This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1045

Archive 1046

Archive 1047

Archive 1048

Archive 1049

Archive 1050

→

Archive 1055

Clearly distracted by my upcoming supper, I tried to post a new article, but inadvertently posted it as a user page. It's about Charles T. Moses, a multi-term Virginia state senator. Please correct my error. My laptop's also almost out of power, tho not as freaky today as my phones. Thanks. Jweaver28 ( talk) 00:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jweaver28. You can WP:MOVE User:Charles T. Moses to Charles T. Moses when you have the time, or maybe another person will do so for you. The only reason I'm not going to do so myself is that I'm not very familiar with WP:NPOL and although Moses seems Wikipedia notable, the sources you're citing are not really something which make verification of his notability such an easy thing to do. I also don't think " Find a Grave" is generally considered to be a WP:RS per WP:RS/P#Find a Grave and WP:UGC. I did, however, add {{ Userspace draft}} to the top of the page just to let other's now that the page is a "draft" that someone is working on. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Jweaver28: I moved it to Draft:Charles T. Moses (seems like there are people/bots that look for user pages for non-registered users, so best not to leave it there I think). —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 00:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I just rescued and posted it. Jweaver28 ( talk) 22:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I need to meet someone here that will impact knowledge about making my own writings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwaamerica ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Nwaamerica Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. From what I have seen, you appear to be attempting to write about yourself. This is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia per our policy on autobiographies. In part, this is because people naturally write favorably about themselves. It is also in part because Wikipedia is not a place like social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in the case of a musician like yourself, you would need to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. If you did- you shouldn't be the one to write about yourself. In order to be successful at doing so, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources have said about you. Most people have great difficulty doing that- I haven't seen it happen in my many years here. If you truly meet the definition of a notable musician, an independent editor unaffiliated with you will take note of your career and choose to write about you.

Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot ( talk) 02:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I just do not know why you don't have that country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.72.190.113 ( talk) 02:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.72.190.113. Can you provide a link to the article your referring to? if you don't know how to do that, then maybe just giving the name would help and make it a bit easier for someone to try and answer your question. Speaking generally though, many "List of ..." types of articles have some sort of inclusion criteria established to clarify what things should and can be added. Sometimes an entry has not simply been added because it doesn't satisfy the relevant criteria, whatever they may be, but it's hard to know exactly why without knowing the name of the relevant article. One possible reason might be that North Sentinel Island doesn't seem to be a "country" per se, but still appears to have some connection to India. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that the IP user is asserting that North Sentinel Island is a country and should be listed on the List article of countries by population. It would be fair to say that it is a de facto country under the protection of India- but it is not a de jure country and since they do not allow outsiders it is impossible to count their population. 331dot ( talk) 02:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to be pestering everyone here so much, but I have a question. How can you find pages that need speedy deletion? King of Scorpions 22:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@ King of Scorpions: In Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. There are usually very few articles there; some admins specialise in keeping it clean. Until you're an admin, I wouldn't bother with it. (I'm pushing 300,000 edits, and this is the first time I've ever looked. All but one of the WP:CSD tags I've added have been pure housekeeping.) Narky Blert ( talk) 23:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

What I meant was, is there a way to find pages that meet the criteria, but aren't already tagged? If there isn't, just let me know. King of Scorpions 23:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, Ah, I see what you mean. Generally: no. If something needs to be speedily deleted, it doesn't stick around long. Guidance on speedy deletion can be found here. If you do choose to putting things for SD, I recommend you use WP:TWINKLE, a handy software tool built into Wikipedia. Be careful when you do, and make sure that it meets the criteria clearly. Pages which do not cleanly meet one of the criteria can instead be nominated for deletion WP:AFD. Doing so is a tricky business however, and should not be done without great research into deletion. Deletion is not cleanup. Articles that need to be fixed can simply be tagged as such, i.e. needs additional citations. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 23:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions: Reinforcing what CaptainEek says: do not go looking for articles which you think deserve deletion, speedily or otherwise. Assume good faith. WP:CSD should only be used in cases which are clearcut beyond any doubt. WP:AFD should only be used after you yourself have thoroughly researched the topic and think an article fails WP:GNG (except for rare emergencies like WP:ATTACK or WP:COPYVIO). I only ever nominate pages for deletion if I fall across them by accident. Even the most straightforward AFD nomination deserves at least 15-30 minutes research. It's WP:SNOWing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 31#Anne Marie Hoogland, but it took me that long to be sure. Narky Blert ( talk) 00:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know! King of Scorpions 01:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, I can't dig up the pages right now to give a specific answer, but to hopefully marginally address your question with a general idea, there are special pages that index recent edits. If you filtered it to only show page creations by new users, there should be many there qualifying for speedy. There is probably already an index page for new pages which could be filtered to only show creations from very new users. Without a sole focus on CSD, the area you are most likely to encounter CSDable pages is WP:AFC and WP:NPP. You can't officially review pages without a special NPP right but you can go to the new pages feed that page reviewers use and check the pages in the queue to find CSD candidates. It's usually at the top and there is tough competition. Most pages are tagged within minutes which isn't necessarily always a good thing (as you also need to give each page a chance to improve if they have any amount of potential). It saves time for reviewers if you are good at it. Not to mention, when you request AFC or NPP permission, the admins will want to see your CSD experience. Use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion and enable logging of your deletion nominations so you can keep track of your mistakes and improve on them. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I should add that it's not a good idea to make CSD tagging your sole or principal focus. CSD is one of the tools that I have to take care of problematic pages I come across during the course of my normal/regular editing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you accept this article? Yesterday you said that I have to improve some things and then it will be accept. I did it. Wname1 ( talk) 18:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wname1 You have submitted it for review- as the submission tag notes, there are thousands of drafts awaiting review and efforts to "jump the line" like this don't usually work. You will need to be patient- but from my brief glance at it, I think it is unlikely to be accepted, as you have few reliable sources in the draft. Don't be discouraged, as successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. If you haven't already, you should read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot ( talk) 18:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

( edit conflict)@ Wname1: as the notice on the article says "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,088 pending submissions waiting for review." This is one reason why it is better to be very sure that your article is ready before submitting it, rather than submit it, get feedback, and submit it again. I'm not sure who said you have to improve some things - it doesn't seem to have been reviewed before?

On the face of it, the two sources you have don't look adequate for acceptance. One is a charitable foundation and the other is some kind of registry, but I am not convinced those meet our criteria for reliable sources. However, I am not an expert on the acceptance criteria for medical articles so I'm going to stay away from reviewing this one myself, I think. Hug ^syrup 18:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I am to fast, I will waite now some days. I started yesterday morning with Anaplastic oligodendroglioma as Draft. Wname1 ( talk) 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Anaplastic oligodendroglioma. David notMD ( talk) 20:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

While waiting for a reviewer, I strongly recommend finding more references. Otherwise it will be Declined. David notMD ( talk) 03:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I have improved "Draft:Anaplastic oligodendroglioma" during the last 3 days. Wname1 ( talk) 07:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I need someone to put me through pls I don't mind giving you my login and password.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwaamerica ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nwaamerica. It's not clear what your question is or what kind of help you need; so, maybe you can be a little more specific. Regardless, please don't share your password with anyone else as explained in WP:SHAREDACCOUNT; if you do some like that, the account (in other words you yourself) will still be considered responsible for any edits made with it, and the account can be indefinitely WP:BLOCKed as a precaution if it's suspected of being compromised. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a disability preventing you from logging in?EDIT:You are logged in. What do you need from us?-- Quisqualis ( talk) 04:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I’ve created my account very recently and I have edited a few articles. I am fluent In Turkish and English and I can translate new articles from English to Turkish or vice versa. I haven’t come across any articles that haven’t been translated into Turkish and I was going to ask If you could assist me in finding articles to translate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Valequez ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Edit: Thanks for the feedback, I’ll start right away!

Rodrigo Valequez, You may want to read WP:TRANSLATION, and then ask this same question on the Turkish Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is, in general, the most complete of all the Wikipedias, so it's more common for things to be brought from it over to other Wikipedia projects (English to Turkish translation in this case) moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You can also check Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English, there's a few (8 or so) articles that need translated from turkish moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Rodrigo Valequez: Thanks for wanting to help! I suggest finding a topic that interests you and start translating those articles. Or, click the "random article" link and see where you land. With over six million English articles now, it should not take too long to find some that have not been translated yet. Check out WP:TRANSLATEUS for guidance on translating from English into other languages. RudolfRed ( talk) 20:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Hello, Rodrigo Valequez, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a kind offer, thank you. Here's another answer for you: There shouldn't actually be any articles here written in Turkish, but quite a few articles get flagged if an editor things that the article in English could be expanded using material or sources in another language version of Wikipedia. These will all appear in this category: Category:Articles needing translation from foreign-language Wikipedias. So look down and click on Category:Articles needing translation from Turkish Wikipedia to hopefully find something you can work on.

If you end up translating from another language Wikipedia without putting the content into your own words, please remember to credit the source in a short edit summary (e.g. Translated from equivalent page on tr.wiki; see that article history for author attribution) You can learn more at Wikipedia:Translation. If you've never edited any Wikipedia version before, you might like to try our interactive tour, called The Wikipedia Adventure. (I have also written a simple guide to adding inline citations which you might find of interest. See WP:EASYREFBEGIN). I hope this helps you. Nick Moyes ( talk) 20:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Thanks for the feedback, I’ll start right away! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Valequez ( talk • contribs)

I’ve already started translating about the Çubuk District in Ankara, Turkey. It’s a bit long but I’ll do the best I can. Thanks again for the feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Valequez ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Edit: I’ve finished more then half of the translation and published It, I’ll get back to It in a few hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Valequez ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• @ Rodrigo Valequez:

1. Sign up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Turkish, and possibly also to some of the WikiProjects linked there. Bilingual Wikipedia editors are rare.
2. Add one or more userboxes along the lines of Wikipedia:Translation#Userboxes to your User Page.
3. If you translate an article into English Wikipedia, add an appropriate {{ translated page}} on its Talk Page. You must credit the editor who wrote the original, and that's the way to do it.
4. If you translate from Turkish into English, and there is an article in Turkish but not English WP - make an {{ ill}} link. For example, there is a link in tr:Çubuk, Ankara to tr:Çubuk Turşu ve Kültür Festivali. I doubt if that would get through English Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline - but, the best way to link it from English WP would be as Çubuk Turşu ve Kültür Festivali [ tr (code: {{ill|Çubuk Turşu ve Kültür Festivali|tr}}). Links like that point readers to the best information available on any Wikipedia.
5. Sign your messages on Talk Pages like this one with four tildes (~~~~). That's how we know who you are, without a bot filling in the details later.
6. Keep up the good work! Translation, in any direction, is immensely valuable to the whole project. Narky Blert ( talk) 23:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Rodrigo Valequez: Here is a list of 100 English articles that have not been translated into Turkish. These are all " Featured articles" on English Wikipedia, so they are considered to be top-quality articles, and you can be sure that they would be high-quality articles on tr-wiki as well, if translated well. May I ask you if you have one or more topic areas of interest? A country, a historical period, some academic discipline such as sociology, philology, physics, French literature, or something else? Or maybe you are interested in a team sport, or national cuisine, or LGBT topics? If you can specify what you are interested in, I can give you a list of articles that need translation into Turkish in that area of interest. For example: here are 50 English articles related to Anatolia that are not present in tr-wiki. Hope this helps, Mathglot ( talk) 05:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm an experienced editor, but need some help with the pronoun issue described over at Talk:Harry Dodge. Another editor pointed out that it should be changed from "they" to "he", and I think they are right. Dodge's history is a) born female, b)at one time did not identify as either he or she and c) recent reporting says "he". Thorougly confused about the right call. A ping of an experienced editor in the MOS gender naming area would probably solve things. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Use the pronouns and gender identification that the person themself uses. See MOS:GENDERID. Mathglot ( talk) 06:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Solved, with thanks to Mathglot. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 07:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Why not? Huh?! Also promote Adam9007 he's quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techniciancube ( talk • contribs) 04:48, February 6, 2020 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor, so you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia?-- Quisqualis ( talk) 04:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not really the best place to "insult" or "get back" at someone per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please try to understand and respect Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and try to find a way to positively contribute to project. If you want to insult others, there are plenty of other places where you can do so. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Techniciancube: Welcome to the Teahouse. There are now six million articles in this encyclopaedia, putting Wikipedia up amongst the top five most visited websites in the world. If we let you and the other six billion people on this planet use it to insult or mock people like you did, it would rapidly degenerate into a morass of personal opinion and drivel. For that reason, we only gather together information that reliable, independent sources have published on that topic. You're welcome to contribute in that positive spirit, but not as you did with your very first edit here. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Best wishes, Nick Moyes ( talk) 08:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Techniciancube: There are plenty of places where you can go and criticize any politician- this is not one of them. 331dot ( talk) 09:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi all I have just edited the page 'Tola Olukilede' on my draft page and will need that it to be reviewed. Kindly look into this so as to speed up other activities of mine on other pages.

--Niftyrules™ 11:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niftyrules ( talk • contribs)

Niftyrules Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have just added the appropriate information to your draft to permit you to submit it for review. However, I would urge you to consider the advice given to you on the draft page first. If you haven't already I would suggest that you read Your First Article. 331dot ( talk) 11:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I first raised this question at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1046#How to find Google Scholar id?. AlanM1 gave a helpful reply. However, when I went live with Tobias Capwell using his idea, I got the error message "Do not use Template:Google scholar in articles as Google links are not appropriate for an encyclopedia." I have therefore left the link in the article, but commented it out.

Does anyone know a way around this problem? Narky Blert ( talk) 22:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed by replacing the template with a workaround. Orville ^talk 03:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I had a similar idea. I have tweaked it to what I was about to suggest. Feel free to revert or modify to whatever works for you. Otherwise, the solution should be good enough. Templates are for the benefit of automated processes. Since the subject has no google scholar profile to benefit the bots, wikidata, et. al, this that works just as well for humans should be good enough. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That works nicely, thanks! Narky Blert ( talk) 15:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently created an article but it was moved to drafts due to some things that were not added initially. I've added all the relevant verifiable sources of references. How do I speed up the process of approval? I see 4 months and I'm thinking isn't that too long to review an article?

Would like to get your help and thoughts. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funmi Amarvi ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Funmi Amarvi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, there is nothing that you can do to speed up the review process(once you have resubmitted your draft). Reviews are conducted by volunteers who do reviews in no particular order, doing what they can when they can. It could get reviewed in the next five minutes, or six months from now. There is no way to know. You will need to be patient. 331dot ( talk) 16:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, noted. Thanks for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funmi Amarvi ( talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Can e-mails be used as a citation? I have been in touch with a famous musician these days via e-mails. He still ain't got any page on wikipedia due to lack of information relating to the biography. But he has already shared with me, some of his biographical details, through e-mails. So if i make the article, will it be accepted on the basis of e-mail verification? Pesticide1110 ( talk) 07:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. We rely on reliable sources, and personal emails do not fall in this category. If they were published in a book they might be reliable, as the source would be a third party reporting on them. For more on what is a good source, see WP:RS. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 07:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pesticide1110. If such emails were published and accessible to allow for proper verification, then at the very least they would be considered WP:PRIMARY types of sources which would only be able to be used in limited ways as explained in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source; for example, if the musician were to tweet out something about himself or post it on his Facebook page, then it might be possible to cite such a thing as long as it wasn't a comment about other person and wasn't overly self-serving. Even in cases where such a source might be able to be used, Wikipedia would prefer corrabortion be provided by WP:SECONDARY types of sources for further verification. This is one of the reasons WP:INTERVIEWS can be hard to use as sources, which is essentially what you'd be conducting by email, because sometimes when people talk about themselves or publish things about themselves, they may be just presenting their own view or embelleshing things (even unintentionally) and there might not be anyone conducting any type of editorial control to verify whether what's being said/posted is really the case. Even if such sources turned out to be problem free, they would really be no help in establishing the Wikipedia Notability of the person since Wikipedia is more interested in whether a person has received significant coverage in secondary and independent reliable sources than what such a person may have to say about themselves.

I'm not sure how you're defining the word "famous" with respect to this person, but if you can establish that he meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) or even Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, then a Wikipedia article can probably be written about him. If you think that's the case, you can create a draft for such an article and then submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. If you want to try and do this, you'll probably find some helpful information in Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

His notability can't be questioned in anyway because the person i am talking about here is Mr. Stelth Ulvang who is a multi-instrumentalist, solo artist and the long-time touring member of The Lumineers. Lumineers, alongwith him, have sold out Madison Square Garden on two consecutive days plus they have opened for U2. We should hold a discussion regarding it because he has just shared with me some basic facts and not any personal opinion about himself. If we are able to use it as a citation then it would be really helpful for me and wikipedia itself. P.S. He has been covered in various interviews by some reliable sources so if we make an article, then it won't go totally unreferenced. Pesticide1110 ( talk) 07:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Leaving his notability aside (he may well be WP:N), you still can't use emails from him to you (well, unless they say "Here's a link to a WaPo-article about me!", then you can of course use the WaPo-article). You may want to take a look at WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB, though. They don't help with notability, but can be help for basic facts like born when and where. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Being a member, yet alone a touring member, of a Wikipedia notable band doesn't not make the individual themselves automatically notable as explained in WP:NOTINHERITED, but if he clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO as a solo artist then an article can almost surely be written about him. However, as Gråbergs Gråa Sång points out, primary sources cannot be used to establish Wikipedia notability, but they can be cited in support of certain types of article content. Even primary sources, however, need to be published and accessible; so, you can't cite private emails between you and he, but you might be able to cite content that he publishes about himself on his official website, social media accounts, or it books, etc. that he might have written.

Please understand that I mean no disrespect towards this person or am not trying to downplay his ability/career as a musician; I'm just pointing out how Wikipedia notability tends to be assessed with respect to people such as this. If you want, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians if want some more opinions on his Wikipedia notability and you can also ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want some more opinions on whether you can cite the emails. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly: He is also a solo artist and co-founder of a band named Dovekins which can be confirmed here [1]. He has wide range of fan following. Thanks for the link. I think if i can show a copy of the e-mail than we can make the article on those info and add a footnote and consensus on talk page of that article. Thanks for the discussion. Pesticide1110 ( talk) 09:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Pesticide1110 Personal emails are not acceptable as a source, as Marchjuly already pointed out. Wikipedia should summarize what published independent reliable sources state, not what someone wants to say about themselves. Such sources must also be publicly accessible for verification, which personal emails are not generally. Even if you post the emails somewhere, they can't be independently verified as this person isn't going to be on the phone or at the computer for eternity to take calls from Wikipedia users. It also seems to me that your communications with this individual give you a conflict of interest that you should declare. 331dot ( talk) 09:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ 331dot: I think you have misunderstood the situation. Marchjuly stated, "primary sources can be used to cite certain types of article content". And i am sure those certain types of content is what i am going to actually cite with the help of a copy. Like Date of Birth, Instruments, associated act and wife. Ofcourse, no one would tell lie about his wife, birth and parents. Now what is your opinion about a copy of email as a citation for such basic info? Pesticide1110 ( talk) 10:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal emails are still not a good idea, even for personal details like that. Unless he is prepared to sit by a phone for all eternity to take verification calls from literally tens of thousands of Wikipedia users, there is no way to independently verify an email written by a subject. You can post an email somewhere, but how do we know this individual wrote it? And don't be so sure that no one would lie about such information- many celebrities lie about their age (especially women) to appear younger than they are(as many older celebrities have difficulty getting work). If this person has this information on a personal website, or verified Facebook page(or the equivalent on other social media), that might do for personal details like a birth date, though an independent source would still be better. 331dot ( talk) 10:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said as well, you will need to declare as a conflict of interest that you are in communication with the subject you are editing about. 331dot ( talk) 10:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Marchjuly also stated "Even primary sources, however, need to be published and accessible". E-mails sent to you are not that. thelumineers.com, for example, is, and can be used within the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF. BTW "Ofcourse, no one would tell lie about his wife, birth and parents." is incorrect. People lie/improve things for all kinds of reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

So, if he were to mention place/year of birth, that he is married and whatnot here [2], we could use that. We would probably omit name of wife per WP:BLPNAME. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Pesticide1110: I would also add that, whilst a band may itself be a notable subject, the individual members of that band may not be, unless perhaps they have issued their own successful hit single, or been written about in depth by independent reliable sources. This issue came up with world-renowned K-pop group BTS (band), and its member Jungkook. He was only allowed their own page around September 2018, after having done some solo productions. Until that time, the page named after him was a simple redirect to the band itself. As nobody here has mentioned that possibility, I have gone ahead and created one for you (see Stelth Ulvang). Please don't attempt to convert it into an article without ensuring he meets our notability criteria for people or musicians, and I'm not sure that he will. And certainly not based on any emails which he has sent you. You should forget all about those, declare any WP:COI or WP:PAID relationship you may have with him, and focus solely on what reliable sources have written about him that show he meets our notability criteria, and not worry about what he has said about himself, either in emails or in personal interviews in those sources. Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 10:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes He has released his solo music albums since 2011. He is also the co-founder of a band (which maybe i have stated earlier). And i have already given a source which writes so highly about him. And i have some more. So i don't think that his notability should be questioned any more. Just point to me one criteria and i will explain how he passes it. And i am a bit disheartened by being accused of being paid to create one for him. I never got paid or anything like that. And he isn't the kind of guy to pay someone or beg them to make an article for him. I offered him first to which he replied 'no' intially but later on his wife's recommendation agreed to have one. I dont see this discussion going beyond anymore. Its becoming a messy task for me to source edit on such a long thread. Thanks for your attention. I will see what i can do about the whole situation. I very well may find the source itself. Pesticide1110 ( talk) 11:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Pesticide1110: It is completely irrelevant whether or not a subject agrees to have or wants/not wants a Wikipedia article. (I guarantee you Donald Trump probably does not want a Wikipedia article about him) It depends on the independent sources. Even if you are not paid, you still must declare a conflict of interest. 331dot ( talk) 11:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

331dot I don't have any conflict of interest. I have edited articles. Don't treat me like a newbie (check my user page). I respect wikipedia equally as much as you. And i will never let my own interests disrupt the neutrality of any encyclopedia. PERIOD. Pesticide1110 ( talk) 11:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

re| Pesticide1110}} If you are in communication with the subject, and have gained their consent for the existence of an article about them, you are acting as their agent and have a conflict of interest. You need to declare this now. 331dot ( talk) 11:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You are editing the Teahouse, which is a forum for newer editors- so we treat most people here as a new editor. 331dot ( talk) 11:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

331dot The tone of speech of fellow editors in the space is clearly becoming aggressive as if i am a vandaliser. So i'm calling it off now. If i would have been some vandaliser, then i may not be here discussing it with you all. So keep the speech respectful. "You need to declare this now" I am getting a Muhammad bin Tughluq vibe from this comment. It was my wish to help increase the range of wikipedia and so i am trying to create articles. I am doing it for wikipedia and not for him. So i am never an "agent". I am going to make one for Ben Wahamaki too. Have i been talking to him? No. I am no one's agent. And with this i kiss goodbye to this discussion. Pesticide1110 ( talk) 11:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Pesticide1110:. Please read WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:TOOSOON and WP:ARTN. If after doing that you feel that this person meets any of the Wikipedia notability criteria given on those pages and you want to create an article about him, then feel free to do so. My suggestion to you would be to first create a draft and then submit it to WP:AFC for review, but you're not required to do that. You should, however, strive to create an article that will not eventually end up deleted for one reason or another. Editors are constantly creating articles all the time, but many of these end up deleted with the primary reason having to do with WP:N, more specifically a lack of WP:N. There are tons of articles nominated for deletion via WP:AFD each and every day and the main reason has to do with Wikipedia notability.

