Wikipedia:Teahouse

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Click here to
ask a question

331dot, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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

Help Wikipedia

Frustrated with creating links

On my sandbox alvanholmes/sandbox I've created an article for John Farrar.

Here is my point of frustration In the section Indications of Variation in name

I have two web citations and all of them is showing correctly

I have spend five hours typing and retyping trying ever variation that I can think of and nothing

More frustating it that this variation of web cite actually worked (ref 2) \Version 1.<ref name="The Ferrar Papers">{{cite web| http://www.virtualjamestown.org/exist/cocoon/jamestown/virgco/b002245362|title=The Ferrar Papers of the Virginia Company}}</ref>

But when I tried to replicate it for the two problems, they didn't work (disregard title and url)

I have also tried this variation as well Version 2.<A ref name=”William Ferror of Halifax”>Template:Cite web url=https://archive.org/details/halifaxwillsbein02york/page/40</ref>{{rp | 40]] and it doesn't work either.

Here is version2 written in the style of version 1 <A ref name=”William Ferror of Halifax”>"Will of Henry Ferror of Halifax, 1548". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help) Text "https://archive.org/details/halifaxwillsbein02york/page/40" ignored</ref>{{rp | 40]] Can someone please tell me what I am doing wrong. An example perhaps. Is there a | or a " or an = that I am missing?

Why doesn't version 1 work when I use the url's (i.e https; etc., in version 2?

What have I done incorrectly with Version 2.? or have I. Is it the bot that is causing me a headache Alvanhholmes (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alvanhholmes. I have fixed many syntax errors.[1] Two references are still missing a suitable title. I see you use VisualEditor and wonder whether you are trying to follow instructions meant for the source editor. In VisualEditor, you can get help to create a reference by clicking the "Cite" tab at top. In the source editor, you can get help to create a reference by clicking "Cite" above the edit area. It cannot help fix existing references. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Prime Hunter. I reviewed the syntax and my eyes just can't see the difference between mine and yours. Could you please show me the difference so I can get beyond this and not go over it again. As regards Titles for those references. I tried to insert a title in ref 6, but it isn't taking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvanhholmes (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: I think we can all identify with your frustration. Come back here and ask as many times as you need to. You can use the page's History tab to show the differences between any two versions - for instance, from the latest you changed to now the differences are at this link. Insertions and deletions are coloured. If you're a visual learner, you might like to check YouTube for extra material about creating references. For instance, if you're using Visual Editor then this video covers adding references, starting at 4:00.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: Click the link [2] I gave to see the differences. If it's too hard to see for your eyes then your browser may be able to increase text size with Ctrl++, decrease with Ctrl+-, and reset to default with Ctrl+0. Here are some tips for source editing (not VisualEditor). Template parameters are separated by a pipe character: A vertical line "|". Any syntax element starting with a left bracket must end with a right bracket of the same type (and same number if there is more than one). E.g. (...), or [[...]], or {{...}}, or <...>, but never a combination like {{...)) or {{...]] which start with curly brackets but ends with something else. Citation templates have named parameters, meaning a parameter name like url= must be written before the value. References usually start with <ref and never with <a ref. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Prime Hunter and I understand that. But the problem of inserting a title persists.

In the Alvanhholmes/sandbox2, Line 31 or so, ref 6 in Visual Editor I keep trying to insert a title. All I can see is (6) for the refence. Here is what I typed, and it shows up in source edit, but not in visual edit. Is there something wrong with the syntax?

The Title is there but it doesn't show up either atline 31 or reflist only the ref number. I checked the history and noticed that you removed the Title, but the Title is necessary for the reference. I can always type it in at line 31, but it won't show up in the reflist.

So my question remains. How do I include the Title of the reference in my syntax.? Thank you Alvanhholmes (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Alvanhholmes (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: Reference 6 already has a title "Will of Henry Ferror of Halifax, 1548", both in the sandbox and in your post here, so I don't know what you are talking about. In the post here you wrote |last=Corssley|first=E W after the }} which ends the citation template so those parameters were not used by the template. You broke the reference in [3] by changing the ending curly brackets }} to round brackets )) so I reverted you. Your edit also made an unnecessary repetition of the title. In the source editor you make a title in a citation template by writing |title= followed by the wanted title. Do not change the ending curly double brackets }} to anything else when you do this or make any other edit to a citation. Do not write Title with upper case T. In VisualEditor you make a title for an existing working reference by clicking the blue number where the reference is used, click "Edit" in the box that pops up, write the name of the title in the "Title" field, and click "Apply changes". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks PrimeHunter. The problem is most certainly me. I have memory retention problems (age and removal of a cerebral tumor) so I have to use templates I store in wordpad for copy and paste, and often my shakey hands will cause a mistype. I try though. I solved my problem with citations on lines 31 and 32, by (duh) simply typing in the words "Will of...., etc.," don't know why I didn't think of it before (fibbing there) I will try in the future to concentrate more. And I will use your references for citations in the future.. they are going on my wordpad. I tried to use the cite link at the top and some how it didn't work out for me.

Thanks a million. I can only imagine the troubles I will have posting my next article. I hope it is easier and better. I will concentrate more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvanhholmes (talk • contribs) 04:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Article Issue Flags - Request for help

Hi, I want to proactively declare that I am a COI. I work for Mitchell Goldhar's company, SmartCentres. I understand that an employee of the company made edits to Mitchell Goldhar's article before declaring a COI. We recognize this was wrong. Can you please help me understand the process to have the flags removed from the article. I believe the employee's edits have all been reversed. Thank you in advance for your help. Mandymail (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Once the issues of the tags are addressed, they can be removed. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 01:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

More specific - User talk:Robert McClenon put the flags in. Consider creating a New section there and explain what was reverted. However, your relationship goes beyond COI. As an employee, what applies is WP:PAID. What that means is on your User page, you must declare a Paid relationship, and it is required/STRONGLY recommended that rather than editing the article directly, you create a new section on the article's Talk page, and writing there the proposed changes. In time, other editors will see this and decide to incorporate into the article. David notMD (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

All that said, in my opinion none of the references support Mr. Goldhar's notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word, i.e., published articles that are about Mr. Goldhar rather than just name-mentions. David notMD (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

lee majors

Was just wondering... Is that Mr. Lee Majors in the newest 2018 HONDADays commercials? Sure sounds like him!!! Could you confirm this for me, please? Thank you. Happy Holydays!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.95.153 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi anon. This is a page for asking questions about Wikipedia or how to edit it. You may go to reference desks instead. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 02:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

How to add userboxes?

Which templates do I use to add userboxes? Give me at least three examples.KJ2574 04:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@KJ2574: Hi. You may use {{<!--Userbox name goes here-->}}. For example, {{User wikipedia/rollback}} produces

This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Two more examples?KJ2574 04:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Go to find at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/All ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sig colors?

Give me an example of making signatures colored using wiki code. I have to be able to see the wiki code. KJ2574 04:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Use CSS. <span style="color:red">Abelmoschus Esculentus</span> produces Abelmoschus Esculentus ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

How do I get rid of the redirect in mySandbox?

My sandbox has a redirect to a recently published article, and I can't use it for another article. Can I get rid of it, I had deleted it and somone put it back in.

As a consequence I have a sandbox2, but can't access it from the sandbox link, when I click on it only the redirect sandbox shows up.

The only way for me to access sandbox2 is to bookmark it in my browser, and that is unhandy.

So how do I get access to sandbox2 from my user page, or wiki? Can I get rid of the redirect? How do I make a new sandbox3?

Most of these are redundant questions that I just asked, but I didn't make a subject/headline. Apologies Alvanhholmes (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done removed redirect in User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox. Create sandbox3 by clicking here. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the redirect. But how can I access my sandbox2 and sandbox3 without bookmarking themAlvanhholmes (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You may add them to your watchlist or type it in the search box manually ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alvanhholmes! You can also go to Special:PrefixIndex/User:Alvanhholmes, which will list all subpages of your User page. Another option is to add links to your sandboxes on your User page. Happy editing! rchard2scout (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Taras Kostanchuk

Good day! Earlier today my article about Taras Kostanchuk (commander of the assault group of the Donbas Battalion) was rejected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Taras_Kostanchuk. The reason is indicated my friendly or family ties or advertising is not a significant person, but this is not true. He led the assault group of the famous battalion and went through many battles (in the material I applied it was fixed, even video materials). One of the few who survived the Battle of Ilovaisk. I enclose a photo of the planning of the capture of Ilovaysk, where Taras Kostanchuk discusses it with the famous founder of the battalion, Semen Semenchenko.

File:Semenchenko and Kostanchuk http://ipress.ua/media/gallery/full/s/e/semenchenko_a393b.jpg Now Taras Kostanchuk is engaged in many projects in Ukraine and there are a lot of queries about search systems about him (you can check). In Ukrainian Wikipedia, I have already successfully created and approved an article about Taras Kostanchuk (you can easily check this). This man deserves a place in the encyclopedia and I would like to be the creator of his page until someone else did. This article does not carry any advertising character. Taras Kostanchuk does not need it. His biography is already searched in search queries, so I’m creating this page for people, whon try to find it. Thank you. Best regards, Pa30T (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pa30T, and welcome to the Teahouse! Since Draft:Taras Kostanchuk has 33 references, it takes a long time for reviewers to assess whether Kostanchuk meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines on people. If you can list 2 or 3 of those references showing that Kostanchuk meets these guidelines, and post them on the talk page of the draft, your next submission of the draft will be reviewed much more quickly.

Also, please read through Wikipedia's biography of living persons and neutral point of view policies. In particular, the draft contains claims regarding Kostanchuk that cite unreliable self-published sources, which are not acceptable. Please address this issue before submitting the draft again.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!​ — Newslinger talk 05:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I don't see a yellow "Comment" button at the top of that or other drafts. Do you have something special set in your preferences? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops, that was from the helper script for reviewing drafts. Sorry about that. I've corrected the advice.​ — Newslinger talk 08:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Query

If I wanted to change my username globally, then how to do so; and if I did that, what will be the side-effects? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Special:GlobalRenameRequest ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't want to change. The current name is fine. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 18:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you ask this question? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably for future reference, in case he ever wanted to.Mineblock6641 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

question

How do I display on my userbox that I can speak in english , support Manchester City F.C. , F.C. Barcelona and Juventus . 223.176.84.4 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi 223.176.84.4. If you were to register for a WP:ACCOUNT, then you could look at the userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries and then add the ones you like it to your userpage. However, I'm not sure if it's acceptable to add userboxes to an IP userpage simply because it seems possible that another person might also edit using the same IP address and would have just as much of a claim to the userpage as you and might just decide to remove them. If I'm mistaken about this, someone else will correct me, but once again I think registering for an account is probably necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think Marchjuly is exactly right. Userboxes shouldn't be put on IP pages since IPs can change. In this specific case, the IP user is a sockpuppet of a user who has been blocked multiple times with different accounts, so they should not create another account. --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Again

I wanted to change my user name but don't know how?

--MeKLT (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Given that you are a very new editor, a simple solution would be to create a new account with a new user name (and password) and never, ever, ever log in again as MeKLT. Doing that would consign MeKLT to the dustbin of obscurity, where it would join the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of non-active accounts. David notMD (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there are 34,981,616 registered Wikipedia accounts, and over 99.6% are inactive. See Wikipedia:Wikipedians for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem with uploading, please delete it i would like to upload it again. *Uploading was not successful.+ Mail adress can't be checked*

Uploading was not successful. https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soubor:Fórum_Ústí_nad_Labem.jpg

+

i can't proove that my mail is real there is any div error ...

Thank you for your time. Best Regards, George. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skajaw (talk • contribs) 11:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Skajaw:, unfortunately editors at English Wikipedia are unable to help with questions about Czech Wikipedia. Try asking at the help desk page at cs.wikipedia, https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedie:Pot%C5%99ebuji_pomoc Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

As for the file you linked to, that exists at Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F%C3%B3rum_%C3%9Ast%C3%AD_nad_Labem.jpg , and if you want to have it removed from there you'll need to go to there to tag it for removal. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Skajaw, welcome to the Teahouse. commons:File:Fórum Ústí nad Labem.jpg was uploaded at Wikimedia Commons and cannot be deleted by Wikipedia administrators. You can request deletion with "Nominate for deletion" at my link. End the reason with a signature ~~~~. Commons uploads are sometimes cut off at 5 MB when they are started with an edit toolbar at another wiki. Try the upload link in the left pane at the wiki or at commons:. You can also wait until your Commons account is four days old. Then commons:File:Fórum Ústí nad Labem.jpg should get a link "Upload a new version of this file". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Formatting

Hi there, My name is Zamzam I am a student at the University of Stirling in Scotland, working on a project to my module Living in a connected world.

I am trying to figure out how to cite, I have been going through several trials trying to discover the processes unfortunately, I failed :s

To be honest I tried to do so many things, I even tried to copy and past other's work but again.. I failed ;S

can you please guide me to any protocol I can follow, so I can upgrade my skills on Wikibooks project?

Thanks Zizi.husain (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizi.husain (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Zamzam. Though Wikibooks is a WMF project, and runs on the same software, it is a completely separate project from Wikipedia, and has its own rules and policies. You might find what you need at B:WB:REFS. --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks though!Zizi.husain (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Creating and Access 2d and 3rd Sandboxes

1. How does one create extra sandboxes? I have sandbox2 and sandbox3 but did not create them, they were created for me, and I want to know how? 2. How do I access sandbox2 and sandbox3, other than bookmarking them in my browser. When I click on sandbox at the top, it only takes me to my original sandbox, but there is no shortcut to sandbox2 or sandbox3

Thank youAlvanhholmes (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Alvanhholmes! You can search for those in the search bar, which you can actually do the same for your normal sandbox. Go to the search in the top-right part of the page, and enter User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox2 and User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox3. There aren't shortcuts installed to go to these pages besides searching for them, but it's very quick and easy to search for them once you get used to it. I hope this helps you out a bit.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

and you can create extra sandboxes by typing User:Alvanhholmes/sandbox4 or User:Alvanhholmes/anything else into the search box, Alvanhholmes. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I choose option 2 (link on userpage). Very much appreciated Alvanhholmes (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: I have taken the liberty of adding a helpful link at the top of your Userpage and both your current sandboxes. This will display every one of you subpages, no matter how many you create. There is also a second way of displaying any user's subpages: Just go to their Userpage, click the big Tab marked "Pages" (near the Edit tab), and then click subpages. Try it on mine, and you'll see I have a large number which are otherwise impossible to keep track of. Hope you find this helpful. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Should victims be listed in articles on tragedies?

Hi all,

I saw that a previously unknown victim of the UpStairs Lounge arson attack had been likely identified, so I went to add that info to the wiki article. I saw there wasn't a list of the victims, but I added the finding to the section regarding the three unidentified victims. I then checked around similar tragedies, and saw that some have a list of those who died (for example, the Ghostship fire) and some don't.

Are there any guidelines pertaining to this? One potential issue is that the UpStairs Lounge fire was not well covered at the time, so when looking around, I had a hard time finding reliable sources of a full list of the dead. In this case, would a photo of the official memorial with the names (like here) be an acceptable source?

Thanks!

EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

EponineBunnyKickQueen, whether or not to include a full list of victims is up to the consensus of editors at individual articles. To my knowledge, the consensus has been to do so in some cases and to not do so in others. So far as memorials, those are tricky in terms of copyright status. If the memorial is subject to copyright, any image of it would be considered nonfree, which would mean usage would be substantially restricted if not disallowed entirely. If the memorial is not copyrightable or has fallen into the public domain, I think a photo of it would often be relevant to the article about the incident the memorial is for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, as an aside, on "wiki article". "Wiki" is a generic term for any site that uses software allowing users to edit it. This site is Wikipedia, not "wiki". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think EponineBunnyKickQueen was thinking of uploading the image, Seraphimblade; rather they were asking if the image they linked to could be used as a source. It seems to me that the answer is Yes, provided the site where the image is hosted is regarded as a reliable source, that image is not itself a copyright violation, and there is enough information on the site (either in the image iteself, or in surrounding text) to establish that this is indeed a source for the information being added. --ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. If I misunderstood and that's what you were asking, I entirely agree with ColinFine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine, that is what I meant: taking the names from the memorial, not adding a photo of the memorial. Thanks, also, Seraphimblade. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi EponineBunnyKickQueen the {{cite sign}} template provides an easy way to reference a memorial inscription. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi EponineBunnyKickQueen, another response to your original question, for what it's worth. I've done a lot of work on aviation accidents and we generally only list victims in general terms; individual victims are not normally mentioned unless they are notable, which usually means they have their own wiki article (so a wikilink can be provided). Therefore we tend to provide a table listing numbers of victims by nationality, then only name specific individuals in the text if they are notable. Hope this helps. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Please direct me..

I am a teacher at St Martin Secondary who is trying to update our page, to follow other similar schools in our board.

I am not sure how I am in conflict of interest, nor do I wish to be revoked rights to update.

Could you please give me guidelines of how I can properly update our page?

My apologies for not doing this correctly. I am new to this process.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolandanavas (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yolandanavas, your editing was promoting the school. You were quite correctly told to stop that, and if you do so again, you will be blocked. Editors with a conflict of interest are expected to refrain from directly editing articles for which they have a COI, and instead to only suggest edits on the talk page, using {{request edit}} to bring attention to them. However, material such as "Our..." (articles are always written in third person), "program is designed for students that have a passion for sports", "Some of our students are high level athletes, but the majority are students that merely have a passion for sports. In either case, all of these students are afforded the opportunity to explore the world of sports through various roles and responsibilities which our student are exposed to in the community." That's brochure junk, and the rest of your edits go on that same way. Wikipedia strictly forbids any kind of advertising or marketing material, including any kind of "talking up". Also, please note that the article is not yours, nor the school's. Wikipedia is not social media on which you may write or maintain a "profile". It belongs to the community of Wikipedia and to the general public, and the school has no special right to control or dictate what it says. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yolandanavas. All of the above is true, however, I regret that they are rebuking you so strongly as you're someone who doesn't have experience on Wikipedia. Especially considering that the commonplace talk header guidelines include to be polite, welcoming to new users, and to assume good faith. Unfortunately this website can be full of a lot of angry macho posturing through pedantic references to bureacratic rules guidelines. I'm a bit appalled that this is the tone in the Teahouse of all places. But why should I be surprised about Wikipedia's ugly side?.

