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.

I am a historian and I took many photos during my tenure as a police officer in the City of Huron, California. I am also a writer and appear in many of Richard Street's books about Huron. My name appears in 'red' as the owner of a number of photographs on the Huron California Wikipedia Page. How can I create a profile for myself as the author within the scope of Wiki policies??? 24.205.122.93 ( talk) 15:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Your User page can contain information about yourself as it relates to your contribution to Wikipedia. So the first step would be to register a username, then write that user profile (within the user page guidelines). Then you can add a link to your user page in the relevant image pages. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I am new to my organization and was curious about a notice on the Museum’s Wikipedia page that says, “A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia’s content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.”

From looking at the history of the page, it appears someone with an organization-related name made several updates to the exhibits, special events, and history of the Museum in 2014, which might be the cause of the notice. I don’t have records or account information for that account and I’m not sure if the editor was a former employee or not.

We do have an account, which I changed the name to comply with Wikipedia’s username policy. I will only be using the account to update the accuracy of the page, usually with current information on which exhibits are on display and which are part of our core collection. I’ll, of course, add media articles and links to the Museum’s website as sources for the updates.

My question is how can we get the notice removed from the top of the page and are there steps to avoid having it come back?

Thanks! Sarah at SDMOM ( talk) 15:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sarah at SDMOM and welcome to the Teahouse.

I don't think that COI template notice on San Diego Museum of Man can be removed at this time. Your editing of the page is governed by Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and your direct editing of the page would be another reason for the notice. — jmcgnh ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarah at SDMOM, I'm afraid you can do absolutely nothing about that edit notice, in fact if you edit the article that would be reason to add such a notice if it didn't already have one. As you are an employee of the article subject you are required to declare your conflict of interest as a paid editor. Your use of the plural "we" raises another concern, a user account may be used by only one person, not a group or team. Your idea of adding "current information on which exhibits are on display and which are part of our core collection" is contrary to the prohibition against promotion. The best advice I can give you is to never edit the article about your organization, or any of its clients, staff, associates or any other connected person or entity. You are however welcome to post suggestions for improving the article to its talk page that other editors who have no conflict of interest can act on if the proposals are acceptable. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir, Now, I'm creating a new page of "hacker nucleus". I have perfect references and external links but I do not know how to start. Can you help me please?

By the way Hacker Nucleus is a social hackers news org who is also trying to aware people for cyber security. Deadline43 ( talk) 15:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Perfect references will be documents where the subject has been written about extensively in independent WP:reliable sources. Google does not find these for me, and only brings up promotional material, much of it written by the subject's publicity agents. Perhaps you could point us to better references? Dbfirs 16:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear All,

I have received a notice from Domdeparis telling me, my article about the author Caroline Gaudriault has not enough secondary sources. /info/en/?search=Caroline_Gaudriault I have red the definition and informations about secondary sources but I do not really understand what he means. Every information in my article has a source and a proof. If I am writing that Caroline wrote an article for Paris-Match and I am attaching this article , I think it shows proof. Can you please tell me why this does not count ?

Thank you very much , I appreciate any help,

Sylvia

Sylviafine ( talk) 09:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Further guidance has subsequently been given on Sylvia's talk page (though that doesn't preclude an answer here). Dbfirs 11:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sylviafine, you need sources about her, written by other people. Dolberty ( talk) 13:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sylviafine. It looks as though this has been resolved on your talk page, but here's one way to look at it: an article written by Caroline would be a primary source; an article written about Caroline (or about her article) would be a secondary source. Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 13:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Your secondary sources have to be from credible publications or internet links: if someone's book is so notable then a review from a major source saying so would be needed; if her writing is so notable then an article(s) from a major publican(s) should say that. So, if someone is notable because of their writing then there should be numerous reviews about that work from numerous publications of renown. The local community paper is not as credible to the world as is the London Time of NYT, and a review by a local community paper is not as credible to the world as is a major literary reviewer. None of these should be written by the person that the article is concerning. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:BCCF:CA70:DEFE:9AC0 ( talk) 17:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I recently posted some education credentials and foreign languages on the Mykel Hawke Wiki. An editor (Rivertorch) removed them, citing verification. What is needed to verify? Mykel Hawke is a commissioned Army officer, and a 4-year degree from an accredited university is required to become an Army Officer. The degrees are a BS in Biology from UNY and an MS in Family Counseling from UCA. He is rated in 7 foreign languages, again through the military and their language schools, which is in his author's biography of his bestselling language book, already linked/referenced on the Wiki page. What is needed to put these credentials back on? KMartin529 ( talk) 18:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

