such sources. If such sources cannot be found, then the subject is not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) and no article is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating articles

Hi, I've tried to start a handful of articles only to have them deleted because of insufficient references, etc. Why aren't these articles allowed to stay up so that others can add to them? It seems unreasonable to expect the creator of an article to also it flush out to such an extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01101010 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

01101010 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your edit history, I don't see where you've had any drafts or articles deleted except for Tommy Wright III which was recreated. If there are specific drafts you are referencing, please link to them so we can give you a better answer. Typically drafts are not deleted just because they were not sufficiently referenced- they are usually only deleted for reasons like being promotional or a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 01101010, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is what Draft space, and articles for creation are for. Don't try to create articles directly in main space unless you are confident that your very first attempt will create something with enough in it to be kept. Have you read your first article? --ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ColinFine and 331dot thanks for your responses. When an article is started as a draft can others find it and add to it? 01101010 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

01101010 Others would have to know how to find it, as Drafts are not indexed by outside search engines, but yes, anyone who finds it could edit it. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Having said that 01101010, it is fine to create a draft and invite other people to work on it; but creating a minimal draft in the hope that somebody will find it and add to it seems a pretty ineffective way of working. --ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Search example: A search on Peter Pedroni finds nothing, but a search on Draft:Peter Pedroni finds a draft. This is within Wikipedia. Outside searches (Google, etc.) will not find the Wikipedia draft. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding a company profile

Hi, I'm looking to add a company profile to Wikipedia.

From what I understand, if I am to make the addition myself it is recommended that I first make some edits to existing pages (which would require that I have new and relevant information on the page subject) and wait for my status to change to 'auto-confirmed user'.

Is this necessary, and what would the disadvantages be if adding the company page immediately?

I work for Overwater Basses, a UK based instrument designer and manufacturer. The company has been hand crafting basses since about 1979/1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swebbbass (talk • contribs) 11:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to read about conflict of interest, and the first thing you have to do is to make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

...and then, Swebbbass, you would need to find at least three good resources that are totally independent of your employer which talk about your company in detail and in depth. Ignore all press releases, own websites, social media outlets and the like, but look only for evidence that shows the world at large has taken note of your company and has talked about it in books, magazines or news outlets. Brief mentions are not counted. Having found those, compare them against Wikipedia's criteria for business notability to assess whether the business meets - or fails to meet - our bar. If it fails, then company is not notable in our eyes, so you'd be flogging a dead horse to keep trying', and there'd be no point fretting over it (if you pardon the pun). To avoid a non-notable page being speedily deleted, we advise all new editors - especially those trying to push their company's interests here, to submit their article for review by experienced volunteers via our process called Articles for Creation. There's even an easy "Article Wizard" there to help you create a draft article to start work on. There is no advantage in adding a new page immediately if its notability is borderline - it'll simply be deleted one way or another, or, if you're lucky, someone might turn it back into a draft article. The downside of going though our AFC process is that there is a long backlog. Remember, we volunteers, and Wikipedia itself, are not here to help your company promote itself.

Even if it were deemed 'notable', it would still not be a "company profile", as you called it. It would be an encyclopaedia entry over which your company has absolutely no control of its contents whatsoever. Consider that carefully - it can backfire. Hope this additional comment also helps - but you must follow David's declaration advice before you do anything else here, please. (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.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the idea of writing a new article from scratch without having spent significant time becoming familiar with the platform is a common one, and deeply flawed. While this might work on other types of platforms, where you just submit a plain text, Word doc, or PDF, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It has a Manual of Style that must be adhered to, its own WP:Wiki Markup Language that is used to control the presentation of material, lots of templates that are used to accomplish common tasks, categories that are used to classify articles for relation to other articles, etc. Doing all of this without learning about those things through experience is "trying to run before you walk". While some of this can be dealt with by other helpful volunteers, note that they are just that – volunteers – preferring to work on things in which they are interested, and who appreciate it when other editors are more self-sufficient. When a contribution comes from someone with a COI, seeking to promote a company, requiring volunteer help to fill in the gaps between their contribution and what may reasonably pass for an encyclopedia article, it's just a difficult situation for everyone.</soapbox> —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I would further add Swebbbass that there is not a single "profile" on Wikipedia. That's a social media term. Wikipedia has articles. This is an important distinction that might cause you to rethink how you view Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Submission rejected