Thank you for trying to contribute to Wikipedia (albeit in violation of the rules) and thank you for educating the world's children. I hope that you have a great day and better future experiences on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me)

PS. I left a notice on your talk page that will provide you with even more constructive feedback so that you understand the policies everyone has been referencing. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm still fuming over this, Yolandanavas. I wanted to point out for the benefit of everyone else reading that the Teahouse was purportedly created "... as a pilot project on English Wikipedia, with a goal of learning whether a social approach to new editor support could retain more new editors there." Additionally, "Although the project will welcome all good faith new users, women are a particular target population. By creating a social-learning experience that helps integrate women into the community and support them in getting past barriers to participation, we hope to impact the gender gap."

If I can make any assumptions about your gender based on your username and profession, Ms. Navas, it's that you're a woman. And if I can make any assumptions about whether you're attempting to make good faith edits based on both the tone and phrasing of your initial question, it's that they're in good faith. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Subject Matthew Gordon Banks (Gordon-Banks is surname_

Hello Everyone.

PLEASE could you help me. I AM the subject and my email address not to be published is (Redacted).

Over a number of years two people Moist Toilet and Phillip Cross now banned from Editing have truly destroyed my entry and anyone in International Relations looking me up sees very little most negative.

Recently serious vandalism occurred I believe by two Students. A recent change in the Personal section ought to be removed. It was put in by a non-editor and it has an odd address - not an ISP. Please would someone look at this and look carefully at the History section to see who has done what. A police officer - I have close protection officers - made a change which is genuine. Someone says I am frequently asked to appear on Russian TV. This is intended to further destroy my reputation and puts my life at risk. It appears I made a serious attempt to take my life in the early hours of Tuesday morning and Police visited my home to check on my welfare.

I ask you to reverse the changes made by people who are not proper editors. The block on my own ISP is unfair. I have tried to revert things - they even suggested these students I was a paedophile. It has been hell.

Your sincerely, Matthew Gordon-Banks (Redacted)62.128.207.104 (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I see that someone using the same IP address as you, 62.128.207.104, has removed mention of your two convictions for drunken driving last year. What you describe as "an odd address - not an ISP" is an IPv6 address - these are increasingly common now that IPv4 addresses like yours are running out. Maproom (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Code

What is the == == code meaning? 125.160.114.139 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the header for different sections. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, a level 2 header. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The code will change the text to display the way the title of this section of this page is. For example, the big bolded word "Code" is produced by writing "== Code ==". For more information here is a reference page: Help:Cheatsheet. You can also learn more by reading this help page about Wikitext: Help:Wikitext Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Indexing userpage

For how long must a user edit Wikipedia in order to be permitted to index their userpage? PUZZLED🥕|🗣️ 03:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The user namespace is automatically NOINDEXed. David Biddulph (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to present properly written encyclopedia articles to the general public. There is no need to call attention to our backstage conversations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi PUZZLED. Per Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing#INDEX magic word, the account must be extended confirmed, meaning 30 days old and 500 edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

about editing

how can I be a verified publisher in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniru pahasara kamkanamge (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seniru pahasara kamkanamge. We do not have anything like a "verified publisher" here on Wikipedia. Editors are judged by how productive they are. Please read Wikipedia:User access levels for information about various permissions given to editors according to demonstrated need and responsibility. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Seniru pahasara kamkanamge, judging by your recent post on your User Talk page, I believe what you want to know is covered at WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Since you account is more than 4 days old and you have more than 10 edits, you probably can edit semiprotected articles; are you sure you still can't? If you can't, you can request a change on the article talk page, flagging your request with {{Edit semi-protected}}. —teb728 t c 11:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ACIG.org as a referrence site

ACIG.org is used many times as a source for claimed air to air combat statistics on many of the combat aircraft pages on wikipedia... The problem is tjat site has been taken down... the resulting loss of their claimed data means that many pages on Wikipedia need to be edited and those sources removed... Is there any way to do a global change to efit it out on all pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAG0001 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The site may be available via https://web.archive.org/

In time the links will be updated to reflect this, Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

overwhelmed reader & feedback notes vs edits of mistakes

Not so much a question as a feedback comment. (but where does it go?.. forward this if you would, I'm lost and tired of trying)

I'm really just a casual reader. I have screwed up every attempt made at an edit/talk or any contact attempt on this site. I'm more of a tech dinosaur than an idiot. And that begins my point.

Being highly educated isn't a requirement for knowing a mistake when you see one, or even suspect one. In my opinion, Wikipedia would be enhanced by a more readily apparent way of contacting someone, anyone, in these instances, and likely others. E.g. I just stumbled across the teahouse by chance after being frustrated by a failed talk attempt.(Did it post? Did I fail?; or my device? I saw no change. Does "save" post? I.e., I left the page wondering what just happened? And to me, that indicates a design problem.

I'm a former graphics/commecial art major IBM/Lantastic/Apple; I went on an ability based scholarship vs grades, and was top of my class each year because of a knack for highly intiative page design.

The fact I don't find this site "intuative" enough to do something, hopefully contructive, is disheartening to say the least.

I don't find this organizational format intuative enough to follow well either.

For comparison, E.g., MS software I find very intuative, Apple & Android baffle me even with former Apple experience, after 4 years of exclusive daily use I feel just as lost as day one.. Wikipedia comes across the same way. Overwhelming and unintuitive is a loosing combo.

Wikipedia lately carrys an increasingly educational elitist tone normally reserved for a professor in their classroom. I don't see this as beneficial here as this isn't a course structured around goals pertaining to a particular subject with a pass/fail final outcome. Not for the "everyday" casual "bluecollar" type user anyhow.

So, who am I to critique? What's the solution? Nobody really & I can't say. But I do think Bill Gates made a few changes to W-beta after a half day with my playing with it. So just maybe it's food for thought I offer.

Along those lines, same timeframe and classroom, someone else said something I'll never forget especially as Bill dropped his head in frustration and agreement; I think it's Plato. Forgive the loosness please: "To teach well, the teacher should assume the student knows nothing.".

I think Wikipedia would do well to strive to follow that statement. It does to some extent, but as I stated, it has been creeping towards the elitist professors outlook. That's too much "attitude" for casual learning to happen IMO. And bring into question at what point do folks stop bothering with Wikipedia as a source? Can Wikipedia afford to find out?

I also understand that "too easy" might draw the true idiot/troll to a new sandbox for play, but at least make the talk/comment to authors more accessable with some real simplicity. Sit a third grader down at a screen. If they can't manage it, it's not gonna cut it. (by third grade I outread e ey adult in the school system for speed with 92% retention...but the aprox. grade seems about right I think.). Thanks for your time.

Ok, I thought I was done. But again..."Publish changes" isn't intuative. "Finish" "Post" "Done" "Send" or even "Publish" alone without "changes" is more intuative by being more along the lines of everyday speech; I only "changed" the "blankness" of the screen. It would have gotten me a B at best in design class for using unnecessary text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.166 (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

On your final point (this is a relatively recent change), there was actually a recent discussion on that here, you can see it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_860#No_SAVE_button_in_sandbox. Basically the reason/answer is "Legal said so, so cope". Per your edit-history you edit from mobile and I never do, but I have seen people recommend "desktop view." Others can probably help you better on that. Help:Editing may be a reasonable place to start. WP has a learning curve, but if you want to climb it, finding the Teahouse is a decent start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. Welcome. (Minor feedback first: please avoid using the old-fashioned style of indenting the first line of every new paragraph. Yove done it on other pages too, and I've just removed them all because it causes our obviously esoteric software to render text in a horrid font. Just leave one clear line between text if you want to separate sentences, but definitely no spaces at the start of a new paragraph) Now, I do sense your frustration, though dont share your sentiment about elitism. I think we avoid elitism by having an immensely broad base of editors, as well as a very broad base of content-consumers, from schoolkids to scientists. As the worlds biggest free online encyclopaedia, we do expect content to be written clearly, simply and logically - and we even have special notices we can put on pages that are too technnical. Of course, you are invited and free to help address your own concerns by improving articles that you feel don't communicate with a lay audience as best they should. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

My source is CC BY 2.0, how can I use the content?

Hello! I would like to use figure 2 in this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923515/# It says: This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. When I try to upload the image in wiki commons and choose the type of license, I see all versions of Creative Commons, older and newer that version 2, but not 2 itself. What is the solution for this? Also I would like some feedback from expert editors before submitting the wiki page that I am creating, where can I get help for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam orbital (talk • contribs) 07:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Thanks so much and appreciate the help in advance! --Sam orbital (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Sam Orbital

Welcome to the Teahouse Sam orbital. Commons has a license tag {{cc-by-2.0}} for that license. If that is not listed by the Commons upload wizard, I don't know why. You might get a faster response at Commons:Help desk.

As for feedback on your draft, User:Sam orbital/sandbox/Ferlin, I will leave this link to it in hope that another host will see it and respond. —teb728 t c 11:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam orbital - I've also posted a note on the talk page of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, which you can find HERE. The draft looks good to go, from my perspective. It's well structured and well formatted. I think there are only two issues with it, and neither, imho, would prevent it from being in mainspace. The first is that the lead might need a slight expansion, as per WP:LEAD to cover all the main topics covered in the article. The second is that while it is very well sourced, there are still one or two assertions which lack a footnote. In fact, I'm being WP:BOLD, and simply moving it to the mainspace for you. Since it's been reviewed, no need for it to sit in the AfC queue. But in the future, you would simply click on the "submit for review" button to ask for someone to review it. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

please help me to improve Draft:Tatsuo Yamada (karate)

Hi the Kickboxing has some wrong link and i find out that a person with the name Tatsuo Yamada is not the man who create kickboxing and want to correct the link, so create Draft:Tatsuo Yamada (karate) but i received "Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference." and it move to "Draft " space. please help me to improve and correct this. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaleel2007 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Jaleel2007. The source reference for your translation belongs on the Talk page of the article not in the article itself; I have moved it there. Articles in Wikipedia must be verifiable by references to reliable published sources. But since Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, it is not regarded as a reliable source. Perhaps you can find references in the source article in Japanese Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 10:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks teb728 So can I copy Japanese reference directly? there are some book about topic not English but Japanese, "ISBN 4915906426 " for example.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaleel2007 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jaleel2007. Since you're attempting to create an article on English Wikipedia, you should try to use sources written in English as much as possible, but it's acceptable to use sources written in other languages as explained in WP:NOTENG. So, yes it might be possible to use all or some of the sources cited in the Japanese Wikipedia article about Yamada as long as these sources satisfy English Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source and they actually verify the relevant article content.

It's important to understand though that each Wikipedia project has it's own policies and guidelines and some projects enforce their policies and guidelines better than others. Since English Wikipedia has the most articles and the most editors, its policies and guidelines tend to be applied more rigorously than some other language Wikipedias; so, if you're able to read the Japanese sources cited in the Japanese Wikipedia article and can confirm they support the claims being made in the article, then you can probably use them.

Whenever you add any source to an article, you need to take into considereation that someone might come along someday and challenge it. A source written in English can often be easily verified by simply reading the source; a source written in a language other than English, on the other hand, might require some translating some part of it when requested to make it easier for others to understand. If you're unable to access the source yourself or unable to read it, you're probably going to have a hard time defending it. If that's the case here, you might want to ask for help from someone at WT:JAPAN before adding the source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Vijay Mahajan

The guidelines on WP:COI/N say to try Talk page discussion first - so not sure how to handle this...so will ask here first. This article is an obvious WP:SOAPBOX and is not at all neutral...the primary editor, Vijay Mahajan PBX (talk · contribs) has a clear WP:COI and is writing a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. WikiDan61 warned them about this and yet they persist.

I thought of opening an AfD, but the subject appears notable at first glance given how many sources are cited in the lead. I hope a more experienced editor can deal with this, as I'm all tapped out in the ideas department. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting editing history. Article started in 2008. In 2012, two clusters of edits that may have been VM or person associated with VM (Vijaybasix and 223.196.174.84). Then in June 2018 massive additions to article by Vijay Mahajan PBX. Given writing style, I agree with Psihedelisto that this is likely Vijay Mahajan autobiographical. I have no interest in doing anything about it, just commenting. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thanks for your edits to the article, I consider this issue  Resolved to the extent that the Teahouse can resolve it. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection to some Sri lanka related articles

Keeping in mind the constitutional crisis of Sri Lanka and the rising uncertainty of who is prime minister due to which there have been constant edit warring, I want suggest that Extended confirmed protection be provided to the following articles:Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Mahinda Rajapaksa, Ranil Wickremesinghe, List of Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka. Adithya Pergade (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The place for requesting protection is WP:RFPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

i did something stupid.

JojokeGodFunhand (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) I deleted the speedy deletion thing and can you help me?

References

What do you mean by "speedy deletion thing"? Mineblock6641 (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Zehra Neşe Kavak

Hello there. There's an article I've been working on for a long time. But still no confirmation. I've got everything I need. I'd appreciate it if you could help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilaydin (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anilaydin, and I'm sorry that you've had to wait such a long time for a response here. Draft:Zehra Neşe Kavak was last submitted for review just over four weeks ago, which is a reasonable amount of time but not unusually so. Unfortunately, with so many drafts awaiting review and a limited pool of experienced volunteer reviewers, you might have to wait a while longer. Incidentally, and for future reference, you shouldn't resubmit a previously rejected draft without making any improvements first, as you did here. Yes, you later made some changes, but if a reviewer had seen the submission before you made those, they would have been well within their rights to simply reject the draft as unchanged. The correct procedure is to make the changes and then resubmit the draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

creating a new page

hi..i am trying to create a new page for my neighbor who is a top tennis coach here in the US. i pulled down some bio information from his website and used that to start. my page was flagged because i didn't cite the source. the denial also said that my posting looked like advertising.

I'm a bit confused by the process and need some advice. What can one put on a page? Can I just create the page and let other contributors edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfsamba (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources where the subject has been written about in detail, and summarise what these independent sources say. A person's own website is of little interest to Wikipedia except possibly for very basic facts. An article must not be based on self-published material. What user name did you use to start the page? Dbfirs 15:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sierra Leone: In or Out?

Hi, just want to consult with you about whether Sierra Leone was crowned yesterday or if the country has withdrawn from the Miss Universe competition. They dropped out last year, so I wouldn't be surprised. Let me know how long you think we should wait before we edit the country from the list. Thanks. --Rahu22 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rahu22—I think an equally good place to inquire about this would be the Reference desk/Humanities. But someone here might know. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

SQL Query without FROM clause

Hi all,

The article From (SQL) mentions that " From clauses are very common" and that "FROM is an SQL reserved word in the SQL standard". Could you please help me to understand how to implement a query without the From clause? As far as I know this can be done, I just don't know under which conditions (kind of databases, general form, limitations, ...). Many thanks for the help. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Hundsrose: and welcome to the Teahouse. You might get lucky with an answer here, but generally this forum is intended only for Wikipedia-related questions. You could also try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing - the reference desks often answer such broader knowledge-related questions (or atleast point to sources for more information). GermanJoe (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello GermanJoe, thanks for the help. I just started to also edit in the english wikipedia and got confused. The linked Reference desk is much better for this purpose. Sorry again and thank you very much. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with an article

Hello,

I have an assignment to make a Wikipedia article for my International economics class and I've been declined twice. My topic chosen is on the Trade Facilitation Agreement 2014 and I was hoping for some advice on how to improve my article. I believe that I have successfully listed the important information about the agreement and I am struggling with how to word it in a way that it sounds more like an encyclopedia entry.

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anrussell2 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This must be about Draft:Trade Facilitation Agreement 2014. It doesn't start by explaining what it's about. The first sentence refers to "our economy", leaving the reader to guess who "we" are. It cites no sources, though it does list some. One of the things you need to do is to read Help:Referencing for beginners, and then follow as many statements as practicable by citations of sources that confirm them. Maproom (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Anrussell2. I recommend these resources as well: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students Here is the one on adding citations: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/sources and here is the one on evaluating sources etc: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students/evaluating-articles Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 18:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if the subject of the draft is the same as the trade agreement discussed in the article Bali Package. Maproom (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Another problem with the draft, Anrussell2, is that (as the reviewer said) it reads like an essay. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources have said about the subject, no more. It must not contain original research - which means it must not contain any argumentation, discussion or analysis beyond what is in the individual sources, or conclusions that aren't in one of the sources. It can say "this source says X, while that source says Y", but it should not attempt to reconcile or choose between them.

I'm afraid that this suggests that either you have misunderstood what your teacher asked you to do, or your teacher has misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Have they (and you) looked at WP:Education program? --ColinFine (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:ColinFine, User:Anrussell2 - Unfortunately, these misunderstandings are often by the teacher. It is common for instructors to give assignments involving Wikipedia that are inconsistent with our policies and guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Anrussell2. I added a welcome template to your talk page for new student editors (I just discovered it) that might point you to more resources. I also marked your draft article's talk page to indicate that this is part of an educational assignment. You might want to send this information to your professor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Student_assignments#Advice_for_instructors As it might help them help you and to communicate with the Wikipedia Education representatives if they are having multiple people in your course edit pages. This may help your edits, and your class's edits, be more successful. Let us know if you have any questions or any further help. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 22:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reference repetition

In an article I'm reworking, there's a section with 6 bulleted statements. Each bullet is supported by the same reference. Should I (1) put the reference on the section heading? Or (2) put the reference after each bullet? Or (3) put the reference after the final bullet? You can see the section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schazjmd/sandbox#Successor_units Schaz (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that either 2 or 3 is probably OK, but 2 is the way to go if you want to be absolutely clear. Number 1 is right out; refs should never be put in headings (see WP:CITEFOOT). Deor (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Forget to ping @Schazjmd:. Deor (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, @Deor:! Number 2 is how I started it, but I was second-guessing myself. Schaz (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Image Copy rights

Hii Guys! Can anyone help me how do I get the copy rights for the Images that i created manually? Thanks in advance and hope to here from you soon.Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Vijay

@Vijaykumarreddyvoddi0322: In general, you automatically get the copyright to anything you create, although there are some exceptions such as work-for-hire, and it may vary by country. Can you please give a little more info about what you are asking? You might also have better luck at WP:MCQ where the copyright experts hang out. RudolfRed (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thank you, I will do that..