KMartin529, welcome to the Teahouse! I don't know anything about Mykel Hawke, but just had a quick look at the article's history. I guess the edit you are concerned about is this one. The person who reverted your edit was following policy, because your addition to the article did not provide any sources for its claims. In future, when introducing new claims to any article, please also add one or more footnotes to reliable sources where other editors can verify those claims. Thanks, and happy editing! zazpot ( talk) 20:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I directed the OP here after a somewhat lengthy discussion on my talk page. Sourcing was the primary issue in play, but there are other concerns. Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 17:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

i lost my mobile phone and it said emergency EE. Any advances? 79.78.80.137 ( talk) 15:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 15:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

However, if you Google "Emergency EE" I think the answer is the second match - Arjayay ( talk) 15:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Remember that we don't all get the same results in the same order from a Google search, Arjayay, because the results are partly dependent on your browsing and search history. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, three days ago, user Bilby placed a COI template in one of my articles - Erika Lemay -. When I asked him why, he said that, based on my previous editions, he supposed that I had been paid for that article. I told him that is not true, I explained that anyone can do that article since she is a recognized artist, but he insists - our conversation is in his talk page -. Now, casually - or not so - another editor directly marked as AfD other article, Nancy Ruth (singer) - which is a translation of an article I originally made in Spanish Wikipedia -; this page had just been reviewed 8 days before, without any observation. I can feel that there is a connection between these two events, but I will assume good faith. Can anyone review both articles and tell me if it's okay what those editors have done? I must clarify that many years ago I made some declared paid editions, but my experience was absolutely negative in several respects - not only for the articles themselves, but for the treatment I had from other editors -. I would like to know if I should stop editing or uploading articles, because there will be publishers who will always presume that my editions are paid for.-- Ane wiki ( talk) 18:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ane wiki. I have done an analysis of the sources used in Nancy Ruth (singer), and posted it to the deletion discussion. The discussion usually runs for 7 days, and the article may be edited to improve it during that time. If you can find and cite additional independent published reliable sources that discuss Ruth in some detail and at some length, please add them to the article and then post to the deletion discussion saying that you have done so. You may also give your reasons for thinking that the article should not be deleted, if you choose.

I have also posted to the talk page of Bilby, the editor who posted the COI tag on Erika Lemay. Please note that that editor is quite experienced, and says that there is evidence of COI editing. If you really were paid for that article, or have any sort of COI, you would be well-advised to declare it promptly.

It is OK for anyone to nominate any article for deletion at any time, particularly a relatively new one. Reasons must be supp;lied, and after the discussion, the closer will evaluate the reasons and evidence supplied by the various comments in the discussion. A previous review of an article by a single editor in no way prevents this. Opinions on such matters my well differ.

It is OK for any editor to place a COI tag on an article in the sincere belief that it is warranted, although evidence must be shown if requested.

I hope these comments are helpful to you. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to list the players on the NFL top 100 players of 2011 (as well as 12-17) with indications that the players are pro bowlers and hall of famers. The only problem is that when I try to do this, the text becomes bolded and centered. Is there a way that I can shift the text over to the left and them unbold it? While at the same time it has the "cross" sign and the background color. Can you help me out? Thanks -Vin Vinnylospo ( talk) 18:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference: NFL Top 100 Players of 2011 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the problem was that you started the "style" section to set the color with a "!" rather than a |"|. I have fixed this for the one cell you had done in this edit. See Help:Table#Color; scope of parameters for more details. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to crop Wikimedia images when using them in articles? User-duck ( talk) 22:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, User-duck. Yes. For example, you can download any image from Wikimedia Commons to your computer, and use any image processing program to crop it or increase the contrast or whatever you want. Then, you can upload that modified image to Wikimedia Commons, but you must state the file name of the original image as the source. Your modified image is a derivative work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's easy to use CropTool for this.

Also, {{ CSS image crop}} is sometimes appropriate. Eman 235/ talk 00:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

I'd love to have some input on the beginning of my first article, making sure I am following the Wikipedia guidelines. If someone could take a look it would be fantastic.

/info/en/?search=User:Clealm/sandbox/Minnesota_Street_Project

Thank you in advance. Clealm ( talk) 22:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Clealm, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not bad for a start. I made a few minor edits for formatting. Yoiu will want more sources, and based upon those sources, more content, if possible. At the moment it doesn't fully establish the notability of the topic, but more reliable sources that discuss it in some detail will help with that.

At the moment the tone is somehow slightly promotional to my eyes, although i can't say just why.