Before you try and create any article, however, please ask yourself the following two questions: (1) Why do I want to create this article? and (2) Why does this person want to have a Wikipedia article about them created? (These are questions you don't need to answer here at the Teahouse; just answer them for your own benefit.) If any part of the answers you come up with or get is similar to any of the things written in WP:NOT, then perhaps there's some misunderstanding as to exactly what an WP:ARTICLE really is. I also suggest reading WP:PROUD, WP:OWN, and WP:LUC because there can be a downside to Wikipedia articles that might not be immediately apparent. Some people find out the hard way the they have no final editorial control over the articles they create on Wikipedia or over content written about them on Wikipedia; subjects of articles aren't totally helpless and there are ways they can request assistance per WP:BIOSELF, but they just are never going to any final say over article content. If you want to see a recent example of this, please look at this discussion where both the person who created an article and the person they were writing about unsuccessfully tried to have the article deleted because they were unhappy with it.

Whether you have a COI or not is something you only know for sure, but you might want to look at this and do a little self-assessment. As long as your aware of things like WP:COI and WP:PAID, then you can't say nobody told you about them at a later date if they do apply to you or become some issue. Wikipedia, however, is a collaborative editing project and disagreements, etc. tend to be resolved through WP:CONSENSUS which means interacting with others editors; so, the more transparent you are about things, the smoother most of those interactions are likely going to be. COI editing is not expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but is highly discouraged because it can lead to problems; undisclosed paid/compensated editing, however, is prohibited by wmf:Terms of Use and can lead to an indefinite block of accounts that are suspected of doing it. I'm not accusing you of trying to deceive anyone and am more than happy to take you at your word; however, even a WP:APPARENTCOI can create cause tension and make working with others a bit hard. There are, at the same time, quite a number of COI and PAID editors who have no problem with editing because their edits show others that they are actually WP:HERE and are able to deal with the extra scrutiny their edits might get; it's only when editors (not just COI or PAID editors, but any editor) starts showing others that they're WP:NOTHERE, that they start some having serious problems. Good-faith is pretty much going to be assumed for every editor until their edits or behavior start to give the WP:COMMUNITY cause for concern. People are expected to make mistakes, and other editors are more than happy to try and help sort things out; people start to be less willing to help out when editors start to stray into NOTHERE territory.

Anyway, whatever you end up deciding to do, best of luck to you. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 12:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly: Look what i've found. I have found this [3]. A Salt Lake City Weekly article discussing Stelth Ulvang. A piece in it says, " But beyond his Lumineers fame, Ulvang—originally from Fort Collins, Colo.—is an accomplished musician and singer-songwriter in his own right and a prominent figure in the Denver music scene, where he played in the bands Dovekins and Paper Bird and performed on the streets as a busker.". This paragraph says it all. A reputed weekly calling him a prominent figure is all i think is needed to prove that he is Notable. What do you think about it? Pesticide1110 ( talk) 13:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"A reputed weekly calling him a prominent figure is all i think is needed to prove that he is Notable." Compare to multiple sources are generally expected and People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

These could help, they're not glaringly awful: [4] [5] [6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I already have those in my bookmarks. The one which i pointed at is standout. None were as much reliable as Salt Lake except All Music. So does that mean that the question regarding notability is already answered and over? Pesticide1110 ( talk) 15:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it may be brought up again by editors who feel they should if you try to publish the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Those will be the ones who aren't familiar with these discussion. I will guide them here if questions arise. Thanks mate. Pesticide1110 ( talk) 17:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Some explanation as to exactly where in Mecklenburg County, Virginia it is? One can see many mentions of Bluestone High School, Bluestone Landing. Bluestone Township. Well, where is the river in relation to all of these Bluestones? Is it a smaller tributary of the Staunton or Roanoke River? Secondly, what might the Bluestone Church (1758) have to do with it? This church appeared in the Sunday Register Newspaper out of Beckley, W. Virginia in 1953. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaux66 ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Michaux66 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you have a question or concern about a specific article, you should address it to the talk page associated with that article, so editors that follow it might be able to help. 331dot ( talk) 13:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Michaux66! Does the Bluestone River article answer your questions? -- CiaPan ( talk) 14:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Michaux66: Note that there can be many things called Bluestone that are not related to or near the river. Bluestone can refer to limestone mined in the Shenandoah Valley, so I imagine the river and many other places and features are named for it. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 18:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the simplest way for a beginner to add a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themagicmancunian ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at Help:Referencing for beginners. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 18:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I also suggest the easier to read Easy referencing for beginners CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 18:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I am working on the Samuel Hitt Elbert article and this source looks a lot like the WP article. I am thinking that the government site might have been taken some content from WP, because the date on the page is from 2019. But, I am not sure.

It's alike enough that even if I don't use it as a source, it would likely come up as an issue on copyvio checks.

Any thoughts about what to do about it? Thanks so much!!!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 04:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If it looks a lot like the Wikipedia article, then it won't have much to add to the Wikipedia article, will it? Given that, you don't want to name it as a source, as you won't be using it, right? WP is re-used all overt the place, often without attribution. -- Quisqualis ( talk) 04:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was a copyvio. The Colorado site predates the article by a number of years, and this article was definitely copy-pasted from it: [7]. A comparison between the original article and the archived site is word-for-word. The current article looks completely different to me, though. Orville ^talk 04:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I will remove it as a source and continue to work on getting content from other sources that weaves into the state article. I think doing both will help a lot. Once I have gotten further along I will run the copyvio tools to make sure I am doing the best that I can. Thanks!!!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 04:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has copied the government site, we may still use that site as a source, making sure to use different wording so as not to infringe their copyright.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 06:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. I found sources for most of the content, but there are a couple of sentences that still need a source. I have done quite a bit of editing and adding new content so that I think that there is no longer a copyvio issue, but I will run the copyvio tools shortly to make sure.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I ran the duplication detector and copyvio tools and the article is now in good shape re: copyvio issues.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

My devices change their Ip addresses but My entire IP range has been blocked due to unknown reasons. I cannot remember if I have made more than 3 or 4 edits within last 1 year. Its oo tedious to recover password with such long intervals; and whenever I am trying to edit without logging in I'm getting a message like

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.

You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 2409:4061:0:0:0:0:0:0/36 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Berean Hunter‬ for the following reason(s):

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.

Notably I do not share my devices with anyone; however at far past (maybe 2 or 3 years ago) I saw notifications even without logging in, about edits I never made. Still if any of my edits were offensive then I want to know that what are those edits?

And as an inquiry, is it anymore possible for me to contribute without logging in?

RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 18:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RIT RAJARSHI The mere fact that you could edit this page means you are not currently being affected by an IP block. Do you typically use public internet or WiFi access, or otherwise vary the location at which you edit? (I don't need to know the locations specifically.) If you are only affected by an IP block at certain locations, you will have to made edits away from those locations.

It is all right for you to edit while logged out as long as you are not pretending to be someone else and (for example) contribute to the same discussion as you do while logged in. Please see WP:LOGOUT for guidance in this area. 331dot ( talk) 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I also note that this is a temporary block, which is due to expire on March 3rd, so even if Berean Hunter is unwilling to lift the block now, at least the problem will only last for another month. Unfortunately, vandalism is a way of life on wikipedia, and sometimes blocking whole ranges of IP addresses is the only tool we have available to curtail disruption. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I basically edit from either a desktop or a laptop; i use USB Tethering with my smartphone (Jio Net simcard) for the internet connection. yes i require to vary locations. Although currently i have an wi fi access from my institution it seems rather my personal ip is being blocked.

Google is showing my personal ip as 2409:4061:498:e0f3:6547:1541:46ff:9574 at this moment.

No i dont pretend anyother existing user but yes sometimes i chosen anonymity such as sensitive topics. RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 19:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

got an edit conflict message. probably overwritten accidentally RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 19:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you accidentally removed a couple of posts in that edit conflict, but they have been restored to the discussion. -- bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ RIT RAJARSHI: Just to be clear, if you are not the source of the vandalism, the block is not about you, but instead about someone else who shares one of the 268 million IPv6 networks (each with 18 quintillion individual addresses) in the blocked range. Admins try to block the smallest range that will encompass the violating addresses. Unfortunately, in this case, the network operators employ a scheme that allow the vandal(s) to be assigned to a pretty wide range, and this is how it must be dealt with, since we unfortunately can't hunt down the vandal(s) and slap them with a trout. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've got a citation which I'm having to add manually, but I'm not sure what date to add.

The date it was first published according to Google and the website itself was the "1st May 2015," however the date in the link itself says "12/2015". So should I use the "1st May 2015" date, or should I just put "1st December 2015."

The same goes for another citation from the same website which just says it was published in "November 2013," however again the date in the link itself says "12/2015". So again should I use "1st November 2013," or should I just put "1st December 2015."

Danstarr69 ( talk) 12:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

None of those dates would be right, as we don't use ordinals in Wikipedia dates, but to help us to answer your questions could you please give us links to the sources in question? -- David Biddulph ( talk) 13:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph

Link 1 - https://www.barb.co.uk/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/BarbViewingReport_Nov13.pdf

Link 2 - https://www.barb.co.uk/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Barb_Viewing_Report_2015.pdf

Danstarr69 ( talk) 13:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The reports are clearly dated "November 2013" and "May 2015" respectively, so those are the dates to use. The "2015/12" is presumably just part of the directory structure used by the website. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 14:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph

I need to use some of my citations multiple times in the same article.

So how can I use this again:

^[1]

Without it coming up as a new reference?

Danstarr69 ( talk) 16:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 16:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, as a small point, the document gives its date as May 2019, rather than 1 May 2019. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 16:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph

I've tried about 5 different ways now, I even looked at the source for the William Bowyer (artist) example they used, but I still can't figure it out.

Those instructions on that "Referencing for beginners article" use a completely different layout to the citations I had to manually create, plus they've already got a title, so I don't know where to add the ^[2] or what to remove.

Basically how do I turn this:

^[3]

Into a link that can be used more than once like this being the original:

^[2]

And this being the one you use for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th ect time:

^[2]

As for the date, I got the exact dates by posting the all links on Google one by one. 5 out of the 6 citations (2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014) have exact publication dates. Only the oldest one from November 2013 doesn't seem to have an exact publication date.

Danstarr69 ( talk) 17:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Just as it says in the link I gave you:

The first is ^[4]

The later occurrences are ^[4]

And don't use dates that Google is guessing, use the date as given by the source. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 17:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph

So the thing I was missing was the speech marks.

I've edited the name slightly to say "BARB Viewing Report May 2019."

It's now working, but rather than saying a, b, c, d, e... like it does here.

It says 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 etc.

Danstarr69 ( talk) 18:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As it says in Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once, you need the quote marks if (for example) you have spaces in the name, but you don't need the quote marks if the name is Smith2008, for example. I don't know how you are getting 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 etc. I don't know which article you are trying it on, as nothing shows in your contribution record. If in doubt, save your attempts in your user sandbox and we can see what you've done. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 18:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph

I'm creating my first ever article titled "List of most-watched broadcasters and channels in the UK" as list articles seem a relatively easy place to start. I didn't bother with the various sandbox's, because I wondered how I could get the title exactly the same as I have written above, once it goes for review, and where exactly do you write the title when the draft title is in the way? As you can tell I'm impatient, and can't be bothered reading long articles on how to create an article, so I decided to start the article outside the draft.

The most watched broadcast groups table is from 2013 onwards.

The most watched TV channels table is from 1981 onwards.

I have 7 references so far, possibly more by the time I've finished.

Each of the 7 references I have posted twice, and all of them go 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc, 2.1, 2.2, 2,3 etc, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 etc.

Eg. ^[5]

^[5]

^[6]

^[6]

It doesn't really matter I don't think, as at least it isn't adding them as new references anymore.

My next problem (which I'll be doing in aan hour or two, will be trying to find out how to add notes or footnotes, and what type I should use from this page /info/en/?search=Help:Footnotes, to explain certain things, for example:

Some of the viewing figures from the annual reports, are slightly different to the 1981-2018 annual viewing figures they had published last year (before they disappeared with no warning. Luckily I had them bookmarked and saved at Archive.org), so occasionally there's two sets of figures. I will be adding a note or a footnote to explain why there's two sets of figures.

Danstarr69 ( talk) 19:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to keep adding new references to this section, please do so before the reflist-talk template rather than after it. When you put references after the template they are displayed at the foot of the page, in the last section which is nothing to do with this topic.

If you haven't yet produced your Draft:List of most-watched broadcasters and channels in the UK, there's nothing we can look at to help you. This section is getting long and cluttered, and it would be much easier for people to help you if we could look at what you're doing. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

My current wikipedia account carries my real name, but since I used this username for many edits i dont want to change this username. Given that if I want to leave a discussion on a controversial topic say a page on politics or terrorism and I choose to stay anonymous; may I create a duplicate account? Given that neither identity theft nor " sockpuppetting"/proxyvoting is the purpose here. Notably a vast range of IP including my gadgets' IPs have been blocked so i cannot make anonymous edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RIT RAJARSHI If you have a good reason for using an alternate account, you may do so as long as your edits are unrelated to subjects you have edited about with this account. You should follow the guidance at WP:ALTACC and notify a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee of this (they will keep it private as best they can). 331dot ( talk) 19:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The short answer is, "yes". Please see WP:SOCKLEGIT for details, in particular where it says, under the "Privacy" bullet point, A person editing an article that is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. But, also take note of the warnings under WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, in that you may wish to let arbcom or the checkusers know ahead of time that you're doing this, so as to avoid getting caught in a checkuser block. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 19:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

So I have found two articles I believe should be merged. Athens Governmental Buildings be merged into Athens, Ohio. I have read the Wikipedia:Merging page and I did the first step (I think) of creating the merge proposal. I have seen on previous pages a template to add for a merge proposal, yet I don't see where that is. I would appreciate any help as to how to add a merge template tag to the page and how long the merge proposal should go for? Thanks in advance for help. Elijahandskip ( talk) 19:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:Merging tells you about the others steps of the process. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 19:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I very much appreciate Wikipedia's standards and quality control! That said, the requirements have proven challenging in setting up a new bio for a significant journalist from Atlanta. I learned from the decline to post that the bio draft page lacked links/references/citations. Upon reflection, I totally agree. I plan to embed links that are external to the actual journalistic work of this person so as to show legitimacy and justify the page. If possible, would some kind supporter with experience in successfully creating new bio pages be able to look at my Sandbox draft? This draft was declined, but if adding the below 16 links would help...that would be great. If so, I will work to integrate them into the text at appropriate places. Please let me know if you think that adding all of the links will boost the bio page's chance of publication. THANK YOU!

/info/en/?search=User:Mtrinab/sandbox

Philip Bolton-Wikipedia-Necessary References/Links/Citations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiS50mrvAvY 2008 interview by Mitch Leff of Leff & Associates public relations firm https://www.georgiatrend.com/2008/09/01/bringing-the-world-to-georgia/ Brazil-Cited in Georgia Trend 2008 https://worldchamberc.org/wcc-highlights/8-videos/27-world-chamber-of-commerce-symposium-phil-bolton World Chamber of Commerce speaker 2009 https://businessradiox.com/podcast/corporateconversations/atlanta-is-a-popular-destination-for-international-businesses-how-are-we-doing-in-supporting/ 2011 Radio Interview on Atlanta and international relations https://ciber.robinson.gsu.edu/outreach/students/international-internships/ 2011 Georgia State collaboration reference https://books.google.com/books?id=YW83Q_Mg0_UC&pg=PR9&lpg=PR9&dq=world+affairs+council+phil+bolton+atlanta&source=bl&ots=sEQpILSAl4&sig=ACfU3U0amYyv4gQm1h6WcubA1Zr36gYzxw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq-vW-2brnAhWLlnIEHX0JAeoQ6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=world%20affairs%20council%20phil%20bolton%20atlanta&f=false 2011 reference in book by former CEO of Coca Cola https://patch.com/georgia/sandysprings/ev--careers-in-global-business-at-troy-atlanta Keynote reference at Troy University in 2013 http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1973409 2014 Digital Journal reference of U.S. Department of Commerce award https://frontpage.gcsu.edu/announcement/bolton-family-collection-african-art 2015 GCSU reference to panel and Macon Telegraph http://ucliberia.com/2017/06/a-look-back-2016-ucl-distinguished-service-awardees/?fbclid=IwAR0tU-y03R-z-iVaCjRMlvWqfhHDyy_rX4Rv2IugXWwjPsq4x7xP9MXvcAs 2016 interview on Univ of Liberia Consortium award https://www.metroatlantachamber.com/about/news-press/newsroom/metro-atlanta-chamber-announces-winners-of-the-2017-global-impact-awards 2017 Winner of the Metro Atlanta Chamber Global Partner Award https://iew.gsu.edu/IE#1541088424073-d7de1d32-0fe5 Georgia State University Community Award for Global Engagement in 2018 https://www.globalatlanta.com/crystal-peach-awards-celebrate-french-innovations-partnerships-in-atlanta/?fbclid=IwAR0yGQEuItFqN4lqZVHw8wsmBYifi-5J_vJekqZTI_Sb3j3VzpHTR7BoByI 2019 award If helpful, other links to legitimize Philip Bolton and his work: https://books.google.com/books?id=kg8AAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=phil+bolton+global+atlanta+kiwanis&source=bl&ots=-4jiInz_H3&sig=ACfU3U0Z9zvrLFKqYWMIJlWBrJmzqVAIJw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvwYSz1rrnAhUxmXIEHReWC8EQ6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=bolton&f=false 2005 Atlanta magazine from interview on Chris Dragoul http://www.worldchamberc.org/gallery/3-wcc-int-l-business-forum-celebrating-earth-month/detail/84-phil-bolton-global-atlanta-publisher-and-wcc-advisory-board-member Photo from World Chamber speech https://france-atlanta.org/?s=%22phil+bolton Links to Global Atlanta pieces by France Atlanta https://www.theatredureve.org/contact-us/our-company/ Board of Directors-current — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtrinab ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mtrinab! Note that you may not embed external links in a Wikipedia article, unless they are formatted as notes and references which appear in a numerical list at the end of the article. See: WP:Citing sources. Also note that you need to cite WP:Reliable sources for your material. Your list of sources above is tl;dr, but please be aware that Wikipedia in no way exists for promotional purposes; it's not a listing, directory or collection of "pages". See: WP:NOT and WP:Notability. If you still want to write the article after digesting the aforementioned linked articles, then read and follow WP:Your first article. Best wishes,-- Quisqualis ( talk) 19:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi -- I am an amateur "editor" to wikipedia - I am also a maritime boating historian, book author and journalist.