What is the procedure to go from sandbox to public visibility?

What is the procedure to go from sandbox to public visibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkernohan (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added a Userspace Draft box at the top of your sandbox..... To send it on - click the submit button. It generally looks good! Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Better answer.... Since Draft:Zbigniew Blazeje looks like a poor first attempt at what your sandbox is now... just improve the existing draft article.  ????? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

An then re-submit it..... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing and Advertisement Tone

Hello Teahouse,

I took the plunge found a topic and wrote my first article here on Wikipedia. Thus, far I have learned quite a bit thus far. Oddly, I take joy in my first article being declined as it pushes me to learn more. So, I write seeking pointers on how to improve my submissions. Again, thank you for the warm welcome. CryptoWriter (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, CryptoWriter. I am a new editor too, but I at least can point you in the right direction.

It looks like the main reason that your submission was declined was that it "reads like an [advertisement]". I recommend reviewing this page which is a guide to creating your first article: Wikipedia:Your first article. I also want to encourage you to look through these fantastic user-friendly tutorials created by the Wikipedia Education project. They are intended for students in a classroom, but I (as a new editor like you) find them more accessible than the ordinary explanatory pages: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training/students Third, I am going to add what's called a friendly search suggestion template to your draft article's talk page. It will generate a list of searches that you can click on based on the title of your article that might point you to more sources to include on your page. Fourth, I think that you might find this page helpful as well: Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#The_basics_of_contributing.

Writing can be very challenging (especially this type of writing) and it can be very frustrating to have your initial attempts at an article creation be unsuccessful, however, I think that you should persevere. If you get frustrated with this initial article creation you could do other forms of editing on pages that you are interested in (for example, I frequently will read through sources already provided on pages to verify their authority, that they are secondary sources, and that the text that they justify accurately reflects the information within). However, you should copy and paste the code of your page into your own notes in case the draft gets deleted after inactivity in case you want to try again. Initially it's very common to have your good faith edits reverted, however, it is all just part of the process of learning what content is acceptable.

If you have more specific questions, please feel free to ask. Other editors will be better at giving you feedback on your article creation than me, but I am good at some forms of constructive feedback related to sources, technical issues (like the syntax of the wikitext code), among other things. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with creating an article

Hi there,

I wanted to create an article on the brand called - BBazaar Malaysia, it is a financial comparison site and offers personal finance products. I'm associated with the brand so I cannot create this page and need help with creating this page. This brand has enough citations and satisfies the notability requirements. Any help in creating the article is highly appreciated. Theguyatmalaysia (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Theguyatmalaysia: First, you need to disclose your employment on your user page, per our terms of use and policy on paid editing. I've left instructions on how to do so on your user page. Even if you are not being directly paid by the company, because you have any association with them you need to disclose the employment as if you had been hired by them.

As for creating the article, you're going to have better luck seeing the page created if you create a valid draft:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8a) If the draft is not approved, there will be a reason given. Read it, think long and heard about it, and try to fix that problem. If you do not understand the reason, ask the user who reviewed the page to try to explain it in a different way or come back here and ask for what sort of specific steps would be needed to fix the problem. (We get a lot of people who just say "how do I get the article approved," which makes it hard to believe that they read the reason the article was rejected).

8b) If the article is approved, use edit requests on the article's talk page to suggest further changes. I would recommend citing some of the sources you put aside in step 3 to expand the article. Never directly edit the approved article, except to revert vandalism.

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Self-promotional autobiographical article

I stumbled onto this wiki article (W._Roy_Smythe) of an un-noteworthy person. He is a physician and businessman with no notable accomplishments. Not only that, but if you look at the page history, the article creator and most of the edits were done by a user named "Smythe3" who is most likely the subject of the article which is a clear conflict of interest. I'm inexperienced in wiki editing and don't know what the proper deletion procedure is (but he'll probably dispute any deletion attempt). I'll leave it to one of you to handle this. 24.16.20.197 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Good find! I don't have the time to investigate if the article should be deleted, so for now I've tagged the article with {{BLP sources}}, {{COI}} and {{notability}}. Someone else who has more experience with this kind of issues will probably come along soon. Our deletion policy is available at WP:DEL if you want to learn more. rchard2scout (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Persistent. Smythe3 has been editing W_Roy_Smythe since 2006, and that is the only article Smythe3 edits. David notMD (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion. Please feel free to comment and discuss here. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It's on a map, can I use a map as a citation?

I recently wanted to add some information to a page. It was only a sentence and I didn't cite it. Of course the sentence was removed and reverted back. I should have known better. The information was about a street named after someone. So my question is; Does a map image qualify as a legitimate citation? Here is the difference between revisions page.[4] Since it's a real estate developer that usually names a street, finding proof in a document seems impossible. But I could be wrong or missing something obvious. And also if anyone could tell me any other issue with that addition, I'm happy to hear it. I'm new and this is my first visit to the teahouse. Thanks in advance. Wikimikey423 07:16, 19 November 2018 (UT)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikimikey423. How do you know that this street in California is named after the British motorcycle and Formula One driver John Surtees? There are other people named Surtees after all, including a novelist and an historian. Please take a look at Surtees (disambiguation). Any information that you add must be verifiable and no editor is allowed to add their own original research to the encyclopedia. A reliable map could verify that the street exists, but not who the street is named for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete a draft

Excuse me, know how I can delete a draft? I tried to create a new page about the new Zayn song Fingers but it already exists. Now I have to delete the draft, somebody what I have to put in the top of the page, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldo3455 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ronaldo3455. This is what we call speedy deletion. Please read the shortcut WP:G7 and place one of those templates at the top of your draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Ronaldo3455. If you're the only person who has made any significant contributions to the draft, which seems to be the case with Draft:Fingers (song), then just add {{db-author}} to the top of the page and request that it be deleted per WP:G7. For future reference, you can't request that a draft be deleted using WP:PROD; you either have to use WP:CSD or WP:MFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I need assistance

Can anyone help me to add archive boxes on talk page and add lower sigma bot for auto archive?  TheRedBox (Talk) 08:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheRedBox: User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo explains how to set up archiving on your talk page. Regards SoWhy 10:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• @SoWhy: I did at mine talk page. Could you please check once?  TheRedBox (Talk) 12:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  @TheRedBox: Looks correct afaict, although counter = 15 should be counter = 1 since that variable tells the bot which /Archive # to use at the moment and you have no archives yet. Regards SoWhy 13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

" @SoWhy: I set 15 to 1 and yes i dont have any archive page yet.so, bot will automatically create archive page for me or i should create archive myself?  TheRedBox (Talk) 13:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheRedBox: If everything is set correctly, the bot will archive your talk page it its next run (which is usually around 4.00 to 5.00 UTC if I recall correctly), including the creation of archive subpages that don't exist yet. So just wait and see. =) Regards SoWhy 14:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oliveboard (November 17)

Wikipedia URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oliveboard

Please help me to improve this article. As this my first article, How can I submit this? The given comments have doubts.

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 organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was: References are all brief mentions, general announcements, or from unreliable sources. I find the same with a search of Google News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekkramesh (talk • contribs) 09:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Abhishekkramesh. As the reviewer told you, in order to qualify for an article in Wikipedia, a subject needs references to significant coverage in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for a guideline. Are you saying you can't find such coverage? If it does not exist, then Oliveboard would not yet be notable enough for an article. —teb728 t c 11:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Abhishekkramesh, please read the essay No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi TEb728, The company is very famous in India. The issue I found that, reference was placed with wrong text contents. Thanks for the info..--Abhishekkramesh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Abhishekkramesh. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edits. I think that you might find constructive feedback in a related conversation with another editor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#please_help_me_to_improve_Draft:Tatsuo_Yamada_(karate) One of the Teahouse hosts gave feedback for an editor who is using sources in Japanese. You might want to work on the article on another language version of Wikipedia: https://www.wikipedia.org/ You can change the language version from there and there are many other languages to choose if you click "Read Wikipedia in your language". However, in the conversation that I linked to you will also see guidelines (with strong warnings) about how to use non-English sources on English Wikipedia (and the increased likelihood that the content may be challenged and lack someone to defend it if you are not around to provide a translation for an editor who challenges you). Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hey everyone. I have just gone into early retirement after a career in the sciences and emigrated to Spain in a bid to Brexit proof myself. A friend recommended I give Wikipedia a try but introduce myself here first. So here I am. Does anyone have any easy science pages they want editing by any chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex pat pete (talk • contribs) 10:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ex pat pete: Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. We hope you enjoy your time here. I left you some useful links for beginners on your talk page. If you want to help out in specific areas, we have "WikiProjects" to coordinate such efforts with like-minded editors. Depending on the science in question, you can find an appropriate project at Wikipedia:SCIENCE#Parentage and related WikiProjects. Most such projects have lists of tasks that need doing and also list of editors who are active in this field and happy to help you with any questions. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will check them out and get stuck in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex pat pete (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sign your comments here and on the Talk pages of articles by typing four of ~.

Many scientists start by looking at topics they know from their own education and career. As for where work is needed - everywhere! However, if you click on Talk for individual articles, the top banner should show a relative quality ranking: Stub, Start, C-Class, B-Class, Good Article, Featured Article. Stubs and Starts are good places to see where lots of improvement is needed. By the way, improvement can include removing content that is wrong or not relevant. I hope you find topics that interest you. David notMD (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve been dying to learn the answer to Talk:Saline_water#Boiling_temperature. MBG02 (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Need help with an article

Hi,

I wrote an article and it was declined by AfC. Legacypac said, I could ask for help here.

This is the article: Draft:Zenkit.

Zenkit is a project management software with a coverage all over the world. It's in the German Wikipedia in the meantime because there are more press articles which I could use (I used German and English press).

Because I'm in a conflict of interest, I need help with this article. I would be happy about any advice. --Jessica Lu. (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jessica Lu., and welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, thanks for taking the time to declare your conflict of interest. I see that Legacypac declined Draft:Zenkit because it doesn't show that Zenkit is a notable application. Wikipedia has notability guidelines to help ensure that only accurate information gets included in articles.

However, I also see that you've added a ZDNet review and a PC Magazine review of Zenkit to the "External links" section of the page. In my opinion, these two reviews do show that Zenkit meets the general notability guideline, and does qualify Zenkit for an article. However, these reviews are only linked to the articles, and aren't cited as references. If you revise the article to include content from the reviews, and cite those reviews inline, your draft will probably be accepted on your next submission.

Also, please consider condensing the list of "viewing modes" in the "Product" section of the draft into prose, since that is the preferred form of writing. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask me. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!​ — Newslinger talk 05:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Citing sources: work/publisher wikilinks & archive services

Hi, I started wiki editing in January this year so I'm quite a newcomer but I like to think that I've made a good contribution, just under 4,000 edits. One thing I'm interested in is what I call "Ref. maintenance" which basically means checking that cited sources are sound, with working links, correct titles, and all other parameters defined as appropriate. A couple of things have come up that I'm not sure about. Please can you advise.

(1) What's the consensus on providing wikilinks for works/publishers in citations? For example, is it sufficient for the citation to include the term "work=The New York Times" or is it preferrable to put "work=[[The New York Times]]"? I think it's useful to provide the link because if the reader is unsure about the originator of the source, they can easily check the relevant article to learn a little about the company behind the source, if they are interested. I've recently met with some opposition to this, but I don't think there's anything wrong with providing the link where it's available, expecially for lesser known newspapers such as the Lewiston Morning Tribune or The Manchester Guardian (for example). In this second example, the link provides the reader with the opportunity to learn that The Manchester Guardian was a previous incarnation of The Guardian newspaper, which they might not otherwise have known or been able to easily find out without doing their own manual search. The guidance on this just says "may be wikilinked if relevant", which is a bit ambiguous, but at least it doesn't say "generally not wikilinked" so I'm assuming that it is preferable to provide the link whenever there's a related wiki article available.

(2) Where do we stand with webcitation.org archives at the moment? I've always used the Wayback Machine for archiving purposes, but I've recently come across some articles that exclusively use webcitation for archiving everything, including newspaper articles, commercial websites, etc. I thought this was discouraged. I think webcitation can be unreliable and I'm currently unable to open any of the archives, I just keep getting a time-out error saying "This site can’t be reached" which is originating from the other end.

I'd really appreciate some input as I'm a bit flumoxed at the moment and the backbone of Wikipedia is the provision of clear/reliable sources. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rodney Baggins. I'm glad to see someone taking care of references.

(1) From what I've seen putting wikilinks in citations is a matter of taste. Some editors always do it, others never, leading to issues. See the discussion here from back in July: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 45#Guideline on wikilinks within citations. When editing its best to go along with the existing style in the article.

(2) The variety of archiving services is covered at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations and Template:Webarchive. There is also Wikipedia:Using WebCite, and the talk page there shows that it is sometimes unavailable. I don't think you need to follow the "archiving" style of an article. In some cases it may be that the Wayback machine doesn't accept pages that other archiving sites do.

Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks StarryGrandma, that's useful information. I can appreciate that "to link or not to link" can be a matter of taste, but it would be good to have some concrete guidance on it in the MOS, for the sake of keeping things consistent. However, I definitely think there should be some consistency within any particular article – my case in point would be Walt Disney, where I quite innocently tried adding links for works and publishers yesterday, then someone immediately reverted my edits saying it was unnecessary, but they failed to notice that half of them are already linked anyway, hence the suite of references for that article is currently sitting in a woefully inconsistent state, which just messes with my head! This might be a small problem in the grand scheme of things, but I happen to think consistency is very important!

As for WebCite, I was under the impression that it wasn't supposed to be used for everything, and it has reliability issues. In fact, I haven't been able to access it at all today. Please can you confirm that WebCite is currently down or is it just me? This isn't very useful and I'd much prefer to use the Wayback Machine to grab snapshots of articles where you wouldn't normally want or need to access any non-archived sublinks anyway.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

HOW TO UPLOAD MEDIA FILES WITH LESS HASSLE

Hi, I wish to know how I can get my photos approved upon uploading them. I understand that all my photos need to be original and I never upload any file I did't create myself. I still get my uploads rejected immediately I make them. How do I walk around this difficulty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetSpread30 (talk • contribs)

Hi NetSpread30, welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no uploads. What does the photos depict, how do you try to upload them, and what happens? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to upload but it was rejected — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetSpread30 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@NetSpread30: Many things could have happened. The main reason for complications is that Wikipedia cares about copyright and many users upload copyrighted images. This is hard to check automatically, and Wikimedia Commons has 50 million uploads. I found [5]. Try uploading with commons:Special:UploadWizard instead. Remove spaces before the file type. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Article submission / banned editor

Hi there. I recently submitted the following entry to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Unit_Editions) but have discovered it was rejected. I am happy to re-edit the entry and fulfil the criteria. But I clicked on the name of the user (Frayae) who reviewed the entry and it appears they are banned and blocked indefinitely! The name above is apparently "a sock puppet of A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver... and it has been blocked indefinitely." As I say, I'm happy to edit the entry again, but how can the above user reject it when they are banned or suspended? Is there an appeal process in light of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSinclairUnit (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Frayae rejected your submission on 14 Nov and was banned as sockpuppet on 15 Nov. You can resubmit, but I can tell you that your draft will be rejected again. None of the citations appear to be about Unit Editions in any significant way. A list of books published by Unit Editions has no place in the article. David notMD (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver is a long-term abuse and Frayae is one of their sock puppets. Frayae was blocked after they've review the submission. They cannot edit after being globally locked ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You have put a COI notice on your User page, but is your relationship with Unit_Editions actually one of being paid? Meaning are you an owner or employee? Paid consultant? If so, you need to change your declaration. David notMD (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Computer Tech Services of Overland Park, KS

I want to write a Wikipedia article about this company. I have reasonable sources that are up to date, and it is very close by to where I live. (it is literally in my neighborhood)

If you want, we can go check it out for ourselves. But, just in case, here is the address:

10010 W 91st St, Overland Park, KS 66212

And here are two sources I found:

http://places.singleplatform.com/computer-tech-services/menu?ref=google

https://www.overlandparkcomputerrepairs.org/About

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GranolaDaOne (talk • contribs) 2018-11-19T14:50:42 (UTC)

Hello, GranolaDaOne, and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to help us improve the encyclopaedia. However, there are a couple of things I want to tell you. First, is that writing a new article isn't the only way, or necessarily the best way, to improve Wikipedia. We have many thousands of articles which are in desperate need of some work; and creating a new article that gets accepted is one of the harder tasks - I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months getting to know Wikipedia before they try it.

Secondly, it's great that you are thinking about sources straight away - that puts you head and shoulders above many would-be article creators, who start writing from what they know, instead of what the sources say. But unfortunately, neither of those sources is very useful. Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject says about themselves, whether on their own website, in a directory, or in a press release. An article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject - and if there is little or nothing published that meets that description, then it is impossible to write an acceptable article on them: the Wikipedia jargon for that is that the subject is not notable. Most small businesses, anywhere in the world, are not notable, in Wikipedia's terms, and we do not (or should not) have articles about them.

I suggest you read your first article, even if you take my advice and don't try to create one yet. If you want to find existing articles about your area that need attention, you could look through the articles in Category:Overland Park, Kansas; and you might want to join WP:WikiProject Kansas. --ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Tom Munro restoration request

Hello,

I'm a new editor, and I've been attempting to build an entry for a well known fashion photographer called Tom Munro, I've made three attempts so far without success becuase my references have been weak. I've now obtained better references but my draft has been deleted though I haven't updated it for six months.

I found my entry in my History and have made the changes.

