Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, 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

Diverse Photos Added to DC-3 Article on 17 May Deleted This AM; Other Opinions, Please?

My photo edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3 done on May 17 was deleted today because "Those images do not aid understanding of the subject" and I disagree. I can see deleting some, as there were a number added, but as I said in the edit comments:

• Most photos went to the lower right, where there was adequate (wasted) white space,
• Photos were more diverse than the rest (one from astern, one close in chopping the wings so the fuselage shows better, one fueling, etc.),
• They were often cropped 16:9, so they can be used as Apple Wallpaper or PC Background (admittedly a minor point).

Additionally:

• My photos showed DC-3s actually doing something - supporting skydiving - surely that's 'aiding to understand',
• The first photo, placed to contrast the first pic below the infobox - an interior empty except for seats/aisle - better shows the scale of a DC-3's interior.

I've had my photos undone a couple of times and saw the point of view of the editor, but this time I disagree - they do aid understanding of the subject, IMHO, and they make the article more interesting, seeing photos rather than empty white space. In summary, Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject? And I suggest my photos aid understanding at least as much, if not more than, any of the existing photos. If there is an objection to the number of shots, I can reduce them. This is my first instance where I disagree with an editor and am unclear if this is even the best place to object, but I assume someone will tell me if I should do something differently. BrettA343 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi BrettA343 and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you and the editor had a discussion on these images? That is what I usually recommend first so you can both understand and see each others point of view? Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: As Galendalia kindly mentioned, discussion is a normal part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend that you have the discussion at the article talk page - Talk:Douglas DC-3 - in the hopes that multiple knowledgeable editors can be involved and come to a consensus as to which photos to use. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Galendalia: and @GoingBatty:, I'll try the editor first and then the talk page. Note that I've added a bolded summation question above, for thought about the DC-3 article (plus as a general argument for other articles) and will refer to this Teahouse question to both editor and talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: You want to keep this question here? Ok:

Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject?

Whether the photos are replacing "white space" or not depends on how the article is rendered. Wikipedia content can be rendered in a variety of ways. Obviously, this changes when you resize your window, it might be rendered in "mobile" mode, it can be rendered on various Wikipedia replicas.

While we don't focus heavily on the download size of a page, we should not completely ignore it. We also shouldn't ignore that additional "elements" in a page have all sorts of overhead, e.g. they make editing a page incrementally more complicated. But additional content should provide more than a "scintilla" of improvement (not necessarily a lot more than a scintilla, but a little more).

A lot of people like to go to rules (though I actually like to point out the rule that there aren't any "hard and fast" rules, but I'll offer the rule anyay). Here it is: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not. Refer to the section on media files.

Even though I do not feel so strongly about this particular rule, I shall continue. This article had 21 images, your change increased it to 28. But why stop there? There are literally thousands of DC-3 images available that could make this page more interesting or perhaps even more enlightening. How would you know where to stop?

To get on my soapbox, there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken. My perspective, though not a common one, is that we should be discouraging changes that aren't fixing significant problems, or alternatively, implementing solutions to reduce maintenance requirements (e.g. articles that will necessarily require edits due simply to the passage of time). So IMO, I would ask people not to spend their time on "subjective" improvements to articles. Making such changes may give editors a greater sense of satisfaction, but they really do not serve WP very well. Fabrickator (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Fujairah Airlines Douglas DC-3 Wheatley

Air India DC-3 at Heathrow

DC-3 in SoAfrica

Hi, @Fabrickator:... Thanks for your response. I note that while you re-posted my bolded question, there was no attempt at a direct answer, so I'll give you my take on it:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

About your related point that "white space" depends on rendering, you've made a good point regarding smartphones. I submit, however, that on today's desktops, laptops and even tablets, resizing windows is largely beside the point. Sure, one can make windows so small that rendering becomes an issue (and then it's an issue for the 21 existing pics, too), but do we develop for all possible uses or what people generally do (and I suggest that that the norm is to browse Wikipedia with a reasonable-sized window, though I don't have a cite for that). I also don't know about Wikipedia replicas, except that Wikiredia renders my matrix photo galleries in left-justified columns, about 5 or 6 times the scrolling length of Wikipedia - do we really care what replicas do or don't do (it seems counter-productive as it creates another bonus for using WP.)?

Re Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not and media files, can I assume your point is that my file descriptions leave something to be desired. My descriptions are usually more informative (see my mountain photos) and I hope to have better descriptions for my DC-3 photos as of June 4 or so, when asked-for reference sources should arrive from my home to where I'm staying. I will note, however, that my descriptions are as good or better than many in Wikipedia, and even some in the DC-3 article (though again, mine will improve). If there are other objections, please specify. TIA.

I've got to say that I find your next paragraph - "How would you know when to stop?" - a tad silly in the context of my photos in this DC-3 article. No one's suggesting adding thousands except for your implication. All my photos have been deleted and your argument would be like me saying: "There are 21 photos up... maybe you should remove all of them. But how would you know when to stop? (Presumably when they're all down.)" Having no photos up is as silly as having thousands up, IMHO. Are you seriously suggesting someone might want "literally thousands of DC-3 images" on a page? If not, as I would hope, what are you trying to say, please? For context, you state that I added 7, but I also said that if there are too many (not an argument by the editor who took my photos down, of course), I can reduce the number of photos - how about 4 of mine and deleting 3 of the existing "DC-3 sitting on a tarmac" photos? Is that a doable compromise? I don't want thousands, I just wanted to add some photos to aid understanding of skydiving support and give a better 'feel' for the interior size than a totally empty plane gives. And heck, maybe add a little colour and people using a DC-3.

So I'll suggest that in light of this new criticism that 28 photos may be too many, I'm including photos on the right that I think are 'candidates for deletion' - a change is sometimes good to keep articles 'fresh' and different. Like mine (temporarily), these photos have little in the photo description, and I think unlike mine, they are more repetitive - too similar to each other and many of the existing images - DC-3s just sitting on the tarmac, doing nothing. The photo with multiple photographers in the article is to me, another candidate for deletion. What do you think?

Re you 'soapbox paragraph' and "there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken", I did not know that. Is there a list somewhere? I hope you're having an OK time fixing them, but I know my strengths and desires won't have me fixing them at least until I run out of photos (and I don't think adding photos complicates editing much, either). And in contrast to you, I think my photos do serve WP well and I know others who agree with me. If the consensus at WP, however, agree with you, I'm likely out of here. I'm here to serve WP because it's a worthwhile project, IMO.

Finally, I get the sense that keeping the question here was a problem for you... I gave the question to the editor who deleted the photos almost 3 days ago and he hasn't responded - at this point I don't know if he will. Had he answered on his talk page, I likely would have responded to him there, but barring that, I thought there was context here, and here at least I got a response. Next time, I'll contact the editor first. BrettA343 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: @YSSYguy: ... BrettA343 wrote:

White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.

For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.

I found this whole point you're making, comparing the value of your content to white space, to be so very strange. While I use a laptop, I don't normally maximize my windows. Of course, one cannot dispute your claim that, in some renderings, these additional images display in areas that would otherwise just be white space. But this is still just a "better than nothing" argument.

As to the idea of compromising about replacing some of the existing pictures with ones you have chosen, that would really just change this to a claim that "my content is better than the existing content", which is still just a subjective claim.

I am not amused by your determination to be the arbiter of the debate, e.g. you presume to have overcome my objection on this one point, and in the absence of responses to each of your other points, you claim victory. While I'd like to be able to save everybody some trouble and convince you that the objections made to your changes are valid, I suspect such an effort would be futile.

You should consider one of the various dispute resolution methods, though it's not really as though this results in somebody else arbitrating the dispute, but it's less disruptive than an edit war. Fabrickator (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, @Fabrickator: & @YSSYguy:. I have five points about your opening sentence and what you find "so very strange"...

1. I wonder if this is another instance of your perception and how it might not be a common one (I wish others would chip in with comments).

2. I wasn't the one who raised the point about 'aiding understanding' (the only reason for me to compare whitespace/photos). That was YSSYguy.

3. Another editor noted to me that "we have some guidance that recommends avoiding excessive whitespace" and he "always removes excess whitespace".

4. I don't know your experience level and you don't seem to have a user page, but have you seen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Whitespace ?

5. I'd be interested in knowing, specifically, just what you find so very strange. Because I don't find it strange at all.

I find your second sentence misleading because I see an implication that I brought up maximizing my windows - I did not. I almost never maximize mine, and I only talked about "reasonable-sized windows" when "browsing Wikipedia". And photos are better than whitespace is exactly a "better than nothing" argument, because whitespace is nothing. What's wrong with that argument in this context, please?

As to your compromising paragraph, I'd gladly let others decide if mine are better or not than the top two I noted before (one of which is visually cluttered and missing an engine and the other is indistinct with poor lighting and slanted by about 4⁰). Note that based on your points, I've kept in the third pic. And please note that I didn't initially look at replacing those two photos - they were there in my edit. It was only when you raised this (new) issue of too many photos that I thought, well, I've alreadye suggested removing some of mine and no one commented, so how about deleting some existing ones? I tried to resolve the "debate" (I had thought of it as a discussion until now) by presenting other options - to me, that's a good way to resolve things - otherwise we're stuck at you wanting no change and me wanting my initial change and we go around in circles. Let's try moving forward. If you recall, I was the first to suggest - twice - that my photo count could be lowered, even before anyone, including you, raised it.

Also, I'm not "claiming victory" (though thus far, you leave my arguments largely uncontested) and I'm not here to amuse you or not amuse you. You seem to think this is all about you. I'm just trying to suggest alternatives to come to a peaceable resolution for making a better DC-3 article, and I honestly think my changes make it better. By all means, try to convince me that objections are valid, but don't keep moving goalposts and please don't just ignore my points and then take it personally only when I elaborate and make more concrete suggestions to address your late-stated issues. Trust me, I'm a reasonable guy. I don't know if you two are the only ones who object to my photos or not, but I've asked others on the DC-3 talk page to get involved.

And I object to your portrayal of efforts being futile. In the opening post, I noted a couple of times where an edit of mine was undone (photos moved or deleted) and one had a good reason while the other gave no reason. Neither of those cases were "futile" and to my knowledge, those are the only undos I've experienced until May 24. What's futile from my perspective is your debating skills. You rarely address my points - sometimes picking on only one which you repeat, and then don't directly address that point - and when I address your rebuttal, you bring up something else. It's difficult to debate a moving target. This started with a single point, that my photos "didn't aid understanding of the subject"; I think I've addressed that and have twice asked YSSYguy for his input, first on May 25 and then on May27. I'm not sure what else I can do.

And with the blow back I've received from you, I'm sure not about to consider a dispute reolution without changing my initial edit to address your points as best I can, so please have a look at the DC-3 article now (changes instigated also due to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold). The top two photos noted in my previous post have been commented out and I've added 4 of my own photos. And this won't escalate into an 'edit war' (especially if you let it stay up for a few days so people can see it), but if it goes to a dispute resolution I want the points you've already raised, addressedi. And feel free to uncomment the two photos I removed (like I had in my initial edit)... there's lots of whitespace near the bottom right that could contain other photos, instead ;-).

The same editor noted above also wrote: "Photos are generally a good thing in articles, as they bring the subject to life and aid reader understanding. I think that they just make the articles more interesting and appealing." And another person suggested that the sameness of the existing DC-3 photos made it boring. He also said: "Brett, your DC-3 photos are absolutely terrific... vivid, vital and fun." I don't know about 'fun', but I think a different context and various angles and perspectives, with a few people involved in DC-3 usage, are good things. I even think you'll get to appreciate these photos. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

First point - this discussion should be taking place at WT:AIR, not here as guidelines vary by project.

Second, images must add something constructive to the article, not merely fill space. Wikipedia is not a book attempting to stretch some text out to fill a certain number of pages. On an article with an enormous selection of images such as the DC-3, that means paring down the number of images to those that best clarify points in the article, and it is nice if there is at least one image in each section large enough to justify one, and covering all major versions, at least some of the major or notable operators (with an emphasis on those mentioned in the text), aircraft involved in major incidents (which again should already be in the text), as well as images of the most notable survivors, which means back stories. Personally (although not everyone follows it), I like to see a drawing, if one is available in the specifications section. None of the images should be there that are not connected to something in the text next to them. We do have a link to the wikimedia photo collection, so including images for the sake of including them is discouraged, and that includes galleries.

Within each category one should select based on clarity (minimum background clutter or unrelated aircraft or equipment), quality (in focus, not pixelated etc), colour/vs b&w, flying vs being on the ground and angle (to provide variety). Generally, unless there is only a small number of operators, no more than one image belonging to a particular operator should be used to avoid providing disproportionate coverage.

Third, and this came up earlier, doing the 23rd rewrite on a decent article (anything B or above) is a waste of effort that would better be aimed at the tens of thousands of stubs and C class pages out there, particularly as any change you make as a new-ish editor will likely go against norms that have been arrived at with considerable discussion on <<all>> of the merits either way. That includes things like images, or the "see also" section. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC) ps - One shot of the interior is fine, two is overkill. Multiple shots of the same aircraft when thousands were built is wildly inappropriate, moreso when neither of them adds anything significant to the page. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Two DC-3s - loading and taxiing

Waiting for the next DC-3 load

Hi, @NiD.29: Thanks for your input - it's great to have another voice even if I don't get 'my way'. Your points are well taken and it makes total sense to me about "multiple shots of the same aircraft when thousands were built". You could have saved us a lot of time if you had arrived earlier (not a criticism) or if I knew where to post this. I'd never heard of WT:AIR and others suggested @YSSYguy:'s talk page and the DC-3 talk page. I've got lots to learn!

And I thought my images did do something constructive, say, compared to the Air India and Fujairah photos, neither of which seem to be referenced in the article. The article mentions "skydiver shuttling" and disregarding your 'overkill' note, they supported that point. I'd still like to add one (and only one) image to the article and I suggest one of the two to the right (the top one appeals to me because of the unusual angle, the fact that both C-GSCA and C-GSCB are included and it's more obviously supporting skydivers). And as I said, I hope to have more information about them on June 4 (I've already found out that C-GSCA crashed and was written off ~7 years after these shots were taken, and C-GSCB is in a museum in Dallas, TX as of Jan of this year). So partly seeing that the photo count is down to 19 in the DC-3 article and partly because it supports text, would you object to me adding one of these photos roughly opposite to the related text? And if no objection, do you have a choice which?