Dear Community, I'm currently working on adding pages for characters that fought during the Indian Independence Movement. My submission got declined for not having verifiable online sources. In fact, I used references from published works of history in the Malayalam language. I think that my sources were reliable for this topic. I was wondering how I can improve my references to get my submission approved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asamadbhr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asamadbhr (talk • contribs) 11:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Asamadbhr:, I think that your submission was rejected because it only used sources from Malayalam published work. Did you use secondary news sources from trustworthy websites, or get primary sources and direct citations and statements from the Indian government? All your sources were to offline sources that most Wikipedia editors wouldn't be able to obtain, would it be possible to add online sources? On the page every single citation doesn't have a link. Even the interview wasn't linked. The article also doesn't have an infobox, doesn't have a bold starting title, any images and more. As @Robert McClenon: mentioned, you seem to be praising the subject, so its neutrality is questionable. You also don't have the person's birth or death dates. Read all the comments. I suggest you read Help:Introduction and Help:Your first article and adjust your article to the guidelines, and them I'm sure your article will be accepted.

Also, you sign your messages with 4 tildes like this: ~~~~.

Hope this helps. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 12:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Asamadbhr. I must disagree with Berrely: some of the issues they bring up are not relevant, in my opinion. You certainly do not have to have at least one source online, or at least one source in English; however, it is an unfortunate fact that if your sources are all in a foreign language or offline (or both) it will be harder to review, and you are likely to wait longer until somebody is willing to pick up your draft and review it. And the issues of presentation Berrely mentions (in particular the infobox) are not crucial to acceptance of a draft. If a person's dates are available in published sources, then they should be in the article, but that is not always the case.

The point about primary vs secondary sources is important, but as far as I can tell the sources in, for example Draft:Malu Hajjumma are secondary - though it will depend partly on who published them: were they published by an independent publisher with a good reputation, or by a vanity publisher, or a body associated with the subject? You need to provide more bibliographic information about the sources - please see referencing for beginners. But the point about neutrality is certainly relevant, as is the question of encyclopaedic tone. --ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, you're right, I was a little harsh, and though an infobox is recommended, it is definitely not necessary. It would be ideal if there were other sources, but when I looked online the only source I could find was in the Wikipedia article Variyan Kunnathu Kunjahammed Haji, which, ironically was added by Asamadbhr themself. Also, the article is quite poorly written, with commas in wrong places, and the weird use of "alias" instead of "also known as" or "or". I am generally not sure about the neutrality, as the article's lead starts by praising Variyan Kunnath Kunjahammad Haji, who was a cousin, which is very unrelated. It included unnecessary information, and also lacks information where it is needed. The source issue is a problem, but the only reference I could ever find to any of the books was in the Variyan article, and after looking at the article, noted that it was effectively a copy of it with the same citations and info removed.. I very much doubt they have copies of books from 1921, but I'm not saying they don't. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • ^{Talk to me}∕_{What have I been doing} 16:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Number of Contributions