Please could you restore the the Draft:Tom Munro to my Sandbox so that I can resubmit it?

With thanks, Jaz Kilmister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaz Kilmister (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

--Jaz Kilmister (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The draft seems to be still there at Draft:Tom Munro. There's no need to move it back to a sandbox unless you are planning to ignore it for another six months. Dbfirs 17:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It had been deleted, but the OP asked for the draft to be restored, and it was restored yesterday. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I wondered if that was what had happened, but there is no record of that in the history. Dbfirs 07:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Easily missed. The history has a link to the logs. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, found it now. The article was restored the day before the above request. Dbfirs 10:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

how?

How can I find the text I was working on in a draft publication (Trumpism) when an editor came over and hastily deleted the entire page and an hour worth of work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhempseed (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The place to make this request is WP:RFU. However based on this thread User talk:Writ Keeper#Why did you delete Trumpism? Did you read the talk page? Or my contest against speedy deletion? Writ Keeper has given you good reasons why it won't be restored. Please see several of the items at WP:NOT. MarnetteD|Talk 16:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I happened to see your draft before it was deleted, and it was basically an unsourced WP:ATTACKPAGE. I would not expect any administrator to restore it. There are already articles about Donald Trump and the veracity of statements by Donald Trump which you are welcome to improve, as long as your can edit from a neutral point of view. shoy (reactions) 16:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to make me a better editor! I don't need it restored, I just don't want to be banned for working on it as Writ Keeper threatened he/she/it would do. Where can I "restore" the page for ten seconds, without being banned, where I can work on making it more neutral? Where should I be having this conversation? Seanhempseed (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I would start over. Start by reading Your First Article, and follow the advice there. Any page you create must be neutrally worded and include references to reliable sources. I would also point out that by nature, politics is a contentious area to be editing in, and if your only purpose here is having an axe to grind, then Wikipedia might not be the right place for you. shoy (reactions) 19:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

As an administrator, I can and did read your deleted draft, Seanhempseed, and I agree 100% with its deletion. Please read and study the neutral point of view which is a core content policy. As that policy says, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Your draft was most definitely not neutral and was a strident advocacy piece. Personally, I am opposed to Trump and express my opinions about him openly on social media platforms but not on Wikipedia. Please also read What Wikipedia is not, which says "Wikipedia is not for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." Your draft most certainly was political advocacy and that simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. The bottom line is that this content is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia and will not be allowed on this website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

thank you one and all. I will begin again in my sandbox. I am not trying to advocate, I am trying to build a quality article. I will work to be neutral. 2601:199:880:14C5:756B:3FC8:1FFC:1EF2 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Should the accused killer's age be listed?

Malcolm X in 1964

I was pondering about an edit dispute from several months ago that I walked away from, but it's been at the back of my head since. In this scenario, say an alleged shooter—between the ages of 19 to 23—assassinates someone very notable in his 50s or older, someone who is an ideological peer, rival and/or opponent. Should the accused killer's age be listed? I, approaching everything from the perspective of a reader, think it does. I would certainly want to know that tidbit of information when reading the article; to me it's no different than any other noteworthy point about a person's background, because it provides a level of context (into the mentality of the perpetrator) to the reader.

Certainly, this would be backed up with citation. But what do you do when someone is adamant in opposing it by comparing it to other 'trivial' details such as height and whatnot (which I find to be a false equivalence). Or by claiming that it's a detail that needs to be extensively discussed in books—which I presume it isn't, but that doesn't mean no book mentions the age, and who says books are the only source? (books are just one form of POV, but I was attempting to use a New York Times article reporting of the day of the incident). Sticking with DUEWEIGHT, even its mention would be a mere span of three or four words and not an entire paragraph or more, so it falls under DUE and NYT is certainly a RS in itself barring someone can prove the article is factually incorrect.

What are your thoughts on something like this? DA1 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello DA1, and welcome to the Teahouse. Interesting question, and one that probably has to be answered in the context of the article and the proposed edits. It took some searching, but you're clearly referring to this edit you made on the page about Malcolm X and relating to his murder in 1965. I see from that page's archive that you did engage in a good discussion. Personally, I think knowing the age of someone's assassin is often relevant to their article, and it seems not unreasonable to include that, assuming it's well cited. This is especially true as the article does expand on their subsequent lives/roles. But I do think you tried to include too much trivial information in your edit, in what is already a long and detailed article, so it doesn't surprise me that it was twice rejected. Sometimes walking away for a good while does help give clarity and a chance to cool down, so you did the right thing. But I see no reason why you shouldn't go back to the talk page, ping the involved editors, and mention that you'd simply like to include the ages of his killers at that time, and supply the citation, and see what support you get. I'd suggest you quote the actual text you'd like to use so that editors know that you aren't going to repeat the insertion of too much information. Bear in mind this is a personal view, and that consensus from involved editors on the appropriate page is what's important here. Does this help? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia report of external links?

Is there a way to get a report from Wikipedia of all outbound links going to a certain URL? For instance, I'd like to know all articles that link to a URL with the format: arcweb.sos.state.or.us We moved to a new URL structure and this is the old, legacy site so any links need updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaSno (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello EmmaSno and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, we do have a tool that searches for external links. According to Special:LinkSearch, there are 232 pages that link to arcweb.sos.state.or.us. That's quite a few pages, so if you think they need to be changed it should be done with an automated tool. You can ask for help with that at WP:BOTREQ. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! That is exactly what I was looking for. (@AntiCompositeNumber:)

@AntiCompositeNumber: Thank you for that helpful answer. I wasn't aware of that tool myself, so it's always good to learn something new here. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

How to remove lead color boxes that "biography does not include references" and "needs more links to other articles"

To the Reader, HELP!,

The wiki page is amazingly complex, not intuitive, and gives "aid" in the form of very, very detailed suggestions that clearly must be understandable only to the cognesitti who wrote them. Take pity on the computer knuckle walkers who do word, illustration programs, email, etc., but have a problem with wiki with such concepts as the seemingly "nested" "{{ }}" comments. What is "{{ }},", etc.?

Wiki should be no more difficult than a Word program!

1) What I want to do for "ed landing wiki" is have my several internet references counted now after several weeks. Stating that my page has "no references" is incorrect! The "references" are right under the references.

2) There are a number of "links to other articles" already, but the wiki banner at the top of the page asks for "more." My wiki page has more "links" (about 6) than many other wiki pages,so what is missing?

3) It is also completely unclear to me from any of the lengthy, detailed, prolix assistance pages, how one makes a "link"!

4) How do I get rid of the colored banners at the top of "ed landing wiki" that I DO have references and that there are INDEED links.

I would appreciate help with a "clean looking" "wiki ed landing page."

Best, and all help appreciated. Please read my page, all I have is simple straight information given by a living person (me).

Dr. Ed Landing, New York State Paleontologist, emeritus, New York State Museum, Albany, NY 12203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.115.164 (talk • contribs)

Note: The above refers to the article Ed Landing. Deor (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Note: Left {{uw-coi}} on IP's talk page. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I started to do some general article clean up, and started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Ed_Landing#Article_repair,_pinging_admin_for_expertise, where I pinged admin DGG, for his BLP expertise. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Another user, Elanding, also extensively edited this article. That user also claims to be the article's subject. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi there Ed. (67.248.115.164, and possibly also Elanding) Welcome to the Teahouse. As a retired museum curator myself, I'd be happy to help you understand the basics of Wikipedia editing, assuming, that is, that you're genuinely interested in sharing you palaentological expertise across other articles here, rather than simply trying to edit the one page about yourself. We call that a Conflict of Interest, and we ask editors of articles to declare any connection according to the policy I've just linked to, and supply any relevant information and to make an 'edit request' (see WP:EDITREQ on the article's Talk Page for a non-involved editor to add. (I recently 'adopted' another retired professional geologist - BrucePL - who, rather brilliantly, now wants to share his expertise with others here, and who similarly found some of our methods a little more akin to editing in Wordstar than MS Word, and has also had to change his approach from writing primary scientific publications, to encyclopaedia-writing which generally ignores primary sources and prefers to base content upon published secondary sources.) If other hosts here haven't yet addressed all your above questions (and some have already started work to improve the page), I'll attempt to do so in a follow-up reply below (but am on a mobile, so replying is slow work). It would also be preferable for you to sign in with one registered user account, rather than under one or more anonymous IP addresses, as comments and support can be more usefully given on that page. I will leave my replies on both user pages. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

OK Ed, so, as promised earlier, a few replies to your numbered questions/frustrations above:

1. Whilst you - or someone undoubtedly added references, they were not only inserted in the wrong place, but they did not support the 'factual' statements in the article, so it would be quite appropriate to flag the article for a lack of sources. We don't work on presence or absence of references - we seek inline citations to support each and every statement. We don't care what a subject happens to know or say about itself on some LinkedIn or ResearchGate page, though we accept upon biographies on University websites, even if they have been written by the staff member in question, as we assume these have editorial oversight. (Whilst I'm not suggesting at all that you've made anything up about yourself, other people do, and some do it quite shamelessly. So for that reason we treat everything that a subject says about itself as unacceptable, and we ignore self-published blogs and social networks). The references provided do not evidence statements about your education or career, or the list of awards, although I finally managed to find a correct reference for your entry on ResearchGate, which I will add to 'External links'. It's important to understand that once an inline citation is properly inserted, it automatically appears in the 'References' section - so please don't try to type it in there yourself, as you might expect to do with a paper drafted in MS Word. To learn how to insert inline citations correctly, I'd suggest you read and follow advice given in Help:Referencing for beginners, or even this easy-to-follow tutorial.
2. The template asking for more links should be pretty self-explanatory I'm sorry it wasn't. We expect the first use of key words in articles to be linked internally to other articles, thus allowing people who don't know what a geologist or palaeontologist is, or which country the University of Wisconsin is in, or to find out more about the U. S. Geological Survey. As for the "U-Pb geochronology of the oldest metazoans, the biostratigraphy of the Early Paleozoic", what terms do you suggest we should link to?
3. You add internal links to other key articles in one of two ways, depending on which of our two editing tools you have chosen to use. In our more complex-looking source editor, you simply type two square brackets either side of the word about which you want to link to. Obviously it has to exist as an article already e.g. [[bracket]]s was how I created the link you've just read. Alternatively, in Visual Editor, simply highlight the term you want to link to, then click the 'link' icon in the editing toolbar and click to select the appropriate target name, or start typing the page name you want, and it will autofill with suggestions for you to choose from.
4. You asked how you remove the templates from the top of the article. Put simply, you don't. Or, at least, one only does that once the issues flagged up have been addressed, and they clearly haven't yet. However, I will do a bit of more tweaking, which Timtempleton has helpfully started.

Finally, you ended your post here by saying "all I have is simple straight information given by a living person (me).". Although I would love to help you to contribute effectively to any number of geological articles here (and to do so by helping you citing reliable secondary sources), I would ask you not to edit the article about yourself, and never to add any content to any article without it being supported by a citation - especially one about yourself. As already mentioned, put an 'edit request' on the talk page and wait until another editors acts upon your request. You might like to read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to help you understand more. Should you want to contact me for practical support on editing articles linked to your area of skills, feel free to contact me via my User Talk Page - just click 'Add Topic' and leave me a note, or suggest additions you would like to see made. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Would someone look over this draft please

I have tried to clean up this Draft:John Ferrar (Virginia settler). I believe that I cleaned up the "peacock" language, I have added additional information and references. I think that the opening paragraph is important because it explains what would otherwise be ambiguity, but not sure. I would like to resubmit it, but will only do so when it is ready. I would appreciate any suggestions. @Robert McClenon:Alvanhholmes (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: Hi. Because your Teahouse request was next to mine. I read your draft, agree with the concerns that reject your current version. First, I'm a pretty good WP editor but I am NOT a WP Administrator. These are some unofficial thoughts. Following them does not guarantee acceptance, but I'll guess it will improve your odds.

Read and compare some of the accounts of these men's contemporaries, including of the brother Nicholas Ferrar. How do these accepted articles read compared to your draft articles? Unfortunately, your article has careless punctuation errors, uses language that is archaic, and includes numerous phrases that are more apologetic and/or pretentious than informative.

Genealogy is very hard back this far, but try. The account of Nicholas identifies parents and home in considerable detail, and some of that information (if sourced) you could include. What else distinguishes these men? When and/or where and/or with whom did each JF live, even if you can only state circa or florit. How do you know that these men are cousins, and not uncle and nephew, father and son, etc.? Might their stories be better as two sections in one article?

Good luck ... GeeBee60 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

{{reply to|@GeeBee60: Thank you for your suggestions. I take them to heart and will follow best I can. But I have a follow up question. The comment about archaic language is valid, it was mentioned by @Robert McClenon: whom I think is the one who moved and renamed my article into draft. I assume you are referring to the article John Ferrar (Virginia Settler)that is the one title I wish changed to John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virgina Company), as it confuses me every time I see it. That aside, the "archaic language" you note is, I think, the same that Robert McClenon notes, but it is actuallly a quotation encapsulated in "...", and the reference to it is at the end of the paragraph I quoted.

As regards their stories being better in one section than two. I quite agree, my original idea was to publish it as a single article with the title A Tale of two John Ferrars. However I was advised not to do that, because it becomes a narrative, and if published Google might not pick it up.

Question: Is it inappropriate or "illegal" to quote (partial) from a book? Or is it because the language is archaic? On the other hand, because of my age and background I tend to write in using "archaic" words and phrases, such as ..she was with child, rather than she was pregnant (which sounds crude, at least to me). Your other suggestions are quite valid and valuable and I will set about trying to incorporate them. Alvanhholmes (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: I have never published in WP with the goal of being picked up by Google. WP is not a journal shortcut with less vetting. If you want to go that route, find a publisher. You might be able to have "A tale of two John Ferrars" as a section, but your WP title and your writing needs to be as clear and concise as possible. If you quote, attribute, and if you don't quote, rewrite. Try this:

Farrar family (Virginia Company).

Two men named ‘’’John Ferrar’’’ (Farrar) played importants roles in the Virginia Company; they were cousins. Most commonly they are distinguished by their different roles.

The elder of the two cousins was born circa …

I suggest this conversation be continued on your draft / talk pages. GeeBee60 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: I certainly will move the conversation to draft. But for the record. It was not my intention to publish something for wiki. It was another user who mentioned to me that I should split the article into two that google will pick it up. There is no need to write a book (and too old for that, and I have been asked to write much more interesting books..no interest in that either, and no time, I'm already 6 months past my expiration date..truth.Alvanhholmes (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments on John Ferrar and John Ferrar

I suggested that User:Alvanhholmes bring this discussion here. I will add that it is preferred to keep discussion in one section in talk and help forums rather than to have multiple sections (although I have responded in both sections here). First, I agree that it is hard to tell what John Ferrar the elder is notable for. I tried to ask that, but perhaps my question was too subtle. At a minimum, both of the drafts need good clear lede sentences explaining what the subject is notable for, and I don't really have a clue about the elder John Ferrar. I have generally thought, as a personal opinion, that if there is a good written record about someone from the nineteenth or earlier centuries, the subject is probably notable. However, in this case, I am not sure. Why is Ferrar the elder important? I understand about the younger.

Second, I did ask in my initial review whether the article or articles were copied from another source, because they appeared to be written in an archaic style. There appears to be a two-part explanation about that. First, the submitter writes in an archaic style (but often one that needs heavy copy-edit). Second, portions were indeed copied, and the submitter was evidently trying to provide proper attribution, but it is very hard to tell what parts of the two drafts are being quoted. That is, the submitter is unfortunately not satisfying the most basic rule of copying-quoting, which is to make it clear what is being copied or quoted.

Third, I am confused and distressed by the comments about Google. I don't know what the submitter means, but if they mean what I think, which is that they are submitting these drafts to Wikipedia in order so that Google searches will find them, that isn't the intended purpose or role of Wikipedia, which is a stand-alone encyclopedia, a treasure-room of knowledge that can be entered through its own gate, not simply a hidden room behind the gate of Google. If the submitter is thinking primarily about Google, then they should start thinking primarily about Wikipedia itself (or publish somewhere else).

Fourth, as I mention below, when I reviewed the two drafts in sandboxes, I tried to guess what would be the most appropriate titles if they were accepted into article space. A clear title goes hand in hand with a good lede sentence.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Can i somehow notify the comment maker that the articles were referenced from independent sources but mistakenly attributed to the author?

I had wrongly attributed all the references to the author instead of the news agencies and this resulted in the rejection of the below article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sushrut_Ashok_Badhe with the comment "every single reference is something written by the subject. Please see WP:BIO for what we're looking for in the way of independent sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)"

The author is a record holder and has set records for rewriting ancient scriptures into english rhymes and this has been covered in independent and prestigious journals/newspapers.

I rectified the references with proper attribution but there has been no progress in the article. How do i solve this issue now?

Can i somehow notify the comment maker that the articles were referenced from independent sources but mistakenly attributed to the author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushrut Badhe (talk • contribs) 07:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sushrut Badhe: Judging by your user name, it appears that you are writing an autobiography, or are associated with the subject about whom you are writing. That being said, there do appear to be a number of mentions of the subject of the article in various sources. These possibly confer notability. I suggest you compile a list of sources, make a skeleton of the draft you are trying to create, add proper categories to it and submit the article title at Wikipedia's section on Articles for Creation. When you visit that page, be sure to read everything at the top. In particular it says: "If you have a conflict of interest with the topic you are writing about, you should disclose it on the article talk page; see WP:DISCLOSE."