Re your third point, as I mentioned when it came up before, I'm not your guy (not yet, anyway) to look for the tens of thousands of stubs and C class pages (thanks for identifying them for me) and improve them. I think it's likely that I have less than a two-year future ahead of me and I want to use that time adding photos, adding a few 'missing' mountain articles, improving text or facts on related pages where I have the knowledge to do so and writing a family history (not WP-oriented; started by my Dad). As it happens, so far I've used over a hundred shots without 'going against the norms' (some were stubs). Sorry if my new-ishness has stepped on toes here - I'm learning and will watch out for 'decent articles' in the future. BrettA343 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't stress about stepping on toes - everyone does it, and it is rare edit on an established article that won't get someone excited, hence why I have been creating new articles from scratch or fixing stubs. I agree that some of the images could be swapped for better ones and was in fact looking into it when I got distracted by something else, and indeed new images come up all the time that may improve what was included previously. I would like to see a colour photo of one of the wartime KLM aircraft (they were one of the early operators and may have had the first exports) in orange but could only find one thumbnail sized image in b&w than was taken from a poor angle, and was too cluttered to boot.

Generally questions should be posted on the page where the contested edit was made - although some people feel the need to post such things to the person's userpage, that risks the discussion getting buried. If no-one responds, and no agreement is possible, then it should go to the project discussion page, which is watched by more people, and which has in its archives the reasons why various decisions were made on everything from style guides, to what to include or exclude and all the arguments presented for and against. Any questions just ask and someone will answer though. This is just part of the learning curve, which is steep. We do have a style guide to follow for aircraft articles that warns of common pitfalls and gives a good idea of the ideal - and checking any A or B class page will also give a good idea as well.

Of the two images, I would lean toward the shot from behind because it is different. Instead of "loading" in the caption I would be more explicit, and say "DC-3 boarding parachuters while another taxis by" (or similar), then position it across from where parachuters are mentioned in the text. Cheers - NiD.29 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Assistance in completing the article, " Dr. Prabhat Das foundation".

Hello, I am Suman nath thakur and need your assistance in completing this article on Dr. Prabhat Das foundation. Your valuable inputs would be of great help to get my maiden article published. Please share the Do's and Don't for future guidance too.

With Regards  Sumanathakur (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You're asking about Draft:Dr Prabhat Das Foundation. For all I know, an article may be justified. If so, I can hardly believe that it could be derived from this draft, which reads like a PR release. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

... except that PR releases generally make it clear what they're promoting. I've read the first two paragraphs of the draft, and I have no idea at all what the Prabhat Das Foundation is. Maproom (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues, but a draft

Clearly this has "multiple issues". However, I'm surprised that Drm310 has marked it as an article with multiple issues. It's not an article (and its history doesn't show that it has ever been one). Is it proper to use this template, or its ingredients, for what are mere drafts? -- Hoary (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Which websites are reliable for Wikipedia

Is Quora, Blogger, or WordPress reliable for Wikipedia??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TubeYouTokTik (talk • contribs) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@TubeYouTokTik: Welcome to the Teahouse. Honestly, none of them are generally reliable due to most of its content being user-generated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

So which websites are reliable for Wikipedia. TubeYouTokTik (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

see wp:RSP for some examples of both RS and not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Also see wp:RS --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The user has been checkuser blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I find an editor particularly rude. I am trying to ignore, but what else can I do?

Resolved

 – Editors may not be tactful at all times, but generally mean well. Assume good faith until blatantly proven otherwise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:British Nuclear Medicine Society

Hi, I find an editor particularly rude. I am trying to ignore them, what else can I do? I am not sure why they keep posting messages like these?

For example, they said:

1. "we do not list address in lede. You can get a website if you want to publish practical information" - I do not need any random person to tell me what I should and should not do! I have a personal and professional website of my own. I have also published numerous peer-reviewed scientific paper, etc.. I can go on but what is the point. I am just new to Wikipedia. If someone has a problem with it, they are free to ignore me and move on.

2. "we are not here to publish announcements for your organizaiton"- This is not my organisation, or I do not work for it! I am just trying to publish information that I believe it worth it for an organisation which has been in this particular field for about 60 years!

Any suggestions Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Earthianyogi (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to take note of these helpful pointers, which are not "messages" but edit summaries, designed to let other editors understand why the edits were made. Since many newer users are not always clear on what does and does not belong in Wikipedia, pointers like these are usually necessary. The user in question is clearly trying to improve the draft, so that it may get closer to being moved to the main encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea Thanks, I agree. But the tone can be polite! Earthianyogi (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Some editors are not hampered by an excess of tact. David notMD (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Earthianyogi My comments are there to try to help you make a better article. Many of your edits were quite poor (adding the physical address of the organization to the lede, for example) or promotional. Sorry if you find them rude, but they are by and large accurate. The best thing you could do is to learn why the edits aren't acceptable. You could also ask me directly on my talk page! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Earthianyogi: might I make a comment or two here? It can be a difficult transition from academia to editing Wikipedia, where experts and non-experts alike have to work together to create encyclopaedic content. One editor I am currently supporting is a retired Professor of Marine Geophysics, and it took some while to steer them away from the conventions of academic writing, (crediting everyone in a research team; adding external links to relevant organisations in the body of the article etc, avoiding over-technical language, or making assumptions of prior knowledge) so that they could share their expertise in a way that matches Wikipedia's requirements and house style. The problem is, experienced and helpful editors here tend to encounter so many people on a daily basis who believe they can use Wikipedia to promote their own interest, business or organisation that it can seem like a constant battle to keep Wikipedia running smoothly, and to support the genuine editors, too. Quite often, that lack of tact, as you see it, comes from the fact that we have just a few words in a short edit summary in which to communicate an error in content creation before we have to move on to the next 'apparent problem', and the next, and the next. Yesterday, I dedicated over two hours to help clean up one editor's efforts to create a new article so that it conformed to our encyclopaedia's style. We all try to be tactful, but sometimes, you know, it simply ain't possible! The work to keep well over 6 million articles in good condition can, quite literally, seem a never ending and utterly overwhelming task. Oftentimes, being short and succinct is the only way to keep things moving, and I can assure you that those who want to help people like you to improve their work rarely actually want to come over as rude or tactless. Finding the balance between being forceful and being nurturing to new editors is never easy. Good luck on your journey to contribute to Wikipedia in your sphere of knowledge. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)      

I'll leave a thought here about this. Here at the Teahouse we get many questions that are similar ("my article just got declined/rejected/deleted wat do"), and that's to be expected; article declinations and the like are usually accompanied by a bot that directs editors here. I will confess there have been times where I did not conduct myself to my standards and considered drafting templated responses for questions with no thought put into them. There's only so many spoons much emotional energy I can spend on multiple questions that have the same answer. The more effort is put into crafting a question (especially with spelling and grammar) the happier I am with answering it. Do I feel that some portions of Wikipedia are too acerbic and exploit WP:CIVIL? Yes. Do I think that some unpopular proposals get shut down too quickly when unwarranted? Yes. Do some respected editors' attitudes to situations rub me the wrong way? Many times. Is this worth spending my time and emotional energy on? Usually not. Best advice I can give you is assume good faith in most situations. My two cents. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all. I will assume assume good faith and move on. I read many recent posts on Wikipedia talking about rudeness among editors, and maybe there is a pattern? I welcome all criticism, but I do not appreciate impolite words. If it continues, it is only going to deter me from contributing here. Thanks for the help once again. Earthianyogi (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you think these requests and comments were "rude"? How would you have worded them? There's a corps of volunteers here deeply committed to objectivity. I don't view any of these comments as "impolite" in the least. "Blunt" and "impolite" aren't synonymous. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Help me improve my Draft: Ahmed Emara

Dear All, Its glad to be here at the teahouse. I need some help in improving my draft Draft:Ahmed Emara. I would appreciate if you all can help regarding it.

Thank You Terminatorwil (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Terminatorwil. My question is (because I don't read Arabic}, are any of the sources places where independent commentators have written at length about Emara? The ones in English are not: the report of the RheinBruecke prize looks independent, but does not say anything about him other than that he won it. The other English ones are all clearly his words (in press releases or interviews). Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says about themselves (whether directly in their own publications, or in interviews or press releases): it is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them; and if there is not enough such reliably published material, then the subject fails to meet the criteria of Notability. --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. Its so glad to see someone respond. Most of his articles and Arabic and some in english. He is a well known person in the Arab world as psychologist. Here are some of his articles in English. 

1. https://destinationksa.com/the-inspiring-ahmed-emara-a-motivational-lecturer-speaker-and-writer/ 2. https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/588192/BUSINESS/Addicted-to-Success-course-inspires-a-throng-of-followers

won't it be possible for the editor to look into his article by using google translate.

Thank YouTerminatorwil (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, Terminatorwil. His publications do not contribute to his notability. As I said above, Wikipedia is not really interested in anything the subject has said, done, or published, except insofar as independent writers have written about his saying, doing, or publishing.

As for the Arabic sources: no doubt a reviewer will use Google translate, if they don't read Arabic. I didn't choose to spend any more time helping you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine. Is it possible that you can have a look at the Arabic Interviews by using google translate. Atleast I would be able to correct the article.Terminatorwil (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How to respond to help answer

Previous discussion : #Need help adding information box to page

Hi,

I am new here and a totally new learner. I have asked a question and received a response, and thought I had replied. However, my response does not show up so I obviously did not reply right.

Here is my prior question and response to my question; Need help adding information box to page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

And here is the Wiki page my question was regarding; NewsTalkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TiBUchon/sandbox

I would truly appreciate it if someone could instruct me how to respond to the answers to my questions here.

Thank you. TiBUchon (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC) TiBUchon (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Your previous question, and the answer to it, can be found in the section #Need help adding information box to page above. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You can respond to answers by using the "Edit" link at the top of the section. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging TiBUchon. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable Username and what can you use the sandbox for?

Resolved

 – Proposed username should be fine, purpose of sandbox explained. (H:SAND) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I saw on someone's page that it said they were banned for pejorative in their username. Is Fearless Lede'r acceptable? I think it is but just checking?

What's the general use of the sandbox? As in are there any sort of unspoken rules I should know about? 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:E4AA:7A70:7855:2F6B (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. While I will leave the appropriateness of "Fearless Lede'r" for someone who has more experience with usernames to determine, the sandbox is a place for you to test things. Draft content, references, testing templates out, what have you. Almost everything is allowed so long as it's not a copyright violation. More information can be found at H:SAND. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouswe. "Fearless Lede'r" should be an acceptable user name, unless it or something close to it is already taken -- I haven't checked that. Only rather blatantly offensive names are rejected for that reason. However, names of companies are not allowed, as that is considered promotional. Also names that say or imply group use are not allowed, because a Wikipedia account should be for only one person, never shared. There are many custo9ms and practices here, too many to list in this response. A few big ones:

• Don't try to use Wikipedia to promote or praise anyone or anything, including yourself.
• Don't use your user page to write something like an article about yourself.
• Don't copy content found on the net to Wikipedia. It is almost never acceptable.
• If someone reverts (undoes) an edit of yours, do ask why, but don't yell or assume it is ill-intentioned.
• Do come back the the Teahouse with any questions. Don't YELL.

About5 a sandbox. It can be used to practice edits, simple or complex ones. It can also mbe used to start work on new articles,but there are other ways to do that.

I hope that is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Does seem complicated, but it does help. Thank you for the replies.2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:4CA:C3EA:84F7:403 (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I use my Sandbox to work on text and referencing content before inserting that into articles. Some new editors put social media type information or essay type information on their User pages, Talk pages and Sandbox. Not appropriate. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Inconsisted descriptions of American News Organizations

Why is Fox News described in the very first sentence as 'conservative' when ABC/NBC/CBS and even MSNBC contain no such description? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News

Surely this is a matter of opinion. I am a new member to Wikipedia and would like learn how such decisions are made. It seems contrary to Wikipedia's stated aims.

Thanks for any help. Who's reality (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Who's reality: All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Neutrality doesn't mean creating false balance between differing claims but giving them weight in proportion to what is found in sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Who's reality: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can also read the discussions on the articles' talk pages (e.g. Talk:Fox News, Talk:MSNBC), where editors should consider everything Ian.thomson mentioned to make suggestions and work towards consensus. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Lotte Giants

¿Podrian agregar más informacion al articulo? He estado investigando sobre este equipo de Baseball de corea y me he dado cuenta de que los jugadores y sus números estan equivocados o no son los jugadores actuales y quisiera saber si alguien podria actualizarlos dejo el link del sitio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotte_Giants DanyJk (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hola DanyJk y bienvenido a Wikipedia Teahouse. Aunque esta es la versión inglesa de Wikipedia, responderé en español por una vez. Puedes hacer cambios en el artículo tú mismo si puedes citar las fuentes relevantes. Si su inglés no es lo suficientemente bueno para esto, escríbame los cambios deseados (con indicación de las fuentes) y con gusto los insertaré por ti. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How to request the removal of a category page ?

Hello,
How to request the removal of a category page ?
The page is empty and all information has been transferred to the new page.
The page is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:EMLYON_Business_School_alumni
Thanks for your feedback.
Regards.
 WKPDA3 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@WKPDA3: GB fan declined the speedy delete and I don't think they have been active since you responded to their message on your talk page, so give them a chance to respond. I suspect it's related to ambiguity about the correct name for the article and the category, based on a quick look at their website, the alumni website, and the article (at Emlyon Business School). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi WKPDA3, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you created Category:EM Lyon Business School alumni and transferred all pages from Category:EMLYON Business School alumni without discussion. This is not allowed by Wikipedia:Categorization which says: "For proposals to delete, merge, or rename categories, follow the instructions at Categories for discussion. Please use it before undertaking any complicated re-categorization of existing categories or mass creation of new categories." The official site [1] says "emlyon business school", our article is called Emlyon Business School (after five renames), and it says: "The final name, emlyon business school, was chosen in 2005." This all means your name is likely to be controversial and the pages may have to be transferred again. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(another ec :) ) @WKPDA3: BTW, when you want to ping someone, it only works if you sign your message. Please sign your messages on talk pages by adding a space and four tildes to the end of the last line of your message, like this:

This is the last line of the message. ~~~~

The four tildes will be automatically converted to a signature that contains your linked username and a timestamp, which helps keep conversations organized.. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@WKPDA3:, The category redirect that you want to delete matches the name of the article it supports better than the category it redirects to. There is a good possibility that someone will add this category to pages. The redirect serves a purpose at this point and should not be deleted. The question about what the title of the category should be should be discussed along with the title of the article and one spelling should be used for both. ~ GB fan 13:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I submit my sandbox article for AfC?