While writing my current manuscript which will be traditionally published in April of 2021, my deep and active research into the history of the Gulf of Mexico is leading me to notice multiple errors in wikipedia in a very obscure subject. While making these corrections, I have suddenly found myself locked out of wikipedia and have since had several corrections overturned and entire pages that I've created rejected. This is incredibly disheartening, especially when a simple clink on references that I've added are right there. I've about had it with this entire exercise, but what's aggravating me is that I am correcting obvious mistakes to stop factual falsehoods from going out into the world. If an editor would take a minute to examine in detail my corrections and additions - this would be obvious. Thanks. GulfSails ( talk) 06:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

GulfSails, I see no evidence of targeting.

For an article to be accepted by Wikipedia, it must establish that its subject is notable by citing several reliable independent published sources with in-depth discussion of its subject. A common mistake, when an article is declined, is for its creator to add more references, but to sources that, while they mention the subject, do not discuss it at all. What is needed is better references, that discuss the subject. Maproom ( talk) 08:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Hello GulfSails, sorry to hear you've not had the best experience starting out. I think you might have the best luck discussing each edit with the editor who reverted you. Discuss the draft with the editor who reviewed it, and for reverted edits, post at the article talk page and ask why your edit was reverted {{ ping}}ing the editor who reverted your edit if you can. For your draft, please review WP:SIGCOV; notability in Wikipedia means similar but not exactly the same thing as we are used to in the real world. If you'd like advice on specific drafts or edits from the Teahouse hosts, please mention those and I'm sure you'll receive plenty of more specific advice and assistance. Also, please remember to WP:AGF. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Maproom Hey -- I appreciate your response and guidance. I find this all to be incredibly subjective. I am the researcher who unearthed the SS Florinda and the person who then created the page. The entire construct of the history of the Florinda is put together by me - same with the other pages that have been accepted. Yet, when I created a page that had enormous references, but had been lingering for months, suddenly it was rejected after I had raised a stink over bizarrely being blocked over my username. Honestly, I don't care. Either wikipedia wants my moderately important knowledge on an obscure subject, or not. GulfSails ( talk) 09:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please direct me to how I delete or revert every single edit I have ever done to wikipedia. You can thank User:Theroadislong for that GulfSails ( talk) 10:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ GulfSails: you can click on 'contributions' and see a list of edits you have made. You may be able to undo them by clicking 'undo' next to them, but if other people have edited since, that may no longer be possible. You can of course go into the article and delete your contributions. However, I should warn you that due to Wikipedia's license, once you have made an edit it is no longer your property and so, if you undo or delete it, other editors might choose to reinstate it. Going through and undoing or deleting constructive edits (even if they were your own) would likely be seen as disruptive and may lead to a block. And really, ragequitting and trying to take all of your edits with you isn't likely to change anyone's minds on anything. Hug ^syrup 10:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Hugsyrup: I don't really have the energy to "ragequit" (which, fyi, I think is funny). I'm literally just super frustrated at what I see as an incredibly arbitrary and subjective 'verification' process. I never had any issues even remotely close to this until my user name was ridiculously blocked a week ago. Now, suddenly I am held to this aggressive focus. What I've endeavored to add to wikipedia is forthright and correct... but it has suddenly become a pain in the ass and a struggle. I didn't sign on for that. GulfSails ( talk) 10:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

GulfSails I'm not sure why a routine decline at WP:AFC would make you want to delete every single edit of yours? Your statement on your user page "I don't really understand the rules or the politics behind the scenes of wikipedia - nor do I care" is perhaps enlightening, as many editors here do care very much. I've accepted your draft Gulf Yachting Association as it seems it would now possibly survive an WP:AFD (the criteria we use when accepting or declining). Your content may well be " forthright and correct" but it also needs to be reliably sourced. All good wishes. Theroadislong ( talk) 13:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As a disinterested outsider (who did briefly live near the Gulf), appears you have successfully created several articles, and a block on your User name of choice was reversed. Sorry to read that the process has been frustrating. A point - many editors, me included, at times feel that we "own" articles we either created or massively improved. Wikipedia is not that. It's a collaborative where we do not know the credentials of our collaborators and can only hope for good faith editing. I hope you reconsider. David notMD ( talk) 13:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I was simply frustrated at what felt like a pushback against a forthright and time intensive effort on my part to correct inaccuracies and broaden the knowledge base. I never expected appreciation, but I certainly didn't expect what appeared on my end to be a weird effort to squash these contributions from multiple directions. I have had one or two very detailed and resourced pages declined in the past, and while disappointing, I abided by the editors decision and didn't even question it. But, all of this happening over the space of two or three days following the block on my user name felt like a concerted effort and was confusing. Cheers. GulfSails ( talk) 17:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GulfSails. You'll want to note that Wikipedia is, unlike some traditional encyclopedias, not written by "subject experts" drawing on their vast knowldege, but, as it's crowd-sourced, it's instead written by volunteer editors who cite reliable, published sources. No matter an individual editor's respect by peers or the world, they're compelled to cite. No research or synthesis is permitted on Wikipedia. We cannot "take back" our edits, either, as, by clicking the "Publish changes" button, we agree to give our IP to Wikipedia.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 20:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find any wikipedia page that declares any genuine "app" it published. but there are plenty of apps extensions etc so i am wary of if they are genuine or they may be virus containing. RIT RAJARSHI ( talk) 19:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ RIT RAJARSHI: See Help:Mobile_access#Official_mobile_app. Wikipedia apps from the Wikimedia Foundation are called "Wikipedia", except for the iOS version which is called "Wikipedia Mobile". RudolfRed ( talk) 21:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen,

the entry Draft:Sayonara Player has received enhancement with lots of new sources for getting released. The German entry has been reviewed recently and was approved with updated source references on 30st of January 2020.

Could somebody please check the English version linked above?

The final target is to get this player included for listing it in Comparison of audio player software

Thank you very much for your help in advance.

Kind regards from Kassel in the middle of Germany

Dominic2105 ( talk) 20:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The draft has been submitted for further review. As it says on the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take more than six months, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,096 pending submissions waiting for review." -- David Biddulph ( talk) 20:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

David Biddulph, sorry, you are right. I'm not used to wait so long as in the German wikipedia the articles are reviewed within one to 30 days approx. Dominic2105 ( talk) 21:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Dominic2105, if your final target is to get something included in some list, that strongly suggests that your purpose here is promotion. Your words "the player is worth it to get more and more known", in User talk:Theroadislong/Archive 50#Missing independent sources, make this almost certain.

This purpose is fundamentally inconsistent with Wikipedia's purposes. The "final goal" is to make Wikipedia as good as possible, within its policies and rules: nothing more.

Having the purpose of promotion doesn't prevent you from editing, but it is likely to make it difficult for you to create a neutral article, and may make it harder for you to understand decisions that are made about it. -- ColinFine ( talk) 23:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, please check my German wikipedia contribution. There are topics from biology, culture and software as well. I don't have any commercial interest, but I was searching for a Linux audio player for years (which is as powerful as Winamp) and Guayadeque discontinued its development. Why shouldn't I share my good experience by getting the Sayonara Player into a Wikipedia list of audio player? By the way thanks to Quisqualis for the support in Grammar correction and things like that in the draft article recently. Dominic2105 ( talk) 21:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say you had a commercial interest, Dominic2105: I said that, from your words, you appear to be more concerned with getting a particular subject into a Wikipedia list article than with improving Wikipedia: "promotion" is not just commercial, in Wikipedia. I absolutely accept that you have contributed in different fields, and I've no doubt that you are editing in good faith. But in my experience (not in Wikipedia specifically), when somebody gets attached to a particular result, they tend to lose objectivity. That's what I'm warning of. -- ColinFine ( talk) 22:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine Alright. Got your point. My target was just to share knowledge about a good and free software solution with the world - and the Comparison of audio player software is a helpful webpage to get assistance in my point of view, so I wanted to contribute (sadly in German Wikipedia such an overview is not existing and I don't know enough about Wikipedia-Tools to create it) Dominic2105 ( talk) 22:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'm trying to write an article for my Job.

I work in Universum College as IT Coordinator and now we want to post articles for Universum College

When I try to post it says REJECTED,

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euronbehrami ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your sandbox submission was rejected because it was effectively empty. Advice is available at WP:Your first article, but before you edit further you need to read about conflict of interest and you need to make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 13:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Euronbehrami. I'm afraid that the answer to your question is "with very great difficulty". I'm sorry that your employer has given you an extremely difficult task to do.

Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks in editing Wikipedia. Creating a new article about yourself, your band, your school, or (especially) your employer, is even harder, because it is likely to be difficult for you to write in a sufficiently neutral way. In fact, what you will probably need to do, once you have found the several wholly independent reliably published sources that are an absolute requirement for an article, is to forget eveything you know about your college and write an article based solely on what those independent sources say. And if you manage this, and your draft is accepted, the article will not belong to you or your college, and you will not have control over its contents: in fact, your involvement in the article will be limited to suggesting edits. This is because Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it. -- ColinFine ( talk) 22:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

On the template ( /info/en/?search=1993_Alabama_Crimson_Tide_football_team) , it shows that Alabama is the lowest team there is in the standings yet they were the division champions, can someone fix the standings? Thanks. Neverbuffed ( talk) 23:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The situation is explained in the last paragraph of the lede of the article to which you refer, and also at 1993 SEC Championship Game. It is also mentioned in the asterisked note on Template:1993 Southeastern Conference football standings. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 00:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, maybe I just read too little, I'll try to read more. Once again, thanks! Neverbuffed ( talk) 00:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I recently went searching for an article on "Deaths from Laughing" and a Google search came up with this: Death from laughter. What struck me odd was what I most wanted to know: deaths caused by laughing - was a list separate from the article - List of deaths from laughter. This article only has 8 listings to the entire entry, while the original article has not only sections, but a Popular Culture with 23 listings. It seems a bit unnecessary to have 2 separate articles for such a short listing, when one really is searching for a list of deaths caused by laughing to begin with ... how does one go about combining the List of deaths from laughter with Deaths from Laughing and removing the previous? Thanks in advance. Maineartists ( talk) 23:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Maineartists: After a cursory glance I tend to agree with you, but you could put forth a merge request using these instructions: Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. If there are no objections, you can do the bold merge. After the merge, the merged list article would be turned into a redirect pointing to the main article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

first time user. just set up my account. How do I get the visual editor to work so that I may edit my own info. on Wikipedia? the tutorial is not helping. thanks. full title of page is Michael Sabom. first time user. just set up my account. How do I get the visual editor to work so that I may edit my own info. on Wikipedia? the tutorial is not helping. thanks. full title of page is Michael Sabom. User:7300Mobas

Hello, 7300Mobas, and welcome to Wikipedia and our friendly Teahouse. First rule of starting out: DON'T PANIC! ...it can seem a bewildering place at first, and we have so many help and guidance pages that it's hard to know which tutorial pages you tried to look at. Might I suggest you visit Wikipedia:VisualEditor. Just read the top section, down as far as the start of 'Limitations'. Then check out the two big links about 'Enabling Visual Editor' and then follow the link to 'Read VisualEditor's User Guide'.

VE (as we often call it) is not as powerful as using WP:Source Editor with its so-called wikimarkup, but the WISYWIG appearance of VE does favour newcomers like yourself, though most 'old hands' rarely use it. Let us know how you get on, and maybe you might like to try out our interactive tour called the The Wikipedia Adventure to learn a bit more about the basics of editing, referencing and so forth. I'll now pop by your talk page and leave you a nice friendly welcome message from the Teahouse hosts, full of more helpful links than you can shake a stick at! Good luck, and regards from the UK. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are the Michael Sabom who is the subject of Michael Sabom the advice about editing an article about yourself is "Don't." If there are errors, raise them at the Talk page of the article. David notMD ( talk) 01:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, What are the rules/guidelines if I want to change my username? AtTheTopNairobi ( talk) 07:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AtTheTopNairobi. Please read Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the instructions you will find there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks AtTheTopNairobi ( talk) 08:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

There are editors trying to make Russia less Asian and to give it a growing population, repeatedly. I also notice that, unlike any other article, Russia takes about a minute to reload. What is slowing it down? Makes reviewing recent edits a horrendous waiting game. Where should I direct this inquiry?-- Quisqualis ( talk) 21:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. This is more of a guess, than a definitive answer, but Russia is not only quite a sizeable page (at 310,000 bytes, it's the 467th longest article on Wikipedia, but it also contains over 450 separate citations, each one of which has to be read and rendered in the 'References' section. It took me 10 seconds to load it over a not very fast wireless connection. Try some of the other large and well-references articles and see how they load up. I appreciate checking edits is a pain if they take a while to display, so have you tried working on editing individual sections, which would be much smaller and therefore considerably quicker to preview? Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

My edits consist of reviewing and often reverting others' edits. You explanation makes sense. I rarely edit larger articles. In fact, I'm sure there has been much discussion in the past regarding "how large should one article be?"-- Quisqualis ( talk) 00:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Quisqualis: 100 kb of readable prose is the reccomended Maximum. Russia definitely exceeds that, and needs to be broken into sub articles better. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 05:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for throwing down the gantlet, Cap'n.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 12:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

What is the process for drafts being moved to the mainspace? I got a notification saying that my article ( Draft:Greece national rugby league team results) had been reviewed, however the article stayed in the draft and nothing was left. WDM10 ( talk) 06:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ WDM10: If you look at the bottom of the draft, you will see the notice that the review has not happened yet. There is a large backlog, so reviews can take quite some time. RudolfRed ( talk) 06:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So as a side question, what exactly does it mean when it says your page has been reviewed? WDM10 ( talk) 06:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, WDM10. Please read Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers where it says New Page Review is essentially the first (and only) firewall against totally unwanted content and the place to broadly accept articles that may not be perfect but do not need to be deleted. This is not an in depth review but it intended to filter out gibberish, libel, overt copyright violations and other obviously unacceptable content. So that "reviewed" designation means your page is at least minimally OK for now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. WDM10 ( talk) 07:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

WDM10, in practical terms, it also means the page becomes indexable by search engines. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone help this editor out on my talk page?
Link: User_talk:Interstellarity#Saket_Modi
Thank you, Interstellarity ( talk) 13:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hug has provided what I consider a more than adequate reply to the editor's query. David notMD ( talk) 14:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to add a photo of Joy Foster. I am not able to do it. Will someone be able to add this photo?

Source: https://twitter.com/jamaicagleaner/status/809435100509126657 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onydn89 ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Onydn89, Probably not. As someone who appears to be still alive, we can't use a non free image, unless they were to release it under a suitable license. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed my preferences recently and now whenever I use the shift key it automatically takes me to the beginning of the sentence. If I try to cap or use shift key for any reason this happens. Would anyone be familiar with the purpose of this function and know how I can turn it off? Thank you. LorriBrown ( talk) 21:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I figured it out. Preferences, Gadgets, Browsing (checked) GoogleTrans: open a translation popup for the selected text or the word under the cursor when pushing the shift button. LorriBrown ( talk) 21:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi...

I feel like I am being pulled in multiple directions here and am not sure what to do.

I've tried editing this page ( /info/en/?search=Draft:Lee_Olesky) multiple times now but there seems to be some issue each time. The sources I've provided are the best and establish the facts clearly. Sure, some are behind a paywall, but most industry publications are. I can provide the two best sources (links below) if anyone needs to see them. I was told it was too promotional for the firm the person in question leads, then told there wasn't enough about the firm. I took out the awards, but added in links to government committees, to establish notability. I can take out the law firm he used to work at that has since changed in some way (that was 32 years ago, well before the Internet was a big deal).

Based on all of the established rules and back and forth I've had, it seems like it should be good to go. Not really sure what the hold up is.

Any advice would be much appreciated so I can be sure I have this down before creating other Wikipedia pages.

https://www.risk.net/derivatives/7179876/tradewebs-ipo-shows-how-otc-markets-are-changing

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/tradeweb-chief-takes-stock-of-electronic-bond-trading-revolution-20181114

Wpearce1983 ( talk) 18:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that a paywall is not a barrier to using something as a source on Wikipedia. Sources are not required to be easy or free to access, only that they be publicly available(i.e. documents in private hands are not acceptable). 331dot ( talk) 18:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The first of the two sources above has a picture of Olesky, which implies that he's connected with Tradeweb. But it does not discuss him at all, and so does nothing to establish that he's notable, which is what it seems you're having trouble with. (The second is behind a paywall, so I can't comment on it. ) Maproom ( talk) 21:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I tried to publish an article that has no other reference and it gets denied?

Why is wikipedia so difficult to use

Can anyone help make it easier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacko69 ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Yacko69: are you referring to Draft:St. Lawrence Park, Brockville? It seems that you are aware of why it was denied: as you say, it had no references. Publishing a new article is indeed one of the harder things to do on Wikipedia, but I don't think that is down to it being difficult to use, but simply the fact that proving the notability of a subject is tricky especially for new users who are not familiar with all of our policies. That is why it is usually better to spend some time editing existing articles first. Otherwise, we provide lots of guidance to help people get started. Try reading your first article first. Hug ^syrup 16:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

why doesnt this site have an actuall chat feature? this back and forth of editing stuff is a totall waste of time.

and how do you make a reliable source when there isn't one on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacko69 ( talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Yacko69: a reliable source is one that exists off wikipedia, such as a newspaper, a book, or a journal. You cannot 'make' one, but you can find them if they exist, and then add them into the article. Please do take the time to read through the page I linked above, and other guidance, as it's important to understand these sorts of concepts before attempting to make your own article. Hug ^syrup 16:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Yacko69: There is an IRC (live chat) help channel – never having used it myself I can't tell you how it works but there are instructions here for how to use it. (Maybe you will be less frustrated if you remember that every single editor here is a volunteer, we all do this as a hobby and for fun, just like you, and so nobody is employed to man the boards or help channels... it's not like a company help desk.) Hope that helps. Regards, -- bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Yacko69: There's also something to be said for taking a moment to assess what you are posting before you actually post it, instead of getting instant gratification in real time and perhaps making a mistake or saying something you might regret. Editing and discussions here can get contentious, and sometimes it's good to take a breath before posting. Society is so fast paced now, it's good to slow down sometimes. 331dot ( talk) 17:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yacko69, You may also join our WP:DISCORD if you would like faster help. Please note that creating an article from scratch is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It is much more useful to edit some existing articles first to get the lay of the land, before creating articles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 17:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

im not looking for instant gratification I could care less about it.

I was trying to post an article about a nice park but you all make it impossible. I dont have time to write a essay to submit. Guess I will leave this to people that dont have real jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacko69 ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yacko69, Sorry you're having a bad experience, you've just had the bad luck to jump into the deep end of article creation at your first go. We are trying to help you, but understand that we have minimum standards. An article with a single source, and two incomplete sentences does not make an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is one of the world's most read pages, thus we must keep up a standard of reliability. If you would still like our help and are willing to listen, we would be more than happy to guide you on how to make the article. The next step for this article would be to find some more sources that discuss it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Has Alma_Mater been and Practice been removed from the Infobox? I am getting warnings and it is not appearing in preview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twagman ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Twagman: Which infobox are you trying to use? RudolfRed ( talk) 22:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Twagman: Based on the last article you edited, you might be asking about {{ Infobox_architect}}, which does have alma_mater and practice as fields. RudolfRed ( talk) 23:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

But I notice that the OP referred to "Alma_Mater" and "Practice", so he needs to remember that parameter names are case sensitive. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Is the issue the Capital letters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twagman ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC) talkI have an unpublished page and I used capital letters but still not appearing.

If you are using capital letters, that's why it is not appearing. The parameter names are as shown at {{ Infobox_architect}}, and they are lower case. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 00:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Could someone please unmerge /info/en/?search=List_of_British_television_channels from /info/en/?search=List_of_television_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom

Then remerge them in the opposite direction.

Or do something technical to make the redirect go in the opposite direction.