Lastly, and this is very important, please have a look at our username policy at this link and carefully consider the information therein. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

About categories in a draft, see WP:DRAFTNOCAT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I didn’t know that. How about wiki projects? Is it ok to add those on a draft article, using rater for example? Sounds like a novice question i know, but I’ve not had a lot of experience working with drafts - other than moving articles to draftspace during the review process. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Edaham, sorry, no idea. Don't think I ever added a wikiproject to anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Renaming Draft

Could someone with admin privileges please rename https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Ferrar_(Virginia_settler), to John Ferrar (Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company). Not only is the tite (Virginia Settler) inaccurate but it is confusing. It isnot the title of the article I produced in my sandbox. Thank youAlvanhholmes (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 done - page moved to Draft:John_Ferrar_(Deputy_Treasurer,_Virginia_Company) you don’t need to be an admin to do that. Having done this however, I should mention that before moving it to main space the final article title might want revising a bit. Please read this bit of information about natural disambiguation. When using brackets after a title to clarify it we usually try to use the most concise method possible. If it can be cut down to one word that would be ideal. Edaham (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham:Thanks you very much for your help and advice. There are, unfortunately, a few things that I don't understand. You said you moved the draft, and you don't have to be an admin to do that. Question: How did you move the draft and is the old draft still there? I did read the bit about Natural Disambiguation, and I have a question on that. What Would the Title John Ferrar Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company be disamgbiguous?. I would like to name the article John Ferrar Deputy Treasurer, Virginia Company But I didn't think that was allowed. Is that permissible? If so how do I "move" it.It wasn't me that put the title in brackets. I believe that I had originally titled it as John Ferrar Deputy Treasurer and when it was moved to drafts: who ever moved it retitled it.

There is a similar situation with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Ferrar_(Lincolnshire_esquire), when I submitted it, the name was changed. I would like it renamed John Ferrar the elder of London. I realize that it is rather long, but it should not be named Lincolnshire, as he was a wealthy London Merchant, and Lincolnshire was just one of many counties in which he owned property, Alvanhholmes (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: articles about people normally have the person's name as a title, and if there are several articles about people with the same name, a clarification is usually added within parantheses. The description in parantheses should be as brief and specific as possible. More information here. However, I would not worry about the names of the draft articles; if they are moved into the main encyclopedia, the reviewer who accepts them should also make sure that the article title conforms to the manual of style. --bonadea contributions talk 18:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Bonadea - I respectfully disagree if you are saying that the title of a draft doesn't matter. I don't know about other reviewers, but, as a reviewer, I try to give a draft the title that I think it is likely to have if and when it is accepted. I moved the two drafts from AH's sandboxes and had to guess what titles they should have. "The elder" isn't useful in a stand-alone article on one person, except in cases usually from ancient history where "the elder" has already been become part of the standard designation of a person, such as Pliny the elder who has long been called that to distinguish him from Pliny the younger. I tried to give these drafts the best possible titles, because I think that the subjects are probably notable. I was very briefly thinking of accepting the drafts, before I had reviewed them and realized that they needed a lot of rework, starting with copy-editing. As a reviewer, I think that titles of drafts in draft space should be the titles that are proposed for acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I actually did not mean to imply that the titles don't matter - I simply wanted to point out that spending time on discussing the titles of drafts that are still not ready to be accepted into mainspace is not the most important aspect. I agree with you about the titles of these drafts. --bonadea contributions talk 21:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Thank you for your suggestion and link to manual of style. It gets confusing on one hand I am told to use John Ferrar (Trasurer... and on the other to use John Ferrar the Elder. One user told me to split the subjct (two John Ferrars) into two articles, another suggest that I incorporate them into one called Farrar Family. (I do not like that option anymore). While I deal with this issue could you possibly help me by changing the title of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Ferrar_(Lincolnshire_esquire) to at least John Ferrar (London_Esquire. thanksAlvanhholmes (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Moving

User:Alvanhholmes - Read the instructions on moving a page. Moving a page renames it, but it normally leaves a redirect at the old location, so that both the old title and the new title can be used to find the page. Moving can be done in draft space, in article space, from draft space to article space, or almost anywhere in Wikipedia. Accepting an article is done by a script that moves it from draft space to article space and makes historical changes to it. Any autoconfirmed editor can move a page, unless there is a page protection, which is not the case here. (There are special types of moves that are limited to admins and to page movers, but those special types of moves are not involved here.) Yes, as you said on my talk page, there are a lot of details that you can read about. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nicola Loporchio

Hi everyone, need your help. I've submitted two days ago an article for "Nicola Loporchio", as mentioned in the subject/headline, but it seems some links or font are missing. So, since I'm pretty unexperienced with this kind of stuff, I'd like for someone to help me or even point me out what I shall still credit, so I can add notes.

Hope someone can help me and thanks in advance.

Best, Marco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Squicciarini (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marco Squicciarini, and welcome to the Teahouse! I took a look at Draft:Nicola Loporchio, and it looks like other reviewers determined that the draft doesn't have enough references to reliable sources be published as an article. Wikipedia has notability guidelines that article subjects (including musicians) must meet before an article can be published about them. This helps keep the information in articles accurate.

If you're looking for more sources on Nicola Loporchio, a good place to start is Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which provides a huge list of recommended sources on music-related topics. If you can find at least 2 reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Loporchio, and then add them to your draft, your draft will most likely be eligible for publication.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me. Also, please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so others know it was you who posted them. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!​ — Newslinger talk 05:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia

How do you reference? Iam2yearsold (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor and given them some advice on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Is using a photo from an instagram account fair use?

I want to use a photo from an instagram account on a WP page. I just want to be sure that using a photo from an instagram page doesn't violate the WP rules. Here's an article I came across. Wikimikey423 18:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Wikimikey423. Simple answer - no. You are most definitely not entitled to take any image from the internet or social media and use it on Wikipedia unless that image is very clearly associated with a licence from the copyright owner, releasing it for non-commercial and commercial use (CC-BY-SA). There are some exceptions for 'fair use' (see Wikipedia:Non-free content), but that almost certainly won't apply to instagram posts that people have taken of them or their friends. We take image ownership very seriously, and you should not rely on what that some web article says, but follow either Wikipedia's own rules (see Wikipedia:Image use policy), or, if you're thinking of uploading to Wikimedia Commons, Commons:Licensing. Hope this clarifies things for you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Wikimikey423 04:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Correcting incorrect use of hyphens in music titles?

If someone released an album titled "Something - Something else", would the article use that title or replace the hyphen with a dash ("Something – Something else")?  Nixinova  T  C  20:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nixinova and welcome to the Teahouse. Goodness, that's an interesting and extremely challenging question to answer. Whether I shall manage it, I'm not fully certain. So this comes with a caveat that it's just my view on quite a tricky area, that often only concerns editors when we're talking about articles graded by peer review as either Good Article or Featured Article. Firstly, it's worth reminding ourselves that we have three different dash-like symbols:

• -(hyphen)
• –(en dash)
• —(em dash)

We have the hyphen on our keyboards, but can select the other two symbols by selecting/clicking them from the'special characters' feature in the editing window. Their usages are described in our Manual of Style (shortcuts: MOS:DASH and MOS:HYPHEN. In normal usage a hyphen never has spaces next to it as its purpose is to link one word which modifies the other. So your typing of "Something - Something else" with a hyphen surrounded by spaces is wrong to start with, but I take it that that's how some illiterate record company issued it, rather than your error! An en dash is always used with a space either side of it, whilst an em dash never has spaces.

Now, a song like Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (or 2-4-6-8 Motorway) uses hyphens, and searching for Ob – La – Di, Ob – La – Da (with en dashes) doesn't yield a valid result. I think the use of hyphens in both examples is appropriate

But there's an interesting guideline in MOS:DASH which states "In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand). Nonetheless, to aid searching and linking, provide a redirect with hyphens replacing the en dash(es), as in eye-hand span."

Because users are extremely unlikely to be searching with anything other than standard keyboard characters, it would not be at all appropriate to change or create an article with a title so that it contains unusual characters (such as en dashes or em dashes) unless it was very clearly clear that the album was originally named that way. I think in that circumstance the advice in WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS applies, namely that a WP:REDIRECT should then be created, allowing users to deploy standard keyboard characters in their searches, yet still be directed towards the unusually formatted title, much in the same way as they should be directed towards articles containing accented letters (e.g. Emile Rey, which redirects to Émile Rey) .

But in your question you are asking whether or not to unilaterally change standard hyphens used in naming an album (and thus in a Wikipedia article) to one containing these unusual characters and I can't see any justification for that. I certainly don't think that WP:COMMONNAME is likely ever to apply, as we name articles depending upon popular usage, not what the subject is officially called, and I doubt the general media would be likely to deploy en dashes or em dashes in lieu of hyphens in album titles. But maybe you have examples that suggest otherwise?

So, to sum up: Don't unilaterally change hyphens to dashes but, if you feel you really need to, just ensure you create a redirect using hyphens to help users find the article under its other format. I will be interesting to discover whether others editors here agree, or if have different views on this, or whether I've missed something fundamental in my reply to you. Either way, I hope all this waffle (TL;DR?) helps a little, and perhaps you'd enlighten us by telling us the name of the actual album you're thinking of,or any naming dispute you're having? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Nixinova. This is the philosophy that has brought me great success in avoiding dash-hyphen wars in almost ten years of editing Wikipedia: Whenever I want to add a little typographical horizontal line anywhere in Wikipedia, I just click the most accessible key on my smartphone, and move on. If any editors want to to come along and change those little horizontal lines to slightly larger little horizontal lines, then "more power to them!" I simply will not argue about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes the pragmatic answer is the best answer!! Thanks Cullen328. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to create a redirect in Mesannepada page... (sorry for my english)

...but I don't manage to pass the editorial barriers because I do not have enough English. I thought it was enough to click on the red link Tell el-Obeid, write Tell al-'Ubaid in the model for redirect, but I face editorial warnings as if I were a novice (indeed, I'm a novice in WP:en. It seems to me that it is simpler on WP.fr, without wanting to offend anyone nor deny the need to guide the new editors. Zythème (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zythème: You make the redirect correctly and it was not turned down because of English. There are no warnings on your talk page.

The problem was you created the redirect in draft space instead of in article space. I have moved it to article space. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these explanations ! Zythème (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Suggestions?

I have done all I think can be done with my (first) article on the Czechoslovakian Vz. 53 Helmet. Are there any edit suggestions for this article so I can get it out there as soon as possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobMinor33 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@JacobMinor33: I recommend going through and replacing some of the sources. Try to stick to professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Anyone can write blogs or put sites up on Weebly or open entries on Ebay or post on forums. Avoid any source with "wiki" in the name (such as this one), even Wikipedia. Even if a personal site looks nice, if the author is not a recognized authority then it has not been vetted for fact checking.

I noticed that you largely wrote the article and then added sources to it. That's the hard way. The easy way to write an article about anyone or anything is to:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this. Also, while search engine resutls are tnot sources, they are where you can find sources. Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. I have sources for an article that needs to be written (red plastic gas cans) on my user page. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Page Approval

When will my page be approved and how do i make sure it is as accurate and reliable as possible? How long does the approval process take? link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kiefer_Dixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilycwilliams (talk • contribs) 03:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Emilycwilliams. You have not submitted your draft for review and it definitely will not be accepted if you don't submit it. But please do not submit it now because it would almost certainly not be accepted. Your draft has only one reference and that reference is not properly formatted. That reference is an interview of this skateboarder in Norwood News, a local biweekly. Interviews are not independent sources and do not establish notability. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize what multiple reliable, independent sources have written about the topic, which is Dixon in this case. Please read and study Your first article and Referencing for beginners. You will need to provide references that show that this skateboarder is actually notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I need some help with the page Guangdong Museum

Is it acceptable to use "delicate" or "great" here?

Architecture

The design of the museum, comprising a kind of multi-layer, delicate, transparent spatial configuration, was inspired by the traditional Cantonese ivory puzzle ball, which is characterized by a delicate stack of carved ivory, similar to an onion... The ivory puzzle ball represents the great technique of Cantonese vernacular craftsmanship. Therefore, as a cultural symbol, the ivory sculpture gives the museum both a meaningful spatial concept and cultural resonance.

Thanks.James Booker fan (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The answer is, it depends on the context. The paragraph reads as a little flowery and over promotional, a bit like a brochure for the museum. A very nicely written brochure, but not quite suitable for an encyclopedia. It is also completely unreferenced. "Delicate" appeared twice in the same sentence; that may be why it got removed. The way "great" is used reads oddly, (why is it/what makes it great?; does it mean wonderful, or big, or?).

There is WP:TERSE - says among other things, that subjective qualifiers should be avoided. WP:FLOWERY also mentions words to avoid. The information surrounding those two shortcuts is pretty good if you are looking for writing tips and general style guide. Not really relevant to this query, but good for general writing, wording and a laugh, is WP:ASTONISHME Curdle (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Work with you

Hey there!, I am an Arabic-English, English-Arabic, Spanish-English, Englsih-Spanish, Spanish-Arabic and Arabic-Spanish translator with experience over 3 years. I am also an Arabic teacher for non Aabic speakers for more than 3 years too.

I wonder, how can I work with you? I really like your passion and your purpose to improve the internet ant to make a better place.

I have more than 5 years in experience as a volunteer, so I know what does to do something for the world mean.

I am really interested, and looking forward to hear you soon!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.202.204.222 (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I recommend that you consider setting up a Wikipedia account. Although this is optional, it has the great benefit of facilitating communication with your fellow editors, which is very useful when you have translation skills. The choice is yours. Please start by reading Wikipedia:Translation and associated pages. Please feel free to ask any follow up questions here at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

I have clicked a picture of a football match on an other device . How do I transfer it to commons ? 223.176.85.76 (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Start here:[6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Replying to "Talk"

Hello, I made my first edit. John from Idegon commented here about how it seemed to violate rules of conflict of interest. I didn't know how to reply so that he would know that I was replying to him so I put my reply on his "talk" page. Now I can't find that reply, called "Highwood, IL" in the subject, I think. So I'm basically wondering how you reply to a "New Section" so that it alerts the person who wrote it. Thank you! Judy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JStrikerToo (talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi JStrikerToo. I'm not sure what you're asking, but your posts to John from Idegon can be found at User talk:John from Idegon/unprotected#Re: Highwood, IL. It also looks like you posted the same on User talk:John from Idegon, but then removed the post yourself for some reason. As for notifying someone of a post, there's no real need to do so when you post something on their user talk page since the system should automatically let them that someone has posted something new or otherwise edited the pafe. If, however, you post something on a general noticeboard (like the Teahouse, etc.) or an article talk page, then you can let them know as explained in Wikipedia:Notifications. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Welcome to the Teahouse JStrikerToo. Your initial reply was at User talk:John from Idegon/unprotected, which is a special page John from Idegon set up for use when his main talk page was protected (which it is not now). You did well with that reply: You provided a Subject/headline. and you signed your post with four tildes ~~~~ It would have been better if you had pinged him with {{u|John from Idegon}}.

Your later reply on your own talk page was a better place for a reply, for it kept it together with his original post. This reply would have been better if you had signed it with ~~~~ and if you had begun both paragraphs with a colon (:) as the first character of the line (a leading colon causes indentation like in my reply here). —teb728 t c 09:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Separate from reaching John, my opinion is that you have a conflict of interest, even if not paid, and more to the point, I agree with his opinion that what you added was unsourced promotional junk. Better to have a short description and a reference. David notMD (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I need help with publishing the draft article I created

Hi..... I created a draft article about a notable British-Nigerian Journalist, Chukwuemeka Nnamdi Asinugo, but until now it has neither been reviewed nor deleted. Can someone please help me with the article? I really want it to be visible to the public. I created the draft article since a month ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrick Maximum (talk • contribs) 10:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fredrick Maximum: Your draft has not been submitted for review; if it were, however, it would be rejected as it reads like a resume or list of accomplishments, and not an encyclopedia article. It also has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content. You should read Your First Article to learn what is expected of new articles and perhaps also use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How to create a subpage?

I want to create a subpage to keep a track of my list of vandals but please tell me how can I create a subpage?Denim11 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Denim11, how about saving it at User:Denim11/vandals? I created that subpage name in the edit window. Or you could enter it in the Search box, and it will give you a link to start the subpage. —teb728 t c 12:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Denim11. Just curious as to why you feel the need to create such a list and what pages these editors are supposed to be vandalizing. My experience is that generally lists of this type don't really serve a good purpose and might even be seen as a violation of WP:POLEMIC. If you're having problems with vandalisim, then it's best to just try and deal with it as explained in WP:RVAN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly I made this list to keep track of the vandals who have atleast got a 2 level warning to see their recent contributions. If it is a violation please let me know.Denim11 (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Even though I'm sure you're intentions are good, I'm not sure if creating a list like this is such a good idea since listing editors such as this might be seen a inappropriate per bullet points 2 and 3 in WP:POLEMIC. Other editors might feel differently about this, but it seems the potential for error outweighs any benefits you might get from such a list. User warning templates are not always in accordance with relevant policy and sometimes might actually be used where no vandalism as occurred; so, it could create some bad feelings among other editors if they find out you've added their names to your list. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that you recently blasted a new user with a vandalism warning for what was only an inappropriate question at TeaHouse. David notMD (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC) Hi David notMD I remember that incident but I have also apologised on your talk page and it will never happen again.Denim11 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Denim11, Keep this list offline as suggested in the link on user page advice provided above. For a short time I kept an html file on my desktop of problematic users and quickly found it to be useless. True vandals have a pretty short half life, owing to both their drive-by nature and to the diligence of admins restricting their privileges if they decide to stay. Everyone else deserves to have you assume good faith if you can manage it. It's not always easy, I know. Listing someone (even privately) as a vandal will lead you to the inflexible preconception that people who have caused problems on various pages are here with ill-will. In my experience, most people I've seen edit-warring bitterly on one page are contributing positively and benevolently somewhere else on another. Hope that helps. Edaham (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Translating an article about myself

There is an article about me in the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Daniel Eisenberg). I did not write it, and didn’t know it existed until six years after it was written. It has been translated into French and Esperanto.

If I translate it to English for this WP, would that violate a policy? deisenbe (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe, and welcome to the Teahouse! Since you're the subject of the article, it would be a good idea to submit your article as a draft, and then declare your connection on the talk page of the draft with the {{Connected contributor}} template, to ensure compliance with the conflict of interest guideline. Other than that, I don't see any policy or guideline issues. Non-English Wikipedias may have different notability requirements than we do here, but it looks like you meet WP:NACADEMIC as a distinguished professor. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 05:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability - Article flagged for deletion - Procedural questions!