I want to submit my article(which I write in my sandbox) for AfC. Should I directly submit my article in sandbox for AfC or I have to move it to WP:DRAFTS?? Is there any pros and cons??बृहस्पति (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You may submit your draft directly from your sandbox. Add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft when you are ready to add it to the list for review. RudolfRed (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@बृहस्पति: You can keep articles you are working on for as long as you like in your sandbox - many years if you wish, whereas a rejected draft that stays unedited for over 6 months is very likely to be deleted. Sometimes people move AfC submissions from an editors sandbox into Drafts. Other editors wouldn't change your sandbox (unless you invited them), whereas it is more acceptable (though not all that common) for others to work on a Draft article. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask on Tea House if I think administrator abuse his office? Or it will be canvassing?

@Marchjuly: @John from Idegon: Can I ask on Tea House if I think administrator abuse his office? Or it will be a Wikipedia:Canvassing? Because I think administrator before putting template to delete new article must explain criteria (if it's spam or no source), but if not explain, then it will be abuse of his office. May I ask how can I apply request to strip administrator his office of administering? Please, answer me. Or if it's canvassing then you may try to block me (Re discussion about Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled where I was said that Tea House is not place for discussion about it ([[2]]) PoetVeches (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Teahouse is not the place to discuss an administrator's conduct. WP:ANI is the place for such discussions, but you need to be aware that your own conduct will be scrutinised too, and that boomerang might apply. As you were told previously, the Teahouse is not the place to discuss article deletion, but (in case you are confused) the editor who tagged the article for discussion is not an administrator. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi PoetVeches. It was not nominated by an administrator so there is no "office of administering" which could be stripped. The nominator gave the reason for the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled. It is correctly linked on "this article's entry" in the deletion template at Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled. The nominator also notified you at User talk:PoetVeches#Nomination of Coronavirus disease COVID-19 in Russian nursing homes for the elderly and disabled for deletion which also links the discussion. The nominator followed all procedures correctly. Even if they had been an administrator and had not followed the procedures so accurately, stripping administrator rights over one detail like that would be absurd. Administrators usually have tens of thousands of edits. Please stop your false and pointless complaints. There are other deletion processes which do not have a discussion page. Nominations at those processes should state the reason in the deletion template but it's not done for Articles for deletion where it could give a wrong impression of the actual discussion. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @PoetVeches: Your failure to understand how this site works is not administrator abuse. Your feelings aren't policy.

What you should have done here at the Teahouse was ask how to save the article, at which point someone could have explained how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted (I've actually written a page on that as part of a much larger guide). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: My opinion, Tea House is place where may drink tea and ask everything, except common human things that United Nations prohibit, like facsism, or harassment, or like that. You try to impose on Tea House new censorship, what is my opinion, because you say "Please stop your false and pointless complaints", that is no present rule on Wikipedia. You says I have "false complaints", the same says Donald Trump everyday. But Twitter soon block him, I suppose. PoetVeches (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is free to block him because they are a private entity with their own rights. So is Wikipedia. This is not your home. You can join this community but you must agree to abide by its standards, which includes reading notices, not asking for votes at a deletion discussion, and generally not acting entitled. Also, three different users (not just me) have explained in a variety of ways how you're wrong here -- please actually read content before responding to it instead of trying to assert dictatorial control over the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I read your opinion. Thanks all for you for your opinions. To say true your opinions were vague to understand, but I appreciate all that anyway. Thanks a lot all people. If you need help with Russian language, you may ask anytime. I thinks Wikipedia and Tea House is my House, so I so like to chat with people here :) PoetVeches (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@PoetVeches: This is a place for volunteers (like me) to help people contribute productively and helpfully to Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a reduced-drama zone. Can we at least try, for a while, to make it so? Doesn't anyone have a question about a fine point of citations, punctuation, etc. any more? Talk about revoking adminship of an imaginary admin over a single, imaginary slight is, simply, not. That is the consensus of this community. There are plenty of places here, and on the internet at large, for you discuss how much you hate pretty much anything. Use them.

(ObAnecdote: Yesterday, while people were trying to quickly get their groceries without catching coronavirus, a local ignorant witch of a person starts going off, loudly, at the in-store bank teller, about Soros and globalization and conspiracies and who-know-what-else. I'm sure there are places where her type of speech is welcome. This market was not one of them. Fortunately, she abided by the quickly-demonstrated consensus of her fellow shoppers and chose to leave the environment before things got uglier than she was.) </rant> (apologies in advance) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Paid Editing = Notability?

Hi,

I have recently been asked by my employer to create a series of Wikipedia articles for his companies/brands. I have looked through WP:Paid and understand the protocols in place. However, it doesn't say anything of notability- does this still apply or does it not due to payment being issued? Thanks in advance, Harry. --Hazza9976 (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Hazza9976 (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The notability criterion still applies. Paid editing does not allow non-notable subjects to be included, and indeed there is a tendency for articles to be scrutinised more carefully where conflict of interest applies. I suggest that you tell your employer that Wikipedia is not the place for promotion; use the company website for that. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hazza9976: You've got two unrelated issues mixed up:

First, you must disclose your employment per WP:COI and WP:PAID, and should do so before making any edits relating to your employer or his businesses. This is true if even if the attempted articles are not accepted.

Second, notability just means that there's in-depth coverage from a variety of independent reliable sources. The recommendation I usually give is to get three or more professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not connected to, affiliated with, nor dependent upon it. If notability is not demonstrated, the subject does not get an article (no matter who started the article). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you decline this request by your employer, unless you are an expert Wikipedia user with at least a years experience in editing, you are almost guaranteed to fail. Theroadislong (talk)

User:Theroadislong User:Ian.thomson User:David Biddulph - I don't think that the OP is combining two issues. I think that the OP's boss is combining two problems for the OP. The principle is the same. You can also be asked by your employer to fly a Cessna 172 to the moon. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit [3] by them is curious. Theroadislong (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How well oversighted are edits really?

Let's say I create a fork of the whole database of Wikipedia and give myself all rights on that forked wiki. Will I then be able to see the "deleted" edits that I cannot on this wiki? Also, that rouge template "why an old page which was active for some years in subject to deletion?" section seems to be causing some problems. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

TryKid, I really shouldn't be saying what I don't explicitly know, but there's no way anything that's not public can be forked. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

TryKid Deleted and suppressed revisions are not included in the database dumps. See m:Data dumps/What the dumps are not. the wub "?!" 14:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah that's what I was looking for. Thanks for the help cool and wub. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for daily updating the Pune Covid-19 statistics and graphs available on this site. Whom to contact or ask for help?

Dear Editors of this website. I am the regular user of the statistics and graphs of Pune and Maharashtra Covid-19 trackers. Why the graphs cannot be updated on daily basis??? No updating reduces the credibility of website. Many people from Pune, like me are interested in these updates on daily basis. Its a shameful thing that graphs are not updated from 21st May and the statistical data of Pune, Pimpri-Chinchwad and Pune Gramin is not updated from 5th of May. There are all HR people from all kind of industries require this data and graphs on daily basis. Especially all MNCs are very much interested. Please do the needful om daily basis. Thanks and regards, Sampat Phadtare Nigdi, Pune. Working as HR Manager in a Japanese MNC 202.136.69.225 (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, I'm sure there are many news sites that offer that kind of frequent update. Wikipedia does not aspire to be a news website, and the really important thing is that all information has a reliable published source. That means that until it has been published somewhere else it can't be published here... and so it would make more sense to go to those more rapidly updating sources to find the information you are after. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, editors aren't paid (by Wikimedia) to keep articles updated; virtually everyone is a volunteer that has to abide by Wikipedia's policies, one of which is WP:RS. One thing to keep in mind is Wikipedia is a tertiary source: think of it like a "knowledge aggregator"; it gathers information from reliable sources and presents it in the form of an article. The point I'm trying to make is if there are no sources that regularly update the situation in Pune and Maharashtra, the information on here becomes outdated quickly, and that's a symptom from the outside. The best way to remedy this is:

• someone volunteering to keep those pages up to date
• finding a source that regularly updates itself

If you need help looking for a source, you may want to leave a discussion on the article's talk page or ask the folks over at WP:COVID-19 if they have any suggestions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerns about a user's behaviour

 Deferred to WP:ANI

 – —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologise if this isn't the right place to ask this, and I also apologise if I'm making a mountain out of a particularly small molehill, but there's a certain user whose behaviour I'm finding increasingly concerning (I'm kind of reluctant to say who they are, since this whole thing might just be me seriously overreacting, but you might be able to figure it out anyway; I also appreciate I may HAVE to say who it is to get advice). They mainly work on reverting vandalism, which they honestly do an impressive amount of, and I'd say they're pretty damn good at it, but their behaviour is honestly starting to concern me.

To begin with, they had a really bad habit of going straight to level 3 and level 4 warnings almost every single time, even for edits that weren't actually vandalism at all. It took at least half a dozen people bringing this up on their talk page, all of whom they completely ignored, before they finally stopped doing it. They've also been called out a couple of times for jumping straight to a level 3 warning for users who trigger the edit filter; they ignored that as well and I believe they're still doing this. They seem to use rollback for everything, even changes where they really ought to assume good faith, which is in violation of WP:ROLLBACKUSE (though, to be fair, I'm not sure if anyone's pulled them up on that one). They have quite a lot of false positives, and while I don't THINK the amount is disproportionate considering how much vandalism they revert, I am yet to ever see them remove a falsely given warning, or even acknowledge they've made a mistake, let alone apologise for it, no matter who calls them out on it, or how serious their mistake. They even failed to acknowledge their mistake in at least two cases where they gave a user an immediate Level 4 vandalism warning on a completely legitimate edit. But what made me think they might have gone too far is that, twice in the last week, they've not only ignored users raising legitimate queries on their talk page, but have deleted those messages completely. In one case, they were (yet again) being questioned about a false positive, and questioned very politely at that. In the other, which was the one that finally brought me to raise my concerns, they'd rollbacked a new IP editor, who had made a flawed, but genuinely good-faith edit (which also happens to be a particularly clear misuse of Rollback). When the IP very politely asked them on their talk page what exactly they'd done wrong, the certain user not only ignored them, but deleted their question, thus depriving them the chance of getting an answer from anyone else (as it happens, the same IP was reverted by another user; the IP asked them exactly the same question, and got an answer and an apology). I can provide links to everything I've mentioned here if need be.

Ordinarily, I would bring this up with them on their talk page, but since they ignore almost every single message they ever get, especially those suggesting they may have done something wrong, there seemed little point. My question is basically, am I just seriously overreacting, or should something be done, and if so, what?

Thank you in advance. Thegreatluigi (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thegreatluigi: Welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to hear that an incident like this is happening, but we are not the best venue to bring this to. I suggest heading over to WP:ANI to state your case. Make sure you have all the diffs you need (and be sure to notify the offending party). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I really wasn't sure where exactly to take it, so thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Thegreatluigi (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thegreatluigi: No worries; that's what we're here for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

How do I change something that doesn't give me the option to edit. Like the first page of the article?

I do not agree with this translation of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_Cabin_Module. Where it claims that "天和" literally translates to "Harmony of the Heavens". This is not what it translates to. "天" Does mean heaven or the heavens, but "和" in this situation actually means joining or to join or come together. So a more literal translation, and better one, would be Joining of the Heavens or Unification of the Heavens. But I am unable to change that part of the page. How do I contact someone to let them know? Henryhe43 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Henryhe43: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, the page isn't protected and you should be able to edit it; if you're using the VisualEditor, it's likely because it's in a template and you would have to edit the parameters after clicking on the phrase. 和 by itself means "and", and depending on what other character it's bound to its meaning can change. Easiest way to solve? Find what the inventor had in mind when they named it. In any case, it's best to bring this up on the article's talk page before making a change like that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Henryhe43. By default the lead of an article (before the first header) does not have an "edit" button; but you can still edit it. Either you can pick the "edit" from the top of the article (between "Read" and "History") to edit the whole article; or you can go to your Preferences -> Gadgets, and check "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". --ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I added this:

 212.143.144.4 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I did not know how to include a foot note as a proof of the evolution of the law

FYI

 – Section merged with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 212.143.144.4 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, IP editor. You have question titles but not content (especially with nothing added after "I added this". What did you add? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As Tenryuu says, your question is quite vague, but to add a foot note, or a "citation", find a reliable source and follow the steps here. Hillelfrei ^talk 15:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

At Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples you added text to the article without a reference. It was deleted for that reason, you added it again, deleted again. Proper next step is to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article and make a case for what you want to add, with reference(s). In addition, the Edit summary is to add a SHORT description of the changes you made; it is not a place to paste in the full content of your change. David notMD (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Syncing Muninnbot's Message With Reality: Archiving Not in "a few days" but within "48 hours."

Resolved

 – Time frame for questions before being archived has been relatively more specified on User:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As part of the Teahouse thread archive process, Muninnbot sends me messages under a heading Your thread has been archived. Messages state: "Hi BrettA343! You created a thread called < NAME OF THREAD > at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days". I'm referring to the messages that are being left on Teahouse User's talk pages and the message is a template located at User:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification. I suggest one of two approaches:

1. Change the archive process to be initiated after a few days, say 3 or 4 (and change the message to specify how many days).

2. Change Muninnbot's message to say "for 48 hours" or "for at least 48 hours" or "within 3 days" (or whatever).

There's a wrinkle here that those making the change will likely know about that I'm not clear on, and that's the precise wording that should exist. I've given three options for Point 2, and those more knowledgeable than I, will know what's best for wording. "A few days" is too ambiguous to really be useful in some situations - do they mean 3, 5, 7 or what? nbsp;BrettA343 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hellom BrettA343.

• First of all, this kind of suggestion about how the operation of the Teahouse might be improved should really be made on the talk page of the Teahouse (Wikipedia talk:Teahouse), Raqther than on the main question page, which is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia.
• Secondly, The message is not intended to be exact. Since Muninnbot only runs once per day, and the archive bot also runs only once per day, there can be considerable variation in how long after the last edit to a section it is archived, and how long after that a message is sent.
• Thirdly, the archive timing can be and sometimes is changed depending on the recent traffic levels here. The object is not to allow the page to get so large that it is awkward for users, especially new users, to use or too slow to load. We don't want to change the notice template every ti8me such an adjustment is made. Still the wording could perhaps be improved a bit.