Or show me how to do it.

Practically every article I've come across over the years, related to British TV, call the individual things we watch programmes on "TV Channels" (just like they should be, as that's what they've always been called) and the organisations who run those channels "broadcasters", "networks", or again "channels" (as most of them only had one channel until the 90's)

"Stations" in the UK is specifically for radio, not TV.

That's why everytime I come across this article it annoys me, as it should be titled "List of British television channels".

I've attempted to unmerge, and remerge articles a few times in the past, but as soon as I start, there's always someone there reverting my unmerges almost immediately.

Also could /info/en/?search=Category:English-language_television_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom be renamed to "Category:English-language television channels in the United Kingdom" too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danstarr69 ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Danstarr69 ( talk) 00:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want to propose changing the name of an article, the place to do so is on the article's talk page. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 00:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Any discussion should take account of the conventions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting). -- David Biddulph ( talk) 00:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I've got a draft ( Draft:List of National Soccer League Clubs) which I want to submit for AfC however the message for submission isn't on my page. I created it as a draft so it was never in the mainspace FYI. WDM10 ( talk) 03:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi WDM10. Drafts aren’t automatically submitted for WP:AFC review, but if you’d like to submit the one you’re working on, just add Template:Submit to the top of the draft and follow the template’s instructions. — Marchjuly ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly, I've submitted it. WDM10 ( talk) 03:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

How long does it take for a draft article to be review and moved into mainspace M01001111 ( talk) 04:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@ M01001111: So far you haven't submitted either of your Drafts for review. You can do that by placing {{subst:submit}} somewhere on your draft. Copy it as it appears when viewing the page, as I added coding so that it doesn't work here. Once submitted it can take 4-5 Months. Victor Schmidt mobil ( talk) 06:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm also a user and from what I know drafts are looked into by volunteers and that can take up to 6 months.

Rodrigo Valequez ( talk) 07:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A point: It's not a queue. There are 4,000+ drafts waiting for review. The reviewers select what they want to review. Most are reviewed within eight week, but a few get older. David notMD ( talk) 11:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, There is a tool Help page, by using it a user can create large number of categories on any native language Wikipedia. I intends to create many missing categories which doesn't exists on Sindhi Wikipedia, but those are existed on English Wikipedia, so I want to create and localise their titles on Sindhi Wikipedia, so those categories can populate within the relevant Wikipedia articles of Sindhi Wikipedia, at the moment I have enabled from my preferences a help gadget which shows at the top of each Wikipedia article and Category near the page, history, when I click it, it asks local title, I give it and then it creates that page or category on sdwiki. JogiAsad ( talk) 09:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

What is your question then? Ruslik_ Zero 12:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I asked a question about making an article about a famous person in Turkey and it still hasn't been answered but questions asked by other users after it have been answered. Is there a particular order for answering users questions? I had another experience like this and I guessed that since a lot of new questions had been asked after my question no one had seen it. I decided to copy and paste my question so it would be at the bottom of the pageand my question would be answered as fast as possible but I hot a warning for "duplicate questions" and my question was deleted. What am I supposed to do? My question still hasn't been answered and It's been 2 days. My question is named "New Article" and I'm hoping someone can answer it. Rodrigo Valequez ( talk) 07:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You did have an initial reply at #New Article, and I assume that the reason that you didn't get any further reply is that you didn't provide any published reliable sources independent of the subject. I have clarified that interviews with the subject are not accepted by enwiki as demonstrating the notability of the subject. You could, of course, submit a draft through the AFC review process, but without significant coverage by reputable independent sources I would expect the draft to be declined. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 08:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I also added a news video which talked about his name, where he lived and some stuff about his life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0WA08iIe_Q I included the street because he became famous because of it. I wasn't going to use the information in it. Also, my sources are Turkish so should I write this article in the Turkish Wikipedia first and translate it if it's accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Valequez ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Each language has its own criteria for accepting articles, so approval in Turkish would not guarantee approval translated into English. Turkish language references can be used for an English article, but changes for approval improve if there are English language references, too. Youtube is generally not considered a reliable source. David notMD ( talk) 11:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. My question has been answered. Rodrigo Valequez ( talk) 12:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A month or so ago, when I started trying to make sense of editing, I copied some content that needed a spelling corrected (or something equally trivial) into my sandbox. Though in the end I corrected the spelling by editing the article, I must have hit a button indicating that I wanted to submit an edit for review.

Now every time I go into the sandbox I get a box inviting me to submit my article for review. Though I can get rid of the content it thinks I want reviewed by editing source, this box comes up every time. It's irritating.

Could someone please tell me how I can stop it thinking I want to submit an article. Thanks! Maryanne Cunningham ( talk) 13:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maryanne Cunningham. If it’s your user sandbox your referring to, you should be able to just WP:BLANK it and then save it. You could also just set |afc= in Template:User sandbox to “no” or the |plain= parameter to “yes” as well. FWIW, the blue submit button really doesn’t matter unless you want to submit your sandbox as a WP:USD as well. — Marchjuly ( talk) 13:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. Could you clarify the following: "you should be able to just WP:BLANK it and then save it". Er, how/where? Maryanne Cunningham ( talk) 15:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you click on WP:BLANK? It’s a short-cut link to Wikipedia:Page blanking, which basically means to remove all content from the page (i.e. your sandbox). “Save it” means save your sandbox (i.e. click the “Publish changes” button). — Marchjuly ( talk) 15:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Maryanne Cunningham ( talk) 15:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I've added "|afc=no" to the {{ user sandbox}} template in your sandbox. You can, if you wish, just delete that template from your sandbox, or another option is to change the "|afc=no" to "|plain=yes". You'll find the options documented at Template:user sandbox. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 13:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph. I went into Template:user sandbox and didn't understand it at all. Would you mind clarifying what "|afc" is, and what setting it to 'no' does? Maryanne Cunningham ( talk) 15:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Maryanne Cunningham, the AFC parameter just controls if the template states that you can submit the article and if it gives the submit button. If you aren't using the sandbox for an article draft, it isn't necessary.

AFC is articles for creation, a way for new editors that either can't submit articles directly (you need 10 edits to do this), or are inexperienced and would like some more feedback, to have articles reviewed, then moved into mainspace by a reviewer. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Alex Noble Maryanne Cunningham ( talk) 16:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I would like to undo an image change on a living person's page because someone uploaded a ridiculous picture. This person is the CEO of the PR company I work for so I would like to understand how to do this 'by the book' and without creating a situation of conflict of interest. The picture that was uploaded is not categorized as serious vandalism but I would like to revert to the previous picture that is more accurate and appropriate, in compliance with the Wikipedia rules. Can someone advise on best practice please? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemenceRM ( talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

ClemenceRM, go onto the article talk page, and state your concerns, and state that you have a conflict of interest.

If other editors agree with you, they'll change it back. If they don't it will stay. If you don't get any response after some time, place {{ Request edit}} on the talk page, and somebody will come along and have a look. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, User:ClemenceRM. You don't give enough information here, but I can see from your post on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that you're talking about the article Roland Rudd. I think adding that silly picture — and, indeed, uploading it — was vandalism, and I have warned the user who did it. The addition has been reverted by Jonathan A Jones, who saw your post at the BLPN. If you look at the history of the page, you'll see exactly how it went. Your determination to follow our rules is appreciated! Bishonen | talk 20:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

Sorry to bother you but I’m thinking about writing an article about a civillian who has recently gotten famous here in Turkey (where I live at the moment). He has made appearances in street interviews and the news. My questions are: 1)Would it be appropriate to write an article about this man?

2)Could I use the news article as a reference? (It is a reliable and popular news channel here in Turkey) Rodrigo Valequez ( talk) 21:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rodrigo Valequez. It's recommended that you first read and assimilate the article WP:Your first article, and the other articles to which it refers. Writng an article is a tricky process, particularly the first time. Also see: WP:Notability. -- Quisqualis ( talk) 21:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo Valequez, if you are able, please gove a link to your news piece here for an opinion by other editors.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 22:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's me, Rodrigo Valequez again. The news about him aren't on an article, It was on television. Sorry for misinforming you. Here's a link to the video (It's in Turkish but you can still understand how famous he is from the people taking pictures with him): [ Dayı Taksim'de] It was uploaded to youtube on their channel. It contains information about his name and personal info in Turkish. He's in a few street interview videos that were made by other channels. This is the [ interview that made him famous] (He makes an appearance in 2:56 to 3:15 and not the whole video!) I'd like to write about him because he is very popular among young people and I have met a lot of people that want to know more about him and how he got so famous. Also, would it be better if I wrote the article in the Turkish Wikipedia and translated it from there since all my sources are in Turkish? Thanks again for the feedback. talk) 13:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Interviews with the subject do not satisfy the requirement for notability. What Wikipedia needs is significant coverage about the subject in published reliable sources independent of the subject. You may find that the Turkish Wikipedia has different rules, but if the subject doesn't satisfy the enwiki definition of notability you shouldn't waste your time trying to translate into English. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 08:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a video interview is insufficient to establish notability. Until he is covered repeatedly in mainstream media, his being "very popular among young people and [you] have met a lot of people that want to know more about him and how he got so famous" counts for nothing on the English Wikipedia. This may also be a case of WP:TOO SOON.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 20:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rodrigo. I saw a number of your questions at the Teahouse, and then noticed that you've put a 'Veteran Editor' award up on your user page, This suggests you've a lot of experience, having made over 8,000 edits here. The reality seems rather different to me. So, I'm guessing this was just an editing test - but you will probably find that people might respond to you better if they feel they can trust you. Using misleading userboxes might undermine that feeling. And showing that you are a new user might also get you a bit more leeway when you do make the inevitable error. Did you know you have a sandbox (link at top of page) where you can experiment with all kinds of stuff like that? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I answered it like this:

@User:Nick MoyesI've been contributing to articles in wikipedia for around 4 years now. I just didn't have an account. I put the 'Veteran Editor' award because I'm not sure how many contributions I've done during the time period which I had not created an account. I'm guessing it was over 10000 because I wasn't always active during the 4 years but since I'm not sure, I thought that underestimating would be better then overestimating. These are the official rules of Service Awards which I'm sure you know: What is counted? How to count your edits is up to you. It is generally assumed that all edits, even including edits by bots and deleted edits, are okay to count. If you want to count edits on other Wikimedia projects, that is okay too. If you began as an anonymous IP editor and want to count from the time of your first IP edit, that is also okay. If you run or ran more than one account, you may choose to include the edits for your other user accounts as well. If you are or were an administrator, you can count your administrative actions as edits if you want. You may also begin counting the amount of time you have been an editor from an older account or IP address of yours. It is all based on the honor system, so do what you think gives you the most fair and accurate award level. Information above has been taken from [Service Awards] Sincerely Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This conversation happened very recently and I don't really know what to do. Should I keep my 'Veteran Editor' service award? I assure you, I have made more then 10000 contributions and the reason I've been asking questions a lot is due to the fact that I didn't know a page like this existed so I haven't been able to ask any questions for the past 4 years and I have had a lot of questions during that time period which haven't been answered. I'll be waiting for a reply. Rodrigo Valequez ( talk) 13:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

What you probably shouldn’t do is copy and paste posts left by others on your user talk page or entire discussion threads from other pages onto the Teahouse and instead just link to the discussion instead.

If you want clarification from Nick on what he posted it would be easier to just ask him. My personal opinion is that WP:SERVICEAWARDS are sort of meaningless in the grand scheme of things; they’re more of a vanity thing than anything else and people are more likely going to judge you on the quality of your edits than the quantity of your edits. — Marchjuly ( talk) 13:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Rodrigo Valequez: I have answered on your own talk page. Your notification to me didn't work, so it's only because I saw this post here right afterwards that I was in a position to reply to you. Cheers, Nick Moyes ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Marchjuly: I tried to add a link but for some reason it didn't work, It may have to do with me using a VPN. Sorry for the inconvenience caused by this. I'm aware that Service Awards don't mean much because people award it to themselves but since I haven't ever had a medal, it kind of made me happy to see an award under my name. I must have sounded a bit like a loser, sorry again for the inconvenience. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez ( talk) 19:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Nick Moyes: Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm not very experienced in putting links because I've never written an article myself before, I've only expanded articles from the already present sources and have corrected typos and grammar mistakes. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez ( talk) 19:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I, too, made many edits prior to having an account, and even afterwards, Rodrigo Valequez. However, I did not record my IP address, nor did I keep count. Therefore, I have no grounds to report that accomplishment. If you want to stay above-board as well as be acknowledged for your contributions, you may write a note on your User page stating that you edited as an IP from (year x) to (year y), and your estimate of your edit count as an IP.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 01:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have encountered some rude editors, but I do not have ill intentions in this. I believe my company needs to have some more updated information about it. SS Bendure Hartwig ( talk) 18:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

SS Bendure Hartwig Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see where people have been rude to you, but I see you have been given good advice that you should follow. First, you need to change your username, as usernames cannot be that of any organization per the username policy. Your username must indicate that your account is exclusively operated by a single individual(your real name is not required). Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest to make a change request.

Regarding your question, you first must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies, as you have some required declarations to make. Once you do that, you are welcome to submit formal edit requests on the article talk page of the article about your company. 331dot ( talk) 18:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope you now see, SS Bendure Hartwig, the answer to your question, " Could you please explain why I cannot promote my company on Wikipedia?"-- Quisqualis ( talk) 01:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia editor Robert,

I have done my best to add more references. Thank you also for pointing out my error. I would be most grateful for you review as this is the first wikipedia profile in English that I am creating. I have edited a Czech wiki profile, however, as there is no inter-national link or connection, criteria here seem to differ.

Your guidance is greatly appreciated.

Katerinapartlova ( talk) 18:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Katerinapartlova, criteria vary between different language versions of Wikipedia. Note that Wikipedia contains no "profiles". It's an encyclopedia, and if you would like your article published, please heed the advice you have recently been given concerning its deficiencies:

"Wikipedia may not be used as a reference. See the policy against circular references. References to Wikipedia may and should be converted to in-line links. Although links do not take the place of references, which are required, links will facilitate the evaluation of this draft by providing context.

This draft should be revised and resubmitted with valid references and without using Wikipedia as a reference. You may ask for advice about references and/or links at the Teahouse.

Articles other than list articles should not consist primarily of very long lists. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list of choreographed works is too long.

This is not saying that the subject is notable, and is not saying that the subject is not notable."

"The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."-- Quisqualis ( talk) 02:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that an article has been rejected as not notable enough due to "unreliable sources". The sources being cited are, in my opinion, reliable, as they pertain directly to the subject matter: They are one of the only sources of information on the topic. This, of course, does reflect negatively on the notability of the topic, but I think if the topic became notable by existence of secondary sources [articles and such] affirming its relevance, the original "unreliable" sources would still be valuable information and helpful for readers judging the accuracy of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources often require expertise in order to interpret them. Instead, Wikipedia requires that editors cite reliable secondary sources. Sometimes these sources are written by experts in their fields, and with many of the publications, professional editors oversee the work of staff writers. This obviates the need to scrutinize the qualifications of Wikipedia editors. The editors are not making interpretations and arguments. They are rewording the interpretations and arguments of people who write for a living. If it were otherwise, you would be under personal scrutiny and not have the ability to post as an anonymous editor. Oldsanfelipe2 ( talk) 01:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything. Wow, that's a very long username that you have chosen. It is pretty unwieldy, but maybe that's just me. Back to your question. There is a big difference between primary sources and unreliable sources. Some primary sources are generally reliable (like the websites of large public corporations or recently published medical journal articles reporting new findings or the website of a well known celebrity or politician) while other primary sources are spectacularly unreliable (like the websites of racist hate groups or obvious disinformation operations). The assessments of whether a specific source is "primary" or "reliable" are two different processes. The most important principle is that primary sources can never be used to establish the notability of a topic. But once that notability is established, reliable primary sources can be used to verify basic facts that are not in dispute or not self-serving. That might be the founding date, headquarters city and name of the company CEO, or the birth date and home town of a celebrity, or the fact that ongoing research is taking place in some specific field of study. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

/info/en/?search=Draft:Flutterwave had previously been declined as not notable, as the notability was not well explained. I made some edits to ensure this came out more clearly, but it was declined again.

I do not have any direct connection to the topic (I created my Wikipedia account because I want to bring more attention to the African tech space, which is underrepresented on Wikipedia). Flutterwave is a prominent player in this space, and the coverage already speaks for itself. Dedicated articles in Forbes, Techcrunch and Quartz Africa should normally in itself qualify for notability. The company is also from a notable origin (Andela), with a notable founder (Iyinoluwa Aboyeji), and is funded by several notable VCs. According to the criteria in /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), this submission must have been declined by mistake. Or am I wrong?

Equatorialviking ( talk) 13:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Equatorialviking, Haven't read all the sources, but note the Forbes article is from a contributor, not staff, so is deemed to be practically self published, and not seen as a reliable source - see its page at Perennial sources.

Haven't looked at, and no comment on, the rest of the sourcing. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Google news results show it to be notable, I suggest improve which sources are cited. Also note, that unless you have a conflict of interest it is by no means essential for articles to go through AFC, you can always create an article directly in mainspace, it will still need to be reviewed by NPP and tagged with any content issues. Cheers, Polyamorph ( talk) 14:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is currently essential for now, as the user isn't autoconfirmed. 10 edits over 4 days are required, whilst the user currently has 7.

But yes, once you have a few more edits you can avoid AFC, although we generally don't recommend this to new users. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Will go through the sources again!  :) Equatorialviking ( talk) 20:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Alex Noble Can I move it to the mainpage or is that note allowed, it very notable. Cre8tiveIQ ( talk) 13:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to move it to mainspace (not the main page, that's not OK) anytime. NOTE: In bypassing AFC, you risk having your article deleted. If the topic has any history of prior deletions, it may be WP:SALTed, preventing it ever being re-created (barring unforeseen events).-- Quisqualis ( talk) 21:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Equatorialviking, User:Cre8tiveIQ - You say that it is obviously notable, but if the notability is not obvious to experienced Wikipedia editors, either you have not worked that notability into the draft, or there is reasonable disagreement as to notability. Notability, in the Wikipedia sense, is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the company. Two other reviewers and I declined the draft because it focuses on what the company says about itself. Anybody can say that their company is notable. Do third parties say that the company is notable? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I am assessing some articles and I stumbled into Carol Vance, which appears to be a BLP article tagged for being poorly sourced since 2011. A cursory internet search fails to uncover any obit, and his state bar card says that he is inactive, with no record of him being deceased. I don't see anything controversial in the article. Should I treat this as a matter of urgency? If so, what? Thanks, Oldsanfelipe2 ( talk) 21:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not a matter of urgency. The fact that a BLP subject is retired is not going to improve the sourcing of the article, however. What exactly is your question?-- Quisqualis ( talk) 00:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

One of a hundred thousand poorly or semi sourced BLPs, so sadly the article is nothing out of the ordinary in terms of sourcing and the number of years it has been tagged. Mattg82 ( talk) 01:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this answers my question. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe2 ( talk) 03:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been manually creating links within articles I've created by searching the name or phrase in the English or French Wikipedia. Is there an easier, quicker way to do this? Thanks!! LorriBrown ( talk) 03:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

LorriBrown, highlight the term you want to link and click the link button in the editing interface. As you type the link name, it will start to suggest existing article names, just like it does in main the search box. you may have to hit the space bar or type an additional character for it to start working. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 03:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Thank you, I'll try that! LorriBrown ( talk) 04:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have recently tried to draft an article but was rejected due to a lack of discussion on the parent article and it being a request to spin out an article. It was then that I found out that an (English) article already exists but was stubbed down to a redirect possibly due to the lack of sources or possibly due to Notability.

Because I am rather new to editing in Wikipedia, I would like to check when is it possible to edit/populate an existing redirect article with content. But because the draft was rejected due to a lack of discussion, I am confused on the next steps I can take. (Should I have edited the stubbed down article?).

It is worth mentioning that this article exists in a different language (Japanese and Chinese).

Existing stubbed article: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Y%C5%ABki_Wakai&redirect=no

Rejected Draft article: /info/en/?search=Draft:Yūki_Wakai

Thank you!

Happynaru ( talk) 15:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Background: Three of the six members of Iris (Japanese band) have existing articles, but not Yuki Wakai. David notMD ( talk) 16:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh? Does a redirect article (linked above) not count as an existing article (it was an article before 19 November 2019 based on the history of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yūki%20Wakai&action=history)? Is it possible or permissible to 'revive' the redirect article by editing directly onto it (essentially copying what was on my draft and pasting it on the existing article) then mark the draft for deletion? Happynaru ( talk) 16:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Happynaru, Yes. You can turn a redirect into an article. I haven't looked at the sourcing to decide if it's a good idea, but it is possible. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for both of your responses. I will take a look at my draft once again and further revise it to remove any possible biasedness or anything that could represent promotional material before actually moving it over to the stubbed article. As mentioned by David notMD just now, three of the members do have proper articles, which I assume could possibly justify creation/re-activation of the other three members' articles and their respective biography and filmography without a call for discussion on the parent talk page. Adding individual members' filmography on the parent page might be confusing or might make the parent page longer than it should.