I hope this is the right way to ask my question... I recently created a page about Phineas Pratt, a historical figure who is noted on the Plimoth.org and Pilgrim Hall sites, as well in numerous stories of the first years of the Plymouth/Pilgrim Colony, as he was a contemporary chronicler and an actor in those events. It was flagged for deletion due to notability. My question is around the best way to handle such a flag and if I took all the appropriate steps. I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phineas_Pratt and added a KEEP note (which I guess I cited with the wrong type of linking—I had read another entry and was trying to follow suit—but I think I cleaned it up after I was called stupid. ;D ). This morning I received an email saying the page had been reviewed by Barkeep49. I also received a separate note saying the page had been edited today (11/24) by Barkeep49, but there was no summary and I don't see any evidence at all on the page. The AfD flag is still present. Can someone help me to understand what a review means, and if there is something I should be doing but have not to establish the notability of my subject. Thanks very much in advance. Darcyjae (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Darcyjae, and welcome to the Teahouse. You've done the correct thing in voicing your opinion at the AfD discussion. Barkeep49 is part of a group called New Page Patrolers, who are experienced editors who review page creations by less experienced editors. There was a discussion amongst NPPers regarding marking new articles which have been sent to AfD as "reviewed", and no issue was found with doing that. The reasoning is that the article will go through the AfD process, which will result in several editors taking a look at it, so there will be no need to review it after the AfD discussion is closed. Either it will be a Keep, and stay in Wikipedia, or it will be a Delete, and be deleted. I've pinged Barkeep in case my interpretation of their action is incorrect. If an article hasn't been sent to AfD, when it is "reviewed", that means that an experienced editor has looked at it, and found no significant issues with (or if they have, they will leave a tag on the article, explaining any issues). Certain actions on a page, including "reviewing" it, don't count as an actual edit, and therefore do not appear in the history of the article. However, if you look at the top of the history page, you'll see something called, "View logs for this page". If you click that, you'll see those other actions, including Barkeep's. The AfD tag will remain until the AfD is closed, which (except for special circumstances) lasts a minimum of 7 days. It can last longer, if the discussion doesn't have enough participation. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Darcyjae: I can understand your confusion. Onel5969 describes my actions correctly. My review here was more procedural than a true review I would normally do on an unreviewed article because the article was already nominated for deletion the community will be making a decision on the suitability of this topic for the encyclopedia. While I'm here let me offer a suggestion: try to keep your AfD comments brief. I commonly see newer editors go on at length and frequently this can hurt their cause because some other editors will skip reading the comment altogether or skim it over. Onel has now cast a !vote that could serve as a sample (!vote = means not a vote. The ! is a programmer symbol for not. We say it's not a vote because Articles for Deletion isn't really a vote, it's a consensus discussion based on policy). Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification and adviceOnel5969 and Barkeep49! I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Cheers.Darcyjae (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Darcyjae: I would like to enter one criticism for the sake of historical accuracy. In the opening sentence you claim that this man was one of the first settlers of the United States.. Do you realize that the Company of London had approved three charters before the one that recognized the New England settlers. [reply to|Darcyjae]In fact the "Pilgrims" had departed Plimouth for Virginia and stopped at Plymouth rock to replenish their supply of potable liquid (beer). That the first settlers were arrived in Jamestown in 1607, with more arriving after and by the time the "Pilgrims" stepped off onto the rock they called Plymouth, there were thousands of Settlers living in the territory now called the U.S.A., so Phineas most certainly was not among the first, and indeed the "Pilgrims" were not the first or among the first. They were the first to settle in what we now call Massachusetts, and at the time of both settlement, neither were colonies of England, that didn't happen until the King dissolved the Charters that authorized the ventures (settlements) and made them colonies and that was in 1628 if I recall correctlyAlvanhholmes (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Darcyjae: Apologies. Either your article on Phineas was corrected after my comment (checked the history and no record) or the information that got to my brain, such as it is, was not the same as you had written, for I checked back and indeed you said he was among the first settlers of New England, unlike some I believe that admissions of error are not a sign of weakness, but strength. Takes guts to admit that you are wrong..Alvanhholmes (talk)

For Draft:Aurora_Gulli what is the best way to certify the age?

Would it be possible to send a photo of the id so that the age of the young lady can be certified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agulli (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that would be valid because anyone can fake a photo of an ID. What you need is an independent WP:Reliable source that gives the age or date of birth. If you can't find that, then don't include an age in the article. Dbfirs 16:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, confirming her age with a citation would not make the draft notable. The situation appears to be that an inventor added the names of his three children as co-inventors to the U.S. patent application, issued as patent 9,811,102. This made his daughter Aurora a very young patented inventor. David notMD (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Howie Wyeth Musician

You have this information stated incorrectly. Howie Did Not die in 1996. "Wyeth died of cardiac arrest at St. Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan on March 27, 1996" It was several years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyllisanncollins (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you find an obituary for a WP:Reliable source? Dbfirs 16:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Phyllisanncollins and welcome to the Teahouse. I think perhaps it is your memory that is faulty, unless you are accusing the New York Times of publishing "fake news". It was a Wednesday. Dbfirs 16:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I was also able to find the NYTimes obituary dated March 29, 1996 stating HW died Wednesday (3/27) of that week. David notMD (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Habung

Habung is a small place in Dhemaji.. Habung got its significance after the arrival of Tai prince Sukapha

Habung is derived from Tai Ahom origin Means Ha= "5" Bung = "to become king"

As Habung was the Fifth capital of Ahom dynasty, and sukafa was the founder of Ahom dynasty.

If anyone visit habung then one can find the ruins of Ahom monuments.. Now recently CM of Assam sarbananda sonowal donates 2 corores to habung for the rivival and to save the Ruins of Ahom history .

Also Ahom people now a days perform their Traditional rituals like ma-dam-ma-fi. Also Bihu was to celebrate here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koncheng (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Koncheng, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like you're discussing the Habung region. You'll want to post your comments on the talk page of the article, at Talk:Habung, so other interested editors can see them. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) to let others know it was you who posted them. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 04:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the correct place/Need help with blank map subdivisions

If anyone can help me find (or make) a version of the map below with some subdivision borders it would be much appreciated.

• [[7]]

For clarification, I punched into google 'blank world map with subdivisions' and the dimensions required (so that countries don't get warped when resizing) and it came up with zero results, so it needs to be 2664 x 1224, in other words, this exact map, but with subdivisions.

Thanks,

-Abbazorkzog (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Abbazorkzog, Have a look at the Commons category Borderless maps of the world without Antarctica. Several files there may suit your needs. Vexations (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

How to cite a magazine covering two months

I would like cite an article in a magazine that is a multiple-month issue, say, "January / February" for a certain year. I haven't been able to make the "date" parameter accept the "January / February year" string as a parameter. Is there an appropriate way to do this, other than, say, choosing the first month (i.e. having the parameter be "date=January 20XX") and having the reader infer an understanding of what it signifies? Thank you. Kekki1978 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As a supplementary (and hypothetical) question to Kekki1978's, I'm familiar with some magazines that (sometimes in addition to the above) print 13 issues a year, with the last being designated "Christmas" or "Winter". Can either of those be entered in the "date" parameter? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

From the template documentation, Cite Magazine accepts (month and year, season and year, or year), so Winter will work (although that is intended for a quarterly publication Spring/Summer/Fall/Winter). I don't see it stated, but you can also use "Jan-Feb" for a bi-monthly. MB 00:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help. Kekki1978 (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No longer supported midi (.mid) files in Wikipedia articles

midi files are used extensively in some Wikipedia articles but no longer seem to be supported by modern browsers such as Firefox and Chrome. This seems a shame given their small size, distinction from waveform encoded formats like OGG/MP3 and widespread use in the music industry.

What shall and can we do to remedy this?

• Abandon their use and wait for piecemeal replacements/updates?
• Batch convert all hosted media to OGG Vorbis?
• Lobby browser creators to continue support?
• Update the documentation on playing media (which vaguely suggests installing VLC which doesn't support midi)

Interval (music) is a page that uses midi files in perfectly appropriate circumstances (so I understand), to define and contrast exact musical pitches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackalus Again (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm using Firefox (on a Windows PC) and have no trouble in listening to the files in that article. When I click on one, Windows offers me the option of opening it in the Windows Media Player or choosing another app: WMP plays them without any problem. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

My Firefox under Windows does the same. In Opera (web browser) and Google Chrome, I have to download the midi files first, then I can play them in Media Player. I can't remember what extensions I downloaded many years ago. As I expect you know, MIDI files are not sound files, they are instructions for creating sound files, and what the resulting waveform sounds like depends on the emulation software that creates the sound. Dbfirs 09:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, the problem mentioned by the OP is that browsers don't support playing those files themselves (anymore). It's not a Wikipedia problem. If you want to embed a midi file for listening, use the {{Synthlisten}} template which will convert the file to ogg and play it inline. Regards SoWhy 16:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of the Sandbox if you don't understand how to use it as a new user?

I am a new editor of Wikipedia and have zero experience in editing. I thought the Sandbox was a space where you can attempt to learn how to create or edit articles. My initial attempt at editing has been rejected by another user and now I am wondering what my next step is. Can anybody please instruct me what the process involves in getting the ten edits confirmed so as to be a verified editor? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W.L.Maher (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@W.L.Maher: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the source of the confusion here is that you submitted your sandbox to be reviewed as an article draft, when I don't think that's what you intended to do. If you just want to edit your sandbox, you can do so without submitting it for a formal review as a draft article.

Regarding creating articles, please understand that doing so is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. New users are much more successful at creating articles after they have spent time editing existing articles and working their way up to article creation. This allows them to get a feel for what articles should be like and what is required in them. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly reviewed and possibly deleted because they are not aware of what is being looked for. I don't want that to happen to you. I strongly suggest that you find existing articles in topic areas that interest you and make any needed minor edits to them, and then gradually work up to more substantive edits and later, article creation. You should also use the new user tutorial which will help you.

If you still want to go right into creating articles, you should read Your First Article, and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for an independent review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia, so you get feedback on it beforehand, instead of afterwards when any article will be treated more critically than if it were a draft. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

California National Party

Hi,

I am the National Chairperson for the California National Party and our Wikipedia page keeps getting falsely altered to indicate that our party has dissolved. However, that is not true.

Is there any way to prevent these false edits proactively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoslater (talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Theoslater: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If it is a habitual problem, you can request temporary page protection at Requests for Page Protection; however, that is only a temporary measure at least initially. Vigilance is the best way to see what is happening to the article. (for other readers of this, the claim that the party has dissolved doesn't seem to have a source) Thank you for clearly stating your affiliation with the party; if you haven't already, you may wish to review the policy on conflicts of interest just so you are aware of it and what the guidelines asks of you. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from an invitee

Why did you invite me — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnLiu1 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, AnLiu1. We try to invite all new editors here, because this is a place especially for newer editors to ask questions and get hopefully simple to understand answers about how to edit Wikipeda. Is there anything we can assist you with? John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

AnLiu1 Since you joined Wikipedia yesterday you have made 29 edits to articles about Dr. Who episodes, every one of which has been reverted. Perhaps you should ask at the Talk pages of those articles what is wrong with your intended improvements to the articles. David notMD (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Something weird happened when I tried to edit an article

I was editing the Mildred L. Batchelder Award page by adding the new 2018 winner and honors. But when I finished, the section below, "Multiple Awards and honors" somehow popped into the "Recipients" table. I tried undoing my changes and starting over, but it still happened. I'm not sure what to do. If anyone wants to edit the article themselves, then here are the official results: http://www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/batchelderaward/batchelderpast

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Encyclopedia (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Professor Encyclopedia: You forgot to put the closing bracket (|}) at the end of the table. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Okey-doke, thank you! I will try that!--Professor Encyclopedia (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Good article

I want to nominate the page Manchester United F.C. for a good article . What do I do ? 223.176.83.244 (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! To make a good article nomination, please follow the instructions on this page. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 08:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newslinger:I have nominated it , what next ? 223.176.83.244 (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a Featured Article, which is a higher level of quality control than Good Article. If you intended to suggest that the article be downgraded to Good Article, you need to use Wikipedia:Featured article review, not make a GA nomination, but before you do that you have to use the article talk page to describe the issues you have with the article and give other editors a chance to discuss and fix any problems. I have removed the GA nomination since the article is not eligible for that. --bonadea contributions talk 08:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I neglected to check the article. Sorry about that. Bonadea's advice is spot-on. Also, please note that the {{replyto}} template won't ping the person you're addressing unless you create a Wikipedia account, so it might take a bit longer for others to respond. — Newslinger talk 20:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Dynamic list numbering

There're multiple lists on Wikipedia (e.g. List of countries by government budget) where the ranking order (the first column) doesn't change based on the parameter I sort the list by. Is it possible to make it dynamic (i.e. so that the rank changes based on the parameter I sort the list by)? And if so, how do I do that? Openlydialectic (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this Harassment / Wiki-bullying?

User:Mhhossein removed a quotation from the MEK's lede section complaining that there was a "Wikipedia:Non free content#Text" violation. I responded that the lede had only three quotes, so there wasn't an issue, but in an effort to work with his request I would restore the quote he removed (which had been allowed to be included via Talk page consensus) and paraphrase the remaining two quotes. The user subsequently threatened to report me, and then he did here.

This user has made false accusations against me several times now trying to get me sanctioned:[8] [9], [10], [11], etc. (the user has been previously warned about having strong POV and being particularly hard of hearing, has a habit of reporting other editors that disagree with him, and has been part of more than a few reports at ANI: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]).

Are his continuous false accusations and casting aspersions a case of WP:HARASS / WP:BULLY? Thanks in advance for your help. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• OMG, you were just warned two times against the violation of copyright by an admin, that's why I reported you after you did more violations. Is that what made you bring plenty of unrelated things here? Get informed that "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly" and that usually ANI deal with such cases. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am not admin, but from reading the first two of his reports it certainly does sound like harassment. If I were you, I'd just report them to admins in the most polite sense possible without explicitly accusing them of harassment (just phrase it like an inquiry) and let admins decide whether Mhhossein should be sanctioned or not. I personally think that a short-term ban (e.g. a week) might be sufficient here, but them was already warned for such behaviour so who knows, maybe them deserves a harsher sentence. All the best. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Openly - Stepping in on this discussion is above my pay grade, and I suspect above yours. I suggest we just sit in the bleachers and watch the fracas. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

/* Biography */

Hi I created a biograghy page which lies in my sandbox. How do I make it live in the main Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkturban (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pinkturban, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like you've already submitted the draft at User:Pinkturban/sandbox for review, and I've just moved it to Draft:Samina Naz. If a reviewer determines that the draft is ready to be published, it will be moved into the Wikipedia article space.

Since there's a long list of drafts that need to be reviewed (the list is currently 1,150 drafts long), you might have to wait a while before a reviewer gets to yours. Right now, the average wait time is about 4 weeks, but it may take more or less time since drafts are not reviewed in order. In the meantime, feel free to improve your draft.

If you have any other questions about editing, please feel free to ask me. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!​ — Newslinger talk 20:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

User Page

I just wanted to ask, is my user page good? Do I have to edit it in any way? Denkiden (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Denkiden, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your user page is fine, and the user page guidelines don't require you to put work into it. Many editors are happy with a short user page or even no user page at all. If you have any questions about editing, please feel free to ask me. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 20:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi, do we have to cite and reference wikis sources in the references also? Awesooome92 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesooome92 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Awesoome92, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question. Wikipedia articles should have wikilinks to make it easy for readers to go and find out more about things that are mentioned; but these are not references. Wikipedia, like other user-generated sources, may not itself be used as a reference. You may find referencing for beginners helpful; or else, come back here and expand on your question a little. --ColinFine (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What is deemed 'OK' when it comes to images?

So I recently got ahead of myself and added a few images to Wiki Commons and used them for a few pages (or articles? not sure what's the correct term).

Is it okay to take a screenshot of someone in an video you find online and claim that screenshot as your own? Am I even allowed to use screenshots of someone else's video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubulartopher (talk • contribs) 21:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Tubulartopher. That would be a violation of Copyright, which is illegal, and will rapidly get you banned from Wikipedia if you persist in trying to do it. Please read the previously linked item, and also Wikipedia:Copyright and the article Copyright, because you need to understand the issue very thoroughly if you want to post material anywhere on the Internet. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.131.235 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Here [27] is a page about what you can upload on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tubulartopher: as the IP says, it's not allowed to take screenshots of videos that are copyrighted on the internet (this includes YouTube videos without a Creative Commons notice). Unfortunately, you already have some images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons that already violate the policy. I have therefore put 4 of your uploads up for speedy deletion. As all people in which you've edited in are still living, that also means you can't use a "fair use" image here either; it violates non-free content criteria #1 "No free equivalent", because it's still possible for people to snap a picture of that particular person and release it under either a free license or public domain. theinstantmatrix (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Theinstantmatrix: Okay, my sincerest apologies. I've looked over a good bit of the rules and it wouldn't surprise me that I misinterpreted some of it, I'll make sure to look over it closer in the future. I had a feeling I was not doing something right and that’s why I came to you with my question. I'm somewhat new here, how do I go about deleting the images for you? I'll make sure the screenshots won't pursist, you can trust me on that one. ~~Tubulartopher

Samina Naz

I tried to create a biography page named https://en.wikipedia.org/saminanaz and submitted it somehow. However, my heart is broken to see that it was declined with the following message

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 people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia

I do not know how to how to add more references and what are/ will be those references. The subject is a public figure of international repute, currently working as the Ambassador of Bangladesh to Vietnam. I posted pictures of her ambassadorial duty along with the president of Vietnam. what other ref/proof we need to put forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkturban (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this is about Draft:Samina Naz. Issue is not whether she is an ambassador. What is needed are references to articles written about her. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pinkturban: don't despair. Writing a new article is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia, and many drafts are declined the first time. Looking at Draft:Samina Naz, I agree with David notMD above. At the moment, there are two sources, both of them very brief (probably press releases, in fact probably the same press release minimally rewritten by staff reporters) talking about her appointment as ambassador and mentioning a few words about her education and earlier career. Unfortunately, this is nowhere near enough - and there is quite a bit of information about her early life, her family, and her career that is not sourced at all. Where did you find that information? In a biography about a living person the requirement is particularly strong for sources that meet these requirements. Information that cannot be sourced should not be included in the article. Note that sources do not have to be in English, and they don't have to exist online, but they do need to meet the sourcing criteria. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding an entry about a person

I have read the requirements for creating an entry. I want to create and entry about a person and their contributions to the motorcycle riding community. This person is really not knows anywhere outside the community but he has made significant contributions to the Northern California off-road riding community. The way I see it it's more about what he has done than getting his name in lights, etc. It seems to me that the wikipedia requirement that there be publicly available web pages regarding a person before creating a wiki page is a chicken and egg problem - I want to create an entry about this person and what he has done precisely because there is no other information about him. Can anyone help me with how I might approach this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottttaggart (talk (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No one is going to be able to help you create an article about someone who hasn't been written about in reliable sources. That is the way we create articles. ~ GB fan 21:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Created company page for a known company but its deleted in 24 hours

Mt educare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi there,

I had created a page few days called mt educare but this page had been deleted in 24 hours and the reason was that its a promotional thing but its a company page and I hadn't included any promotional link or references I want to for a company page how is possible to write it as encyclopedia i have seen other pages of companies which even using promotional weblinks but got there approval

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed zaryab (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Syed zaryab. I can’t see the deleted page, but probably the reason it was found promotional was that it was not written from a neutral point of view. The deletion rationale also indicates that the article did not indicate why the company is important enough to have an article in an encyclopedia. —teb728 t c 09:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Syed zaryab. As an administrator, I have the privilege of being able to see the deleted article, and I can confirm that wording such as the following is far too promotional: "The organization gives proficient preparing and instructing to the understudies over all streams from standard eighth to twelfth and placement tests for the focused and expert courses. MT Educare has versatile mobile application Robomate+ for giving computerized content through videos, recordings". If you would like to try again, please create an article as a draft for review by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Your first article. Please note that if you work for or are in any way being paid by the company concerned, you must declare this by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Please advise: I'm a new editor and not sure how to deal with retributive spite.

