Wikipedia:Teahouse

Maproom, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
A friendly place where you can ask questions
to get help with using and editing Wikipedia

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 3 days.
Please remember to sign your posts by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.

Help

Wikipedia

Help

Please i created a new wiki page it's is in the main space but has a no index tag any help Amah_Chinbudu Lynn (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You moved this from draft to main space, but in my opinion none of the references establish his notability. Most are name-mentions: picked for team, scored hat trick, scored goal. Perhaps someone with knowledge of sports notability can comment. David notMD (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Players that have played in the Nigerian Professional Football League are considered notable. However, the name given by the cited sources is Chibundu Amah, so that needs to be fixed and explained. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response it's awesome, Usedtobecool ☎️ I've verify the name and move it to Chinbudu Amah Note since he's a football player in Nigerian Professional Football League he's considered notable.

Could it be indexed now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndonald (talk • contribs) 10:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Lynndonald, the sources say "Chibundu". You've used both and titled it "Chinbudu". Which one is correct? Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks my keyboard auto correct its at fault it's Chibundu Amah so I will correct it Usedtobecool ☎️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynndonald (talk • contribs) 09:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Newly created articles are NOINDEXed until they have either been reviewed through the new pages patrol process or 90 days have expired. Special:NewPagesFeed shows over 6000 pages awaiting review. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It will be indexed when it has either been reviewed through the new pages patrol process or 90 days have expired. Special:NewPagesFeed still shows over 6000 pages awaiting review. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Road junctions

I have hard doing road junctions. When I do add to road junctions list or add to it, the list messes up and it looks like vandalism. I would some help. Cwater1 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have trouble with tables? If so, yes, table syntax is complex and mistakes are easy to make. I can't think of any short cut for avoidance of mistakes. Why not write your suggested changes to the content of a table to the talk page of the relevant article? (Specify your sources, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cwater1: To avoid that issue, you should always 'Preview' your changes to check things work OK. Better still, it's worth copying the table code to your sandbox and experimenting with edits to it there. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Don’t worry @Cwater1:, Table syntax is tough, but everyone works it out in good time.Glome premacamposmercedes (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC) (Slightly edited by CiaPan (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC))

Copy-and-paste non-English pages problem

Hello Tea House, there's problem of copy-and-paste wikitable content of Oteckovia in Slovak language to the List of Oteckovia episodes with full translation to English, that I failed to do action. Can you copy the Part section of the Slovak language of Oteckovia to the English Wikimedia list article by yourself? The Supermind (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC) The Supermind (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello The Supermind, welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at your edit that didn't work[1], it seems that the article you want to copy from uses WP:Templates that the Slovak Wikipedia has but not this one. I do not know if it will be as simple as just importing those templates here to make it work, or if you have to create similar templates yourself or bring in the actual text manually. Let's see if Paine Ellsworth or Sdkb have an idea, or advice. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on translation, so I'm not sure beyond what Usedtobecool identified. I asked WikiProject Intertranswiki to help us. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but very much wish I did. So I keep it brief here. I put a longer answer saying the same thing at the "WikiProject Intertranswiki" page. I suspect that's the only answer you'll get there - not too much wiki-footfall there these days - but would be delighted to be proved wrong on that.

Success Charles01 (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

Dear Teahouse,

I was working on correcting, adding and editing the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valensia It's a page about the artist Valensia. I am the artist Valensia. How do I correct errors and add content without it being deleted? I am aware all has to be verified and must have a source. Is there a way to work in draft mode? It takes time to link all stories to all sources.

Thank you so much Danbelinsky (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Basically, WP:COI should tell you all you need to know. Stick to edits on the article's Talk page and you should be fine. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Danbelinsky User:Guillermo Sulbaran added HUGE amounts of unreferenced content to Valensia, you added modest amounts more, and then Jonesey95 reverted everything back to before the GS deluge. Turnbull's comment is that as the article is about you, you are recommended to first state on your User page that you intend to edit an article about you, and then, instead of editing the article directly, use the article's Talk pages to suggest specific edits. Hopefully, a non-connected editor will review your proposed changes and implement them, or not. By the way, do you know Sulbaran? It was very odd that Sulbaran's first ever edit, on 5 October, was this massive and misguided addition to the article. David notMD (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. Yes, Sulbaran works for me and I asked him to correct and update the page, since there's a lot of inaccurate info on it. I also noticed I cannot upload pics of myself, of which I own the copyright, probably because they've been on the internet for many years. But I got the same problem with uploading to YouTube: I'll get a copyright claim for my own material. I will ask Sulbaran to look into it. However, I see references to interviews I did which aren't too accurate as a source in the first place. I'm not into editing pages at all, I do worry about having this fan-made page online with so much errors and not knowing whether accurate information will be viewed as inaccurate. It's not that big of a deal but it would be nice to have it accurate. There's plenty of info which is pre-internet or quotes which aren't documented. For example, there's an entire Armenian hotel chain using my name and logo: the source is the hotel chain itself, of which I can't upload a picture because it's not mine, which makes the entire story a bit funny. But I guess all will have a source if I do a couple of interviews. Anyway thank you for your help and assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbelinsky (talk • contribs) 19:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Danbelinsky. Wikipedia is keen on getting its articles accurate according to independent reliably-published sources. Information which has not been published does not belong in a Wikipedia article, period. Information which has only been published coming from the subject of the article (which includes anything in interviews or press releases, as well as their own publications) can be used only in limited cases: see WP:PRIMARY. On the other hand, sources do not have to be online: as long as they have been published by a reputable publisher, so that a reader can in principle get hold of them (eg through a library), that is fine.