Please remember that in the various cite templates the |work= parameter, or its aliases |website= or |newspaper= should be used for the actual name of the publication being cited. The |publisher= parameter can be used also, but leave it out if it is redundant with the work's name. For example, when you specify work= The New York Times it adds nothing to also specify publisher=New York Times Company, even though it is technically accurate. In any case, never use a web domain for work or website, unless a website has no other name. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 01:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Today, few hours ago I added a new page to the wikipedia on Hacker Nucleus and an exprienced editor marked that page for speedy deletion. Please tell me anyone how can I remove that tag. by the way I already provided so many references and external links for verification and I can add more if you want. Please tell me what should I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadline43 ( talk • contribs)

Link of that page

Hacker Nucleus

@ Deadline43: Hello and welcome. In looking at the article you created, it does not have independent reliable sources that indicate how it meets the notability guidelines for websites. You do give sources, but they only cite basic information like when the site was founded. What is needed are sources that describe the website itself and indicate why it would merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. I would also note that since the website you wrote about was founded in March, it may be too soon for an article about it. If you have things like news stories about this website, or independent reviews, or anything that explains why this website merits inclusion here, please point it out on the article talk page.(click "talk" at the top of the article)

Please understand that successfully creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia; it takes time, practice, and effort. New editors who dive into creating articles often experience difficulty for this reason. The editors who are most successful are those that started small with small edits to existing articles, which allowed them to learn how Wikipedia works and gradually move up to creating an article. You may want to read this page about creating your first article to learn more about it; there is also Articles for Creation which gives a step by step process and a chance for feedback on it. If you have any further questions, please post them here. 331dot ( talk) 22:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Deadline43 I am sorry to have to tell you that I just deleted Hacker Nucleus. Id did not in any way indicate why the site was significant or important, or why it might be notable. All the cited surces were published by Hacker Nucleus itself, none were to Independent sources. Moreover, i did an online search and could find nothing that was both significant and independent. The next time you want to try creating an article, first find several independent sources that discuss the topic in some detail. Then base the article primarily on what those sources have to say. Start with a Draft, not in the main article space. follow the good advice given by 331dot above. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 01:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to remove articles from a category because I don't think it belongs there. But I can't seem to find a way to edit the category, or remove the category tag from the article. Does anyone know how to do it? Do I need to download special editing tools?

Thank you! Jing3094 ( talk) 22:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jing3094. The wikicode that puts an article into categories is usually at the very end of the source code. You can add or remove categories by editing that part of the code. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, (sorry, I don't know how to incorporate your name link into the text). Thank you for your reply. I tried what you suggested, but the category tag is still there. Here is the link of the article I was talking about : /info/en/?search=Osteopathy, could you please take a look, if possible? The tag I was referring to is on the right hand side of the page, and it says "Alternative medicine and pseudoscience". I would really appreciate it! Thank you!

Jing3094 ( talk) 01:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Jing3094, that is not a category but rather something called a sidebar. In this case, it is called Template:Alternative medicine sidebar. Please do not remove it without gaining consensus on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

As for creating a username link, the easiest way is to type {{u|Cullen328}}, which appears as Cullen328. Hope this helps! Player 03 ( talk) 03:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Jing3094. What was confusing here was a jargon issue. A category has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. What you are here about is the display of a template. Removing it would not be uncontroversial. Rather than doing so, I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page of the article, i.e., Talk:Osteopathy, stating your reasons for wanting it to be removed.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 01:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians,

I would like to resolve an issue between another user and I. A user by the name of @ Joobo: reverted a contribution of mine three times in a row, for no apparent reason. This happened on the Carbonara article. My contribution was adding a photograph that I believe to be helpful ( the second image), as it showcased the main ingredients of the dish, for readers to see in a glance.

The user did not give any reason for removing my photograph, other than linking to WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. And nowhere does WP:NOTCOOKBOOK forbid including supportive images on food-related articles. Furthermore, if he wants to justify his reverts, linking to a WP guide is not a substitute for an actual argument, in my opinion.