In short, i don't favor trying to achieve the degree of precision you suggest. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I did, however, make this change. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries @DESiegel:, I was just doing what GoingBatty recommended with his suggestion for me re: "a proposal for different wording at User talk:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification or a new section here at the Teahouse that isn't buried inside this other discussion." (still at the top of the Teahouse). It seems there are no hard and fast rules where suggestions should be made (I had 3 suggestions for my last point, too), and I won't push this one. Cheers, BrettA343 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: Apologies for pointing you in the wrong direction. I agree with DESiegel about using the talk page for suggestions about the Teahouse. GoingBatty (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I just now caught the change you did make - that's perfect from my POV (I just didn't know what, exactly to write) - thanks! And no problem @GoingBatty:, apologies not necessary... Cheers! BrettA343 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wayback machine save page archiving and redirect walls

I was trying to save an url ( https://www.branca.com.ar/institucional/ ) for a more reliable archiving and apparently it gets stuck at "Accept you're 18+ y/o" redirect wall. Is there a way to work around this? Brand pages change all the time and I wanted to keep a snapshot of today's information. 2bam (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

2bam, Welcome, but I don't see how this question relates to Wikipedia. Am I missing something?S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It relates in the sense that there are a ton of missing references in articles because after a couple of years website pages change, urls change (even reliable sources' ones) and the article can no longer withstand a robust citation check. That's one reason Wayback machine was created and was wondering if there was an alternative way to archive links to avoid loss of references, or if there was a workaround for the issue mentioned for the only tool that I know. 2bam (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

2bam Do note that https://www.branca.com.ar/institucional/ has been archived by IA over 100 times, including earlier this month. So it is on the list to be regularly crawled by the IA. There are also other archive sites. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel, I see the issue that 2bam has: it's not that the archiving website isn't working, it's that it is stuck on the "confirm if you are 18+" page before it redirects to the page with content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Tenryuu I ran into that also. There may be a way around it, but I don't know it if it exists. But my point is that even if 2bam is not able to force the page to be archived today, it has been archived fairly recently and no doubt will be again, so there is not a major problem in this particular case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing unit template?

Resolved

 – {{Clarify span}} used to point out missing currency unit. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am currently going through pig racing, which needs a good deal of cleanup. I've been adding a bunch of needed {{convert}} templates, and I've come across one instance where a dollar amount is given, but it doesn't specify which unit of currency. Although it could be assumed to be GBP, I can't know for sure and can't find a source, so I've been looking for a template to denote the missing unit. Does such a template exist, and if not, what should I use? Thanks, Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 19:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pupsterlove02: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't know which unit it is, there are a few things you can do:

• Wrap the dollar amount with {{clarify span}} and in the reason parameter, add something to the effect of "Unclear currency unit".
• Ask on the article's talk page to see if someone can clarify. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thanks, I'll probably use {{clarify span}}. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 19:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing vs Vandalism

Hello there, I don't know if i qualify as a new user(150 edits), but after reading wp:de and wp:VD, I still can't figure out what are the differences. I like to do a lot of rc patrolling and using Wikiloop. Thank you very much! The creeper2007^Talk! 19:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the project, whereas disruptive isn't. Edits can be made in good faith and still be disruptive. Adam9007 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

However, The creeper2007, both are undesirable and for either the editor should usually be warned/notified. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If that is the case, what is the difference between good faith edits and Disruptive edits? Do I have to warn user on the revert of good faith edits? The creeper2007^Talk! 19:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Good faith edits are those made with the intention of improving Wikipedia. Disruptive edits are those which disrupt the process of improving Wikipedia. An edit can be both. If you find an editor who habitually makes disruptive edits in good faith, it would be helpful to try to explain to them that their actions have been disruptive. Maproom (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Maproom is correct, The creeper2007 I would add that you do not ever have to warn of reverts. It is when an editor does something harmful, either on purpose (vandalism) or in good faith but disruptively that you warn, whether you revert or not. Note that an edit you may think not helpful but seems made in good faith and that does not significantly hurt the article nor the encyclopedia's processes is not usually considered disruptive. It is a judgement call. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:14, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating a a page as a fan

Hello, I wanted to ask if there are any restrictions on creating pages if you are a fan of a social media influencer, musician, actor, etc. Or are there any disclosures required for doing so? I see a few popular and notable Pakistani celebrities do not have pages. Given I am a fan, I understand compliance with NPOV is very important but is there anything else that I need to keep in mind before I submit the articles? NotJuggerNot (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

NotJuggerNot Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Merely being a fan of someone isn't a problem if you want to write about them- many people write about subjects they like or follow. Be advised that being a "celebrity" and meriting an article are not necessarily the same thing. A person merits a Wikipedia article if they receive sigificant coverage in independent reliable sources(coverage that is not routine or just basic announcements), showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. There are also more specific criteria for certain fields(like actors, athletes, musicians). There are not specific criteria for "social media influencers", so the general notable person definition would apply. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia; if you go into it without an understanding of the process, and without having edited existing articles first, it may not go well. You should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. You can then use Articles for Creation to create and submit drafts for other editors to review before they are formally placed in the encyclopedia, so you find out any problems first. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi 331dot, thank you for the prompt response. I understand your concern and would like to bring it to your knowledge that I understand the basic complexities in creating new articles. While my edit counter is still not on the higher side, most of my time is spent on reading policies whatever I can get my hands on in discussions and talk pages. And I will be creating these pages through AFC for the same reason. Thanks for the help. Really appreciate it! NotJuggerNot (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

NotJuggerNot, Pakistani actors happen to be one of my main topic areas of interest, so don't hesitate to reach out to me if you need help. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

IXL Learning

Currently, I'm writing an article about IXL Learning. I have written a summary, its history, and the company's subdivisions, and I was wondering what else to add. Is there requirements for an education company article, or does it vary?

 Le Panini (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! That sounds like a good start for an article, however one thing to be aware of is that not all companies warrant an article on Wikipedia. A company may warrant an article if they receive significant coverage in independent, reliable sources showing that they meet the notability guideline for companies. Creating an article can be hard; I would strongly suggest reading Your First Article if you have not already done so. I'd also suggest checking whether you may have a Conflict of Interest in relation to the things you are writing about, as Wikipedia has some specific requirements for editors with a conflict of interest. Good luck, and happy editing! -- Jack Frost (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

jaques pepin death

 83.84.38.249 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! It appears that you updated the Jacques Pépin article with death information, which was reverted. As part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can start a discussion on the article talk page - Talk:Jacques Pépin - and provide a reliable source for his death. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Expertise Review: Anti-Defamation League

Having visited this article after a long while, I've noticed that the article has been "cleaned up" in a manner that is very WP:SOAPBOX like. Going through the TOC box, you wouldn't notice or realize the spying and surveillance scandal/case the ADL was involved in 1992.

Here is an older version of the article, dated 20 December 2019: [4]

Things have been removed and things have been moved from the Controversies section's subsection titled "Spying controversy" (and its sub-subsections) and merged with the higher-above Goals section's subsection "Tracking extremists", and what remains in the former spying sections' place is a "Arab American and African American lawsuit against ADL" which in turn is void of much of its former context.

The former headers and sections have been removed and the context has been largely lost when it comes to the topic of controversy regarding the article's subject on that matter.

Perhaps editors who are experienced with political articles can look into this. It is really disappointing to see just how much of the objectivity in presenting information seems to have been toned down or conveniently edited.

I clicked on the talk page, and someone brought it up and that too was met with a dismissive response from one editor as "just another conspiracy theorist rant." - DA1 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC) DA1 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@DA1: Your details of sections being moved around means nothing to someone unfamiliar with the article or its history (i.e. most people at the Teahouse). That's why discussion about particular articles belong on the article's talk page, where those interested in it discuss how to improve it. The other "complaint" you saw was two sentences, one of which accused Wikipedia of being "more corrupt than [they] thought". That will get exactly the response it got. Anyone who wants to engage in rational, thoughtful conversation about the article being incorrectly edited, having an unbalanced POV, missing important notable facts, etc., and how to fix it, should be able to do so if that is their aim, as opposed to just venting about the subject. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Automatic DS alerts

Hi, I recently alerted two editors of discretionary sanctions relating to WP:ARBIPA and noticed that Twinkle doesn't seem to include this functionality.

Is there any other semi-automated method which I can use to post these alerts, or must I do so manually? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 00:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

M Imtiaz, the answer is likely no, based on the length of time for which your question has remained unanswered and the fact that no such tool is mentioned at WP:ACDS or {{DS/alert}}. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of Wikipedia (Update)

@Nick Moyes, Dodger67, Liz, REDMAN 2019, Timtempleton, Sdkb, and Galendalia:

Yes guys! I tagged you all because I have some exciting news for us Wikipedia/Academic nerds. The other week we all were involved in a discussion entitled "Philosophy of Wikipedia," regarding a question of if there were actually a name for our philosophy of Neutrality/Verifiability/Reliably.

Everyone in the discussion agreed that it would be very useful to have a name for this 'philosophy.'

Well, there actually is a name. It's simply called the Scholarly Method which is a parent category for other methods like the Scientific Method and Historical Method.

I've known about the Scientific and Historical Methods, but never knew there was a parent category that encompased everything.

Perhaps we can even use the term "Encyclopedic Method?" Maybe other fields could create the Journalistic Method?

I know I'm a nerd, but it's a bit exciting to actually have a name to call this by.

Anyway, hope you find this term useful. – Chrisvacc - ✆ 01:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC) – Chrisvacc - ✆ 01:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

NSFW heading?

Disclaimer: no idea how to write these things, forgive me if im doing it wrong or something. but is there a NSFW heading that we can put on certain articles like the grammer error things? Thompson8964 (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Thompson8964: Something like that has often been proposed and debated, but there is significant opposition, expressed at pages like WP:NOTCENSORED. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Thompson8964: I'm not sure why grammar articles require NSFW headings, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Unless you meant something else, like hiding content? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, I think that Thompson8964 was asking if there was a warning message that could be put at the top of such articles, similar in form to grammar warning,s warnings about lack of sources, contested notability, and the like. The answer is that there is not, and if any such template were created, it would be speedy deleted as a template in violation of policy under WP:CSD#T2, which mentions as an example of the things to be deleted under it disclaimer templates intended to be used in articles as per WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Obtaining consensus to overturn these would require a large project-wide RfC, and I would be amazed if such consensus was obtained. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Thompson8964 DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thanks for clearing that up. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Americanasoul

Americanasoul is Where everybody lives, On July 29, 2015, the canadian world opened until November 18,2015, Canada of 2015 (Two-Thousand-Fifteen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.207.201 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question on how to edit Wikipedia, unregistered editor? Wikipedia is not for promoting anything. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Back Market/2

In the answer to the Draft:Back Market/2 submission, I received advice to ask for help here. Can you give some tips or ideas?. Thanks in advance. BoldLuis (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BoldLuis, and welcome to the Teahouse. I was expecting to write another variation on a comment I have often written before, on how some of the sources were interviews or otherwise not independent, and others were not in much depth. But on looking at several of the sources, I think perhaps Robert McClenon who does generally high-quality AfC reviews and quite a few of them, has made one of his rare mistakes. Looking and the Forbes, Fast Company, and The Inventory sources in particular, I( think there may be enough to write a valid Wikipedia article here. The WSJ item is behind a paywall, so I can't see enough of it to know if it is more than a passing mention, and the builtinnyc and EU-Startups items read as if they were based on the same Press Release, although they may have some independent reporting too. VentureBeat. is unfortunately known to recycle PR in some of its pieces, so I tend to discount it a bit. Robert McClenon is IMO correct that the tone of the piece needs to be made a bit more neutral. Also the article could be fleshed out a bit more from what is already in the cited sources. But I think this might merit a decline instead of a reject. One more source comparable to the first three and I would be inclined to accept, myself. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DESiegel: I am going to try to find another one. I rewrote the original draft (not written by me) deleting the text I thought was in excess. Thank you a lot!!.BoldLuis (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:DESiegel, User:BoldLuis - I will explain. I wasn't providing a thorough review, because I was annoyed. It is true that perhaps I was allowing my annoyance to influence my review more than I should have, but I think that my annoyance was entirely justified. The way that the two drafts on Back Market, Draft:Back Market and Draft:Back Market/2, were presented, asking the reviewer to use templates to indicate what portions of the draft were promotional, was asking the reviewer to rewrite the article so that the reviewer would be doing the work for the submitter. I don't know whether the templates were the idea of User:BoldLuis or of User:AlexMegon. I don't consider them to be an appropriate way to shift responsibility from the submitter to the reviewer. It was a game, a way of gaming the system, and I did not intend to play that game; I did not intend to be asked to do the work of writing the article. Reviewers are people too, and do not like to be played with. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That is fair enough, Robert McClenon. I overlooked that aspect, simply checking the sources. While a reviewer may choose to give some examples of overly promotional text, asking for substitutes is to make the reviewer an author, which is not a reasonable request. I do think that there is enough here that Back Market is quite probably notable, but a drafter (BoldLuis here I suppose) must still write the draft.I would advise striking the request to use templates to highlight the promotional aspects. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I will add that this particular device, with the template, is new, but various ways of asking the reviewer to propose the language are a common gambit by declared paid editors. They argue that they need this assistance because they are not permitted to edit directly but only to submit for review, and that we are not being fair to them by not giving them this assistance. I will reply that the First Amendment imposes no obligation on us to be fair to them. On the contrary, the First Amendment grants the WMF and the community the right to make community rules about the use of our servers as a quasi-public resource. In this specific case, my opinion is that we should stub the draft on Back Market and accept it, stripped of the promotional material. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

What happens if you get blocked because you have a username against Wikipedia policy and then request to change it and then blocked because your user page supposedly has advertising content and are wrongly accused of being paid to edit. Then you request to be unblocked if you delete the wrongly interpreted user page and try to convince the person that you are a serious editor (which you are). You appeal to both the administrator who blocked you indefinitely (which is unencouraging to a new editor) and also appeal your block. However, no one responds and you are unable to edit for a while due to a misunderstanding. Anyone know what to do? 2601:8A:4102:B3A0:1591:65A5:4692:51E (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What you should not do is evade the block by editing while not logged in or by making another account, even to appeal the block. You can instead post another unblock appeal on your user talk page, pinging an uninvolvbed admin to ask for review, or email arbcom. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What happens if you get blocked because you have a username against Wikipedia policy and then request to change it and then blocked because your user page supposedly has advertising content and are wrongly accused of being paid to edit. Then you request to be unblocked if you delete the wrongly interpreted user page and try to convince the person that you are a serious editor (which you are). You appeal to both the administrator who blocked you indefinitely (which is unencouraging to a new editor) and also appeal your block. However, no one responds and you are unable to edit for a while due to a misunderstanding. Anyone know what to do?