As David said, you and your employees and associates should limit your involvement with that article to making edit requests on the article's talk page.

And concerning images: you are welcome to use any image to which you hold the copyright, provided you explicitly license it in a way that anybody may alter or reuse it, for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as they attribute the source. Most artists, understandably, are not willing to do this; but if you wish to, see donating copyright materials for how. --ColinFine (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, thank you for your kind explanation. That's perfectly alright, virtually everything has been published either in books or online and my employees and associates were asking me to provide them with all the sources. I myself went to have a look and started to clean the page up, thinking I'd have a day or even two days to add all the sources (there are quite a few). I just didn't expect it to be deleted that quickly. I noticed I couldn't upload my own copyrighted pictures which are known and used all over the internet. I don't mind donating, I don't even care about people attributing the source. I would care about donating and losing my copyright to Wikipedia, like I do care, to some extend, that the information about me, put on Wikipedia by some obsessed fans, is as accurate and complete as possible. I just wished there was a bit more time to actually complete it. It's funny however, how an Armenian hotel chain took my name and logo and I run into copyright issues and source issues: there's humor in there, somewhere. My sincere apologies to have bothered you with this, I can promise you my intentions were to have an as accurate Wikipedia page as possible, that's all. Thank you for your help, suggestions and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbelinsky (talk • contribs) 22:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Danbelinsky. Nothing has been permanently deleted: all the material you added is still there in the article's History: you can go to the relevant version in the history and copy it. But as explained above, you shouldn't add it back into the article directly, but should instead post suggestions, as specific as possible, on the talk page Talk:Valensia, including citations to the sources.

If you are truly not bothered about what people do with the images, you could declare wherever you have published them either that you have put them in the public domain, or that you have chosen to license them with CC-BY-SA; or you can upload them directly to Commons using the Upload wizard, claiming them as your own work, and agreeing to license them in the way Commons requires. --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, thanks again for your kind support. It's good to hear the material added is in the history. No, I never have been bothered about what people do with my images with the excepting of me losing the right to use my own material. Personally I view the option for anyone to freely say anything about me, using a source which only I can determine is accurate or not (I was there), a bit strange but no problem. I have instructed my people to gather all sources and only edit in what is clearly supported by a reliable source. (which I understand is the only way to avoid nonsense to be included). When ready I suppose they will test with a segment with a proper source and see whether it gets deleted or not. If not, good. If deleted, I'll recommend them not to spend too much time on it. From what I have seen here, browsing through the Teahouse comments, it's a pretty daunting task for both editor and controlling volunteer. It was an interesting look behind the scenes, though. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbelinsky (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

I am so confused, I tried to upload a image and use the non free logo template that I filled out for File:Borden Dairy Logo.png and it automatically created a speedy delete template stating that fair use is not used on Wikicomons. My question is where can I upload a image and use a none free image template so that I can use this logo on Wikipedia. BigRed606 (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@BigRed606: Are you trying to use the yellow cow logo for the infobox in the Borden Dairy article? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @BigRed606: That is correct – fair use is not allowed on Commons. Images for which you want to make a fair use argument (see WP:NFCC, which is necessarily very picky, and must be followed exactly) for use in a specific English Wikipedia article are to be uploaded directly to English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Kind of I tried upload the Borden dairy yellow cow logo on Wikicomons and used the Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates, but it automatically created a speedy delete template and said i could not use fair use on Wikicomons BigRed606 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— I tried to use that link but it does not take me anywhere.BigRed606 (talk) How do I access it then?BigRed606 (talk)

It works for me and here it is again to click on WP:File Upload Wizard. Note that this is within English Wikipedia, it is not a Commons page, and you should check you are logged on when you use it. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit war?

Hi! I'm a newbie, and I've recently been reading around Wikipedia's documentation and essays. They have left me with one question though - how does one start or find an edit war?

I found this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_revert,_revert which I found helpful in how to continue in an edit war, but I'm still confused as to how to start one, or where the revert button is.

I also found this page really helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sarcasm_is_really_helpful

Thanks very much! Cheers,  Aviage64 (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aviage64: Just focus on improving the encyclopedia. If someone reverts you, start a discussion on the talk page instead of redoing your edit. RudolfRed (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aviage64. Here is my very strong advice to you. Do not try to start edit wars. Do not participate in edit wars. Never, ever ever. This behavior is a bright line blockable offense. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@User:Aviage64 Both of the pages you mentioned are joke pages, not meant to be taken seriously. realsanix (Hello!) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is "post-compromise security" notable?