As Robert McClenon have previously rejected the draft, with the current context, would you consider this issue to be resolved? Apologies for tagging you here despite your busy schedule but I was hoping to get your blessing on this. Thank you! Happynaru ( talk) 19:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Happynaru - I did not reject the draft. I declined the draft. The difference is that you can work on it and resubmit it. (A rejected draft should not be resubmitted.) I said that you should discuss whether Yuki Wakai should have a separate article at the talk page for the group, Talk:Iris (Japanese band). That is what you should do, discuss. If the other editors at the group talk page agree that she should have a separate article, I can accept the article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for the clarification! Happynaru ( talk) 06:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to fix some typos on an article about a television show that was translated to English from another language. I saw the content while correcting the typos and the whole article has been written in a way that makes it impossible to understand. It's terribly complicated and the article introduced the characters at random times as it explained the story. It had loads of grammar mistakes, I corrected around 2% of the total grammar mistakes and It got harder as I tried to correct more because it was very hard to understand what the writer had meant. The story was explained in such detail that I found myself sweating while trying not to forget the it. When I saw that it was classified as "Simple English" I almost had a seizure. I decided to translate it from the original language so I changed the language. The moment I did that, I got some messages in the language (which I don't understand) and I think it damaged my brain cells beyond repair. It should probably be corrected/rewritten as soon as possible to not cause any permanent brain damage for other users. And please don't make me do it, I beg of you. Here is the link, I reccomend you to hide behind something and tie yourself to it as the content will shake you to your core and the horror of what the world has become will probably cause some suicidal feelings. Open at your own risk: By the way, I think it feeds on the souls of the users it kills. Rodrigo Valequez ( talk) 15:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Appears RV is referring to Bojhena Se Bojhena (TV series)

It is not unique to see articles about TV shows with endless meandering plot summaries like that one. Plot summaries should be MUCH shorter, but it is a frustrating and probably pointless task to try to edit them down, given that there are at least dozens of enthusiastic well-meaning fans for each TV show, who feel very strongly that every minor detail in hundreds of episodes belong in the Wikipedia article. The poor English is also par for the course, I'm afraid. (By the way, the article is not written in Simple English. It looks like the same IP user added the identical plot description in Simple English Wikipedia and here – it's not a translation, unless it is a translation from Bangla.) -- bonadea contributions talk 22:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles such as the one you mention, Rodrigo Valequez, belong to a subset of the English Wikpedia which I call the " Desi Encyclopedia". It's a world unto itself, filled with capital letters in odd places and excessive use of honorifics, not to mention unencyclopedic expressions of approval. I have wasted some hours trying to tidy up articles there, but, in general, it probably isn't appreciated. That pop-culture Desi stuff is there for aficionados, as is all the LOTR and anime stuff. If I were interested, things would be different, but I mostly try to keep all those doors shut.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 02:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I tried to tidy the article up but it was incredibley frustrating so I gave up.

Regards Rodrigo Valequez ( talk) 08:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You seem just the right person to do the cleanup. You can be bold and trim the plot, removing excessive details. This section usually has two or three paragraphs. The current information is best moved to a section devoted to Episodes on account of the sheer details involved. Just noting that the bulk of the content is unreferenced.

Can someone please fix the bot archiver template on Talk:MARCOS. It doesn't seem to be working.—  Vaibhavafro  ^💬 13:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In this edit I've corrected one obvious error, so we'll wait to see whether that works when the bot next runs. I've also added an index and search for the archives when they appear. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 13:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.—  Vaibhavafro  ^💬 18:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The archive bot has now picked it up. I spotted one further error & corrected it in this edit. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

On the Derek Mackay wikipage the following reference needs to be used twice https://www.parliament.scot/msps/currentmsps/98609.aspx How can this be done by only having one link in the references? presently theres two.

Devokewater ( talk) 10:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

At present that ref seems to be used only once, but if it needs to be reused the process is at WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 11:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph Devokewater ( talk) 11:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The refs just vanished from the page Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak. I would have done an Undo to the previous point it was fixed, however many other things got added while the error was present. At first the ref list was there showing references, where only a few refs displayed an issue. After a while it grew, and eventually no refs are showing now. The discussion took place here, /info/en/?search=User_talk:Robertsky#Uhhhh,_just_a_heads_up,_your_recent_edits_to_the_Wuhan_virus_timeline_article_is_disrupting_other_references. Would appreciate the help. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold ( talk) 01:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have undo the ref related edits done in the last couple of hours or so, including those done by @ John B123:. Technically, it should take on at least this revision (before the series of my edits) in which the Reflist and Navbox appears ok. However, with the added content by Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold and a couple of other editors, the Navbox template is not showing while Reflist template is ok. robertsky ( talk) 01:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: The article is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. See Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. PrimeHunter ( talk) 02:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@ PrimeHunter: A content split would be the quickest way to resolve this issue then? robertsky ( talk) 02:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Robertsky: Quickest depends on how a split is made and what is considered other acceptable options but a split looks like the best option. Splitting at Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Events, reactions, and measures in mainland China would solve it for now with the first part using 68% of the template limit and the second part 37% (not counting reference templates which would have to be copied to the other page). Currently it would only need a 7% template reduction to fit in one page but the article is expanding fast so that looks like a short-term solution. Two articles may become insufficient later so maybe it should be split by month. PrimeHunter ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Split content by month completed. Thanks for the advise. robertsky ( talk) 03:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the problem has been fixed for now.  :) Thanks you @ Robertsky:. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold ( talk) 04:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Robertsky: For now indeed. Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in February 2020 is already using 72% of the template limit after 8 days. 42% is from Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in February 2020#Case statistics. And Timeline of the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 – January 2020 is using 92%. PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@ PrimeHunter: Just as I suspected so. I will probably do a WP:BOLD edit in the next couple of days to remove the case statistics template from the monthly pages and put it in the list article instead, while putting a notice on the impacted pages describing why it is done so, and for any other editors to pick up on how to downsize the case stats template. robertsky ( talk) 11:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A new editor has been removing edits from Chris Stephens without explanation, the sources removed are reliable, verifiable and independent how can this be stopped? The editor only edits Chris Stephens, it appears to be vandalism or a vested interest.

Devokewater ( talk) 13:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You and another editor have left messages on that editor's Talk page. If the editor persists, then reported it as edit warring ( WP:EW), which could lead, initially, to a short-term block from editing. David notMD ( talk) 13:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

EC@ Devokewater:, you appear to have already taken the first necessary steps by opening discussion at the article and user talk pages. I added a template to their user page that also addresses some of their actions. If they don't respond but keep reverting, then you can make a report at the Edit War Noticeboard. I note that their user name literally means "True Scot", which may be meaningful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Eggishorn + David notMD

Devokewater ( talk) 14:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I really don’t know the best way to respond to this threatening warning on my talk page. I can’t guarantee I’ll never add unsourced content to any article, as a rule I build articles with sources. Is this really a thing that Wikipedia is now warning that content has to be sourced to be added? My understanding was that it had to be verifiable in reliable sources. Not that one was required to add those sources at the same time. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 18:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, you should not add content to an article unless it is sourced to a reliable source. It isn't up to readers to take our word for the content in articles and find the sources on their own, we must provide the sources themselves for readers to examine. For information on citing sources, please read WP:CITE. 331dot ( talk) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I came here a few days ago to inquire if that is an actual rule; the result being no, just a perennial rejected rule. In practice anyone can add unsourced content, it may be questioned or removed but that’s also true with sourced content. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 18:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Gleeanon409:, I see that another Administrator, User:Seraphimblade, tried to tell you the same thing, as did User:SergeWoodzing. Apparently SergeWoodzing thought from your responses that you didn't see why you should follow our policy and felt that a formal warning would be a good idea. Now you're right that policy says that everything must be verifiable, not that you have to add a source for everything. But this comment by you:"An evolved perspective, in my opinion, is that we should be reality-based, and try to verify content being added is accurate and source it if possible." could easily be interpreted as your saying that even if you know you can't find a source, if you believe it's true you can add it. But although policy doesn't insist on a source for every edit, WP:VERIFY still notes that "This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Doug Weller talk 19:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

First off, it should be easily seen from the articles I create or improve that indeed I source pretty much everything on them.

I was alarmed that someone insisted in deleting perfectly true, and easily verifiable content solely because a source wasn’t added at the same time. In my albeit limited experience, anons add unsourced content all the time and editors incorporate it if it’s true, or remove it if it’s not. I felt Serg’s approach was aggressively destructive and possibly hostile to newer editors. Their threat is implied within the official warning. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 19:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You are allowed to add unsourced material (except in a few cases such as unsourced defamatory material about a living person), and others are allowed to remove it as unsourced. If you add material without giving a source, editors are likely to assume that you don't know of a source, otherwise you would have cited it yourself. Maproom ( talk) 21:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The phrase perfectly true, and easily verifiable content confuses me. If you know that it is easily verifiable, what reason could there be for you not to add the verifying refs? -- bonadea contributions talk 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The ref I had was off video, so not in print for me to easily add. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 20:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see from this user's closing comments here, the warning had no effect whatsoever and the user intends to go on adding unsourced material at will while expecting others to source it. Might that specific problem be more serious than what a teahouse item is able to address? Just asking. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 17:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith here is as off the mark as your assumption that verifiably true information had to be deleted because a source wasn’t added at the same time. People just might be better than your assessment of them. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 17:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you intend to go on adding unsourced material while expecting others to source it later? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 18:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve stated already my articles created and improved should answer that baited question fairly. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 19:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Any time you make an edit to Wikipedia, Gleeanon409, you are given an opportunity to answer potential questions in advance via the Edit summary It has plenty of room to explain the origin of your material in the absence of a citation. In the interest of both your efficiency and the value of this encyclopedia, I encourage you to use it to its fullest.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 02:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I continue to be concerned about this user after h refusal to answer the "baited" question about adding unsourced info while expecting others to source it. The fact that the warning about that on h talk page now has been archived withour resolution only heightens my concern. Looks like the only result here is that we can expect the user, in a now self-justified modus operandi, to continue adding unsourced material while expecting the rest of us to source it. Have we actually authorized such a thing here? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I need website on wiki but have not been tried it but now I need to learn more about Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gootaorom12 ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

hello Gootaorom12. If you mean that you would like to create a WP-article, read HELP:YFA carefully and decide if it's a good idea. If you want to create your own wiki, Fandom (website) may be worth looking into. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:15, 9 February 2020

Hello Gootaorom12. If you think that you "need" a website on Wikipedia, then you almost certainly have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works, like many people. Please look at NOTWEBHOST. -- ColinFine ( talk) 14:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Although I am doing the criteria to finish mission 6 & mission 7, I am unable to move forward. My contributions list my accomplishments, but I do not earn the badge or move forward. Please assist me in this dilemma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JL Fenger ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@ JL Fenger: A screenshot of the issue would be helpful to us. You can try asking at WP:VPT. Interstellarity ( talk) 14:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It has allowed me to do mission 9, but do I have to write complete "New" article to continue? I am not finding any category that does not already have a Wiki post of some sort already done...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JL Fenger ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how to navigate/use this system but I have some information that could be considered for inclusion in the writeup on SSIXS. Here it is...

SSIXS

SSIXS was originally hosted on an AN/UYK-20 Data set (AKA Yuk20) and was programmed in the Navy programming language CMS-2Y. In 1986 it was decided to rehost SSIXS on a DEC MicroVAX and was re-programmed in Ada. Fleet Combat Direction Systems Support Activity (FCDSSA) a US Navy activity in San Diego California maintained the SSIXS software and with help of contractors (Unisys. Ex Sperry) rehosted the SSIXS shore processor in DEC MicroVAX platforms.

SSIXS was in two parts: 1. Shore side (out going messages): Message content was fed to the SSIXS shore side processor, a store and forward message system that could provide input to US Navy SATCOM, VLF (Very Low Frequency) or ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) transmissions and 2. The subscriber side program aboard the Submarines (incoming messages.)

To receive SATCOM message traffic the submarine had to come close enough to the surface to stick a SATCOM antenna into the air. VLF messages could be received via a trailing wire antenna with the submarine as deep as 60 ft. ELF transmissions could be received anywhere on the earth or at any depth in the ocean.

SSIXS buoy: Submarines are equipped to launch signal flares or a small buoy while submerged. A SSIXS buoy can be programmed to transmit an outgoing message to a satellite (NAVY SATCOM.) The outgoing transmission from the buoy can be delayed to permit the submarine time to depart the area so as to not reveal its location. After sending its preprogrammed message the SSIXS buoy scuttles itself to avoid compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick w g 007 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Patrick w g 007. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for wanting to help improve this encyclopaedia. As there is no page about SSIXS, I am guessing you refer to the page called Communication with submarines? If so, providing you can supply a link (url) to an online source, or a reference to a printed manual or book, you would be welcome to go to that article's 'Talk' Page (just look for the tab right next to the 'article' tab). There, you can post your information and source, and leave it to others with knowledge of the topic to consider how relevant its addition would be to the Wikipedia article. Many thanks, Nick Moyes ( talk) 17:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have an article page which I hope will be accepted which is /info/en/?search=User:Russell_Ashi But this page appears in the search engine when i search for Russell Ashi /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Russell_Ashi Is this normal , or have I done something wrong. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell Ashi ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Russell_Ashi, it seems that quite a lot has gone wrong.

• You are trying to create an article on your Wikipedia User page. Your User page is intended for informing other Wikipedia editors about your activities on Wikipedia, not for creating an article.
• You appear to be writing what is intended as an autobiographical article. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.
• Instead of citing newspaper articles, you have cited images of those articles. You should cite the newspaper articles themselves, giving the name of the publication, the name of the author, the publication date, and the page number.
• The images you have cited are violations of the copyright of the newspapers. Giving links to material that is in breach of copyright is forbidden on Wikipedia.
• One of the sources you have tried to cite is the Daily Mail, a newspaper which is not accepted in Wikipedia as a reliable source (except for sporting results). Maproom ( talk) 21:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Russell Ashi (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The first page you link to, User:Russell Ashi(better to link this way, the whole web address is not necessary) is your user page. It is not article space, and is not indexed by search engines(note the "user:" in the title). It is a place for you to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia use only, it is not a social media-style page for you to say anything and everything about yourself. The second page is your personal Wikipedia contribution history, which can be found by a search engine.

If you intended to write an autobiographical article, please understand that is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please read the autobiography policy for more information- but in short, Wikipedia is not for people to tell the world about themselves, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable person). If you reviewed the definition of notability and truly feel that you meet the criteria, it would be best if someone else wrote the article about you. In order for you to be successful at doing so, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people cannot do this about themselves.

Also please understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot ( talk) 21:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

idk where to report stuff like this but the reference links for citation [4] in the History of Eugenics page is fake as shit. (can u swear here) too lazy to google the actual book/author but the links and IBN cited lead to a children's book of all things.

idk hopefully yall can either just remove the claim written in or find actual citations for it. here's the link to it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics#cite_ref-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.99.100 ( talk • contribs)

Thanks for the heads-up. At some point the wrong ISBN was entered, and a helpful bot then added the links to the picture book. (And yes, it's ok to swear, as long as it is not directed at another person – general profanity is fine, attacks are not.) I've fixed the ISBN and other parts of the reference. -- bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah - thanks for that. In future, you might simply wish to leave that kind of information on the article Talk page (there's a tab right next to the article tab at the top left) To offer an alternative answer to your question: profanity doesn't bother me personally (I use it from time to time IRL), I think that as Wikipedia matures (it'll soon be 21 years old!) and we have higher and higher expectations that we all act professionally and respectfully, it is incumbent upon us all to set a good example and not use offensive or profane language in any of our writings - especially when welcoming newcomers, as we do here at the Teahouse. It just sets a poor example. That said - we wouldn't have told you off for using it as you did, but avoiding using it is far better, methinks. Nick Moyes ( talk) 17:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 

Indeed, different individuals have different personal opinions on the subject, none of which is more or less valid than any other – but it does seem relevant to mention the fact that there is no policy or guideline forbidding the use of peofanity as long as users are not uncivil to each other. -- bonadea contributions talk 21:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Draft:Christopher_Ategeka

I have put in 15+ inline citations showing verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources One of the editors commented, "Still rather thin on references, where has all the unsourced content come from?" I am still new on editing, can someone help on what am doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfisch3 ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Jmfisch3, to establish that a subject is notable, you need to cite several reliable independent published sources that discuss the subject in depth. In your opinion, which four of the sources cited in your draft best do that? (The four that I randomly checked are all based on interviews with Ategeka, and so are not independent and do not help establish that he is notable.) Maproom ( talk) 21:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jmfisch3. The main issue that I see is that your draft seems to be virtually identical to that which was deleted back in August 2019, following a deletion discussion. You appear to have simply pasted it back in again the same day. The extra references you've since added still seem a little 'thin'. For example, you state that he's been the subject of a number of chapters in two books. But you've only given urls to books on Amazon, with no supporting evidence that he's been the focus of these chapters. I suggest you look at your key sources which demonstrate notability and focus on enhancing those. Please consider giving inline citations to each of the stated 'awards' shown in the table. Oh, and if you are personally acquainted with the subject (as your use of your own photograph suggests you might be), do please follow the instructions (at WP:COI) to declare your connection, or WP:PAID if you are an employee or other paid person in one of his companies or organisations. You have obviously wanted to create this page since your first edits on him five years ago (then deleted back in July 2014) so it seems not an unreasonable question to ask what connection you might have. You should not edit the page further until you have addressed that question, please. All that said, I suspect he might be seen as borderline notable, especially if you can find some really good sources that talk about him 'in depth' rather than just lots of little short mentions. Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)  

Sorry - I realise that sounds a bit harsh, especially as I see that the deleting admin pasted in a copy of the article onto your talk page for you to work on in draft. Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi! How can I delete an unwanted citation from a draft article in my Sandbox? I have progressed well beyond this citation and Undo doesn't seem to work. Besides I don't want to Undo my subsequent citations or content. Thanks in advance for you help! E54495a ( talk) 22:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Appears to be about User:E54495a/sandbox. For any section, you should be able to click on Edit for that section, then delete the reference. This will automatically remove it from the References and renumber all the subsequent references. David notMD ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to post an article. How to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.9.138 ( talk) 22:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. I've taken a look at your past contributions and some of the the warnings you've received, plus the latest test edit your IP address has made and then reverted, and I'd really like to know what the article you want to post would be about, and maybe a few of the reliable references you'd propose using? If you can tell us that, then maybe we can guide you in the right direction. But it's always best to register for a free account, then you can experiment in your very own sandbox. Alternatively, you can start work on a draft article, using our 'article wizard' at WP:AFC. But we never advise anyone to try to create an encyclopedia article straight off - it's best to learn the basics of editing before you try, and you've clearly not had a serious go at that, as yet. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So, I just wanted to see what edits are okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdvisoryOnMixer ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@ AdvisoryOnMixer: Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. It's pretty hard to tell you what edits are ok; in theory you are free to edit almost any article, but Wikipedia is a big and complex place and there are all sorts of edits that may or may not be ok depending on the circumstances. If I could summarise what will generally be an ok edit: a balanced (i.e. not pushing a point of view) edit to an article where you do not have a conflict of interest with the topic, and where you have a reliable source for the information you are introducing or the change you are making. And if anyone reverts or disagrees with your edit, discuss it on the article talk page before attempting to re-introduce it. Does that help answer your question? Hug ^syrup 11:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

AdvisoryOnMixer, the article Help:Editing contains more than technical advice. It steers you away from risky editing practices as well. I'd recommend a thorough perusal, along with any relevant articles or essays it might cite, including Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 12:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, AdvisoryOnMixer. I assume you are asking about this reversion of one of your edits by Dartslilly. You asked about it on their talk page, to which they replied to go on the article talk page (but you probably missed it because they archived/cleaned up their talk page two minutes later).

I would agree with the reversal: the sentence you add was unsourced, and we on Wikipedia are big fans of verifiability: you need to provide a reliable source as citation for every fact in an article (such as a news report by the specialized press). You might answer that "popular as a montage song" is not an objective, well-defined fact, and nobody has written about it yet; but those are reasons not to include it in Wikipedia. (I will also add that beginning a sentence with "And" is usually frowned upon in semi-formal English like we use in our articles.)