This was my previous post and I knew that someone would delete it due to sock puppetry. Once again, I am not an advertiser and am just requesting help on the tea house. I have not made a new account and I’ve used this IP to only request some assistance, not make further edits. I would state on my user page that I have an IP address but I can’t even access that. I was blocked indefinitely, so will I never be able to edit Wikipedia again because of a mistake? What can I do? Is there anything? I really need help from those who know how to help. 2600:1002:B115:35C6:54FC:11D5:37A6:44B1 (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. If you have access to your user talk page, then submit a new unblock request explaining your future editing intentions in detail. If you do not have access to your user talk page, please follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Also, stop editing logged out. That hurts your efforts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Poster, I must agree with Cullen328 here. The Unblock Ticket Request System is the way to go if you do n0ot have talk page access. Please do not post here again until (unless) yo0u are unblocked. Note that no9 one has deleted your post, and that an "indefinate" block need not mean forever -- it just means there is no set end date. it can always be reviewed and changed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I think they're just (over-anxiously; at least 5 times in the last two days at least 9 posts to their talk page in a day and a half since the last admin post) trying to get a review of their unblock request, which I'm assuming is User talk:Wjrz nj forecast#Unblock request 4. @Wjrz nj forecast: I'd suggest removing the repeated unblock requests and leaving just one. If a week goes by (i.e. next Saturday) without a response, then go looking for help with a single request for a review at WP:AN. We are all volunteers here and people allocate their time as they see fit. Expecting responses to anything within minutes/hours is unrealistic. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What to do about user canvassing on an external site?

Resolved

 – External action that might negatively impact Wikipedia activity best discussed over emails with administrators to avoid WP:OUTING. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I recently discovered that an editor party to an ongoing dispute on Talk:Space Launch System#SLS Launch Cost had apparently linked to the dispute on an online forum. I'm fairly certain this behavior is in contravention of Wikipedia:Canvassing, but I'm uncertain what my next action should be. What should I do about this? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

That editor’s actions would be canvassing if some people from the forum did register and voice their opinions. I have seen the discussion and the editor has not explicitly asked people to side with him. However, he/she has asked for help (presumably regarding the disputed information), so I think the best course of action would be to wait and see if any newbies come by and enter the discussion. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 07:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Appreciate the advice! – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Be very careful trying to connect Wikipedia editors to things you think they're doing outside of Wikipedia, even if your intentions are only the best and you think they might be doing something inappropriate that might impact Wikipedia in some way. WP:OUTING, even when done unintentionally and indirectly, is something you should try to avoid at all times. If you have serious concerns that an editor's activities outside of Wikipedia might somehow negatively affect some ongoing Wikipedia discussion, etc., then your best option is to find an WP:ADMINISTRATOR and ask them if it's OK for you to discuss your concerns with them via email. There are a number of administrators who are Teahouse hosts so perhaps one of them will be willing to help you if you ask for it here, but you can almost certainly find one at WP:AN. Even if the other person is using an alias for their outside Wikipedia activities, there might be something that they've posted on some other occasion that makes it possible figure out who they are out in the real world. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Got it. I'll keep that in mind in the future. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"We Got Next"

I'm requesting assisstance because I have edit several draft of a page and it keeps getting declined. It's a draft about a bachata group's album call "We Got Next" from Xtreme. This album was released in 2003 and there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time. The group never really mentioned a lot about the album because they were later on signed to a record label and then their 2005 album became know as their debut album. I've put in references and extra links to prove that the article is accurate, but it still gets rejected.

How can I make this article accepted to be officially on wikipedia?

This is the link to the draft: Xtreme - We Got Next (Album) DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A music article I'm requesting assisstance because I have edit several draft of a page and it keeps getting declined. It's a draft about a bachata group's album call "We Got Next" from Xtreme. This album was released in 2003 and there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time. The group never really mentioned a lot about the album because they were later on signed to a record label and then their 2005 album became know as their debut album. I've put in references and extra links to prove that the article is accurate, but it still gets rejected.

How can I make this article fit the qualifications that are accepted by the reviewers?

This is the link to the draft: Xtreme - We Got Next (Album) DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DominicanWikiEdit1996, welcome to the Teahouse! You say "there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time" which makes it pretty clear that you can't make an acceptable WP-article about this album, see WP:NALBUM. Not enough coverage = no WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DominicanWikiEdit1996 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If this album does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would not merit an article at this time. The sources you have offered are not independent reliable sources with significant coverage. No amount of editing can confer notability(what you call "notoriety") on an article subject, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

This draft was declined five times (!) and then DominicanWikiEdit1996 moved it to main space anyway. Rather than redraftify, suggest someone start an AfD. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD:  Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Got Next. GoingBatty (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Logging in problem

Hi, I am trying to log in to my account but I forgot my password. I entered my email and username correctly, but it didn't send me anything. I tried this yesterday and today and nothing was sent even though I am sure that both my email and username were entered correctly. What should I do about this? 5.30.178.218 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 5.30.178.218 (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you certain that you associated the email address with your account? 331dot (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't know but I know that I put my username and email in the appropriate boxes and I had done this before on the same email so I do not know why it is not working. 5.30.178.218 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are saying that you have successfully reset your password with the same email before, then the only other thing I can think of based on what you have said is that there is a technical problem with the system. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if this is stating the obvious, but have you checked your email spam folder (if any)? -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I have checked my spam folder; it did not get sent there. 5.30.178.218 (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on AfC

Resolved

 – Standards on one language Wikipedia do not translate directly to another. English Wikipedia, in particular, has stricter standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

In my sandbox I have drafted an article on an EDM artist called CURBI. I am far from publishing the article ( it has no citations or detail yet) and I would say that the subject meets WP:N but I was wondering in general about notability.

The subject has an article on the German Wikipedia but is no more notable in Germany than anywhere else, which leads me to the question that:

In future, if an article has been created on another language Wikipedia, but is not of special notability in that/those country/countries, does that qualify as notable for creation on the English Wikipedia?

Sorry if this is confusing...

Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Giraffer, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, No, the existence of an article in another Wikipedia does not confer notability in any way: many other-language Wikipedias have less stringent requirements than en-wiki, and even en-wiki has thousands of articles which, if somebody created them today, would get declined or rejected. You need to treat every article as a new project, and establish notability. In my opinion, that is the first thing you should do, before you even create a draft, because if you cannot establish that the subject is notable, then any other work you do on it will be wasted. --ColinFine (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks

Giraffer (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My unusual centralized article

Hi, everyone. Sorry to bother you all again. I faced an unusual issue recently, which you can literally see my issue at my userpage. My "cntributions to wikipedia" page's words keeps being centralized. I tried to undo this issue, but i can't. (⊙_⊙)？:-) pLZ HELP ME TO RESOLVE MY PROBLEM... and get my article into the way that it shoud be. tHANKS, FELLOW Wikipedians.:) Hypersonic man 11 (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hypersonic man 11. I haven't looked closely, but as far as I can see you have a

<table style="float: right; background: #FAFAFA; border: solid #003399 3px; padding: 0;" cellspacing="2"><tr><td valign="top">
<div style="background: #003399;text-align: center;

early on your page, and no corresponding </table> to close it. I have no idea what the effect is of mixing Markup tables and HTML tables, (I didn't know you could do it) but I presume that the property which I bolded above lasts to the end of the page. --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hypersonic man 11 Also, on the "Contributions to Wikipedia" section, you're using {{Div col}} without specifying a number of columns. So it's defaulting to one column centralised. If you remove the {{Div col}}, then the "Contributions to Wikipedia" section will switch back to left aligned. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your suggestions and comments. So, can you guys help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypersonic man 11 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Your userpage has probably the worst layout I've ever seen, and hardly worth spending ages on. But I've fixed the problem you complained about. Revert if you don't like it. Consider that having a Table of Content half way down the page is, itself, rather daft as, indeed, is having three sets of userboxes. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How may I help

WELL .HOW MAY I HELP YOU.?Hwang Jihyun 7 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Hwang Jihyun 7 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hwang Jihyun 7: Hello, and welcome. The Teahouse is a friendly help forum for anyone needing assistance in editing Wikipedia. So if you need help yourself, just ask. Ideally, please link to any page you need help with. Try The Wikipedia Adventure and collect 15 different badges as you go, or read Help:Introduction to Wikipedia to learn more. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Article: How to link Japanese language article of the same content to the English article

Deleted article

The article I wrote was deleted due to various reasons mentioned. My article in Japanese was approved and is currently on Wikipedia. I basically translated this article into English and uploaded onto my page. My question is: Can the Japanese version be linked to my English article? Will the publication of the Japanese article be an evidence that the English article is true and respecting all the rules of Wikipedia?

(Oneasia2011 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)) Oneasia2011 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: George Kunihiro: (See here) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oneasia2011: You've got it wrong. What you need to establish an article on the English Wikipedia is at least three independent reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. This will show notability for the subject. Wikipedia (and any site with "Wiki" in the name) is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it.

The usual advice I give is to get at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about the subject but not affiliated with or connected to it and summarize those. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Oneasia2011. See my answer to #Question on AfC two sections above. --ColinFine (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Oneasia2011: In addition to what other editors have already said: The article Kunihiro George was deleted as a copyright violation. That means it can't be restored – more information about that here. You have a draft article in your sandbox (it looks like it has been restored a couple of times at your request), which you have not worked on since it was last rejected. Have a look at the comments from the editor who reviewed it then, and work on finding and adding secondary sources, and to remove promotional wording. If you have any connection to the person you are writing about, you will also read this information. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ancient history articles

When editing ancient history articles, are translations of ancient authors (Livy et al) free to insert, or do they come under some editing restriction? Thanks in advance. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

HalfdanRagnarsson, to some extent. A WP-article should never be mostly based on sources like Livy directly, though something like "According to 1st century BCE historian Livy..." can have a place. Try to reference modern historians using Livy where possible, to get a sense of relevance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: this will be about my reversion here.[5] Could you take a look at these and comment so that Halfdan has a 2nd opinion? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Obviously it would be WP-better with secondary sources, but it seems no worse than the rest of the "The battle" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox for universities

In Catalan Wikipedia most of the universities have already been changed to a wikidata infobox. Don't you think it would be easier to have it this way? This way if someone changes something in another language it would be shown directly instead of having to wait till someone changes it for all the languages? Afernandez.52 (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on the composers you've just put infoboxes on have been reverted. Cassianto^Talk 11:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The use of Wikidata makes vandalism a hell of a lot easier, given how few watchers there are there. Given much of the information there is unsupported or uncited and the "data" it unthinkingly dumps into articles goes against many of the guidelines we have; it also includes the bloody stupid pencil icon at each line. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Problem with Wikidata is that anyone can put whatever unsourced content they want on there, and if we're using Wikidata infoboxes, that unsourced content comes onto here too. Especially as most other language Wikipedias have lower sourcing requirements than English Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we anyone have two Wiki accounts?

Can a user have two different user names (with the same email-id) on Wikipedia? If yes, are their any advantages? If no, will any disciplinary action be taken? Can one delete the new account? I have read the username policy, but it didn't help me with my issue. Brillianc1 (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brillianc1: The part you needed to have read was WP:MULTIACCOUNT, which makes it clear it is allowed, but only for certain limited circumstances. If you have a valid reason to have two, you should declare the connection between both of the accounts, and only use the 2nd account for editing under those special circumstances. Failing to do that could have repercussions of it were clear an editor was somehow 'gaming the system' by editing from both accounts at once, whilst appearing to be two different users. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So can anyone delete my account for me? Actually unknowingly I made two accounts thinking that it may have some advantages. Brillianc1 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brillianc1: Accounts cannot be deleted. The best thing to do now is stop using the second account and add a note to your user page that you previously edited under the other account. RudolfRed (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Proper tagging

There is a tag to be used for promotional articles, but is there a tag to be used specifically for articles that seem to have been edited exclusively to give a negative opinion of the subject? RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 12:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: You're probably thinking of {{POV}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But doesn’t this template apply also to non-advert style articles which have any neutrality issues, @Tenryuu:? In the case of the article I wish to tag, it has not one, but four controversy sections, while the only possibly neutral section is the lead which also uses disparaging terms. I thought that there would be a template specifying that there is too much emphasis on negative things or something like that. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 14:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: I'm going through Category:Article message templates and the ones that seem most relevant are {{False version}}, {{POV}}, {{NPOV language}}, and {{Unbalanced}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:, Template:Criticism section seems to be the most appropriate template, though it is technically meant to be used with single controversy sections. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 14:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: Checking Category:Neutrality templates. You could use {{controversial}}, which goes on the article's talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

12:14:49, 1 June 2020 review of submission by VidhyadhariK

I want to know why the article submission was declined, can you please help me so that, I can improve my article and resubmit it again.

• VidhyadhariK (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

 VidhyadhariK (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Chaithra Rai

Hi, VidhyadhariK, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft clearly has the explanation as to why the draft wasn’t accepted; it does not show how the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. For that, you will have to find some news reports writing about mainly this person. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 12:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References that only describe the plot and characters of roles she has starred do not contribute to her notability as a person. David notMD (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Commandment transcriptions

Can anybody transcribe the Hebrew vesion of the Commandments? Also,I'm looking foward to actually writing the Hebrew. Regards. Dandro08 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC) A kind thanks to all who were willing do transcribe the commandments.May God thy Lord be with you all. Dandro08 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are asking, but you did get an answer to the same question (albeit with different spelling) here. Did that not suffice? Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dandro08: I should add that Wikipedia collates existing, published sources, rather than doing original research and translations. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand about the notability policy. I would like to write an article about a person. What is criteria that i should check before writting the article about that person?

 Solai Alagappan (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Solai Alagappan: The general notability guidelines can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Solai Alagappan: The notability criteria for people can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I suggest you follow the guidance at Help:Your first article to create a draft, which will be reviewed before it becomes an article. GoingBatty (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

can you cite books as sources?

Hello! I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and was curious if you could use books as sources. I have seen books used as sources, but those books are available to read on the internet, and as the book I am looking at citing from doesn't even have a google books page I wanted to make sure whether I could still use it as a source. Can I do that? If you're curious the book is 'Whalebacks: Wrecked, Scrapped, Lost & Forgotten' By Neel Zoss. Bowtiesarecool06 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bowtiesarecool06: welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, books can be used as sources, and whether they are indexed by Google Books or not is irrelevant. Printed books can be more or less reliable sources, but that is not judged by whether they are available online or not. There is even a specific template, {{Template:Cite book}} that you can use to insert such references. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It does have a gbook page, but no preview: [6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Next discussion : #Hello, i need help.