The user says that I should "Get consensus for inclusion of the image first". But to me, I think it makes more sense for him to get consensus on excluding the photograph. I believe my contribution is helpful to readers, and complies with the rules. What is the next step here? Who should get consensus, and why? Thank you. Amin (Talk) 16:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of you seem to be edit warring and at risk of being blocked, so please stop changing the article and instead discuss your differences on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 16:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) WP:NOTCOOKBOOK states that articles should be enyclopedic, and not read like a cookbook. You should be the one to get consensus, as your contribution could easily be interpreted as sounding like an entry in a cookbook. If you truly think your image is helpful to the article, having previous consensus to back your decision up would avoid the accusations of edit warring you seem to be under right now. Regardless of content, though, the fact remains that 3RR still applies, as no one is reverting blatant or obvious vandalism. So Joobo was correct: you are edit warring, and should stop reinserting the image unless you have consensus to reinsert it, as you are on the edge of breaking 3RR and most likely being blocked for edit warring. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@ A lad insane: He reverted me 3x, I reverted only twice, yet I am the one "on the edge of breaking 3RR". Three is more than two, you know. More importantly, why do you believe that I am the one who needs to get consensus? You don't state any reason to what the rule is, and who should get consensus when, other than pointing that I reverted his initial revert. Amin (Talk) 17:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification--Jocobo is not the person who mentioned warring. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:BCCF:CA70:DEFE:9AC0 ( talk) 17:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amin. While there is a prohibition on making more than three reverts in a 24-hour period, edit warring is a little more complicated than that, and it's probably not helpful to count who reverted more; the important thing is to stop reverting regardless of what the other editor does. There's a policy on edit warring— Wikipedia:Edit warring—that every editor should read, and there's also an essay— Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle—that has excellent advice about what to do in these situations. If you read the essay, you'll see that what's missing here is any discussion on the article's talk page. That's where you need to explain why your edits should stick. If your explanation is sound, consensus should develop to indicate that. This can take hours or weeks. In the meantime, there's no reason to feel any urgency about it. Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 17:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Rivertorch: Thank you for your thoughts on this. I will do just that. I will bring it up on the Talk page, to let others weigh in. Amin (Talk) 05:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I get to where word count can be found for an article or portions thereof? 2605:E000:9152:8F00:BCCF:CA70:DEFE:9AC0 ( talk) 17:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Greetings and Welcome to the Teahouse... At Article size it describes how to find article size and a tool that can be used for number of characters in an article. Hope this helps. Cheers! — JoeHebda • ( talk) 05:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

How do I cite my sources? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, RullRatbwan ( talk) 08:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ RullRatbwan: Hello and welcome. A good place to start would be this page which provides an introduction to citing sources. 331dot ( talk) 08:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC

@ 331dot: Thanks, 331dot. RullRatbwan ( talk) 08:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I know the point of Wikipedia is not to talk with other users but is there somewhere where people discuss topics, especially for WikiProjects? I am working on researching and filling out at least basic information on all native american weaponry and engineering. I went to a few relevant pages such as "Project Aztec" and "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" but they all seemed dead or is this normal? Sorry for these questions, just trying to get the feel for the community around here.

Thanks.

MercOfTroy ( talk) 22:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@ MercOfTroy: Hello. I think you are looking for the Reference Desk. 331dot ( talk) 22:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Reference Desk is what MercOfTroy is looking for here, 331dot. If I have understood correctly, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and its associated talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, look like what you're after, MercOfTroy, and seem to be reasonably active. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

...although the mention of WikiProject Aztec suggests that you might be more interested in South America, so apologies if my suggestion is not helpful. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that a wikipedia page is missing in English so I thought about translating it. Would be it ok? Thanks! gionogio Gionogio ( talk) 18:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gionogio. You can't use the it.wiki article as "as source" per se. However, if that page itself is cited to reliable sources, you can translate it into English using the same sources as the Italian article. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome @ Gionogio: There are certain steps you should follow if you do a translation. See Wikipedia:Translation.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us which article you're thinking of working on, Gionogio? Not every article in it.wp would necessarily be found suitable for this Wikipedia, and it would be a shame if you did a lot of work and then found that it couldn't be kept. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks you all for answering. The article I wanted to translate/write is this: it:Francesco Giomi. He is a professor at the Conservatory where I'm studying, plus he is the actual director of Tempo_Reale and a notably electroacustic composer who has worked with Luciano_Berio and others great names. Please let me know now if I can go on, now I'm not to work on it everyday cause I've got exams to pass. But I thought on contributing in electroacustic music since I'm studying that. Thanks again! gionogio Gionogio ( talk) 10:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Gionogio. Well the first thing that pops out on the it.wiki article is that it doesn't include inline citations, which are required for any contentious material about a living person whether that material is positive, negative or neutral. So my instinct in this instance is that your language skills might be better put to use reading the sources in Italian, (and there seems to be a lot of them) and then trying to write an English article more or less from scratch, rather than trying to do a 1 to 1 translation of the Italian article.

Maybe you can use the Italian article as a general guide, for example, to make sure you don't miss anything important, but since you really need to include inline citations, and figure out where exactly the information is coming from, you're kindof already doing to hard work involved in writing a brand new article.

If you need extended time to work on it, you may want to consider starting it as a draft, which can be done by clicking on Draft:Francesco Giomi. TimothyJosephWood 15:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you TimothyJosephWood, I'll start as a draft! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gionogio ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

New editor, more than 10 edits, more than four days, not warned/suspended... No invitation to the Teahouse?