Here is the relevant closed discussion on my talk page: User_talk:Shashi_Sushila_Murray#Other_accounts.

Since I've never had another account before, what processes or fora am I supposed to take this up in? Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 01:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

No action needed. An editor asked if you had previously edited under another name and you replied not. David notMD (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, David notMD. It felt like a Spanish Inquisition moment with mafioso-like questioning with the intention of spreading some fear and uncertainty (if you read the discussion above the linked one, you'll see what's even prompting this editor to interact with me). Sort of a "what are your sins?" like question that you'd expect from certain cults. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 03:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hyperbole is very rarely useful in discussions among Wikipedia editors, Shashi Sushila Murray. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see what the intention of the question is in context otherwise considering that they have no reason for the speculation. In fact you know, Cullen, from your interactions with me so far (and your role as an admin likely makes you able to look behind-the-veil to check the veracity of their otherwise purposeless speculation). Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 03:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Although I am an administrator, I am not a checkuser. And even if I had that power, it would be inappropriate to use it in this situation, Shashi Sushila Murray. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

S - To borrow from The Godfather, "It's not personal, it's just business." Editors who have here for a long time have seen damage done to Wikipedia by sock puppets, meat puppets, undeclared conflict of interest and paid editing. I myself have been grilled about potential COI, so I have a statement on my User page and when appropriate, add one to the Talk pages of articles I edit. David notMD (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

David notMD thank you for the reply and reassurance. Contextually it doesn't read like business. I could understand if I was saying or doing something that references some prior account, but I even have a discussion on my talk page where I talk about getting frustrated with an editor edit warring with an ip without reading the ip's source prompting me to make an account in the first place. So in context I'm still reading it as a growling dog sniffing another dog to intimidate it. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 19:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Page for Sam Wineburg

I recently went to a lecture by Dr. Sam Wineburg from Stanford. There are lots of pages Google finds but no page here. Where do I put in a request? Keith Henson (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

PS. I have started pages for people, but they were involved in subjects I somewhat know about. What Wineburg does is beyond my knowledge. Keith Henson (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Henson, you can request new articles here: Wikipedia:Requested articles. It's a good idea to review the notability requirements for Dr. Wineburg. Here is a list of different types of notability requirements: Wikipedia:Notability. It might take a long time before you get one though. I'm a new editor but like to chime in now and then, since I have fast fingers and know how to find information on here rather quickly. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 06:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Image for article about Jim Thompson's Wild Town novel

I'm planning on writing an article for the Jim Thompson novel Wild Town. There isn't even a stub for it right now. I think Thompson is an important enough writer that every book of his should have an article but that one's always been a favorite of mine even though it's not one of his most popular. I want to include one of those book info boxes but I looked in the Commons and didn't find an image for the book. So two questions: 1) Is it OK to use a picture I found already in the Commons for the time being? It's a picture of an Oil Town which is just what the Wild Town in Thompson's novel is. BTW, you can look in my sandbox to see what the draft looks like, although don't pay attention to the text, I copied and am altering the page for a different Thompson novel so most of the text still talks about that novel and 2) Is there an easy way to find an image of the novel on the web that I can use? I know there is some form I have to fill out to get special use for an article about a work of art, if anyone could point me to the page that does or tells me how to do it and where to find legal images I would appreciate it. The simpler the better, I like to write but hate to spend time on artwork. Thanks MadScientistX11 (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi MadScientistX11. The infobox image for a book article is frequently a scan of the front cover of the book. This would be a non-free image; so it is uploaded to English Wikipedia and not to Commons. Since it is non-free it cannot be used in a draft until the draft is published, and it cannot be uploaded until there is a use for it.

The file description page will have a {{Non-free book cover}} tag instead of a license tag. And it must have a {{Non-free use rationale}} (see the file description pages of other book covers for examples of how to format that.)

Ordinarily using non-free content is difficult, but using one cover image or logo for identification in an infobox is pretty easy, aside from what I said above. —teb728 t c 09:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks teb728, I think I get it. Is it acceptable to use just a picture from the commons (as I have now in the draft in my Sandbox) when the article is first published? I might like to have the article go live before I go through the work to get an image of the book cover. Also, as I look at the Commons picture, to be honest I think that picture would make a better picture than the actual covers I've seen for the book and if it's not a requirement to have an image of the book cover I might like to stick with that picture for now, it really is a perfect representation of the kind of place, a town that is essentially built around a bunch of oil wells, that Thompson describes in the book, where as the covers I've seen are pretty generic. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That might be OK. But consider going without an image; an infobox does not need to have one. —teb728 t c 10:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Create wikipedia Page

Hello! actually, I am trying to create a Wikipedia profile of my own, but I do not how to it will come under search my Wikipedia user profile. Please help me out. My user-Profile link is Sanjay Awasthi —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Awasthisanjay: Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a place to list resumes, nor a place to promote one's career. Editing articles about yourself is strongly discouraged. User pages are for explaining one's interest and purpose on the site, not for job hunting.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything besides yourself, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this. Also, while search engine resutls are tnot sources, they are where you can find sources. Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

bot

What is a bot ? And how do you nominate a featured article ? 223.176.85.28 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Bots are created to automate the performance of routine, repetitive tasks. The process for choosing featured articles is at WP:FAC. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:BOT ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 11:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Any article worthy of considering for nomination to become a Featured Article is (almost always) already a Good Article. Nominators should have hundreds - better thousands - of edits and years of experience, including getting articles to GA status, before attempting a FA nomination. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Userbox

When I create an userpage , how do I make an userbox showing I support Bayern Muenchen ? Khockbot (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

First, you need to be unblocked first. Then you may ask me to make one for you :) ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 11:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football/UEFA/Germany#Bundesliga shows three userboxes for Bayern Munich. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been unblocked , changed my username . 223.176.85.28 (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to log in ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 12:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

From this question and the one immediately above it, appears you just logged in as Khockbot and also edited while not logged in, from IP address 223.176.85.28. My guess is that you were advised to stop using a name with 'bot' in it. If this is true, stop! Log in under your new user name and never use Khockbot again. David notMD (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

My new account - Grunthog (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC) What do I do to show on my userbox , I hate Borussia Dortmund . Grunthog (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

wp:userbox offers general help and guidance. For creating custom user boxes see here WP:CREATEUBX Edaham (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Grunthog: Wikipedia:Userboxes#Potentially divisive words includes "hates" in words to avoid and says : "Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

this article is not abusive

this article is not abusive and they are deleting it because they say it is. it explains who boniques artiques is and personally im tired of trying to get my article published and told it was abusive or promotional its ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beiselbon (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beiselbon: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you aren't having an easy experience. What is happening to you isn't meant to be offensive to you personally; but you do need to be aware of how things work here. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a business directory. Wikipedia articles must do more than merely tell about a business or its existence. Businesses only merit articles here if they have extensive coverage in independent reliable sources that indicate how the business meets the notability guidelines for businesses, written at WP:ORG. Please click that link and review the guidelines. Not every business merits an article here, even within the same field. The sources you provided all seem to be Facebook posts; Facebook is not usually considered an independent source like a newspaper, TV station, or other form of media.

You may want to read Your First Article to learn what is being looked for in new articles, and you may also wish to use the new user tutorial(click that link) to also learn more about Wikipedia before attempting to create an article(which is probably the hardest thing to do here, so don't feel bad). 331dot (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Translations

Hi there, I have a question regarding articles that require proofreading and better translation, in this case from Spanish to English. I was wondering if the translation can be reflected exactly as in the Spanish article (in the event that there is one) or if you can vary your words since some of the articles that require revision have different paragraphs. Thank you for your time. --Anon_york (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Anon york and welcome to the Teahouse.

Once an article is translated into English and accepted into en-wiki, there is no expectation that later editing will result in a faithful translation of the original article from the other edition of Wikipedia. The original source should be acknowledged on the talk page with the {{Translated page}} template. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Question

Is it OK if you join multiple wikiprojects in the same user? --Thewinrat (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's no problem at all. Maproom (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about inline placement of cite, given parentheses

When you have an entire sentence surrounded by parentheses, with the ending punctuation of the sentence going within the parentheses, where is the proper placement of the inline cite (superscript) that supports the sentence? Should it go before the ending parenthesis, or after? Thanks. Kekki1978 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kekki1978 and welcome to the Teahouse.

It would seem most logical to place the ref after the period but before the closing parenthesis. But parenthetical sentences might not be considered encyclopedic writing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Kekki1978 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kekki1978: I'm a bit late to the party here, but I think it's worth pointing out that this is covered in our Manual of Style (at MOS:REFPUNCT): "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." Deor (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Browser Extension for grammer/spelling check

I edited some pages today and sometimes I just want to quickly check if the grammer/spelling is correct (because the spelling/grammer related message on top of the page (NOT the banner which can be removed by editing) doesn't go away even after the edits). Is there any plugin/browser extension for Firefox (or Chrome) to check this?

Greetings new user and Welcome to the Teahouse! BTW, it's a good idea to sign your comments so people know who you are. You can leave the following characters: --~~~~ or if you use the edit tools click on the icon at the top that is the third one over after B for bold and I for Italic. I'm sure you can also do it with the Wysiwyg editor but I'm old school and don't use it. Back to your question, if you look in the Settings for your browser you should find a setting for spell checking. I'm working in Chrome in Windows right now and the setting there is under Settings>Advanced>Languages. Navigate to there and make sure the button for "English (United States)" is turned on. Then you should see any word that Chrome doesn't recognize highlighted with a red underline. The spell checking in Firefox and other browsers is similar, turned on or off somewhere in the settings, usually in the advanced settings. There are probably plugins that give more of the functionality you have in a Word Processor so you can do a Check Spelling and have it walk you through each word it doesn't recognize but I like to keep my plugins to a minimum so I just get by with the default spell checking. Regarding that banner, it won't go away automatically. It was placed there by some editor and can be removed by any editor once the problems are fixed. If you are confident you have fixed all the spelling errors you can just remove it yourself. What I usually do is first make all the changes that address the problem and then in a separate edit make the change that removes the banner making sure to write detailed descriptions for each edit so other editors who look at the history have a clear idea of what was done. Hope that helps. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

New article

How do I create a new article for people to view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjoiner1914 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cjoiner1914 and welcome to the Teahouse.

New users cannot directly create new articles. You can use the article wizard to create a draft and submit that draft for review.

Creating a new article is difficult and most new users who attempt it find the process very frustrating because of the many potential pitfalls along the way: you need to understand referencing, the concept of notability in the peculiar way that WP uses the term, adherence to neutral point of view and a large array of other details from the manual of style and other policies and guidelines. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it may well be faster to spend a month or two improving other articles and "learning the ropes" before attempting to create a new one. Reviews of new drafts can take a long time and the decline notice may only point out a couple of the most important reasons when there may be many more problems with the draft that would also prevent it from being accepted.

For getting started, the information at your first article and at Help:referencing for beginners is probably the most helpful. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

William R. Smith, MD page

I created a page for William R. Smith, MD and I thought it was in review but I just found out that that title page is available. Does that mean my page was declined? How do I find out the state of a page that I submitted? Julie Kling (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Julie, and welcome to the Teahouse. The fact that there are already pages about other William R. Smiths does not cause any problem for your draft Draft:William R. Smith. If the drft is accepted, the reviewer who accepts it will handle the naming: it will probably be called something like "William R. Smith (physician)", and an entry will be added to the disambiguation page William R. Smith.

The message at the top of the draft (I gave a link to it above, and you can always find it from your contributions list: pick "Contributions" at the top of the screen) says it is currently being reviewed. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Colin!Julie Kling (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

User Page Acceptance

How long, on average, would it take for someone to either validate or reject my User Page draft so that everyone can see it? Or yourself can provide me with a precise duration of time.

Bashurman100 (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bashurman100: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If what you are trying to do is simply post content to your user page, there is no need of a review, you can just do so. User page content is not reviewed as draft articles are. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

And, Bashurman100, everyone in the world can see any page in Wikipedia; but User pages do not get indexed by search engines. --ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bashurman100: I noticed that you don't currently have a User page (because your name was shown in red) so I took the liberty of creating a very basic page for you (now your name is no longer red because the page exists). Your use page is here: User:Bashurman100 You can edit it pretty much any way you want as long as it's not offensive and the things you put there are relevant to your Wikipedia editing. Some people put a lot of work in their User page, others just throw in a few things, I take the latter approach, here is my user page: User:MadScientistX11 You could also get to my User page by clicking on my name here: --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bashurman100:I looked at your Talk page after posting the comment above and I think I see now why you were confused. You were trying to publish your user page as if it was an article. That is why it was rejected. If you took the same text you had in that rejected page and put them in the basic page I created for you, that would be fine. The difference is that user pages aren’t indexed by search engines and aren’t considered part of the encyclopedia. Creating a published article about yourself in the encyclopedia is a conflict of interest according to the policies of Wikipedia (it’s hard for anyone to be objective about themselves). But creating a user page that describes your editing interests and experiences is, fine, that’s what user pages are for --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Leaf....the Wikipedia Entry on this person

To Whom it May Concern at Wikimedia

Suggested Update on the Tragedy and Renaissance of Ryan Leaf.

I suggest a November 2018 update on the Ryan Leaf page in Wikipedia. I just read your wonderful entry on this young man, and realized it is missing the latest good news in his personal journey of success, then despair and now continuing recovery.

On Saturday, I enjoyed Ryan's color commentary during the Cal v U Colorado football game (Nov 24, 2018) on the PAC 12 Network. Ryan Leaf did a fine, informative job on the game. So his entry needs updating to reflect his new arrangement with the TV network.

Don Hardesty: frequent user, long-time fan of, and donor to Wikipedia

PS. Nowhere could I find the way to make this suggestion to Wikipedia. Maybe you are intentionally discouraging such outreach as I am making? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8102:8EB0:C57C:3620:A5C:BAED (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. While it can be confusing to contribute to Wikipedia, there is no deliberate effort to make it difficult for you to contribute(though it might seem that way). If you have independent reliable sources that have coverage of this person, feel free to offer your suggestions by posting them to Talk:Ryan Leaf. Please note that the article about him is not a place to just tell about him, you need independent sources to support any content in the article. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Hi there, I just want to clarify that Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, almost all of whom don't have any affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation. You can be a volunteer, too! Just edit the Ryan Leaf article yourself to mention Leaf's arrangement with the TV network (instructions here), but make sure that you write in a neutral point of view and cite your sources. If you're not sure how to go about doing this, I would follow 331dot's advice and post your comments on Talk:Ryan Leaf. — Newslinger talk 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Re-naming a Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I need to change the Vox Solid Communications article to The Vox Agency, as they have recently re-branded and are no longer called Vox Solid Communications. I see that you need to select the "Move" option, but it does not appear in my window.

How can I make this change?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxsolid (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Voxsolid, and welcome to the Teahouse! Articles can only be moved by autoconfirmed users, which are users who have made at least 10 edits (and have used their account for at least 4 days). It looks like this is your first edit, so you don't quite meet these requirements. However, you're still able to request a move here.

Of course, before you do this, you'll need to change your username and agree to make useful contributions outside of your business. The instructions on your talk page tell you how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!​ — Newslinger talk 04:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Voxsolid. Before answering your question, I think you should be aware of a couple of things. First, you're going to have to change your username because usernames which imply they might represent a particular company, group or organization, etc. are not allowed per Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names. In some case, your account may be temporarily blocked until you change your username to something more appropriate.

Next, your choice of username is giving impression that you might be connected to the company in some way. If you're connected to Vox Solid Communications, you would are also likely going to be considered to have a conflict of interest regarding anything written about the company on Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, it does highly discourage it because it can sometimes lead to some serious problems; so, you're going to be expected to follow the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide when you edit. You need to pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing because there are some fairly stringent requirements in place regarding paid-contribution disclosure and failing to comply with these will almost certainly lead to your account being blocked (regardless of your choice of username).