Hello Dear Editors i have a question, how uploaded my award posters, design by my company,for our movie awards? Best regard Farid Hamedi Rohina (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Farid Hamedi Rohina: Provided that you get their copyright released to Wikipedia so that anyone can use and manipulate them, you could upload them via Commons. More information is at WP:UPIMAGE. However, an issue is that you appear to be writing about yourself in your user page like an article, which is strongly discouraged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: User page has been deleted per speedy deletion criterion U5. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Help???

 BorisKhlivski (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Need something to contribute to en wp. Please. BorisKhlivski (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BorisKhlivski, and welcome to the Teahouse. I might not be understanding your question correctly—are you asking about what exactly you can contribute, is there a particular topic or article? Could you be more specific with your question?

In any case, I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for a quick how-to guide, and then get started editing whatever interests you. Be bold! ComplexRational (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm mentally I'll could I get a tutor??? BorisKhlivski (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add categories

How to add categories to this article [[7]]? DonGuess (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Drafts don't go into article categories, see WP:DRAFTNOCAT. Your draft is almost empty. You need references to demonstrate that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's definition of notability. Please also read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How to Create a Notability Criteria sub-category

I recently had a couple articles for professional field lacrosse players declined because they were not deemed notable enough. There is no specific criteria for field lacrosse, and therefore was being judged under a more broad set of guidelines. Where and how do I go about creating this criteria for field lacrosse athletes. Jschwam (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jschwam: Welcome to Wikipedia. For this, I suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports). Note that the FAQ says that even if the sport specific notabily is met, it still must also meet the general notabilty guideline. RudolfRed (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Whitewash

 Courtesy link: Luisa Neubauer

I read the media coverage, books etc. considering a lifing person and habe written great parts of an article but there are people deleting and whitewasking the article, what can i do? i really get tired as they dont try to be neutral but whitewash the article by metioning a dubious grandmother etc etc. I am trying to comply but the line is simply total whitewashing. DTilmann (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello DTilmann, is this about Luisa Neubauer? I see that someone left you a warning about that article. Did you trying discussing with that editor? Some editors are discussing at the talk page of that article, but you don't seem to have commented there. There are Dispute resolution procedures you can follow about content, you can post to the neutral point of view noticeboard to seek help against whitewashing, you can post at the administrator's noticeboard if you need help with poor editor behaviour/conduct. But all of those avenues, simply must be preceded by a good faith attempt to resolve the matter among the editors in dispute, on the relevant article and user talk pages. You need to start by joining the discussion; reply to the warning that was left on your user talk page; and join the discussion on the article's talk page. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Chris Cassidy

Hello I am related to Chris Cassidy who is on a current expedition in Space right now. I noticed that his page on him doesn't have his family or children listed. He is married to Peggy Cassidy and they have five children between two of them both from previous marriages. Grace, Chloe, Colin, Mekhi and Martel. He would like to have is family on his page. 2603:300F:4C8:C000:607F:342E:8398:44CC (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor! The Wikipedia article on him is not really his page. It's an article that ideally should summarise encyclopedic information about his life and career, information that can be verified from other published secondary, independent, reliable sources. If there is a reliable source for the information, we could probably add his wife's name and how many children he has. But it's unlikely that it will mention the children's name; those names don't really add anything to understanding him and his work, but could pose a privacy risk for the minors (or non-public individuals, even adults). See WP:BLPNAME. The discussion about how to improve the article should take place at Talk:Christopher Cassidy; that's where the editors familiar with and interested in the subject are likely to see it and engage with you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposals

Hello, I’m starting to reconsider proposing WikiProject Ontario Politics, but I’m not sure how I can get rid of the proposal. It would be great if someone could tell me how to do so. Thank you in advance. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ma nam is geoffrey! I have not edited those pages, so I am not speaking from absolute knowledge or experience, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals gives a way to close a proposal. Personally, I would simply strike out your proposal and append "I withdraw" and your signature at the end, cross out your username from the support list, and leave it for the experienced editors to handle the proper closing and archiving. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

how do i change a page name?

Welcome, and do help yourself to a drink from this lovely Cretan tea pot.

Mytilineos "Holdings" doesnt exist. it has to be changed to Mytilineos "S.A". How do i change the page title? Stefan Zaglis (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Stefan Zaglis: welcome to the Teahouse. Pages are renamed by a page move (see Wikipedia:Moving a page), which leaves behind a redirect from the old name to the new one. It might be a good idea to update the history of the company before simply moving the page. The change does seems logical, yet I notice in the company website they still offer a corporate video (see here) which used the Mytilineos Holdings logo. So maybe you should first discuss the suggested move at Talk:Mytilineos Holdings. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Also name changes do not automatically warrant title changes; if the organisation is more commonly known by the old name than by new, it may be advisable to retain the old title for the time being, only mentioning that the company has a new name in the article itself. WP:NAMECHANGES should apply. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft usurped in mainspace

Hi, have received this message today "The draft Draft:Dhoni Kabadi Kuzhu I have created on 21 July 2018‎ is still staying as a draft and you have marked it as a promising draft. But a new page about the same film Dhoni Kabadi Kuzhu that was created on 30 April 2020‎ is online now. Is this the right policy? " I replied that it is not a copy of his article as I did a check but it does seem bad form. Can you please advise me if there is anything that should be done about this? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic306, if it were a copy, histmerge could be done; since it's not, I think the best can be done to credit the draft's author is to log a merge, by adding the merge template to article's talk page, and redirecting the draft to the article as a merger. Editors are supposed to search for drafts before creating an article, and it seems odd that any search wouldn't have found the draft since the title is the same, the page log of the article also has the draftification listed, but there is no policy/rule against creating articles this way. If there were, it would be so much easier handling UPE clones of draftified articles (not that this is one of those). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, will do, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Where to ask about my draft “Arzamas”

Hello, which talk page is the right one to ask for feedback about Draft:Arzamas (website) on? DonGuess (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

DonGuess, it would be impossible to give a definitive advice on the draft's notability without an ability to read Russian. So, I am thinking WT:RUSSIA is likely the best place to ask whether the draft is likely to be accepted (one or two regulars of the Teahouse also understand Russian; so you might get an answer here too when luck favours). General content advice is given here, or at the AFC Help Desk or even by individual experienced editors who can find the time. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right here is not a bad place to ask. i can't evaluate the sources that are in Russian. But the two in English look pretty good. They include detailed independent coverage. If some of the non-English sources are of comparable quality, or one or two comparable English-language sources could be added, notability looks good, IMO. The article text needs to be fleshed out. There are lots of facts in the already cited sources to use, and there may be more in other sources. Please do continue with this.

One formatting tip. Don 't use |first= and |last= in cites when the name of the actual person who wrote the source is not known, these are only for a person's name. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Hmm, I don’t think I used anything like “firs/last”, but I’ll check. Also a general question about sources: would it be right to presume that russian-language sources are partly accessible for those who don’t know the language since you can translate it with, for example, google translator? Regards.--DonGuess (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@DonGuess: Could you please expand the Awards section with some translations, so the English-only readers can understand? The "References" should come before the "External links" section per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. If the draft is approved, then the link to English Wikipedia article and Russian Wikipedia article would be linked at this Wikidata item, so you wouldn't need the link in the "External links" section. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello I am so favorite

Good Thanks Sweet Thanks

 105.112.97.214 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? That is what the Teahouse is for. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Username policy:ISU vs PROMONAME

Resolved

 – Differences between "implied shared use" and "promotional names" explained. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Recently, I came upon the username policies. I saw wp:isu and wpwp:promoname. the examples that they have provided meets both criterion. Can someone please give me some examples of usernames that would meet only ISU or only PROMONAME? Thank you! The creeper2007^Talk! 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi The creeper2007 A username like BobAndJohn would be one that implies shared use (implies 2 people are using it), but isn't a company name, so not promotional. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping me understand this! I would also like to know if I someone's username meet both criterion, what should I report them for?The creeper2007^Talk! 21:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, The creeper2007. For either or both of those issues, you can report the situation at Usernames for Admin Attention. However that is for violations you think are serious enough that a block without warning is needed. Otherwise, you can simply let the user know, often with {{Uw-username}}, which suggests that the user change his or her usernam,e to one more acceptable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The creeper2007, I assume you are asking for WP:UAA? Sharing issues are declined at UAA. They need to be discussed with the user, and if that fails, individual admins or the admin noticeboard should be alerted. Promotional usernames can be reported if they have made edits within the past two weeks, and their edits are also clearly promoting the same thing that the username promotes. It's best to take it up with the user when in doubt, or when the user is clearly here for the right reasons but only happened to choose a wrong username. Reporting to UAA is for serious violations, especially from users who are WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Does this help? I find WP:IU clearer than WP:U when it comes to handling problematic usernames in practice. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your help! :) The creeper2007^Talk! 22:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Category approval time

Resolved

 – Observed resolution time for category creation is on average a week. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How long does it take on average of a category to be created after being suggested? (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, (Oinkers42). To find out this kind of answer for yourself, you simply need to go back and look at recent archive for the relevant request page, such as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories/2020-04. Then do a Ctrl-F search for 'Category request' and open a few up and compare the request date to the date it was either accepted or rejected. From my quick sample, I reckon a week is about average, but it can be just a day or so. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank You.(Oinkers42) (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Child Page

How do I add a child page to someones wikipedia Koolkidz999 (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, User:Koolkidz999. I'm not sure why you want to create a subpage when you haven't yet created your own user page. But, if you wanted to create a second sandbox page, you'd simply type /sandbox2 after the url address for your userpage, like this: User:Koolkidz999/sandbox2. Then you'd have to add content and click 'Create' to publish the page. Existing (Mainspace) encyclopaedia articles do not have child pages, and you ought not to be attempting to create subpages for other users. If you need further clarification, please explain exactly what it is that you want to do, and where. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)  

Afterthought: Because notability is not inherited, the child of a person who has a Wikipedia article about them must themselves meet our Notability criteria. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Heading

How does one go about placing a heading at the top of an article that says something to the effect of: "This article is about 'X', for 'Y' see:" Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You are presumable looking for {{about}}? --David Biddulph (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph Not really. That uses the phrase: "for other uses". I specifically just need: for 'Y' see: [link] Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Check the documentation for {{about}}. It allows you to make a binary link by adding some extra parameters. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maineartists: You also don't need a template. Consistency is nice but to save time you can type out what you want it to say as well. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

These "headings" are actually hatnotes and there are quite a few varieties of them for use in different circumstances. See the project page linked above, and Template:Hatnote templates which lists available templates for this purpose. IMO there is good reason to use templates for this purpose, because some forms have consensus to use and others do not, and the templates help one to stay within that consensus, as well as aiding consistency. "Heading" most often refers to a section heading, sometimes to a table heading. @Maineartists, David Biddulph, and Timtempleton: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Perhaps you didn't read the template documentation? {{About|Use1|Use2|Article2}} gives "This article is about Use1. For Use2, see Article2.", which was the wording your question asked for. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @David Biddulph: It took me a while to figure out what you were directing me to; but once I understood, I was able to apply it correctly. Thanks again! Maineartists (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've used {{for}}. --ColinFine (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of NPOV tag by another user without achieving consensus

In Treaty of Trianon i put NPOV Lead tag with detailed description on Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon#Fist sentence. Somebody is repeatedly removing this tag after each his reply without achieving consensus. What to do? Mark5245 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mark5245: Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears the two of you are still discussing it on the talk page. If you feel like you need external input, you may wish to ask for a third opinion; barring that, you should take the dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard if it still cannot be resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, i need help.

Previous discussion : #Hello

Blocked

 – User page and draft deleted and user indefinitely blocked for promotional content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

My page was created without any problems. 2 days were not deleted. But because of my mistake in adding Twitter, the whole page was deleted by the admin.

First of all, this is not fairو Secondly, I want my page information,The official who deleted my page , does not accept her work and says that she did not delete it Is there anyone here to help me? Farid Hamedi Rohina (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Farid Hamedi Rohina, an "article" consisting of the URL of your self-created IMDb page is not an article on Wikipedia. This online encyclopedia project is not a place for self-promotion.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Farid Hamedi Rohina: Ponyo already told you on your talk page that Wikipedia is not a platform for you to promote yourself. You may ask her for a WP:REFUND, but given the content that was deleted it is unlikely to happen. If you are looking for a place to promote yourself, we have a list of alternative websites that may suit your purposes better over at WP:OUT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

i have 2 not ... I'm paralyzed Can anyone fix my page problem? Farid Hamedi Rohina (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please make follow up comments within this section. Please heed the comments above. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your article about yourself has been moved to Draft:Farid Hamedi Rohina and nominated for Speedy deletion. Reasons given at the draft. You can contest the SD, but as what you wrote is your own wording with no references, very unlikely that the proposed SD will be stopped. You can copy the information to your computer if you act quickly. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

User removed speedy deletion tag but this was reinstated. The draft has now been deleted, and the user has been indeffed for self-promotion. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Jill Tracy NPOV

Jill Tracy seems to have many "superlatives" and I think it needs a maintenance hatnote, but I don't know how to do that. T3g5JZ50GLq (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@T3g5JZ50GLq: I added tone and POV tags with WP:TWINKLE. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft For Review

How do I submit my draft for review, and how long will the process take? Thank you for your time. Le Panini (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: You can submit your draft by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. There is a review backlog, and times are estimated to be a couple weeks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing my own information

Hi Jessica

In response to your "email"...I wanted to let you know that the subject of these edits is myself...I am in fact correcting wholly or partially inaccurate information about myself. As I have never done this before, there is a strong chance I have entered info improperly(!) but please know that the edits are precise. I am happy to give you my email address for further questions at any time. Please lmk. Thank you, Best, David Muirfield1966 (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Muirfield1966: What Jessicapierce did was to post a message to your talk page at User talk:Muirfield1966. We generally don't use email here unless there are limited specific reasons (like privacy or security). Discussions are conducted on talk pages, either users' (as I mentioned above) or those of an article if that is the subject (e.g., Talk:David Hunt (actor) is the talk page for discussions about improving the article David Hunt (actor)). Such discussions are public, and available for all members of the community to review and contribute to.