After looking around Wikipedia for a while I realized that there are several components that can be unlocked only after reaching a certain number of contribution. I already know how to check them, but I cannot see how I can see the exact total. Thank you for your time. Benjamin Borg (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Benjamin Borg: - you can use "XTools" to tell you lots of things about your contributions, including a summery of number count (69 atm) and (what is ultimately relevant to you here) - your usergroups: Xtools link - Benjamin Borg. You're autoconfirmed, which opens up the most critical aspects, such as being able to directly create an article (or move a draft into mainspace), but also things like uploading photos, edit semiprotected pages etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Borg, there are two automatic user groups related to edit count; autoconfirmed is given after 10 edits over 4 or more days, which allows creating pages in mainspace, moving pages, editing semi protected pages, and uploading files (although most files go to Commons, where there is no such requirement). After making 500 edits over 30 or more days, you are in the extended confirmed group. The only purpose of this is to edit extended confirmed protection pages, although this is only rarely used, being in force on about 2000 of our 6 million pages. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Alex Noble and [[Nosebagbear] thank you for responding, it has helped a great deal. Benjamin Borg (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Undisclosed payment" notice

If a page is flagged as having been written/edited by a person who was paid, but was not cited as such, will including the name of the author and the fee he or she was paid love the issue? Thanks very much for your help. Srcohen614 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srcohen614 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Srcohen614 you may want to check out these guidelines if you want more information regarding paid articiles/edits. Also, remember to sign your comment in all talk pages. See you around. Benjamin Borg (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Srcohen614, the point of the tag is so that editors are made aware of the problems likely on that article. The problem isn't that it was paid for, but that the person writing the article won't have had the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, rather their interest to promote the business and get paid. So it is tagged, so editors can find and remove promotional language, unencyclopedic detail, and many other problems usually in paid articles. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 15:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much Alex Noble. This makes the issue quite clear to me! Srcohen614 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Srcohen614

Citing wikipedia articles.

Hi again, is it possible, to cite another Wikipedia Article? Thanks once again. Benjamin Borg (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, Benjamin Borg. Wikilinking to other Wikipedia articles is encouraged, but references must be to reliable sources which excludes anything user-generated, including most Wikis and forums, and iMDB. See WP:CIRCULAR. --ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Benjamin Borg: The usual approach is to cite the source that is cited by the other article, if there (hopefully) is one. Technically, I've heard that if you copy the cite directly from the source of the other article, you should mention that in your edit summary, e.g., "Cite ref_name copied from [[Article_name]]". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Privacy

I uploaded a picture of a 12.7 mm bullet. I realised that the coordinates of where I took the picture was visible. Is there a way to possibly delete this? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo Valequez, I would tag the file at commons with {{SD|G7}}, which will tag the image as user requested speedy deletion, which is permitted for new files. You can then use external software or websites (a search for removing location metadata from photo will find you plenty of ways) to remove the location metadata, then reupload as a new image to Commons.

Thanks,

~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged the file for you. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked and I don't know why

Hi,

I did the 10 edits that is required and my account was activated. However, when I went to publish an article it says that I've been blocked. I have no clue why? Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleighty855 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Rleighty855, firstly, you are not blocked. There are two elements to the autoconfirmed permission: 10 edits, and 4 days. You have the edits, but not the time yet.

You can submit articles thorugh wp:Articles for Creation if you aren't autoconfirmed, and we strongly recomend new users do this even if they don't have to.

~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Showing a search string on a talk page

What is the preferred way to show a search string on a talk page? For example, let's say I want to describe a search for the following:

"hunting dogs" -weimaraners

I don't want to put it in quotes because then it would look like ""hunting dogs" - weimaraniers". And boldface and italics seem indicated for other things. Any recommendations? Ottoump (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ottoump. Something that might work is the <code> tag. "Try using the following search string: "hunting dogs" -weimaraners" CThomas³ (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! That's perfect. Ottoump (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert Pastorelli

Robert Pastorelli appeared as Cop #2 in the Cagney & Lacey S2 E3 episode "The Beauty Burglars" first aired on 11/8/82.

Please update his entry as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:997F:4C00:B53B:E8A5:1BA:5877 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably not needed. Not every role needs to be listed in the article. You can start a discussion on the talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

aSFDZGxhcbj,nkm.l........

wreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee0ol.gh b708v/o