User:Spikesgirl58

Oddjob84 ( talk) 00:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Oddjob84. There is a bot which automatically invites a certain subset of new editors to the Teahouse, but not everyone. Any human editor, including you, can invite anyone to the Teahouse, as you see fit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I poked around a bit and found {{subst:welcome-t}} which seemed to work pretty well. Random character sequence ( talk) 02:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Hosts/Database reports/Automated invites#Invite criteria says: "they created their account within the past 36 hours and have since made at least 10 edits." Many recent invitations were for users with down to 5 edits so the criteria have apparently changed. Spikesgirl58 only had 4 edits after 36 hours. PrimeHunter ( talk) 08:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to know anyone can do the invitation. Thanks @ Cullen328:. @ Random character sequence: thanks for the invitation code, and thanks for doing the invitation. I have saved it to my parts bin. @ PrimeHunter: True, but she did have 10 edits in the first week. Sounds like you'll miss plenty of invitations if the bot is really written like that. Come to think of it, I was never invited, I found the Teahouse on my own. Oddjob84 ( talk) 11:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I wrote an article about National Cotroceni Museum and it was deleted. I don't understand why. Anonim2016 ( talk) 07:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Anonim2016: Hello and welcome. The article was not deleted, but changed into what is called a redirect to what appears to me to be an existing article on the subject, Cotroceni Palace. This might be because the museum is located at the same place as the palace itself. The text you put appeared to be promotional in nature, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. It appeared promotional because it described things like the operating hours, price of admission, and other information that might be good in a travel brochure, but not an encyclopedia. If the existing article is missing information, you would be welcome to provide it, if you have independent reliable sources to support it, but it needs to be in an encyclopedic style. I would suggest you look at other similar articles, such as others about museums( Smithsonian, British Museum, Louvre) to learn the style that is being looked for. 331dot ( talk) 07:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Hi, Anonim2016, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not the one who reverted your edits, but I think it was deleted because it was duplicating the existing article Cotroceni Palace. The page you modified ( National Cotroceni Museum) is a redirection to Cotroceni Palace, so placing the same info there was counterproductive. -- CiaPan ( talk) 07:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Anonim2016 ( talk) 08:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

But you have to know that the National Cotroceni Museum is a museum and Palace Cotroceni is official residence of president of Romania. They are different things. Anonim2016 ( talk) 08:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Anonim2016: As I stated above, since they are at the same location, they currently have the same article. However, if you feel that the Museum merits its own article, you should start a discussion on the article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article). It probably would only merit its own article if there was significant independent information about it separate from that of the Presidential residence. I don't know if that's the case or not, but the article talk page is the correct venue to discuss that. 331dot ( talk) 08:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Anonim2016: In addition to what User:331dot wrote above please note, that User:Chrissymad who reverted your changes gave a comment Rmv promo to his reversal. So if you start adding information about a museum to the article (or start a new one), please keep your information strictly objective, with no emotional or promotional tone. See WP:NOTPROMO for more explanation.
I strongly recommend you start with visiting Wikipedia:Your first article.
Good luck – and don't hesitate to ask more questions! Editing Wikipedia is not a simple task, and everybody was a beginner. -- CiaPan ( talk) 08:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Anonim2016 ( talk) 10:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you know what is the real problem? The page Palace Cotroceni has in her content a lot of informations that are about museum. I am a employed of museum, how can I give you the proves that I represent this museum and I want to make a page for museum, a individual page. Anonim2016 ( talk) 10:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That is not a problem at all.

I feel you're trying to tell us your position is stronger as an employee of the museum. But that's wrong. On contrary, if you are actually connected to the subject, you should not write about it. Please read the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information.

Even more, if you are assigned a task of extending, updating or maintaining Wikipedia information as a part of your job, you must disclose the connection as described in the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure policy.

Additionally, despite being the museum worker or not, your contribution should be neutral and verifiable, as decribed in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies, to be accepted. Otherwise it can be simply deleted. -- CiaPan ( talk) 12:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I just want to find a solution. This is my homework for my job, but I understand... thanks! Anonim2016 ( talk) 13:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a question regarding how to add photos.

Also how to move to table to the left.

Also how to link Facebook and Instagram to wiki page.

Cedwards757 ( talk) 14:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I see userpages of different users. They write data like religion, what they like and their country such that some picture and title is written in a colorful line and data is in white place below these lines like the userpage of User:Cordless Larry. I want to ask how these features are created.