Please see WP:AUTO regarding writing/editing about yourself – this is something that is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia because people have an obvious WP:COI in this regard. If there are changes that need to be made to the article, you should suggest them on the article's talk page, and provide reliable source(s) for the information (a requirement for most anything on Wikipedia) so an impartial editor can verify the information and make the changes. There may be a more specific policy with regard to correcting erroneous info in a WP:BLP like yours' – I'll do a quick search for that and add to this comment if I find it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Update: The more specific section regarding problems with a page about yourself is just further down the page I already cited, at WP:AUTOPROB. Basically, if you edited the article directly and your changes were reverted, you then follow the "D" (discuss) part of the WP:BRD cycle, and discuss it with the other users on the talk page of the article (Talk:David Hunt (actor)). It's best to ping the user that reverted you by starting your talk page message with, in the most recent case, {{Re|Bonadea}} (this renders as @Bonadea:). I hope this helps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Not guilty as charged ;-) I didn't revert Muirfield1966, but I did edit the article just now to remove an unsourced birthdate and a couple of references that were not about the subject. I see that Muirfield1966 has now posted to Jessicapierce's talk page as well. --bonadea contributions talk 08:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Article under development tag

Question: Greetings, I wanted to ask if it is possible to place some sort of a tag at the top of an article stating that the article is undergoing significant updates ? JoyceGW1 (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoyceGW1: That would be {{In use}} if it's going to be a short time (an hour or several), and you should remember to remove it when done. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@JoyceGW1: If you're planning on coming back to it, you can also use {{Under construction}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

removal of profile

removal

I want to disassociate my name from Wikipedia due to Wikipedia being compromised and overrun by people who advocate and mirror subjects and issues that are propaganda and panic spreading. I have removed my email address and want to remove my name and profile completely. Saparonia (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Saparonia I'm sorry that you feel that way. Most people here are good editors who just want to improve Wikipedia. Accounts cannot be deleted for both technical and legal reasons, but you can just abandon your account. Courtesy vanishing may also be an option available to you. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

[empty post] Saparonia (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

what next after I publish a draft for review?

I have just added a page for review. I plan to keep adding information to the community section. How do I access the page and add information while it is up for review? The article name or draft article name is the William Grant Still Arts Center. Ande Richards (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ande Richards Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not yet submitted your draft for review; you need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button in the notice at the top of your draft. You can continue to edit it just as you have before you submit it, and even afterwards. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Ande Richards. Draft:William Grant Still Arts Center will eventually be reviewed by an AfC reviewer once you submit it for review; so, please be a bit patient because it can sometimes take awhile for that to happen. You can continue working the draft while you're waiting for it to be reviewed. I suggest you take a look at the following pages because they should help understand the kinds of things that Wikipedia expects from articles like he one you seem to be trying create: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Buildings and objects, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. You might want to also take a look at Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Manual of Style for some general information on how to properly format, etc. an article since there's lots of things in the draft that can be approved that will help make it more readable in Wikipedia way.

Please try and understand that it's really quite hard to write a proper Wikipedia article, especially for new editors not very familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and the concept of Wikipedia:Notability. Lots of first-time submissions get declined because the reviewer doesn't believe the draft is up-to-Wikipedia's standards. If that happens to your draft, try not to get discouraged because you can always re-submit it for review again. If the reviewer does decline the draft, they should leave a comment explaining why. The important things is going to be to find the type of significant coverage in reliable sources that clearly establish the subject's Wikipedia notability, since that's the main reason why drafts tend to be declined. It makes no difference how well written the draft is or how properly formatted it is if the subject is not one considered to be Wikipedia notable. It's very natural to think that more is going to be better and many people try to add more citations and more content on the belief that it will help get the draft accepted. Sometimes that approach can work, but it's the quality of the content and the citations cited that matter and actually in many cases removing extraneous content and focusing on what the significant coverage in reliable sources is saying often improves the chances of a draft being accepted.

Finally, if by chance you have some connection to the subject matter that goes beyond something casual, please carefully take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Depending upon the nature of any connection you may have to the subject, it might not be ideal for you to be the one to try and create an article about the center. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content if you're assuming that creating an article will give you some sort of control over it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The most serious flaw in Draft:William Grant Still Arts Center is that it cites no sources. It lists plenty, but there is no way of telling which source supports which statement made in the draft. If it reaches review, it will be declined for that reason. Ande Richards should read Help:Referencing for beginners.   Maproom (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ande Richards: I suggest you also read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you have any relationship with the Center (especially if, but not only if, you're being paid to create a draft), you must disclose your conflict on your Wikipedia user page. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Election pages

Resolved

 – (1) Short descriptions follow title case. (2) Election articles must have notable verifiable content regardless of similar election articles. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I have been doing some editing recently at the Washington House of Representatives elections pages (mostly short descs and infoboxes), but have noticed some inconsistencies. Firstly, other states such as California have pages for elections going back decades (California has dedicated pages from 1864 onward) but other states don't. Notably Washington, which doesn't have any pages for House elections before 2002.

Is creating a page in order to keep consistency like this justifiable? (Subjectively) It may not meet WP:N but when it comes to elections are the criteria different?

Also on an unrelated note: should short descriptions start with a capital letter? I find a real mix of both uppercase and lowercase letters at the beginning of descriptions.

Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Giraffer, it appears it's been a while since you asked, so I hope you don't mind me trying my hand at some imperfect guidance as an alternative to complete silence. Here goes:

To start with the easy one, WP:SHORTDESC says to use sentence case, starting with the capital letter. Now for the hard part:

Of course, the official party line is and always will be WP:N, but the kind of articles you are suggesting are easy to presume notability about, so I don't think they will be asked to meet WP:N at the start, but WP:V will be essential. In other words, it may be acceptable without all the details that some of the modern, especially American elections have, but at least they would need to have well-verified essentials, like who ran and who won. Otherwise, an article for consistency's sake alone would only waste readers' time without providing enough information to show for it. I recommend bringing this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums which is the place to meet people interested in, and knowledgeable about the notability of election articles, and luckily it seems to be active as well (it has one message from just three days ago). You might be interested in the To do list they maintain as well. I have a hunch election series are incomplete all around the world. Hope this helps! Good luck, and best regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will check those out! Giraffer (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool and Giraffer: I'll note (for other readers) that the elections are not "not covered", but instead are sections in articles like 2000 United States House of Representatives elections#Washington, containing the "essentials". Whether there is enough other information available (and notable) to support a separate article is probably the question. The existence of individual articles in other cases does not mean they should exist (i.e. WP:OSE). This may have been discussed somewhere like the WikiProject. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

An offensive (and potentially disruptive) editor

Resolved

 – User in question has been blocked indefinitely. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I came across this edit summary here: "...Learn sources correct, f*****g s***hole." - June 1

A view of the editor's talk page revealed multiple warnings by other editors. The editor also wrote this on the talk page: "Just a truth you tell you, this account is meant for a joke..." - March 31

The editor's contributions were, well, obscene:

• "f*** off you absolute t**" - May 29
• "f*** you" - May 26
• "The Sweden certification is f*****g gay" - April 21
• "Your gonna get the b**** of applesauce alright" - April 15
• "f*** you you virgin" - March 28

Should I be concerned? Redthreadhx (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It took a little while to find the edits you were talking about, since they are found in the histories of various articles. If you want to report inappropriate behaviour by an editor, the Teahouse is not the best place for it – and it is not all that useful to present censored versions of the offensive summaries with no indication of where they can be found. If you don't want to put offensive language on a talk page yourself (which is understandable) you could add a link to the edit, like this. Anyway, yes, those edit summaries (in their uncensored form) are problematic, most of them, not because they contain swearing but because they attack other editors. ("The Sweden certification is fucking gay" doesn't attack any editor and so it can just be ignored, like it deserves.) If you are reluctant to approach the editor on their talk page, which is understandable with a person who has a history of attacking others, you can ask an administrator for assistance – though I'm sure several administrators will read your post here. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Followup:I posted a strong warning about personal attacks to the user's talk page. We'll see what happens. --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Double followup: the vandal has been blocked indefinitely. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Good wikiprojects to add to a service man who has seen action in 4 wars?

I have written an article about an astonishing individual known as Tiger Sarll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Captain_Tiger_Sarll). I was wondering If anyone could give me some advice about some good wiki projects to get this article involved in. Thank you all so much. SALVAHOUSE (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@SALVAHOUSE: Welcome to the Teahouse. I would worry about getting it approved for the article mainspace first before thinking about which WikiProjects to join. I'll point out that the draft reads like a narrative, so you may want to fix that before submitting it for review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@User:Tenryuu Thank you for your advice. ill do my best to make it not read like a narrative, I think it could be like that due to me taking the info largely from a biography written by Godfrey Lias OBE. Do you think this article has a chance of making it? I think the individual is remarkable. --SALVAHOUSE (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How to make an article I wrote not seem like promotion

I really hate having to keep doing this (I have incredible social anxiety), but I am an English Teacher in Hanoi.

During the height of COVID-19 measures here, I was without work and had little to do, so my neighbor suggested I write an article about his company (I am a blogger in my spare time), in order to keep myself busy. And for your reference, no, I am not being paid. It was a half-hearted suggestion that I thought was interesting.

So, I spent many hours looking at every resource I could to write my article. I used articles on this site about similar companies in other countries (Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibers) as a reference, in order to keep myself objective and neutral.

So, my article is up for a while and then it gets taken down as a draft for being "Promotional" and "Not detailed enough". I'm very frustrated at this very vague reason, get very upset at my hard work having been upset, and after the user who took it down refused to answer me, I go to User talk:Oshwah and User talk:Yngvadottir to try and find answers for what I can do. I try to be as transparent as possible (I dislike it as it makes me anxious, but I do so anyway because I hate having hard work wasted), and make the article even more detailed. Satisfied with my work, submit it for review, I go off to take a short break and I come back to see it has been rejected almost as soon as I had left my computer with the reason being "Promotional".

So, my question is: What else can I do? Again, I have made every effort to be transparent, have used multiple articles on this site as reference, and have tried as hard possible to use as neutral language as I can.

I had very much wanted to join this community, but with standards that are (to me) very inconsistent and who have people unwilling to answer me, I find it very difficult to justify having to do hours of citation gathering, hours of writing, and hours of proof-reading to make an article. I found this site lacking very much in Vietnamese business (in contrast with other countries), so I wanted to do something, but I find myself frustrated and confused.

What can I do? How can I put my article up? Can someone please explain to me these standards in a way that is simple because I really just want to contribute and not have any of my work put to waste?

I apologize for being rude, but I'm really trying and it feels like only a few people are willing to help me.

Thank you. KyleVietnam (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Rikkeisoft. Created as article, moved to Draft, then Rejected. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

KyleVietnam, it's not easy to write an article here. One of my first articles was immediately deleted after I published it, (not moved to draft, deleted altogether). I actually only wanted to contribute to Wikipedia and had no reason to want to write about one topic over another, so I completely dropped writing about things of questionable notability which could be seen as an effort at promotion. Wikipedia is, of course, not for promotion. For a year, I focused on writing about topics with obvious notability, while I learnt the ropes of various notability and content guidelines. So, if, as you say, you are interested in becoming a Wikipedian, I suggest you choose uncontroversial topics that no one could conceivably be paying you to write about and whose notability is without question also.

As for the draft in question, the notability guidelines for companies is at WP:NORG. You will need to demonstrate with sources that the criteria is met by the topic you are writing about. The article you say you are referencing for guidance is marked as an advertisement as well, by the way. If you disagree with the reviewers and are confident enough that you have satisfied NORG, you can request that the draft be accepted only to be put through a deletion discussion (see WP:AFD). I advised that this was an option to an editor once before, and the outcome was actually in said editor's favour.

Everyone is a volunteer here, and we see a lot of efforts at promoting people, businesses, views and so on. So, speaking for myself, I am happy to help an editor master the skills of writing Wikipedia articles while they write about History or Geography or socio-politics, etc. but I have learnt from experience not to invest in editors who want to first get a living person or a business on Wikipedia. That, those editors will have to figure out for themselves, with only minimal guidance.

If after reading WP:NORG, you have further questions about it, I will happily clarify it for you. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

deleting a page - hi, I need support to delete a page that relates to a brand that is inaccurate and should be removed. how do I go about to do this?

 Jacobxpx (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

delete a page - how do I delete a page that is inaccurate and should not be on wikipedia

 Jacobxpx (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

delete a page: how do I delete this page

 Jacobxpx (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Which page? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article in question is Triibe. Jacobxpx wants it gone because it no longer exists. And to J - you cannot delete it, but you can nominate it for deletion. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Pointless edist ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vulkan_(API)&action=history I'm pretty shure that recent changes by Artem S. Tashkinov where pointless can someone more knowledgable confirm ? Spiralfeel (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Artem has been editing Vulkan (API) since October 2018. The best place to discuss edits is on the Talk page of the article. You can also ask Artem direcctly. David notMD (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How to resubmit a 'Rejected' article for review

Dear team, I have an article that has been rejected (not declined). I wanted to work on it based on guidelines from Teahouse and other review comments and resubmit again. Is there a way how it could be done? Thank you for any help that you could provide. Sohinimoitra84 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Honey Bafna declined three times, then rejected. Comments by reviewers not addressed. Example: no citations for the career accomplishments. The three refs that are in English add nothing to establishing his notability. Interviews do not count, and one of the others is just a mention that co-stars gave him a birthday cake. David notMD (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sohinimoitra84, the rejection means that reviewers have decided it's a waste of time, theirs and yours, to try and get it to mainspace anytime soon. But it's not a complete ban on working on it. Make absolutely sure you understand the issues and put in enough work to address them before you resubmit it again, and it might be looked at. Resubmitting repeatedly without visible improvements could be seen as disruption though, and the draft may be nominated for deletion, or you may be prohibited from working on the subject. Hope this helps! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Posting on the LGBT noticeboard

These is a discussion [|“Caitlyn Jenner as asexual”] posted on the BLP noticeboard, and I think it should be of interest to the LGBT noticeboard, is it proper to notify the LGBT noticeboard that there is a discussion taking place over on the BLP noticeboard? Thanks. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Åüñîçńøł: Per WP:CANVASS, limited, open and neutral notifications on another noticeboard are generally okay (e.g. "This discussion might be also within the scope of this noticeboard" but not "come to this discussion to support this or that"). Regards SoWhy 13:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A CULT is using Wikipedia to control the narrative on their group and PROMOTE UTTER FALSEHOODS! This is completely UNACCEPTABLE!

Resolved

 – User in question has been blocked indefinitely.

David notMD (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

They're called "Falun Gong." The article says it's got "multiple issues," but in its current state it would be better if it it didn't exist. The cult is micromanaging the page, undoing negative edits. Even worse, EVERY SINGLE CITATION is biased toward their movement.