Dartslilly's actions were not very newbie-friendly (in particular, although they are right that content issues should be discussed on article talk pages rather than user talk pages, an explanation of verifiability would have had its place on a user talk page) but they were probably scrolling through a long list of new edits and reverting poor ones by the tens or hundreds. Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 12:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, @ AdvisoryOnMixer: it would be helpful to reviewers if you could provide a WP:DIFF to the reversion. The editors above have it right, and I see you have received a response on the article talk page. Please write in complete sentences and take some time to review the policy links here and on your talk page. Dartslilly ( talk) 00:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I just heard about the U.S. Black News Channel on the radio. It debuts tomorrow. Rather eye-opening that it has not been written about on WP. Am I dreaming, or is this the case? I assume other news media have refrained from covering it, but, really??-- Quisqualis ( talk) 01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis If you can find significant coverage in independent reliable sources of this news channel, feel free to write about it. Articles can only exist if people choose to write them. 331dot ( talk) 02:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I am a new editor here and would like to know the policies to keep in mind while RC patrolling. I am a editor from wikihow so I do have some expirence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real EJ ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, The Real EJ. Take a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which will get you started. Please feel free to ask follow-up questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

i just simply want learning materials and how to locate them — Preceding unsigned comment added by DENNIS GBONDA ( talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, DENNIS GBONDA. Did you see the response to your question here last July, which is now archived here? I would ask the same sorts of questions - it's not clear to me whether you're looking to learn about Wikipedia, or learn about other stuff using Wikipedia. Perhaps you could clarify? Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I would like for advice in how to properly submit this article so it is not rejected. I've read several wikipedia pages about how to properly send an article however I can't quite grasp on why it is not notable enough. thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukoner ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are talking about User:Sukoner/sandbox, it already has been rejected. You submitted it and it was declined, and the feedback in the box on the draft page gave you lots of useful links, including to WP:Notability, but without addressing the problem you resubmitted it and not surprisingly it was rejected. Before you try again you need to to read all the useful links in the feedback you received on your sandbox page, together with the other useful links in the welcome message on your user talk page. When you've read those, if you want to write about a subject which is notable and you have specific questions, please free to ask them. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 17:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You also appear to be writing about yourself. Even if you are notable, this is strongly discouraged. QuiteUnusual ( talk) 09:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

British silversmiths are not represented on Wikipedia and if we don't do it soon, there won't be anybody alive that can write about them. Derek Styles wrote a fantastic book that I know he would be happy to pass on its content. Who should we contact? PS. I wrote about Alex Styles a while ago and the copy was knocked back because it came from the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7D19:A000:1D5B:D031:E708:CD66 ( talk) 14:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is not for merely documenting the content of a book or merely documenting a subject; Wikipedia summarizes what multiple independent reliable sources state about a subject. If you have multiple sources that describe silversmiths in Britain, an article could be written about it. If you just want to spread the word about this book or just document it- there are other forums where that is permitted. 331dot ( talk) 14:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the teahouse. As an encyclopedia, we include information from reliable sources, not from people's own knowledge or memory. I mention that to explain why, in fact, Wikipedia doesn't need to worry too much about there being nobody left alive who remembers a particular topic. As long as there are reliable sources about them, there is always scope for an article.

On this particular topic, there is already an article on Silversmiths, and I can't help wondering if there is enough material to make a whole new article about one particular nationality of silversmiths? Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a history website as such, and is not the place to document all the details of a historic topic.

As far as the Derek Styles book goes, if it is published then it can certainly be used as a source for any article. We don't need permission from the author, since we would be using it as a source and not directly copying content from it (a lesson you appear to have learnt before!) so there is no need to contact anyone. Hug ^syrup 15:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I have been working on gathering a lot of information on Draft:Laia Cabrera, a videoartist. I am non-native english speaker, and I would love to have some help regarding the writing style to be able to improve the overall article. I believe the references are fine, and the construction of the article is correct. But if you also have feedback in that regard, I am most open to suggestions. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessadeouve ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Yessadeouve: it can be hard to sum up what is an encyclopedic style, and opinions may vary, but I think that the key point is that an encyclopedia article should read like an unbiased summary of what other (reliable) sources say about the topic. If you have information, opinions, or descriptions that have no basis in a source then probably they should be removed. I would go through each section and ask yourself 'is this what the source is saying, or is it what I am saying as a writer of the article?'. If it is the latter, then it probably needs to change.

With regards to your specific article:

• Most of the career section is ok in tone, in that it is fairly factual and unbiased but it is a) too long and detailed and b) hugely lacking in sources.
• The Art Work section is highly unencyclopedic and I suggest you delete this and start again. Phrases like As a filmmaker and visual artist, she uses a variety of media: music, video, narration, projected images that fuse cinematographic arts; music, dance; Photography; theater; visual arts; voice; writing. Feeling of timelessness, human landscapes: faces, fragments of the body. or "Is there an edge of belief?", "Claim your place" and "Shifting Gaze" were a step forward in the search for forms of identity: the projects explore the relationship, the lack of communion and the ethics of desire-belief-beauty. or, most of all Where are the limits of our understanding of emotions, how do we relate to others and how do we handle differences? sound like art gallery brochures, not an encyclopedia.
• Video art projects and Video Installation Projects suffer from the same problems as Art Work above. The film intends to frame the connection between micro and macro, the invisible labyrinths that connect us with the unconscious and the sudden changes that are beyond our expectations in life. is not the language of an encyclopedia. These are also far too long. An encyclopedia article is not the place for an in depth description of every piece of work an artist has ever done.
• You also appear to have the article copy-pasted twice on the same page. Make sure to delete one or it will cause no end of confusion.
• The references need fixing - in most cases the problem is that you have correctly used double {{ to open a cite, but only a single } to close it. You just need to go through and add a closing curly bracket to the broken references.

I hope this helps. Hug ^syrup 09:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• @ Yessadeouve: There are various policy and style guidelines one could cite for authority ( WP:NPOV, WP:PEACOCK etc.) but my general view is that a good Wikipedia article should be boring. If you elicit zero emotions (positive or negative) in the reader, they will be using their brain rather than their guts to process the information they are presented with (and if you do not think that is a positive, Wikipedia probably is not for you). Tigraan ^{Click here to contact me} 13:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Not without some merit, but another school of thought is that keeping the readers interest is a good thing. Boring compared to many news-media, sure. Dry, dusty and bland is often our style. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi all I am newbie editor and am trying to find the raw data used to publish the article on SARS. This one - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2003_Probable_cases_of_SARS_-_Worldwide.svg#/media/File:2003_Probable_cases_of_SARS_-_Worldwide.svg

I have checked the WHO data source and it does not have it in this format readily so am guessing the user who put the chart together collated the data manually from the WHO data.

How can I access the raw data OR request the user who published the chart (Phoenix777?) to share the data?

Would appreciate any guidance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelmurty ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Neelmurty. You can contact Phoenix7777 at their talk page User talk:Phoenix7777. (They should get notified of this discussion, because I linked to their user talk page). Since that File in on Commons, the person who uploaded it won't necessarily be active on English Wikipedia, and in general it might be better to contact them on their User talk page on Commons; but in fact, Phoenix7777 has been active on enwiki today. -- ColinFine ( talk) 17:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I'm writing an article about the bible. Its a summary and I'm going to be explaining a lot of events that taking place in it. Im asking wether is accepted if I use pictures that are already existing in the wiki on ather articles but not owned by me??? And what should I follow to use that pictures??? Sethabi ba sethabi ( talk) 17:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sethabi ba sethabi, Howdy hello and welcome to the teahouse! Well we already happen to have a lot of articles about The Bible. I'm not sure what you could write about that we haven't already written about. If you have reliable sources that discuss the bible, you could add that to the relevant page, such as a specific book of the bible. What exactly do you wish to write about?

In terms of images, yes you can include other images on Wikipedia, as our images are generally free use, as long as attribution is provided. A complete guide to images can be found at Wikipedia:Image use policy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 17:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to give a light and a describtion of who is who in the bible and to whom do certain culutres and norms belongs to. To put to a paper of what I have uncovered. To tell the trueth that the bible tells. Sethabi ba sethabi ( talk) 23:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sethabi ba sethabi Wikipedia is not for posting personal opinions or original research as to the content of The Bible. We already have a great many articles about The Bible, you have independent reliable sources to expand on that content, please offer it- but this is not the forum for posting your own views. 331dot ( talk) 00:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not given my opinions on it yet, but the way you puts it I get it, because even if I had to copy a story from somewhere and come paste it on wiki, I would still had to write it on my own way and it would still cost my comments on it, and thus says I'm not on the site I was looking for.

Any a way thanks Sethabi ba sethabi ( talk) 20:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Yesterday, I created the article Summer Reading Programs. I realized after creating it that it doesn't match Wikipedia's conventions for capitalization of article titles.

I found that Summer reading programs existed, but just redirected to the Collaborative Summer Library Program.

I changed the redirect to point to Summer Reading Programs, but now I'm wondering if there's a mechanism/procedure for shifting the content to Summer reading programs, and changing the capitalized version to a redirect or candidate for speedy deletion?

Thanks for any guidance! LindsDe ( talk) 17:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

LindsDe, it can be done, but you'll require the assistance of an administrator or page mover. Easiest way of doing this is to place {{ Db-move}} on the correct title. Fill this in like so {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}}.

If it helps with searching, this is what's called a round robin page move. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@ LindsDe and Alex Noble: A round-robin page move is actually a little different where two pages are swapped but both page histories are preserved. The title should be singular Summer reading program per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). That is also a redirect but has a long page history which includes this version before The Official Summer Reading Program was added, so I'm not sure we should really start over with a new article. PrimeHunter ( talk) 20:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@ LindsDe, Alex Noble, and PrimeHunter: I have moved Summer Reading Programs to Summer reading programs via WP:ROUNDROBIN. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 21:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I submitted my first article (on a living person) December 31 and it was promptly rejected due to lack of NPOV and reliable sources. I believe both issues are now satisfactorily addressed. Before resubmitting, I have a few questions:

1) Subject wrote a number of newspaper articles, many in major publications. Do I simply reference each one with a citenews footnote?

2) Would I do the same with her phonographs? (This would be in addition to a couple of secondary source footnotes.)

3) To substantiate her years at the United Nations, would pages from the UN phone directories be acceptable? (I have cover of ea directory showing year and her listing, including department. The other listings are illegible.)

4) If I cannot substantiate art awards, do I have to omit them?

5) If I cannot substantiate her broadcast work, do I have to omit? (I can cite few secondary sources, but not for most.)

6) The only substantiation I have for her creating the Nixon Coloring book (under several pseudonyms) is a receipt from the publisher and all the original art boards. Shall I omit?

Thank you for your assistance. Carol Berney Gonzalez ( talk) 20:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Carol Berney Gonzalez, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I think you are a bit confused about references. References in a Wikipedia article are there to corroborate information in the article, Works by the subject, Draft:Beryl Bernay, are not references and should not be cited, unless you are using them as sources for information in the article (which should be limited to the kind of information appropriate to primary sources). The guide to what you are trying to do is at MOS:WORKS.

The answers to all the rest of your questions is in WP:V: if information cannot be verified from a reliable published source then it should not go into the article. So yes, in most cases you must omit.

Remember that a Wikipedia article is not an assemblage of everything known about a subject: it is a summary of what independent commentators have chosen to say about the subject. -- ColinFine ( talk) 21:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, thank you for clarifying. Carol Berney Gonzalez ( talk) 22:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I am a new editor to wikipedia looking to better understand the editing process. I would like to know do higher regarded editors get paid to edit on wikipedia? If so, how would one get that title? JEby1 ( talk) 23:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)JEby1

No, Wikipedia does no pay editors. Editors are all volunteers. Meters ( talk) 23:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If only. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There are people who self-promote themselves as editors' for hire. Not through Wikipedia. If they get a paying client, they are required to comply with WP:PAID rules. David notMD ( talk) 00:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

JEby1 Where would Wikipedia get the money to pay you with? 331dot ( talk) 00:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan is the seventh largest tea consumer in the world, however, it is not even mentioned in the list on Wikipedia:

/info/en/?search=List_of_countries_by_tea_consumption_per_capita

Can this be corrected, please?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.10.249.2 ( talk) 20:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The place to ask this is on the talk page Talk:List of countries by tea consumption per capita. The information seems to be sourced (though https://www.statista.com/statistics/507950/global-per-capita-tea-consumption-by-country/ requires a login, so I haven't checked it); so you would need to provide a reliable published source for your information.

I wonder if you might be thinking of this article, which does put Pakistan 7th: but it's not in tea consumption, but in rate of increase of consumption. Or perhaps you have some other source. In any case, please argue it on that Talk page. -- ColinFine ( talk) 21:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

—[ AlanM1( talk)]— 01:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia consider keeping it's own database of sources which editors can refer to and curious readers can refer to? It seems that sometimes sources that I click on in the bibliography refer to either an online book that I'm prevented for accessing, or a page with very little content, let alone a means of searching if the citations are used properly. With that being said, I feel that it would be an amazing feature of Wikipedia to store or have access to a library of books which can be accessed. Not sure if this is feasible economically, but I think it would be very nice to see. Thank you for your time. Jakes22 ( talk) 23:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

While this certainly sounds like a good idea at one level, it's just not how we do things. We provide guidelines as to what makes a good source ( WP:RS, etc), and there's a forum where people discuss poor sources. And, the quality of specific sources is an important part of WP:AfD discussions. Beyond that, editorial decisions, such as what sources to use, are almost entirely up to individual editors. As for access to a library, we do have arrangements with many databases and libraries to provide free access to wikipedia editors. See WP:LIBRARY. I have a few subscriptions through there, and it's an invaluable resource. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, Google Books has free or limited views of many books, as does archive.org, and Wikisource (not sure about "books" here, but lots of something). The WL that Roy mentioned is especially useful for gaining access to newspapers.com, which has archived copies of newspapers with rudimentary search, from 18th century until current. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 01:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Jakes22: I want to thank you for your question here today, as it reminded me that some years ago I suggested that, on one of the WikiProjects I'm involved with, we should collate a list of relevant books that our members had access to at home. I just found it languishing in an old archive, so have moved it onto our main project page, ( here). Thanks, Nick Moyes ( talk) 01:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

How can I be sure if a website (blog) is reputable enough to be on a Wikipedia page? It is not a personal blog page, but instead an award-winning food blog...do I just post the name of the website here?

Thanks! Alwayslp ( talk) 00:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Alwayslp: This is a tricky question. Blogs are rarely reliable sources for content, since there's no journalistic oversight, but in rare cases content from a notable blog that gets media coverage could be considered noteworthy. In other words, a specific post and blog could be considered notable, but they would still not be appropriate to use as sourcing, as defined in WP:RS, specifically WP:USERGENERATED. And if a blogger gets sufficient media coverage for their blogging, they might qualify for an article, as with the surprising to see List of Nigerian bloggers. (Disclosure - I haven't read the list in depth, but the bloggers listed are seemingly often notable for things besides their blogging.) So to summarize, a blog might be notable, but rarely will one be usable as a source. If you want to post the name of the blog, I can review its coverage for notability purposes. Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your reply - It's very helpful...I'm wondering about the food blog called

^[1]

if it is considered a reliable source...

Thanks again for your input. Alwayslp ( talk) 00:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Alwayslp: I think context is important, and depends what kind of statement you want to sauce source from the blog. Looking at its 'about' page, it clearly has a number of editors running it, including one alleged to be a NY Times food writer. So it might be a bit more reliable than many others. I should mention that we do have a noticeboard for discussing reliable sources (see WP:RSN), though personally I like to stick with my favourites: Worcestershire and Soy.

On a different note, might I compliment you on some incredibly detailed edit summaries that you use. Possibly the most detailed I've ever seen for minor edits. Thank you - though feel free to reduce the level of detail if it ever gets too much! Nick Moyes ( talk) 01:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Alwayslp: It already has an article. Serious Eats. It was considered notable or has somehow escaped deletionist attention. (I think it's fine - it's profiled in NY Magazine's own blog Grubstreet [ [8]].) Therefore, if you wanted to use one of the blog posts as a source for information added to another article, such as for a fictional restaurant XYZ Restaurant, you could say something like "The Serious Eats blog showcased XYZ Restaurant for its soup dumplings." or something like that, and I don't think you'd have a problem. But context and content are key, so don't be surprised if you get any pushback for a different reason. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 01:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help and insight! Alwayslp ( talk) 02:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

У меня есть старый кабинет , но я не знаю информации о доступе никакой , помогите востановить доступ плиииииз — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.40.107.159 ( talk) 09:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, your IP is not blocked on English Wikipedia or globally. You'll need to follow the instructions on the block notice (or whatever notice you see) if you want us to help you. If you don't understand English, maybe try asking a friend for help. If you're having trouble on different language Wikipedia, such as Russian Wikipedia, you'll need to contact them for help. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

How to rename the Page I am unable to rename 6 years ago a user redirected to Visakhapatnam Airport from Visakhapatnam International Airport but now Government Of India recognised Visakhapatnam Airport as Visakhapatnam International Airport In the same way Vijayawada Airport also — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktdk ( talk • contribs) 11:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Ktdk, we use the name most commonly used, not the offical name, per Wikipedia:Official names and WP:COMMONNAME. If you think the new name is now the most commonly used name, there is the Requested Moves process at Wikipedia:Requested moves. As this is a move likley to need discussion, you should place {{ Requested move}} on the article's talk page, with your justification. The closer will be able to either delete the redirect, or perform a round robin page move, in order to swap the article titles.

Thanks, ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

With the airport's own website http://visakhapatnamairport.com/about.htm and the Airports Authority of India https://www.aai.aero/en/airports/visakhapatnam both referring to it as Visakhapatnam Airport, you would need some pretty convincing evidence to convince us that the name has changed. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 11:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ktdk Note that an airport can receive international flights and not have "International" be a formal part of its name. 331dot ( talk) 13:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to ask if all the encyclopedia entries are updated in real time, because I find that most of the popular entries are updated quickly, but compared to some unpopular entries, few people update according to what happened in real time. Invokerishard ( talk) 14:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Invokerishard: Wikipedia is edited by volunteers who choose what articles to work on. So, to a certain extent it is updated ‘in real time’ but you are absolutely right that less well-known topics tend to attract fewer editors and so sometimes take longer to update. Many of our entries are probably ‘out of date’ to a greater or lesser extent, but everyone is free to update pages if they see incorrect information (and if they have a reliable source for the correct info!). Hug ^syrup 14:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Invokerishard (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can. Articles are only worked on when someone is motivated and has the time to work on them. This is usually the case for popular topics, as you already seem to be aware, but with less popular topics, fewer people are interested enough to update them constantly. Wikipedia has over 6 million articles, but only tens of thousands, maybe a few hundred thousand of regular editors(don't know the exact count). If there are articles that you feel would benefit from you editing or monitoring them, I invite you to do so. 331dot ( talk) 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's fairly common for articles on obscure subjects to fall out of date. If you are reading a biography of a long-dead person and the tense is wrong in the first lead paragraph (is instead of was, etc.) or (very commonly) in subsequent paragraphs, please feel free to change it.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 15:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please pardon me as this type of question has been answered before, but I found the references confusing.

Someone else has written a page about my late father, Nicholas Clinch, a famous mountaineer. I would like to fill out a few gaps, factually, without turning it into a hagiography. I understand I'm supposed to reference only facts reported elsewhere. I can refer to his New York Times obituary, but there are items missing. His personal life paragraph did not mention his parents' names or his education - he started serious climbing while a student at Stanford. Key reference items such as his birth certificate, college degrees, major awards, and his climbing journals are in my house.

Since I can't edit, "He is the son of Virginia Lee and Nicholas Bayard Clinch, and and I know because I'm their granddaughter," what is my approach here? Thank you. Coachlbridges ( talk) 05:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:141D:9:E92:1D99:A203:AF57 ( talk) 05:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses published reliable sources independent of the subject. Unpublished information which you possess would be classified as original research and couldn't be used to support changes to a Wikipedia article. Thank you for asking the question. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 10:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Coachlbridges: I've carried out a library search. There are a few other references available but they don't provide the information you are looking for. You may have seen these already: one is very comprehensive though and is a good source for more detail in the article. There's a reference to his education here. If you fancy yourself a writer, perhaps you could write and publish his biography?! He certainly seems worthy of one. All the best - QuiteUnusual ( talk) 14:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I added that Alpine Journal obituary ref to the article. Left suggestion on your Talk page about adding Infobox and photos. David notMD ( talk) 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I submitted a post on behalf of Brona C Titley, I was asked to by Brona. It is all from her CV of her own work. Could you help me get it posted or know how to get it resolved. Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brona C Titley ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, please see WP:NOTRESUME and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and, especially, Your first article. Wikipedia is not social media. It's an encyclopedia and does not accept "profiles" or "pages" from people who are not not notable.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 15:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There may be a problem, Brona C Titley, with your user name. User names may not be the same as an article's title, nor should it be the name of a living person other than the user. Wikipedia has an autobiography policy, as well.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 15:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, i'm new here, and i would like to know, what is the reason that certain articles get deleted, even ones that have been there for a long time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbob99 ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sbob99 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are different types of deletion processes, with different criteria- but in general, articles are deleted if it is determined that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability as determined by a community discussion called Articles for Deletion. Some articles might be speedy deleted if they meet specific criteria as determined by an administrator. There are also Proposed Deletions which are meant for completely uncontroversial deletions(but do not meet the speedy deletion criteria).