Sinner ( talk) 14:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sinner. Please see Wikipedia:Userboxes, and especially its subsection at Grouping userboxes, as well as the Wikipedia:User page design center. You might also take a look at Help:Table, because the specific user page you flagged, Cordless Larry's, makes use of table markup to group his userboxes. Often it's easiest to simply copy and paste code that works, but then tailor for your own purposes by replacing the userboxes seen in the code, with the ones you want to display for yourself (if you can make sense of the code to that extent). Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 16:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It is to seek help. 2-3 editors are harassing me for none, despite making them clear I am unable to understand them. In Francesco Clemente I did what he said but he reverted again. I think they are connected and against me. They are harassing WP:HARASS me at every edit and doing this repeatedly maybe due to mutual connection and taking revenge of my discussion in the Teahouse previously. I have no concerns whether they keep articles or delete. Please see my COI going on. It was a huge mistake that I joined Wikipedia and thought to edit it contribute. they don't want anyone to update Wikipedia and outdated info, they have self-grudges and due to small issues which already exists in millions of articles they like chasing a few people and articles. I am done with it. They are just placing tags wildly and I wish them good luck to ruin Wikipedia at their best. I don't know why they don't respect Good faith terms and all others like policy against harassment, WP:ASPERSIONS. I am really fedup, I have to visit a Dr for the torture they are giving me again and again by accusing the same thing again and again I am exhausted. Please help me out or simply tell me how to close this account or to talk someone sensible. They are also involved in WP:HOUNDING While there are discussions already they are doing the same thing again and again, by reverting changes and loading my page with warnings WP:HUSH. I already said and swear that I'll disclose my COI in the future edits if any I don't know what to do. I thought not to hide anything and therefore I chose my name, please guide how to request a username change as I think I am being Harassed due to my gender as a female. HeatherMPinchbeck ( talk) 08:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry your experience at Wikipedia hasn't been more positive. It looks as if you've already changed your username, so that question is resolved. The place to report behavioral issues such as harassment is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The allegations you're making are extremely serious, and if you stand by them, I suggest you file a report there. Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 17:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked HeatherMPinchbeck for copyright issues, promotional editing, and concerns of undisclosed paid editing indefinitely. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse members and team!

Thank you for the invitation to join the Teahouse.

I'm new on editing Wikipedia and I'm getting flustered. Could you kindly go through the first page I created and kindly let me know what I'm doing wrong. In the mean time I am reading up on the suggestions given.

Thank you.

TheDesignBender ( talk) 09:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this about Olusegun Adejumo? Maproom ( talk) 18:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've read that after a new Wikipedia article has been created, it is indexed by Google or other search engines in as quickly as 15 minutes and not taking more than a day. An article I recently created and was accepted, Dave Min, can't be found by using a search engine to search for it. I looked at the page information and it said that it had no Wikidata Item ID while almost every other Wikipedia article seems to have one. Is there anything I can do? Harris-san ( talk) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Harris-san, and welcome to the Teahouse. New Wikipedia articles are not indexed by search engines until they have been checked by a member of the New Page Patrol ( WP:NPP), or a certain amount of time has passed, whichever comes first. I have read both 30 days and 90 days for the time period, I am not sure which is correct. The exception is that editors with the Wikipedia:Autopatrolled right have their pages counted as patrolled at the moment such pages are created. None of this has anything to do with the existence of a Wikidata item for the article. I believe that such an item must be created manually, but I am the wrong person to advise on that aspect of Wikipedia DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 19:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Is there a guideline, policy, etc. that says that discussions should stay in one place (i.e. that responses to a comment should appear under the comment, not elsewhere, like on the commenter's talk page)? I assumed that such a guideline exists, but I cannot find such a guideline. Please let me know if there is one, and, if so, what it is. Thanks! Noah Kastin ( talk) ( 🖋) 17:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No there is not, to the best of my knowledge, Noah Kastin. It is generally considered a good practice, however. It used to be common on Wikipedia for talk page conversations to be split, each editor replying on the other's talk page so that the other would be notified. Then came the development of talkback templates, followed by WP:PING notifications, and now that style of split conversation is rare, although I saw one just the other day. If you find a split discussion confusing, and you are a participant, you can ask the other participants to keep it in one place, and as a matter of courtesy, they should comply. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 20:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, DESiegel! I will notify the other user in the relevant discussion accordingly. Thanks again for the advice! Noah Kastin ( talk) ( 🖋) 20:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia pro. A page i contributed on wikipedia does not show up when search the name on wikipedia, Is there any thing i need to do ? Thanks i am ready to be a create contributor. Abanda bride ( talk) 20:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Abanda bride and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to tell us which page if you want us to look for it. You last edited the page Agbor Gilbert Ebot which contains unencyclopaedic language such as " He is just one lucky man that will never forget 16 March 2017. Gilbert is always thank God for sparing his life", but perhaps you are asking about the page Anafoot or Enyewah Bride Abanda, both of which have been deleted because you did not provide reliable sources to establish WP:Notability. The page Carl Enow Ngatchu has been moved to Draft:Carl Enow Ngatchu so that you can work on it further without it being deleted. Creating a new article in Wikipedia is quite a difficult task, and you might like to spend some time improving existing articles before trying to write new ones. There is some advice on your talk page that you should read. Click the blue links such as Your first article. Pages will not show up on Google until they have been reviewed, or until they have been in Wikipedia for 90 days. Dbfirs 21:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I post a picture on a wiki page? Having trouble figuring it out. PAButcher2012 ( talk) 22:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi PAButcher2012. As far as I can tell there has never been a file called File:10205175612727977_1072867387463773084_n.jpg here or at the Commons. If by chance you are trying to hotlink to an image that is not yet uploaded here or at the Commons, that will not work. I am posting below some standard advice about images:

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image ( sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 22:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there any way to display the number of backlinks an article has (mainspace backlinks) -- while viewing that article, without having to click on the "what links here" link? Is there some Javascript or Gadget available to do this? -- Hirsutism ( talk) 00:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Found that multiple accounts or IP made the same editors. One of the accounts was confirmed to be socks puppets. And this account has a lot of socks puppets. Can I think that those IP or accounts that are not recognized as socks puppets are socks puppets?

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Born_A/Archive--delete the content

• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&type=revision&diff=783743966&oldid=783743404
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&type=revision&diff=768990627&oldid=768491455
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=768386870
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&type=revision&diff=763625680&oldid=763393798
• https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Incorporation_of_Tibet_into_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff=prev&oldid=760024234

-- O1lI0 ( talk) 10:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ O1lI0: it is likely that these are the same user but as the edits were made weeks apart and this is a set of dynamic IP addresses it's not sock-puppetry as they weren't using the addresses at the same time. Whether they are related to Born_A is difficult to say on behavioural evidence. Nthep ( talk) 18:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ O1lI0: and Nthep, imho the Teahouse is not an apropriate venue to discuss this topic. A sock puppet investigation is a technical process best left to competent experienced people to get on with it. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank for comment.I understand. O1lI0 ( talk) 04:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia pays for contributions

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drswaseem ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Drswaseem: Short answer: No. Long answer: Read this. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Although I have done edits before, mostly corrections (per my screen name), I have often come across the following problem when reading pages, albeit not to the degree of the one I am now writing about. I'd like advice on how to resolve this.

First, some background: I came across a mention of a man named Franz Stangl, who sounded familiar, but I couldn't place him. So I consulted Wikipedia, as I often do, for the relevant facts. Upon reading the entry, I very clearly got the sense that whoever had either written or recently edited this page was whitewashing this convicted Nazi murder's responsibility for his crimes. There's nothing blatantly unfactual; it's more in the style and choice of phrasing and the quotes chosen to represent his "character".

I know Wikipedia isn't a forum for political or social bias, but there ARE certain issues that do come down to the simplest black and white. Nazi murderers who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Jews and the disabled during the Holocaust should be chief among them.

While I know I could contact the last editor listed, I don't really think that would be very productive, nor would it address the larger problem. Any ideas?

(I'm not interested in engaging in debates about Holocaust-revisionist fantasies, so please only respond with useful suggestions.)

Thanks. WriteinEnglish 03:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriteinEnglish ( talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, WriteinEnglish. The best way to address content problems in an article is usually either to edit the article to fix them or to begin a discussion on the article's talk page. Sometimes it's better to do both, especially if you're making changes that you think will be controversial or are too extensive to be adequately described in edit summaries. I don't know if you noticed, but there is considerable discussion on the talk page that may be of interest to you, although it is several years old. You could resurrect that discussion or start a new one, whichever better fits your concerns. It's often more productive to phrase what you say in relation to Wikipedia's policies, and one of the core policies that you may find helpful is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

By the way, there are no apparent problems with any recent edits to Franz Stangl, nor do there appear to be any significant issues with the earliest versions. (The article was created in 2004.) Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 05:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

can wkipedia be colourful and more attractive.

H.S. Happy ( talk) 00:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If you can contribute appropriate colour photographs that are properly licensed, or can qualify for non-free use, that contribute to article, that will make it more colourful. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This thread uses British English spelling. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, H.S. Happy. There's a delicate balance between style and substance. When I was a kid, before Wikipedia existed, there were at least six different encyclopedias that I used to consult. They ranged from extremely colorful with pictures on nearly every page to dull and gray with the occasional line drawing and even rarer photo (usually black-and-white). Over time, I noticed an inverse correlation: the more colorful and attractive the encyclopedia, the shallower its coverage of topics. Fortunately, Wikipedia has no printing-related costs to constrain it, and no contributor fees to pay, so we can have the best of both worlds. If you have specific ideas for how to make Wikipedia easier on the eyes, you should share them. Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 05:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I know I saw something... Ah yes, here it is: https://wiki2.org/en/Donald_trump Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for having me here. Could some help me with the new article that is written by me. How can I get the article reviewed and published. Could some review my article and help me in publishing it. Would be really helpful if somebody can assist me in doing it. Would apprecitae! Link: /info/en/?search=Draft:Regalix Thanks in advance. Henryrichie11 ( talk) 06:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Henryrichie11. We require references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to show that a company is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article. The sources in your draft are directory listings of fast growing companies. I do not see significant coverage in your current references, which would discuss the history of the company and its products and services at some length. Wikipedia is not a directory of every tech company on various lists.