All I'm asking is for someone to get this page to look like Encyclopædia Britannica's, which actually gives an unbiased overview of this group. Additionally, if it's possible, the people responsible for this need to be banned, though I doubt that's going to stop them. For this propaganda to be the first result when searching "Falun Gong" boggles my mind.

Here are the links to the Wikipedia page and much better Encyclopædia Britannica page:

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

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Falun-Gong FukangShat (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, FukangShat. If you want, you can join the discussions at Talk:Falun Gong, or start new ones. Try to avoid WRITING IN ALL CAPS but try to be specific. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Reason to delete Ishan Pandita

What was wrong in the article Ishan Pandita. The article has been deleted. But I used reliable sources to make that article. I really don't know why it happened. I want to rewrite the article Ishan Pandita. Can you please help me to make the article? Debabrata Sarkar Mejbill (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Debabrata Sarkar Mejbill. The discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ishan Pandita (3rd nomination) was quite clear that four editors on that occasion (and others previously) were sure that Pandita does not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Please see No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Unless you can produce at least three sources where people who had no connection wtih Pandita (or any clubs or associations he is connected to) have written at length about him, and been published in reliable sources|, you will be wasting your own time, as well as that of any editors who review your work. --ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of Ishan Pandita

FYI

 – Section merged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now what should I do to make the article Ishan Pandita again? I really want to make it again. Debabrata Sarkar Mejbill (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't. The article has been deleted three times. He isn't a notable enough footballer. He signed for a Spanish club but never actually played for them- being the first Indian to sign for a Spanish club doesn't make him notable according to Wikipedia's definition of the term notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Replacing a photo.

I agree with this note in Talk:Learning to read. The photo is not appropriate.

Conflict with intent of article?[edit]. I think adding this topmost picture is at cross-purposes with the article. Even the caption "Teacher with pupils in a school of the resistance movement PAIGC in the liberated areas of Guinea-Bissau, 1974" does not mention 'reading'. It's a propaganda picture from 45 years ago, and does not put the subject here first. There must be a better picture. Gee, the picture at section Learning_to_read#Novice_reader actually is about reading! Shenme (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to replace the photo with one from Wiki Common, that has no politics involved: https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=20&offset=20&profile=default&search=reading&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:Az_girl_reading_a_book._e-citizen.jpg

Can I do this myself if I post my intent on the talk page? Thanks. John (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, John, and welcome to the Teahouse. Certainly, you can be bold and do it yourself. There is rarely any requirement to discuss changes on the talk page: if you think a change you want to make might be controversial, then it speeds things up to discuss it on the talk page first (rather than the full "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle); but if you don't think it is likely to be controversial, just do it. --ColinFine ([[User

talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 15:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I do prefer the bold and respectful approach, so I will do it. John (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

iPhone 11 Environmental Data

Moved from WT:Teahouse

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, here I am again :) Sooo, I started adding environmental data to iPhones (I signaled all COIs, don‘t create backlinks to our website, et cetera, et cetera. Now I have somebody vandalizing my content (anymous IP user) because he has the oppinion that environmental data such as repairibility (in context of the device) and carbon footprint of a device is not supposed to go into an article. I added following content to the article of the iPhone 11 Pro, please guide me if that‘s a) a COI case b) data that should not be written in the article

For me it‘s appropriate device related data. Excerpt of my edit

Draft content

Environmental Data Carbon Footprint Carbon Footprint of an iPhone 11 Pro in KG CO2 The iPhone 11 Pro continues the trend of increasing carbon footprints of Apple‘s flagship devices: with 80KG CO2e the emissions 10KG more than the preceeding iPhone XS and 25KG more than the iPhone 3G in 2008. 83% of the emissions are caused by the production of the device and primary resources while remaining emissions are caused by transportation and first use. It‘s important to note that with every device Apple increased also the prices of spareparts effective rendering a replacement for example of the display very expensive. Repairability With the iPhone 11 Pro and Pro Max continues the strategy of discoureging customers to seek 3rd party repairs while rendering repairs with Apple more costly: repair with non authentic parts such as batteries or displays can trigger warning messages on the phone instigating the customer to visit a certified technician to replace the respective parts with genuine ones. While the website clearly states that the phone will function properly despite the warning, this information is not passed in the context of the warning. Even if batteries are properly functioning and at full capacity the customers are prompted by a message on the phone to replace the battery. At the same time battery replacement with original spareparts saw a hike in pricing: after initially discounting battery replacements following the Battery Gate Scandal, with the release of the iPhone 11 Pro battery replacement prices for all OLED iPhone models hiked to 69.00US$. Support with Updates Apple has a long history of providing software updates for on average 6 years per device, it‘s assumed that also the iPhone 11 Pro will receive support on that terms. References

thanks Fthobe (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Fthobe. Please do not refer to somebody's edits as "vandalism" because they disagree with you. Vandalism is editing with the purpose of damaging Wikipedia. (Also, don't post screeds of material for an article here: it serves no purpose, and may annoy other editors). Disagreement is a necessary part of how we achieve consensus in creating Wikipedia: please see BRD for how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey ColinFine, this user has repeatedly (not only mine) reverted any critics against Apple products, no matter if radiation related, emission related or right to repair related. The first two times he reverted my changes I took it as matter of varying oppinions. After I checked the history of the article I noted that he had previously tried to revert other edits and was always overuled. He seems to be positively biased against Apple products. Fthobe (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)�

Fthobe. I get that you are frustrated. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the approved procedure is at dispute resolution - which does not include posting your arguments at the Teahouse. If you think that another editor's behaviour is unacceptable, then ANI is the place to report it (but read the top-matter of that page carefully). --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Markus Baer submission

I believe when I submitted the article on Professor Markus Baer for consideration, that I accidentally submitted it twice. I wasn't sure if I had created it in the proper place, thus two submissions. Are there any steps I must take to remedy this? Thank you. Cecelia Myers (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Cecelia Myers

@Cecelia Myers: The version at Draft:Markus Baer is awaiting review, and the version in your sandbox has been declined as a duplicate submission, so everything seems to be OK. You can blank your sandbox if you want to use it for something else. If you want to edit the submission further, do it at Draft:Markus Baer. Deor (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Newbie wanting to make an edit

Hi, I wanted to make an edit on a wiki page that referred to Bicester as being in Buckinghamshire when it is actually Oxfordshire. Said I needed to put in my citation. I haven't edited before. What exactly do I need to do? 2604:3D09:137B:A00:D1A5:9DA4:C6FA:1DB6 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, you're going to want to consult WP:EASYREFBEGIN. It will teach you how to add citations. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SarahMilli: (I'm assuming this is you not logged in). Im sorry that Materialscientist has four times reverted your correction to this piece of vandalism. Bicester is indeed in Oxfordshire and always has been, as many of the references in the article will show. The first one is unfortunately cited to a general reference without a link, so Materialscientist presumably didn't check that, and thought that you were making a change without a citation. In fact, both of you should have gone to the Talk page to discuss it, rather than edit warring; but you are new, and Materialscientist certainly isn't.

I shall go and fix the vandalism now. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Too late: David Biddulph had already done so. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

And pinging SARAHMilli again, with the case of her username corrected. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help me getting my company informations published on Wikipedia ?

If you really want to publish an article about your company on Wikipedia you'll have first to make your company appear on reliable sources of information: Like wellknown and stablished newspapers, online and public data bases, etc. Then you will be only allowed to publish the facts and information that those reliable sources shared about your company, but always writing the links of those articles and publications about your company. You may be able to put a little of context between this facts and information but it haves to be neutral (you can't sell or write about the potential of your company, only about your current achivements if they are "notable" a notable company < [Thanks TitoLatjor]).

You must write the links of the sources at the end of your editing on Wikipedia on the "Sources" section. If you don't do this they won't publish the article about your company due lack of realiable sources of information needed to confirm that this information you want to share about your company it's accurate.

 titolatjor 16:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tito Latjor (talk • contribs)

Tito Latjor Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about companies that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself and has no interest in helping your customers or enhancing search results. You will need to read and formally comply with the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How to be a part of Wikipedia?

 Abu hayat (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Abu Hayat Mahmud: welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. If you mean, how can you become an editor, and help us to improve this wonderful resource, then please look at Help:Tutorial.

If you mean, how can there be an article about you, that is more difficult. You are strongly advised not to attempt to write about yourself in Wikipedia: if you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability then eventually somebody will write about you; if you don't then no article about you will ever be accepted, so please don't waste any effort trying. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How i put my profile and picture and my working video?

FYI

 – Merged with above section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Abu hayat (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Abu Hayat Mahmud. As I said above, writing about yourself on Wikipedia is a very bad idea. You may put a limited amount of information about yourself on your user page, but that is primarily for talking about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. Any attempt to use it for advertising or telling the world about yourself will not only fail, because User pages are never indexed by search engines, but will also get deleted, and possibly get your account blocked.

There are no profiles on Wikipedia: not one. It is an encyclopaedia (which contains neutral articles about notable subjects based on independent reliably published sources) not a social media site, and promotion of any kind is forbidden.

As I said, if you wish to join the community of editors and help us improve this wonderful resource, you are very welcome. If all you are here for is to tell the world about yourself, then please find another place to do it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Article About Notable Company Was Rejected

Hi! Two months ago, I submitted an article about a company called ShipMonk. ShipMonk is an American 3PL that has been covered outside of Wikipedia by outlets such as Forbes and Inc. It ended up being denied by the person who edited it and I haven't been able to get a response from him when I asked why.

Here is the draft: Draft:ShipMonk (I hope I linked that correctly)

What is confusing me is that another company who specializes in the same thing and is the same size as ShipMonk, ShipBob, has an article on Wikipedia that is not at all dissimilar to the one I posted. I understand that articles on Wikipedia have to be relevant, and I also understand that this is not the place to advertise. However, I stayed away from using shiny adjectives or buzz words. I'm also struggling to understand the threshold for notability, as, like I said, another article exists about a company that is very similar.

Of course, since this is my first time submitting an article, there may have been things that I missed, which is why I would really appreciate your help! Thanks in advance. Beatanese (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Beatanese, your draft really does read like an advertisement; and it's off-putting to even consider the question of notability while the content is deserving of speedy deletion. There is a lot of crap on Wikipedia thats gets through the cracks of quality control, all of which is done by a volunteer community. All you are making a case for, by citing ShipBob is to delete that article, not add yours. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

ShipBob now up for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beatanese: You might be interested in reading the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. GoingBatty (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Too inexperienced to title

I just created a user name and I know almost nothing about how to get started but before I begin learning I would like to know how to use Wikipedia on my iPhone. Do I access it through safari or chrome or download an app? Formerly I searched on safari for Wikipedia, saved it to “reading list” and that is how I access it now. I look at it everyday to see the day’s featured topic, the top three events in the news and who has died. That’s all I need right now to satisfy my curiosity. I always find some link in those three sections to click on and follow. And then I follow a link from that link and on and on I go. However, on my iPhone, the format of Wikipedia occasionally changes much to my dismay. I once set the format to display only the three sections I listed above but when the format unexpectedly changes I get such sections as “trending”, “did you know” etc. I do not have any interest in those social media type topics and am annoyed at having to scroll way down to get to what I’m interested in. I can’t seem to find how to reset the format back to displaying just the three sections I want. And the reason this question is so long winded is because I am trying to explain myself clearly since I cannot find the info I need by searching Wikipedia due to the problem of Wikipedia thinking I am asking how to edit pages. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to read this. Pointyface (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, experienced editor Cullen328 has some great advice here User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing, hope that helps. Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pointyface The answers we give you probably depend on whether you plan just to read (consume) Wikipedia content, or actively add to it (edit). Because you've taken the trouble to register and to come here with your very sensible question, I assume you want to know how to edit and help improve this encyclopaedia. I do a huge amount of editing from my tiny iPhone5S. I use no app of any kind - just the iOS Safari browser. For simply looking at content, I'm OK using it in the proper 'mobile view'. But whenever I want to edit (which is 99.99% of the time) I switch to 'desktop view' via the tiny link found at the very bottom of every page. I find I can see a lot more of the page, and interact with it better that way, despite my small screen size. I make smaller edits on my phone; anything over half a dozen sentences in one go, and I prefer something with a proper keyboard. But if it was the only device I had access to, I'd be quite OK creating an article from scratch on it (but would want to save my edits pretty regularly!)

You definitely don't need to install an special Wikipedia app for editing. I just use the iPhone default Safari browser, though on my Windows PC (like right now) I normally use Chrome.

Again, you don't need any special app for just reading Wikipedia either, though I believe there are some out there. See List of Wikipedia mobile applications for more details on that.

If you treat Wikipedia like learning to drive, you won't rush in at high speed and try to do things you don't understand. We have lots of 'rules of the road' here, so the best way is to start by looking at articles about topics that interest you, and consider fixing small things like grammar or spelling before moving on to adding extra content and supporting factual statements with citations (references). (We don't accept contents which someone is likely to dispute unless there is a good link to a 'reliable source' to go with it. A very good way to learn the basic is by taking our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure, though I have to warn that that does not always run well on mobiles. So Help:Introduction to Wikipedia is a normal non-interactive page to set you off on your own editing adventure. I hope some of this helps. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can't find information

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu. 18:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Eskiarab

Hello.What I do If I cannot find any information about my article on the internet. How can I improve my article's references section? BioCaliforniauz (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello BioCaliforniauz! If you have access to for example books about the place that are not online, you can use those. However, per WP:GEOLAND, the refs you have may be considered sufficient for the article to be accepted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

A Football Player Profile

Please , how do i create a footballer profile on wikipedia without it being flag Gentlebukan (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gentlebukan and welcome to the Teahouse.

Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, perhaps the hardest an inexperienced user is likely to face. In future I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted. Note that Wikipedia does not have "profiles" it has neutral articles about notable topics.

Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view.

Here are some steps which often lead to success in creating an article:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of athletes. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

hi

Just saying hi Callumsmth (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Callumsmth, Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and the Teahouse! Hope you'll stay a while, and learn to love it like the rest of us. Congratulations on your first article; history will forever note your username as the one that created that particular article on Wikipedia. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How To Public an Article Succesfully, But About Kowledge Discovered to Recently

 186.143.165.211 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Unregistered editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to publish new things. Wikipedia mreports what reliable sources have already written about something, provided there are enough such sources to make the topiuc notable It is rare that any recent discovery will have enough coverage to qualify, so the answer is "mostly you don't". Please wait until there is significant coverage of this new knowledge in multiple reliable sources that are totally nindependent of the discoverer(s) of this new knowledge, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)