An article existing for a long time is not a barrier to deletion; as this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected for years. If there is a specific thing that prompted this question, I could give more specific help. 331dot ( talk) 11:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Hi, Sbob99! Possibly Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion may be of some help for you. More at the list of policies in the Wikipedia:List of policies#Deletion section. -- CiaPan ( talk) 11:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sbob99, during Wikipedia's early expansion phase, we accepted a lot of weak articles on non-notable subjects. Now, we have the luxury of reviewing them against current standards. If a junk article is old, that is little indication of its encyclopedic worth.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

My new page draft has been declined, and I'm not 100% sure why.

This is the draft: /info/en/?search=Draft:Drops_(company)

Is it too broad? One-sided? Not well written enough? Can someone help me with specific things to include / delete?

Thanks, G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappgab ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Pappgab Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was declined because- as noted in the draft- it reads as an advertisement or other promotional piece for the company. It isn't an advertisement in that it is actively soliciting sales- but it just merely tells about the subject. Wikipedia articles must do more- they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the company that show how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. The sources you offer all seem to be routine announcements, press release-type articles, or announcements of routine, unremarkable "awards"; none of these things establish notability. (for example, "Drops was named by Fast Company on their 2019 list as one of the 350 most innovative companies in the world" means very little to anyone other than the company, unlike an Academy Award or Grammy Award) The key with independent sources is that their coverage must be significant; the source must have chosen on their own to write about the company in depth. I might suggest that you read Your First Article to get an idea of what is being looked for in new articles. Using the new user tutorial may help as well.

If you work for this company, you are required to comply with the paid editing policy and formally declare that(this is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory if you do work for them). You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot ( talk) 11:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It reads like PR or advertising. You need to examine good WP articles to observe proper tone, and then apply it to your article. Tone consists not only of wording, but also what is talked about. If an article is based on PR releases, it necessarily will not contain objective, outside material.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 16:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

How does editing of a page work and how is the talk option different from editing the actual doc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal210891 ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Vishal210891 and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Tutorial may be a good place to start for you. The talk page is for discussing changes to the article with other editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to an article Vishal210891, or for suggesting edits to be made by other editors.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 16:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added a page /info/en/?search=Draft:4th_%26_Reckless The page consists of information about my company. This does not contain any other self-promotion lines. Please tell me how can I make changes to it? How to improve the chance of the submission? Nicole.roberts19 ( talk) 14:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicole.roberts19, because for anything to have an article here, it needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. Your business has not, therefore we can't have an article about it here.

Please read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicole.roberts19 (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft does not have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company indicating how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Not every company merits an article on Wikipedia, even in the same field. Content about the "mission" of the company like "The brands mission is to design looks that inspire women to embrace their style in all aspects of life" is wholly unencyclopedic, as a company's "mission" can change at any time and is impossible to independently verify. You are finding out that it is difficult for company representatives(which you properly disclosed) to write about their companies because the goal of a company representative and the goal of Wikipedia are usually fundamentally different. Wikipedia has no interest in spreading the word about your company, we're just here to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity. 331dot ( talk) 14:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this OK now? /info/en/?search=Draft:4th_%26_Reckless Please check. I have added 3 references. Nicole.roberts19 ( talk) 15:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Nicole.roberts19: unfortunately not. Two of the references you added are to LinkedIn, which is not a reliable source. And the only mention of the article subject in the InStyle article appears to be the mention, in brackets no less, '(I actually grabbed a mint green suit for myself from 4th & Reckless)'. This in no way qualifies as substantial coverage. Hug ^syrup 15:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There are three mentioned articles. TrendHunter.com, InStyle.com and Who What Wear UK. Is it still not ok? Nicole.roberts19 ( talk) 13:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nicole.roberts19, user-generated content is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not social media. and not for promotion.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 16:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am a new to editing on Wikipedia and wanted to understand how to get involved with specific projects - particularly those focusing on education, universities and in terms of location, Oman. I have visited some of the project pages - but could do with some useful and practical tips on how to get involved. ( NUSTOMAN ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

NUSTOMAN Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think most if not all of the projects have no formal process to become involved, but if there are specific things required to "join", those will be described on the project page. Most of the ones I have seen simply invite the user to add their name to a list of participants- then you have "officially" joined. 331dot ( talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

So, I checked my watchlist, and it said that two "requests for adminship" were open. What are those, exactly? King of Scorpions 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, for users to be become admins, in order to be able to delete pages, block users, etc. there has to be a discussion first. At an RFA, users essentially vote (although it isn't a numerical vote), for if the user should become an admin or not. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question! Sorry to keep spamming everyone here so much... King of Scorpions 16:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not "spam", King of Scorpions. Your questions are, in fact, rather interesting, insightful and educational.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 16:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis, I am very glad to hear that. I have found the Teahouse really useful in my editing... King of Scorpions 16:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

How to find the edit button on fandom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Cast217 ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The Cast217 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This board is for asking questions about using Wikipedia; Fandom is a completely separate organization from Wikipedia. The answer may also depend on which Fandom website you want to edit. You might try asking at the Reference Desk. 331dot ( talk) 17:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was reading the Bio on Peter Pratt, the British singer. I was quite surprised to see that Wikipedia had defined him as English. Perhaps I'm incorrect, but I would state, 'I'm British, born in Birmingham, England and went to school where I was taught English'. Any thoughts on the subject? J. goldenthroats.fandom.com/wiki/Peter_Pratt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotabug ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The page for which you provided the URL is on Fandom, not on Wikipedia. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 18:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but Peter Pratt also says English. It's not clear-cut, some advice at MOS:ETHNICITY. It depends on what sources say (I'm not saying the article is currently following what sources say, I have no idea). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Theres is an editor who is changing the Northern Ireland to the Union Flag, on numerous wikipages this appears to be political see Cumbria for example. Wales + Scotland usually show their own flag, Northern Ireland should be the same. Is this acceptable?

Devokewater ( talk) 20:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, since as I've already explained to you - Northern Ireland does not have a flag. See WP:IRISH FLAGS, Template:Country data Northern Ireland#Other information, and one I didn't mention before Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations. The latter states to "take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts" such as:

• "Use of the Ulster Banner to represent Northern Ireland in inappropriate contexts; see Northern Ireland flags issue and Wikipedia:Irish flags for details."

FDW777 ( talk) 21:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ FDW777: The template actually shows the correct Northern Ireland flag. Devokewater Devokewater ( talk) 21:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

How do you participate in a request for adminship? What I mean is, are there any guidelines on how to vote in one? (This is sort of a follow-up to my previous thread a few hours back, I just didn't have time to come back until now.) King of Scorpions 18:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters is essentially the guide. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Alex Noble Thanks! Will go check it out. King of Scorpions 19:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, King of Scorpions. Has anyone told you that your recent change of background colours in your signature makes it quite illegible? Dark blue text on a black background requires perfect vision to discern. And not everyone online has that perfect vision; maybe you might consider altering it a bit, please? Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, I actually already did; here's my new one: King of Scorpions (my talk). Is it more readable? King of Scorpions (my talk) 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ King of Scorpions: Great stuff! Much clearer. Good luck with the mentorship, by the way. Looks like you've got a great person guiding you. Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Nick Moyes:My mentor is teaching me a lot about Wikipedia... King of Scorpions (my talk) 23:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Ive been reading the ANI board a lot (hard stuff to read, but am trying to get a feel of what NOT to do. Also, the Wiki essays are absolutely fantastic,) and I was just curious if anybody is allowed to comment on various matters on the board? At times I wish I had the ability to an outsider's perspective, but I am uncertain if that is unwelcome, against a guideline, a policy, not how the board should be used, or if only people's involved or admins can comment on it. It is in fact a good tool for looking up how not to be an asshat, though. That is for sure. It points you to many guidelines and polices to learn, and how not to break them. As Yoda said: "Failure is the greatest teacher." XD

I hope this is the right place to ask this. Still have a lot to learn. SageSolomon ( talk) 21:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ SageSolomon: Unless someone has been blocked or topic banned, they're generally allowed to post on ANI.

That said, ANI is for matters that require (near-)immediate administrator involvement that are not covered by other boards (such as the edit warring notice board or the vandalism noticeboard). This place and the WP:Help Desk

While non-admins can comment, it's not supposed to be a peanut gallery (...not supposed to) and comments (admin or otherwise) are supposed to be attempts to apply policy or common sense to a situation (not continue disputes, whether content or personal). That said, one of the things that lead to me becoming an admin was regularly commenting on ANI threads. Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Ian.thomson: Actually that was very helpful. And yeah, the last thing I would attempt to do is to stir the pot, or bludgeon, or make any of those situations worse than what the people involved are already dealing with. That isnt any kind of help what-so-ever. From what I understand, its suppose to be an incident and conflict resolution board. Not a place to go take sides in an argument and continue drama for drama's sake. On that we agree. My question did get answered though, and for that I kindly thank you. ^_^ Is it the same way with the other boards and here at the Teahouse? Or should some places be left to more experienced editors and admins? SageSolomon ( talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ SageSolomon: I don't recall anywhere on this site where we say "admins only," though there are certain actions that can only be done by certain individuals. A good rule of thumb would probably be that if you can't help, don't post. Asking questions so you can help the site is helping us to help you, so don't worry about that; I mean situations where one has no useful information, insights, or capabilities (that sort of stuff tends to end up more on the administrators noticeboard rather than ANI specifically). Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

( edit conflict) @ SageSolomon: mind if I chip in with an observation? I lurked at WP:ANI quite a bit before I stood to become an administrator (which only happened the other week), and only chipped in rarely when I felt I could make a useful contribution, or maybe to announce an offer that I would go off and deal with the situation that had been raised. If you can help defuse a situation, that seems the best time to contribute. But it's also fair to say that we all work by community consensus, and often it is non admins expressing their opinions on what action to take about an issue raised at ANI that leads other admins to implement that action. I think this was one of my earliest contributions there - some two years ago.

Just like WP:ANI, you can also learn a lot by watching and reading posts here at the Teahouse. I'm sure I learned more here than I ever did at ANI! And just as at ANI, we welcome anyone contributing answers here, providing it's done in a spirit of friendliness and welcome. That's the ethos of the Teahouse. You know, sometimes a new editor can bring a perspective and relate better to another new editor facing difficulties than some of us older hands can. The trick is to know when to keep quiet and let others respond, and when to appreciate that one can offer just as good a helpful answer on another topic as anyone else can. If they decide to stick around, editors with a reasonable amount of experience might then want to sign themselves up as a 'Host' here. It's not a formal permission, or anything, but we do expect hosts to have a broad experience of editing, and we gauge that by asking new hosts to have a background of some 500 mainspace edits before they sign themselves up. I can't check how many edits you've made, thus far, as the tool to do so is not functioning right now. But I must applaud you on your sensible approach to understanding how Wikipedia works, as you've explained on your userpages, rather than diving in at the deep end right away, and ending up drowning as so many impatient new editors do. I wish you well on your own exciting Wikipedia adventure. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

( Radhatanaya ( talk) 07:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)) Respected sir,

I'm an old hag of 76 years from Mumbai, and has been an editor in kan wikipedia, since 8 + years. I want to add pics to my created articles, but I have been banned not to do so. The reason being. I have two pen names, 1. Radhatanaya, 2. Rangakuvara Created 900+ articles in kan language, (under the pen name Radhatanaya) Created half dozen articles in english (Under the name Rangakuvara)

I have uploaded several pics other than mine. It was my mistake I feel sorry and apologize for it.

Now please lift the ban on my uploading pics. I assure you in future I upload the pics taken by my camera.

With regards,

-Radhatanaya I will not use Rangakuvara in future.

@ Radhatanaya: It is Commons that blocked you, not us. To appeal a block, add {{unblock|reason for the request}} to commons:user talk:Radhatanaya. However, as you had an unblock request denied last month, I'd wait a while before doing this. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 09:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Radhatanaya: The admin reviewing your unblock request at c:User talk:Radhatanaya#Requesting for unblock did so because there was no answer to the issues raised in the "Oppose" comment at the bottom (by elcobbola). If you do submit another unblock request (that page, not here, is the correct place), be sure to read and understand each of those comments and address them. I can understand the multiple account issue and why you might lose track of which account you were logged into. It just needs to be clearly stated that you won't use multiple accounts again. Violating copyrights is something a lot of people not familiar with the issue can make until they are stopped. Admit, show you understand what the correct action is going forward (as you did by stating you'll upload photos you take yourself Y), commit to communicating with others when they leave you messages about problems, and your contributions may again be welcomed. I hope this helps. (Non-administrator comment) —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 23:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

good time of the day for all people here. new to Wikipedia, but had some experience with FANDOM editing. looks like it is not that different.

anyways, scrolling around talking stuff i noted one thing: literally everyone spoke on perfect English. like, capped letters, 's perfectly placed...it really made me aware, since English is my second language, and i dont really type that way (as you can clearly see).

do i have to change my typing ways or its fine? also, i know that writing like that while editing aint gonna get me anywhere so ill most keep writing like that on forums and discussion pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeRandomONE ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine on discussion pages, as long as others can understand you, SomeRandomONE. You may sign your posts with four of these things in a row: ~ -- Quisqualis ( talk) 15:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ SomeRandomONE: Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and grammar is an agreement between writer and reader to make communication efficient. It comes down to whether you want people to easily read/understand what you write, or to have to re-read and stumble over it and maybe miss your point in the process. Take a moment to preview your posts, add punctuation and capitalization, and you'll be rewarded. Of course (as I think you understand), in articles (pages in "mainspace"), please do follow the WP:MOS, grammar, etc.; if you don't, you're making work that another volunteer editor has to clean up. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 00:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am new to the wiki world and i thought i had everything in order after so much studying before i wrote the article on Beth Griffith manley. did i not have enough info in i researched artists that where on similar shows and studied the pattern of the article and where they pulled there sources. Please help.

messages i received: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. and only see routine coverage stemming from her participation on a reality show. fails otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayMan419 ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's possible, RayMan419, you have just wasted some editing time writing an article that can never be published. See the sad possibility at Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Reality show participants known mainly or only for the show only very rarely are notable enough to be in Wikipedia. I assume Snooky is, but I have not checked.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 02:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Beth Griffith Manley. Possible that in time her music career may qualify, but for now, my opinion is WP:TOOSOON. David notMD ( talk) 02:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for Cambridge school srinivaspuri ( /info/en/?search=Cambridge_School_Srinivaspuri) is not made by the official personal from our organization. Please make us the formal admin of the page. We can provide all the necessary documents for the ownership of the organization and we can mail it from our organizations formal email id. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csnpd ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Csnpd: Welcome to Wikipedia, but you misundertand how it works. See WP:OWN. Articles may be edited by anyone. If there are changes you'd like to propose, discuss on that article's talk page. RudolfRed ( talk) 02:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Csnpd: Also, accounts must be controlled by only one person. You cannot have a group account, if that is what "we/us" means in your question. RudolfRed ( talk) 02:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Hi Csnpd. Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content, but basically Wikipedia articles are not owned by the subjects they are written about and thus what you're rquesting be done is simply not possible. If you have concerns about the article or some of the content contained therein, and are connected to the school is something more than a casual way (e.g. an employee of the school), then also please carefully read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There are ways you can discuss any concerns you have about the article or any content contained therein, but neither you nor anyone associated with the school is going to be granted any sort of "final editorial control" over the article. That's simply not what Wikipedia is about. If you'd like to find alternative to Wikipedia where you can have such control, please take a look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am a new editor and I am taking a course using the Wiki Education course program. What does your editing process normally look like? Does it vary based on the specific article you are editing or do you have a process that you adhere to? Also, what sparked your interest in editing Wikipedia articles - why did you start and why do you choose to continue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oludara Orederu ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Oludara Orederu! Congratulations on taking a Wiki Education course! I'm happy to hear people are willing to learn more and share their expertise! I've been editing for about 15 years at this point, and my editing process has varied widely over the years. When I first began, I added small bits of information to existing articles, and then moved on to try creating articles for subjects that had red links. As I got older, I began helping with other projects. Today I help our articles for creation project by figuring out whether draft articles meet the standards to become full wikipedia articles. My original interest and motivation to edit on Wikipedia came from a variety of sources: I wanted to help share information with people, but also my teachers had cautioned against using Wikipedia as a source because of misinformation and vandalism. I wanted to help make Wikipedia into a source where that was less of an issue. If I could give you any advice as you take this course (and perhaps continue your Wikipedia journey) it would be these little tidbits:

1. Don't let this website become Serious business. What do I mean by that? I don't mean make silly articles (we have our fair share of those). Instead, try to avoid getting angry or upset at another editor, or feel as if you own an article because you did a substantial amount of work on it. To be honest, we are all collaborating together, and there is a whole world outside of Wikipedia that it is not worth getting into petty fights with people on the internet.
2. Understand Wikipedia's ideas around reliable sources and notability, and more importantly, what Wikipedia is not. We shouldn't be creating articles to help promote someone, or help a company profit, or provide our own ideas about the life, the universe and everything. We are here to compile information about topics and put it in a format where people can understand and become better informed. Do you understand what I mean?

Thanks for asking your question! I hope that helps, and drop by again if you have any other questions. Bkissin ( talk) 21:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Oludara Orederu, My editing process is nearly unchanged since many years ago as an IP editor. It may be the case that I was born to be a copy editor, but I attempt to read and understand an article with a copy editor's eye. If the language is annoyingly unclear, I try to fix it, including typos and punctuation. If the references interest me and I find that one is dead, I tag it, or fix a ref I check out that is improperly formatted. Sometimes the sections or paragraphs are disorganized, and I rearrange them. Sometimes, tangential or otherwise irrelevant material must be removed, including POV or DIY material, occasionally, whole paragraphs.

If promotional or otherwise slanted language is present, I enjoy removing it or toning it down to the dullest possible version of the truth. Basically, anything that bugs me as a Wikipedia reader gets fixed. If it needs a complete rewrite or more citations, I have the option of either mentioning it on the article's Talk page or using a template to tag an article or one of its sections. Sometimes I do the heavy work of a near-rewrite or finding sources, but I'm usually on to the next subject, unless the article somehow hooks me. You don't necessarily need to be knowledgeable or interested in a topic to rewrite an article. You learn by doing.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 03:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I came across this page - /info/en/?search=Indian_Institute_of_Rural_Management - and realized that I could add/change much of the info as per what I have read about this institute in notable Indian magazines like India Today and Business India. Can I just go ahead and edit, or do I need to seek permission or follow a procedure for making any changes? Thanks in advance, Tycheana ( talk) 07:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tycheana! The process is WP:BOLD. Cite your additions, use edit summaries, and be prepared to discuss if someone disagrees. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for the guidance. Do I need to mention a code at the head of the article to indicate that am going to be operating under WP:BOLD? And after editing can I remove some of the comments on top, like the article being orphan, because it is no more an orphan? Many thanks, regards, Tycheana ( talk) 08:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Everybody is operating under WP:BOLD much of the time, but try to leave a good WP:ES so other editors have a better chance to understand what you are doing. On the orphan thing, check the link near the top of the article that says "Learn how and when to remove these template messages". Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Leave a message on the article's Talk page regarding your project, Tycheana, in order that other editors should be warned. Also, there is a Template, which perhaps User:Nick Moyes or User:Cullen is aware of and can refer you to, which you place on the page you are working on, which advises that the page is being edited a lot by one person, and not to edit at this time.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 16:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean Template:Under construction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Tycheana:The template {{ In use}} is probably better for short periods of activity when you want to avoid edit conflicts, or being challenged half way through making changes. Remove it as soon as you're done. Nick Moyes ( talk) 20:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Quisqualis and Nick Moyes for the guidance. I will use the {{ In use}} template and also mention on the talk page that am revamping the info. With the {{ In use}}, do I need to mention my name just so other users are aware and can get in touch if the need be? Regards, Tycheana ( talk) 07:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no need. Anyone wanting to know who is working on the article simply has to look in the page's history to find out. Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've created a couple pages in the past and wanted to get back into it. Any advice on bulking up this page? /info/en/?search=Emily_VanDerWerff

Also, for a picture, if I gain permission from the person who took the photograph I want to use, am I cleared to use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaggieGlass ( talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy note: a totally different user has submitted Draft:Emily VanDerWerff many times once already; AfC patrollers deemed VanDerWerff not notable enough Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 07:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MaggieGlass, and welcome to the Teahouse. Things have moved on a bit since you last created an article, in 2016. The WP:AFC process and the creation of Draft space mean that we are more picky about articles created in main space than we used to be: I don't think the original version you created of Barry Jenkins would survive in main space today; it would probably get moved to Draft space to be developed.