If you are being paid to write this article, you must declare that. Please also declare any conflict of interest that you may have. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I was looking at recent changes I found an IP address 76.189.202.139 which is involved in multiple edits. Most of edits has been done in external section. Does it right to revert his all changes?

Thanks in Advance :-) Harsh Pinjani 12:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for someone to edit from an IP address, as long as those edits are constructive. To check whether an edit was constructive, click the "diff" link (visible in the page history right next to the date of the edit). If you find an edit that counts as vandalism, then feel free to revert it.

In this case, the user's edits look constructive, so please don't revert them without discussion. Player 03 ( talk) 12:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

While this does not have to do with editing, are there any editors who are the highest level there? (Vanguard Editor/Lord Gom, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia, 132,000 edits at least and 16 years on Wikipedia. I have looked through the archives a little but usually they are no longer contributing or are inactive except for their talk pages, etc. I know there are many editors that have (sometimes far) more than 132,000 edits, but are there any ones who have both criteria? I would like to reward them, even though technically they are self-awarded things. Thank you! SuperTurboChampionshipEdition ( talk) 19:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ SuperTurboChampionshipEdition: According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Vanguard_Editor, User:Pitke is one editor that has that award. RudolfRed ( talk) 22:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The highest award ranks have been updated multiple times or new ones have been added to retain the "impossible award" joke. I have the VGE because my contributions span over multiple Wikis and I was miffed that despite my edit count I couldn't legitimately get the shinier badges because I didn't join Wikipedia in its infancy. So I'm combining my service years in my most active wikis for the purposes of this informal award. -- Pitke ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Hello, SuperTurboChampionshipEdition, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if ther is any user who has both 132,000 or more edits and at least 16 years on Wikipedia. I think that the editors who maintain the service awards have tried to design things so that the top award is still out of range for everyone, and will (perhaps) create a new one after the current top has been achieved. Please don't take the "service awards" too seriously. And please, don't give them or "award" them to any other user. Some users dislike them and will be displeased. Some prefer one version of them over another. Some have slightly different ways of counting edits or time served. Let people manage such awards themselves, if they choose to, please. If you see someone doing somethign that strikes you as particularly good, and to be encouaged, you can award them a WP:BARNSTAR. There are many of these, for widely differing purposes and occasions. Many (but not all) editors value barnstars. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 6:26 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Valerievalpal ( talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC) <copyright violation removed> Valerievalpal ( talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ Valerievalpal: - I've copied your above posting to the talk page for the Bobby Osborne article. Hope this helps. - NsTaGaTr ^{( Talk)} 20:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ NsTaGaTr:, this had numerous hallmarks of a copyright violation and it was. I have redacted the page history here as well as reverted you at the article talk page and redacted the page history there. Please check for these. You might find Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO) a useful read. Thanks. Valerievalpal: you must not copy and paste other people's writing anywhere on Wikipedia. I will post a more detailed message about this at your talk page.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 22:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @ Fuhghettaboutit: - I merely assumed good faith in the matter and presumed that they /meant/ to post it there, but somehow did it here. (*I have multiple wiki tabs open frequently*) I'll be a bit more aware in the future, so thanks for pointing it out. :) - NsTaGaTr ^{( Talk)} 13:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello i am not sure why my submission was rejected. How many references do i need to list? Can someone help me? 104.175.112.88 ( talk) 08:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, you should have references for what you write that will allow other users to verify your claims. Please read this for more information citing sources EvilxFish ( talk) 14:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your welcome in the Teahouse. I am wondering why the wikipedia link of Grand Prix of Literary Associations does not still appear in the research platforms; the article was created since april; is there anything wrong. Thanks for getting me informed. -- Morgoko ( talk) 15:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on the Page Information for that article, Indexing is allowed, so it is probably just a matter of time until search engines get back around to it. It's not an instant process, nor one that can be 'pushed along' by us here at Wikipedia. Hope this helps some. - NsTaGaTr ^{( Talk)} 15:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Morgoko. That page has not been reviewed by another editor at this point and will not show up in search engines until that happens. There are currently over 19,000 pages awaiting review. Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 15:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)