Now, back to your question. To change the name/title of an article, the article and its corresponding talk page need to be WP:MOVED. You'll find the "Move" button in the dropdown "More" menu at the top the page next to the search window. If you click on this, a new window should up with instructions for you to follow. However, moving a page can sometimes be a tricky process; so, you might instead want to follow Wikipedia:Request move and post something on Talk:Vox Solid Communications to see what others think. This is also probably a good thing to do if you have a conflict-of-interest. You can make an edit request explaining why the article should be moved. You should also provide links to reliable sources which show that the company's name has changed. Someone will eventually get to your request and make the move if everything is in order. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

adding a article

I tried to put in an article. First i wrote the text Then it was deleated as i had not had time to get the sources. I then put in the sources but they were deleted as there was no text. All this was done in a sandbox where i thought i could get help. Any suggestions???? Arydberg (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Arydberg and welcome to the Teahouse. Is Draft:Jackson Carter Murder Stone the first article that you mentioned? If so, then the draft wasn't actually deleted, it was just declined. Declining a draft happens frequently and all it means is that the article in its current form is not suitable for mainspace, typically due to tone, sourcing, and/or notability issues. Users are encouraged to fix the problem the reviewers noted and resubmit the draft once they have. The other article seems to be Jackson-Carter Murder Stone, which was deleted per WP:A3. Unfortunately, I can't view the details of this article as non-admins can't view deleted articles, but I will say that editors are expected to add actual content to an article within a few minutes after creating it. We generally like to give readers at least 15 minutes to add actual content before tagging pages for deletion for this criterion; again, I can't tell whether this guideline was followed by the tagger due to not being able to view deleted revisions. I think you're mistaken that you created this one in a sandbox; you actually created it as a mainspace article. In the future, creating it in your actual sandbox or as a draft is a good idea if you don't plan on adding content and sources at creation or soon afterwards, and once you have a good amount of content, are sure that it meets our notability guidelines, and the article is well-sourced, submit the draft for review. Remember, if you do create it in an actual sandbox or draftspace, then as long as it doesn't have any serious issues, you can incubate it as needed with no disruption. I hope this helps you out a bit and please let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Saving the content of the sandbox

I am a mathematician who wants to contribute my first article to Wikipedia. My question is: how do I save a partial draft of the article in the sandbox? I do not see a "Save" button or something equivalent... Thanks,

Miro Benda Seattle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirobenda (talk • contribs) 04:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mirobenda: There should be a button that says "Publish changes." See Help:VisualEditor/User_guide#Publishing_changes for a picture of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mirobenda: And it doesn't matter that the save is only partial, you can "publish" things in your sandbox half-way through – it's just your sandbox anyway, you're welcome to draft there, half-finished sentences and everything. Don't worry about that. /Julle (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Raji orire

How long would it take for my article could raji orire to be on the Internet please can you let it be there by next week — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ademolaorire (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ademolaorire. I'm afraid that there's pretty much no way the draft you're working on is going to accepted as an article based upon its current state. None of the content is supported by any citations to reliable sources and there's no indication that the subject is Wikipedia notable enough to even have a stand-alone article written about him. You appear to be quite new to Wikipedia, so it's understandable that you might not be very familiar with its various policies and guidelines. Please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:Five pillars for a brief introduction or Wikipedia:About for a more detailed overview. If after looking at those pages, you still would like to write an article, please take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article for some suggestions on how to do that. You might also want to take the Wikipedia:Adventure because you can learn more about Wikipedia by actually making some edits. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing a heading

I have corrected the spelling of the name of Weeden Osborne in the text on the page that tells his story. However, I cannot seem to change the title at the top of the page, which still reads "Weedon" (not "Weeden") Osborne.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weedon_Osborne.

For 100 years, all references to him have spelled his name incorrectly. The cross on his grave in the American cemetery in France spells his name correctly. His enlistment documents all show his name clearly spelled with an E, not an O, as do letters from his sister to the Navy in her attempts to get details of his death in WW I.

Anyone searching his name will perpetuate the misspelling if their search comes up with the title page "Weedon Osborne".

Can you please change that title on his page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taos705 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Taos705: Hi and welcome! I undid your edit for now since your edit broke the code of the page. Also, more importantly, while you might be correct, Wikipedia has a strong policy of verifiability. reliable sources use a different name and even the medal has "Weedon" on it, so there is a chance that the cross might be wrong, not the other records. I cannot find any enlistment documents or letters from his sister online, so I cannot check those claims. I will, however, raise this with our Military History WikiProject so that people who know more about such things can take a look. Please be patient. Regards SoWhy 06:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Taos705. The change you made to Weedon Osborne has already been undone by another editor named SoWhy. Now, your best chance of having the name change incorporated into the article is to start a discussion about it at Talk:Weedon Osborne per Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and explain why it's needed. You should also try to provide as much support as you can (including any links to reliable sources) which show that the spelling of Osborne's first name has been incorrect for all these years. If you're not familiar with using article talk pages, please take a look at Help:Talk pages and Wikipedia:Talkpage guidelines for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Move of page did not move talk page

I am in the awkward situation that I have a two pages, where A redirects to B (as it should be), but Talk:B redirects to Talk:A (this is wrong, it should be the other way round). Here B is Chequers plan and A is The framework for the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. I tried to fix it by moving Talk:A to destination Talk:B, but this gives me an error message ("a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid."). It seems like a simple task, but I don't know how to do it. Can anybody either explain me how to fix it, or perhaps just fix it for me. I don't want to fuck up the history. Thanks! Heb the best (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Heb the best, What happened is that the redirect at Talk:Chequers plan resulting from the first move was edited. This prevented the talk page from being moved back over the redirect. It needs an admin to delete the target name. —teb728 t c 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Heb the best, I moved the talk page. ~ GB fan 12:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Orbison

Roy Orbison first set eyes on his future wife, Barbara, at the Intime Club at the Merrion Centre, Leeds in 1968. He had been taken there by his road manager, Gerry Maxin, after appearing at the Batley Variety Club. They were staying nearby at the Merrion Hotel. Barbara an 18 year old student at Leeds university was from Germany and was working as a drinks waitress at the club. Roy asked Gerry's nephew, Robert who was with them in the club, if he could meet her. Robert arranged with the manager for her to be introduced to Roy after her stint had finished.Riabra (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Riabra. The Teahouse is a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia. Do you have a question, or need help with editing Wikipedia? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

TV Channels and WP:GNG

I feel weird as a power user of Wikipedia coming here to ask a question but I don't know the answer and hopefully someone does here. I put a prod on this article Rengoni. Which was removed and the references fixed however IMDb isn't a reliable source and the other is a primary source. I wasn't able to find anything besides primary sources with a quick Google search. Are all TV Channels inherently notable? Or do we still have to uphold WP:GNG? Thanks. Whispering^(t) 15:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It isn't an English-language channel. What did you find when searching sources in its native language? --Jayron32 16:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

When is an article not a Family History project or a Conflict of Interest?

How far back in time can we go to write an article without it being considered a Family History Project or a Conflict of Interest? If there were no articles say on Roger Bigod, Magna Carta Surety, could I write an article on him although he is my 20th Great grandfather, per wikitree, how about Edward I, my 22nd great grandfather (same source). So why them, and not a 9th or 10th great grandfather? And why is writing an article about such a person considered a Family History Project?Oldperson (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is where you, or someone you know, or someone you work for, has an interest (financial gain, advancement of a political position, giving credence to some psuedoscientific baloney, increased personal exposure, etc.) which is in conflict with the goals of the encyclopedia, which is to be a well written, neutrally-presented compendium of well-documented human knowledge. You need to, in good faith, be able to assess if the purpose of your writing is to promote your family history, or just merely to add information to Wikipedia. There is no magic number of relations to determine what is and isn't allowed. There are some bright lines (writing about ourselves, parents, children, siblings, employers, organizations we belong to, people who are paying us to write about them, etc.) but outside of those, it's really something you need to assess for yourself, and use as guidance to "check" whether or not the text you are writing at Wikipedia meets our purpose, or whether it is being influenced by your own interests. --Jayron32 15:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Understood, so basically it is a judgement call, and one made by the person writing the article. What if the article is written because another ancestor has had an article, published some time ago, in which a spouse is mentioned, and the spouse has more claim to notability,than the person in the article. And even though the article written is about a long dead relative, there is a valid reason to write the article. Additionally it appears that there was once such an article, but apparently some exclusionist, deleted it. As regards the concept of promoting family history. That can be said about anyone in one's family tree, should they write an article about them, though the article meets the standards of notability, and I am not talking about recent family. IN a way it does get back to a question of generations, when one can no longer be accused of promoting a family history. I realize that I might sound argumentative, but I have difficulty with judgement calls, even my own. And one persons judgement can be reversed by anothers. Thus the need for clear cut guidelines as to what is, or is not considered promoting family history. Your example of immediate family is just the ticket. Reaching back into the distant past to claim"promoting family history" or a COI, is not. ThanksOldperson (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Unfortunately, this project abhors clear cut rules for a reason (see WP:IAR). I might be writing about John O'Nobody, my 10x-great-grandfather because I want Wikipedia to list all my relatives, no matter how insignificant or I might write about him because he is actually notable but I'm the only person to care about it. After all, having a COI does not mean the subject is not notable or the text is not neutral, it just means you are less likely to correctly assess these things than someone without a COI. As such, if you believe an article should exist and it was deleted previously, you can check the records why it was deleted (should be shown on the page in question). If it was speedy deleted, just recreate it with some reliable sources or ask the deleting admin to restore it. If it was deleted via deletion discussion, see why and try to address the concerns raised before recreating. If you are unsure, you can always submit a draft using the article wizard to allow others to check your work before publication. Regards SoWhy 16:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This did not come from nowhere. User:Alvanhholmes changed name to Oldperson. Does not appear to be using the old name anymore. My two cents is that having a COI (disputed or not) does not preclude editing. What it calls for is a declaration to that effect on one's Talk page, and perhaps at the Talk page of articles being edited. However, in addition to successfully creating articles about William Farrar and Farrar's Island, Alvanhholmes/Oldperson has been working on drafts of articles on William's father and son, both named John Farrar, and both so far declined. There has also been some minor work on other Farrar-related articles. And no non-Farrar topics. We all have ancestors (mine might include the 16th century Rabbi of Prague who created a Golem), but that's not the only thing I edit. David notMD (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but lots of people have narrow interests. That itself is also not a problem. The issue is only when it becomes an issue. I'm sure I could find people who have rarely, if ever, done anything except edited articles about train stations in Switzerland. That itself doesn't mean anything, so long as they are in good faith, trying to follow Wikipedia rules and create good content. --Jayron32 17:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

User:David notMD User:Jayron32 User:SoWhy - Just to confuse things, I created an article on one of my documented ancestors, but we can be reasonably certain that she never existed. See Clothru. If one is able to trace a reliable ancestry back to times that were literate but less scientific than the nineteenth or twentieth century, one's documented ancestry will then go back to mythological figures. One of the objectives that a noble family had with its genealogy was to prove descent from gods, heroes, and mythological figures (and whatever branch of the family has well-documented records is almost certainly a noble branch). Since the family tree expands upward while the world's population is decreasing backward in time, you are likely to get everyone who existed, and some of the ancestors never existed. No one has a conflict of interest for descent from Charlemagne, let alone Clothru. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: To add to your point. If we go back to say th 21st generation, counting oneself as generation 1. We have 8,388,608 million ancestors, double that for 22 generations and double that for 23 and we are getting into impossible numbers. I doubt that there were 8 million people in The British isles in the 1th, 12, or 13th centuries. We get to the time of Charlemagne and there are over a billion ancestors.The result is that most of us with any European ancestry are related, and if we could trace all of our lines back, the numbers would decline considerably because so many lineages lead to the same person.And by that token it is said, don’t know by whom, or as Bill Maher says, I know it is true, that 1 in 4 persons with ancestry to England descend from Wm the Conqueror. It is more entertaining for Carlos Magnus, Charlemagne, he had four wives, a quadimist all sanctioned by the church (don’t know if that is in his article, and don’t care), he also had so many concubines that no one has bothered to count or name them. Like Genghis Khan in the Ukraine, Russia and the “Stan’s, and many a descendant or migrant from that region he is the ancestor of millions.Oldperson (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD and SoWhy: A little more background is needed. First I changed my user name because another editor told me to, he said that it was a COI to use the user name Alvanhholmes. I did not change out of a subterfuge. Second my biggest error here, and if I had known better, was to be up front in my creating my user page, where I admitted up front that my user name was an homage to an author. I deleted that portion of my user page as it was no longer relevant. The original article on William Farrar was deleted years ago, I don't know when, but at least 7 year ago, maybe less, that article was posted. I had actually copied most of it into a document. It was then pointed out recently that it was deleted, strange because his spouse's article was still there, and though notable she was less notable than her husband, her claim to fame being an Ancient Planter and the subject of the first Breach of Promise suit in America. Someone, apparently an exclusionist, deleted her husbands article. When I inquired via the info mail link, I was told it was deleted and that I should resubmit. So I joined wiki with that purpose in mind. I am not an expert in anything, and don't claim to be, but I do know quite a bit about some subjects. And I have edited a few non relevant pages, which I stumbled upon.

Some admin found the deleted article, but all that was left was the headings, the contents had been scrubbed, so basically I am editing a deleted article. No reason given for the original deletion and scrubbing, it appears to be the work of an exclusionist. My error was in being upfront when I created my original user page. I stated that my user name was an homage to an author and that was the mistake of naivete, not knowing who and what awaited me, so it was used against me and was told to change my user name, and now having done that, DavidnoMD appears to accuse me of subterfuge, otherwise why mention it. For SoWhy. In reference your comment about the only person interested, if that was the case then much of wikipedia would be an empty slate, for surely many articles, not just biographies are written about persons or things that no one has the slightest interest in. I see so many articles on living persons, persons usually singers, artists, maybe a non descript author, even arcane or specialized subjects which no one but the author has an interest in.Oldperson (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No intention of accusation of subterfuge. It is clear that you stopped using one User name and started another, so no accusation of sockpuppetry either. My intention for mentioning two names was that for people who drop in on TeaHouse - as I do - sometimes it helps to get some history when a new question appears. As to working on multiple Farrar articles, as long as each topic has stand-alone notability, not an issue. David notMD (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Charles Fadley

I did write a recent update to the stub in my name, Charles Fadley. This entry was put together by Mark Daly, a frequent editor, and I only did some trivial edits to correct dates and add a few useful links. So how can we get this entry back up again? Charles Fadley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csfadley (talk • contribs) 17:30, Today (UTC+0)

@Csfadley: At Charles_Fadley you did not add only a few links. You added a very large amount of text that reads like a resume. You really should not try to edit an article about yourself, since it will be difficult to remain neutral. You can read WP:AUTO for some guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Csfadley: Sorry, I misread the history. You did not add the bulk of the text. Please discuss at the article's talk page wth the editor that removed the material. RudolfRed (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The article Charles Fadley still exists. On Nov 26 User Richard C Craft added a very large amount of content to the article. You then made a few minor changes. Whispering deleted all the new content as inappropriate. While some of it may have been valid content worth adding, the easiest path chosen was to dump all. Personally, I agree. For the entire article, there was only one reference. Listing awards and honors does not belong. Listing some of your publications does not belong. And so on. Craft has been asked on his Talk page what his connection is to you, as it is a very good guess that this is someone who knows you, perhaps has worked with or for you in the past/present. RCC needs to read WP:COI and you are advised to not directly edit an article about you. Standard process for the subject of an article is to identify mistakes or omissions as an entry at the Talk page, so that an non-affiliated editor can see and decide to act upon or not. David notMD (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

uploading a new image. Evan Boehm

I need help to upload a new image.[Evan Boehm at Center for Indianapolis Colts - November 28th, 2018 vs. Miami Dolphins ]

The link doesn't work, but we can only use images under a free license for living people. RudolfRed (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Urgent to Stephen Hillenburg's page edit

Please edit the wikipedia page of Stephen Hillenburg as soon as posible, it has been vandalized with a NSFW and very disgusting picture at the very top, so its the first thing that an user sees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.167.18.132 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted now and the page has also received a higher protection level. Thanks for reporting; it was vandalized by a long-term vandal who has added hardcore pornographic images to the top of a ton of high-traffic pages, frequently compromising accounts to do so.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Article edit question

I have a question on the Book of Kells page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Kells). The opening sentence says, "The Book of Kells was written in 2018 Irish: ..."

That's confusing to me and I think it needs some better wording. Unfortunately and not knowing the subject (at all), I'm hesitant to make a change on it. I would suggest changing it to something like, "In contemporary (2018) Irish, the Book of Kells is called ...". So how do I contact someone to suggest this clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevSheSeesFar (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the page is being edited, and the wording you refer to is not there now. If you see something that needs fixing, you may Be Bold and fix it, or discuss on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

official actor stuff

hello I am an actor that is listed on multiple shows I've done, wiki posts, ie. wikilost, wikitrueblood, wikigreysanatomy, wikimadmen, etc but I don't actually have a page created on myself personally so I don't show up in BLUE only black. Can anyone help to fix this for me? John Henry Canavan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JATT69 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey @JATT69: thanks for stopping by to ask this question! The threshold for a Wikipedia article is that a topic has been the subject of multiple, reliable, independent, substantial sources. That is, have people written books about your life? Have there been reliable, mainstream, well-known magazine articles about you, your background, or your work? Can I find TV shows which cover your life's history and work? That sort of thing. In order to write a good Wikipedia article, we need source text beyond just a resume. You'll note that your name is already in the correct articles where you are listed as having participated in the work you have. If all we have is your name and a list of jobs you've held, that's not sufficient to write an encyclopedia article. We need good, in-depth, reliable, independent source texts we can research through and use to build a narrative about your life and work. If you can direct us to that, we can start something for you. See Wikipedia:Requested articles and please provide the sources people will use to write an article about you. If the source text doesn't exist, however, there won't be any article forthcoming. I hope that explains why there are articles on some topics, but not all possible topics. --Jayron32 20:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, actors are evaluated against WP:NACTOR inclusion criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

lol

Do You Like Jojo?