Rotideypoc41352's comments above suggest that the absolute first task for you in creating an article about VanDerWerff is finding the sources required to establish that she is notable. (Actually this is the absolute first task for creating any article - but since her notability has been examined in the past, you need to overcome that hurdle).

As for a picture: I advise not worrying about this until you know that you have established that the article is worth writing. But then - yes, to use a picture, the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer) must explicitly release the image under a suitable licence: see donating copyright material. Note that it is not sufficient for them to give permission to use the picture in Wikipedia: one of Wikipedia's guiding principles is that the material in it be reusable by anybody for any purpose, as long as it is attributed. -- ColinFine ( talk) 10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am the subject of a Wikipedia entry ( /info/en/?search=John_Martin_Taylor) that was written several years ago by a fan. It's factual but outdated. I am not very computer literate and would like for the entry to be updated. Can someone help? My personal blog is hoppinjohns.net. My business of 33 years I recently passed on to my niece (hoppinjohns.com). In 2018, in preparation to move overseas with my partner of 27 years (and husband of 10), I donated my culinary library (see https://www.hgtc.edu/about_hgtc/news_center/2018-john-taylor-donates-collection.html) to a culinary school and my papers to the College of Charleston (see https://www.postandcourier.com/features/renowned-cookbook-author-hoppin-john-taylor-donates-papers-to-college/article_ce492672-5344-11e8-b385-b301a012cf16.html). In 2018 I was awarded the Amelia Award by the Culinary Historians of New York for my expertise "in culinary history, with deep knowledge in the field. And ... for a having "demonstrated generosity and extraordinary support to others in the field, helping to shape and elevate culinary history into the academically-respected discipline that it is today." In 2019 I moved to Phnom Penh, Cambodia, with my husband, Mikel Herrington, who is the Peace Corps Country Director here. (seehttps://www.peacecorps.gov/cambodia/directors-welcome/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.216.2 ( talk) 03:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 110.74.216.2. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself for some information as to how to receive assistance with this kind of thing. You might also want to look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Steps for engagement since it also contains some information relevant to this type of thing. Finally, please try and remember Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world in that you're not required to register for an account to edit Wikipedia, but your IP address will be freely visible to others if you edit using an unregistered account. Moreover, since Wikipedia has no way of know who someone really is, it has no way of know whether you are actually who you say you are. I'm not saying you're not, but there's just no way for anyone to know for sure. One of the benefits of registering for an WP:ACCOUNT is that you can have your identity verified as explained in Wikipedia:User names#Real names if you'd like there to be no doubt that you are who you say you are. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

John, I've taken the liberty of copying your post to the talk page of the article here, where interested editors may respond. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 16:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

hello david i wrote about my life and all bio life and its been rejected bt wikipedia tem. and they said if you want to subit article or profile which accepted wikipedia ask for help so i came here for help how can i make my wikipedia account world wide with my bio let me know thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hard Singh Rapper ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hard Singh Rapper Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not like social media where people can tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia is a different type of website. It is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject that meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable musician. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves, in helping their career, or in enhancing search results for them. Please also understand that autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per our autobiography policy. If you have reviewed the notability criteria and truly feel that you merit an article here, you shouldn't be the one to write it.

Also understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in the article as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. Please keep this in mind. 331dot ( talk) 10:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Hard Singh Rapper: In case it wasn't clear, click on the blue links in the text above to read the details of those policies if you need further clarification. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 16:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Can an experienced editor give a good “definition” of the Current Events Portal. Recently it has been unclear what is “notable” for that portal. Something that effects a lot of people in one country vs no one in another country.

Thanks for the help Elijahandskip ( talk) 14:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, you might want to see Wikipedia:How the Current events page works if you haven't already. The portal follows pretty much the same criteria as the In the News section of the main page, which can be found at Wikipedia:In the news#significance. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 15:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Elijahandskip: Note that, like most all pages, it has its own talk page at Portal talk:Current events. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 16:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that some new articles are set to "noindex", like Shanelle Arjoon. What does that depend on? -- Gwenda73 ( talk) 16:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Gwenda73: See WP:NOINDEX. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 16:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

​New articles are hidden from Google until they have been reviewed by someone or until 90 days have passed. This is mainly to prevent spam and attack pages from appearing in Google results. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Where do I go to suggest a page title be modified? I wrote an article on the 1941 swing song Yes, Indeed! (1941 song) and there is a page for a simliarly titled but different song that reads " Yes Indeed (song). I think the 2018 song should have the year in the description for clarity. Where do I go with such a request? Thanks. -- DiamondRemley39 ( talk) 20:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ DiamondRemley39: Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de te. Page title changes what we call moving a page can be nominated at requested moves. Click the link for more info. Interstellarity ( talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, DiamondRemley39. A relevant bit of policy is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: if one instance of the name is much more likely to be what people search for than any other, then this meaning is the "primary topic", and does not need a parenthetical disambiguator. In this case though, a quick search suggests to me that while there are more hits on the 2018 song, the difference is not overwhelming, so probably neither of them is a primary topic. -- ColinFine ( talk) 23:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:RM is the place for discussions, but for uncontroversial moves you can WP:MOVE the page yourself. Since this was now an WP:INCDAB I've moved the 2018 article back to its original title, Yes Indeed (Lil Baby and Drake song). – Thjarkur (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking for an easy step-by-step guide to adding book cover images to articles about books. Any help? Thanks. TFM1000 ( talk) 23:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)TFM1000

Hello, TFM1000, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I can't find a step by step guide to this. The relevant policy is at WP:NFCC, the general guide to uploading is at Help:Upload. You need to upload to Wikipedia as a non-free image (not to Commons) and use the Template:Non-free use rationale book cover as the rationale. -- ColinFine ( talk) 00:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I work at a University as a writer and communicator. A large part of my job is writing about scientific papers coming out in peer-reviewed journals, with the goal of helping non-technical audiences understand the science and other research being conducted. My background is in science and science writing rather than in marketing or communications, and I know how to write in a non-promotional, encyclopedic style. I've noticed that a few of our very prominent faculty members are not in Wikipedia, and I'd like to remedy that. I am not worried about their notability, but I was wondering about the conflict of interest issue. I've read that I should disclose any conflicts. I'm happy to do this. However, I'm wondering if I will go to the trouble of creating the article and then find that the article is immediately removed. Someone suggested that I find a non-University employee to post something I compose, but this seems dishonest. Thanks for your thoughts! CatZan ( talk) 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

CatZan, The best way to handle this is to first follow through with WP:PAID, then work on your articles using the Articles for Creation system. — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

CatZan Thank you for your honest approach. Ideally someone without any connection to the subject would motivate the creation of an article. However our COI rules mean that it is possible to clearly declare your connection and then submit article drafts via AFC, as moonythedwarf says. At that point the article would get reviewed by an independent party. Were it accepted, you would likely be best to request any changes via the article talk page at that point. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 16:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, You have no idea how grateful I am someone was honest for once. — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, Thank you so much for your advice! CatZan ( talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf, Thank you so much for your advice! CatZan ( talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

CatZan, I have a suggestion that's only just ocurred to me, so others might shoot it down in flames, but . . . you probably know someone at another University in a similar position to yourself. Perhaps you could agree with them that you will work on draft articles about their University's candidate subjects while they work on yours.

Provided that the two of you do not directly exchange any details about the subjects, you would thus reduce the degrees of COI and unconscious bias involved, and find it easier to stick to facts available in citable, independent, published Reliable sources without including personal knowledge. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 ( talk) 00:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes we humans see deeply into the nature of things, assisted by the convergence of influences upon his or her life unique opportunities for participation are evolutionarily appropriate, but ask, is this such a forum? I dunno so here it goes: Two Statements: Dark Matter is concentrated spacetime; and Dark Energy is Entropy. Rob Richardson MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howierich ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not a forum. It is a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia articles.And your User page is not a place for essays. See: Wikipedia:User pages. David notMD ( talk) 00:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

So now I have an article in my sandbox. How do I get the world to see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod Thomson ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

​I've added a "Submit" button to your draft that you may click on to submit it for review. However, the article won't be accepted in it's current form as it's missing sources that show that the rowing club has gotten significant coverage in independant sources. A few other things: our articles don't use "we", and we try to mantain a hyper-neutral tone (which some find boring), so sentences like "generous help", "enthusiastic rowers", "kindness on the part of the rowing community" would need to be reworded. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

A recent revision to Ann Walker of Lightcliffe in the External links section has me wondering if the revision is following proper policies. While I've made a number of revisions to this page and am the original author, I am still a relatively new editor and don't know all of the policies, nomenclature, markup, etc. to properly address this on the associated Talk:Ann Walker of Lightcliffe page. So I'm asking here for some advice.

1) Is this edit an issue to be considered as it is in violation of policies; and

2) If so, how do I address it without getting into a potential editwar with the editor that made the change?

Comparing edit 940138053 with the previous, you'll notice a paraphrased, simple description written by me was replaced with a straight copy and paste from the external link's mission statement.

I presume this edit may have been done by the non-profit's co-founder. I cannot ask them if they made these changes as I am not on speaking terms with them any longer, by their choice. Thus, I do not wish to revert the edit myself if it is found not to conform to policy. I really don't want to kick off any sort of confrontation with them. However, I cannot be 100% sure the co-founder is the source of the edit. The IP address (anonymous edit) is within 10 miles of the suspected co-founder's known place of residence. Thus, it is highly likely the co-founder is the source of the edit.

Any assistance and/or advice you can provide is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Kimdorris ( talk) 23:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverted as copyright violation. David notMD ( talk) 02:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Kimdorris ( talk) 02:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Kimdorris: BTW, since you found out how to get the revid, when discussing it, you can use links like [[Special:Permalink/940138053]] to produce Special:Permalink/940138053, which is a link to the page appearance as of that revision. You can also use [[Special:Diff/940138053]] to produce Special:Diff/940138053, showing the difference between that revision and the previous one. As with all wikilinks, you can add a custom name for the link like this: [[Special:Diff/940138053|this change]], which produces this change. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 15:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the instruction. Kimdorris ( talk) 23:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

David notMD and Maproom The co-founder (using a signed in account) has now made additional edits (940469619) to the Ann Walker Memorial External link description. This is again a copyright violation as copy is taken directly from the newly relaunched website (for which I have updated the URL).

When reverting these edits, please keep in mind Maproom removed the copy in Legacy section as well as External link for Ann Walker Memorial Foundation. Since edit 940469619 was made.

I do not feel comfortable making these edits, as I stated above, due to the nature of my relationship with the co-founder. I ask that a third-party/admin intervene if you deem these edits violate copyright policies. Kimdorris ( talk) 02:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

One of my references on my article have this in red letters "line feed character in |title= at position 28 (help)" . Apparently the url and the title have the same titles and won't accept it. How can i fix it so the red letters be removed? I've tried to change the citation and also edit it but nothing changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ægw ( talk • contribs) 04:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ægw is you can provide a link to the specific article, then perhaps someone can help sort things out. You may, however, find some relevant information related to these kinds of errors at Help:CS1 errors, in particular Help:CS1 errors#invisible char. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem was that in the Bedini citation of First and Second Treaties of Tirana, in the wiki markup, the title was spread over several lines, leading to embedded linefeeds in the title. By putting the whole title on the same line, I fixed the problem. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 05:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm new to Wikipedia and am writing an article on Nash's Pyramid. /info/en/?search=Nash%27s_Pyramid

I want to include a picture of the pyramid, however am worried it is covered by copyright.

The theory (and a picture) is given in the book 'Philosophy of Recreation and Leisure' and was written in 1960.

What I need to do, is to create a new pyramid using the theory and upload it to Wikicommons. It must be different from the original picture in the book so not be covered by copyright.

How different should I make the new pyramid? The pyramid in the book; - Is hand-drawn - Has numbered tiers - has the names of the tiers, including an example and a short description

I was planning on; - Computer generating the pyramid - Excluding the numbers - Only using the names (no descriptions) - Changing the location of the bottom 2 tiers to be outside the pyramid

Is this enough?

Many thanks in advance, I really appreciate any help given!!! Lvt01290 ( talk) 02:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe that as long as you don't call your graphic "Lvt01290's pyramid" you won't be in violation of copyright.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 06:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright does not cover ideas, but rather the manifestation of an idea as a drawing, piece of writing, computer code and so on. In short: it's not the idea that is protected, but rather the specific way it is expressed. While the illustration itself in your book is copyrighted as a specific manifestation of the pyramid idea, you can still make your own illustration of the idea. As long as you do not copy it exactly, but rather make your own (different) derivative work, you can include all the numbers and names you like ...but not long text descriptions as they themselves are copyrighted. Copyright also does not apply to "names, titles, slogans, or short phrases", or so says the US Patent and Trademark office. You can read more here. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 07:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am uneasy with the extent that fundraising content exists in Ann Walker of Lightcliffe, including body of article and External links. Any Wikipedia policy? David notMD ( talk) 20:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed both from the article. Maproom ( talk) 22:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you David notMD and Maproom for looking into this issue. I was unsure as well. Appreciate the assistance. Kimdorris ( talk) 00:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I too thought some of the article was promotional, and removed some more. The relevant policy is WP:NOTPROMOTION. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 07:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Would you mind also posting a note on the article talk page as a follow-up? I suspect this may not be the end of the promotional editing by one of the co-founders as I mentioned in my question above. I'd like to have a digital paper trail to cover ourselves if future disputes arise. Thanks again for looking into this. Kimdorris ( talk) 08:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

An anonymous user repeatedly commits vandalism on the site, I have no desire to revise this five times. Could someone please protect the site temporarily for registered users only? Or how else do you deal with repeated vandalism? Thanks for help! Kind regards, -- Gyanda ( talk) 23:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gyanda. I have put a final warning on that IP's user talk page. You can request page protection at WP:RPP. -- ColinFine ( talk) 23:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, he already again did vandalism on the site :-( -- Gyanda ( talk) 23:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Now reported and blocked, Gyanda. -- ColinFine ( talk) 11:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm sorry that this user is so upset with Connie Glynn, because she deleted most of her youtube-videos... it's sad that the only thing we could do, is to block the site, but i don't know, what else we could have done. Again, thank you and Kind regards, -- Gyanda ( talk) 13:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I own legal rights to a page listed in wiki due to unethical editing my page has infomations which are demeaning and incorrect. How do I delete that page from Wiki. i do not want any information on Wiki listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal210891 ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Vishal210891, you're going to have to give us more details here. The only scenario when you would a legitimate legal right to get a page removed is if it was a copyright violation. If it is a page about you, we might sometimes delete it on request, but only if we should have never had a page - i.e. a completely non notable person. See WP:BLPDEL. We generally don't just delete pages though because someone told us to. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is about Raheja Developers, there is absolutely no way we're going to delete an article because it has (sourced) negative information on your company. We report what the sources say, and if the sources don't reflect positively on your business, then that's what we'll write. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi [[User talk:Alex Noble| Thank you for your above advice and yes it is about Raheja developers. I just want to clarify this to you first the reason for our page deletion is not because we have negative news. Looks like you did not get my question clearly! The reason for page deletion is that the parts published in the article are not correct and I have facts and relevant information to prove it. Other than that all the facts mention in the article for ex "It shows a time frame of 2010 and then 2014 !" don’t you think the organisation was doing something in between this time frame? It has been close 5 years there has been no addition why !! this is clearly mindful alteration done on the basis to promote negativity for my organisation and I do not see it going in a good direction. Hence we wish to delete this page. Also you are using our logo and company name without our consent that puts us in a legal turmoil. I would request you to please guide me on deleting a page if not then this conversation is only a waste of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal210891 ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Vishal210891: you can nominate a page for deletion by following the instructions at WP:AFD but I would caution you that 'parts of the article are not correct' is not a valid reason for deletion, and it is very unlikely that the page will be deleted on this basis. A better idea, if you disagree with some of the content, would be to discuss this on the talk page. Please explain exactly what is incorrect, what the correct information is, and what the reliable source is for that information. If you do that, I am sure that editors will be happy to make changes. Hug ^syrup 13:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi I've written the Shiva Makinian Page. More than 50 days have passed and it remains in the draft. Please tell me what to do to fix it? I've done all the references, and I've got the comments from the managers. please help me if you can. Keyhan narimannia ( talk) 07:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Just for reference, the previous Teahouse discussion is here. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 07:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Is placed not enough references? What should I do? Keyhan narimannia ( talk) 07:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

She looks notable but it needs a lot of work in terms of how it is formatted. I left the link to the previous discussion above so that other more helpful editors could advise you. Stand by. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 07:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP In the past, the editors had comments and wrote that I made their comments in the article. If you have any comments for improvement tell me if possible. Thankful. Keyhan narimannia ( talk) 07:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Keyhan narimannia: your interpretation of the decline notice as "not enough references" shows a very common misunderstanding. The problem is that there aren't enough good references. Good references are those that, as the decline notice says, "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Four such references would be ample to establish that the subject is notable. 66 poor references just waste everyone's time, and deter reviewers from even looking at the article. Maproom ( talk) 09:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Keyhan narimannia to reiterate what Maproom has said above, almost certainly the biggest reason that your draft has not been reviewed in 50 days is because it has 66 references, and most reviewers will not want to spend the time checking every single one. A common rule of thumb is that three high quality references (i.e. independent, secondary, reliable sources that cover the subject in detail) are enough to prove notability. If you have three or four such references then you are better off putting just those in, and removing the other 60+. If you do not have three such references then it won't matter if you have 60 or 600 references. It's about quality not quantity. Hug ^syrup 09:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Maproom and syrup: I am thankful for your guidance. I realized. the references used in the article are mostly references from reputable news agencies.

for example:

www.bbcPersian.com

www.imdb.com

https://www.mehrnews.com/

https://www.irna.ir/

https://www.tasnimnews.com/

https://www.farsnews.com/

Other references are references to the same event.

for example:

https://miic.ca/2018/07/16/iranian-theatre-company-highlights-refugee-camp-experience-at-regina-fringe-festival/

https://www.waz.de/kultur/sommernachtstraeume-id2031853.html?service=amp

https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/22149

https://www.litf.ca/four-plays-in-a-day-saturdays-schedule-features-iran-nepal-mexico-and-bangladesh/

https://theater.ir/en/108768

https://persiadigest.com/en/news/1699/the-silent-house-on-stage-in-europe-and-canada

Should there be other sources besides these two types?

Keyhan narimannia ( talk) 11:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Keyhan narimannia: I am not sure I fully understand your question. Yes, reputable news agencies are generally a reliable source so if you have an article from a reputable news agency that covers the topic in substantial detail, that is a good source and worth including. I can't comment on whether all of the sources you have listed are reputable news agencies though as I don't recognise most of them, except IMDB, which is absolutely not a reliable source and should not be used.

References to the same event may not be a problem - for example if the subject does something, and four different reputable newspapers write in detail about that one thing, that is probably good evidence that it was notable (though bear in mind WP:BLP1E). So, if you're saying, can you include multiple sources about the same thing the answer is yes, if they are reliable sources, but not all of the ones you have listed are. In any case, the point still stands that if you can demonstrate notability with three sources, and therefore get your article accepted, what is the point in adding another five sources that add no additional information and which will do nothing except put a reviewer off reviewing your article? Hug ^syrup 11:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Keyhan narimannia, in your response above, you worry about the sources of the references. You are missing the point. To establish notability, the sources must also "show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject". Adding dozens of sources from a variety of publications does not help at all if all they do is merely name or list the subject. What is needed is significant coverage of the subject, in-depth discussion of the subject, discussion of the subject at length. Maproom ( talk) 13:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ahmadqatari, a new contributor, is having some difficulty navigating the issue of copying/translating articles from other wikis onto enwiki. For example, Hakan Cakil is a clear copy of simple:Hakan Cakil, without attribution that I can see, though he is also the creator of that other article, possibly as a translation from trwiki. I was going to point him to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects and WP:TFOLWP, but I'm not sure in this case, given that he created the source (but maybe not its source?). There is also the issue of article quality. More familiar eyes requested. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 14:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note: There's additional background on my talk page. —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 14:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear ! User:AlanM1 i don't have any problem this all translations are from my translations and not copies from other wiki ! I know English, Turkish and French also, I will try to fix my content into my articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadqatari ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)