Hi! I was wondering whether "post-compromise security" is in fact a notable topic for an article?

I saw it in the cryptography requested article section but wasn't sure that it would actually be considered notable. If it could, I might try to create the page. I just wouldn't want to create the article only to find it's not notable.

I'm not sure how to find secondary sources on a topic like this (so my lack of finding them doesn't necessarily indicate that they don't exist). I did find quite a few primary sources on the topic through a Google Scholar search so I don't think it's really an obscure topic and I'm sure there would be people interested in it.

So how could I determine whether this is notable? What do you think? Thanks for any help!! IllQuill (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

IllQuill, it's hard for me to give you a firm yes/no answer, since I'm not an expert in cryptology. As with most articles, its notability will be determined by the general notability guideline; the existence of scholarly literature about the subject is certainly a good sign. You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography, although you may not receive a response since it's not the most active WikiProject. You could also leave a message for SimonEast, who added the request, but he hasn't been around in a few months. One thing to note is that cryptology articles are not scrutinized for notability quite as intensely as biography/company articles, since there's not a flood of people trying to add them. Overall, you'll need to use your best judgement, but even if it's not ultimately found notable, I'd guess the content would likely be moved to a related page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• @IllQuill: Arguably, you could start by adding a section to the article defense in depth (computing), and creating a redirect to that section. I am not saying it is a perfect fit, but it can always be split off later. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please review my draft

Hello, I wonder if someone can review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kin_Lane and let me know your feedback on what's missing, how to improve it and more. Thank you. GoodNickBB (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello GoodNickBB. Your first reference does not mention Kin Lane, and your last reference is a press release, which is not acceptable. An acceptable Wikipedia biography will summarize entirely independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Kin Lane as a person. Passing mentions and sources affiliated with the person do not establish notability. So, ask yourself, which sources meet that high standard? If they do not exist, then it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've removed the last sentence (which was added yesterday). The first reference includes "Kin Lane" - `World-renowned experts from industry and academia, including David Berlind (Chief Editor of Programmable Web), Mehdi Medjaoui (Co-founder of the APIDays conferences), Kin Lane (the "API evangelist") and Mark Boyd (API and Platform strategist) delivered keynote speeches`. Both European Commission and the US Supreme court recognize him as the expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodNickBB (talk • contribs) 07:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft Deleted after submission for review

Why my draft should be deleted from admin. Please Point out the reason. Elizabeth Verghese (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Verghese, welcome to the Teahouse! Could you give us the name of the draft so we can help you look it up? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Elizabeth Verghese Dr. Mrs. Elizabeth Verghese is the Chairperson of Hindustan Group of Institutions based in Chennai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Verghese (talk • contribs) 06:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The explanation for the deletion is at Draft:Elizabeth Verghese, and at Draft:Dr. Mrs. Elizabeth Verghese for a previous version. If the draft looked like this], it is not surprising that it was judged in that way. It had no references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. If you feel tempted to recreate it, please read Wikipedia's advice against autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It was mostly unreferenced, the few refs being to her own speeches and company pages, and the text is just pure self-promotion. Selected highlights include Her husband, Dr. K.C. G. Verghese was a pioneer visionary, who established one of the first hugely popular vocational training institute... She is ably assisted and supported by her two Sons (Engineers) and her daughter (Doctor and Ophthalmologist) and successfully balancing both professional and personal life... Her focus has been to impart quality education and has taken the unique initiative to globalize education and established links with universities across the globe... a unique career whereby, she has touched thousands of children's lives... thousands of students have been equipped with vocational skills and encouraged self-employment and small business development. She is empowering many women... She has been a philanthropist contributing for many community, church and social service initiatives., but the rest is equally self-serving "I'm wonderful" stuff. It's the same as David Biddulph linked, with a few self-refs. If it reappears in anything like a similar form again, given the COI warning, I'll indef the account. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I nominated the Anand article for G11, implemented by ReaderofthePack. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Do you want to address the apparent alternate account HGIChancellor? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 13:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:, thanks, I'd missed that. I've now blocked both accounts for abuse of multiple accounts for promotion, no useful edits Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Creation Suggestions

Hi, I want to create an article for Wikipedia but lacking ideas for doing the same. Kindly suggest some. Editingwork8 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession is brimming with ideas. Some of them are even good ideas. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't say what sort of things you like / have expertise in, although your page mentions librarianship. A good way to proceed is to join a Project in an area that interests you. See WP:WikiProject_Council/Directory for a list. If you click through to a few, you'll be able to join a narrower community of editors working in an area that appeals to you and they'll always have a "to-do" list. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Deleted draft: SHARON OKPAMEN

Hi,

My article was recently deleted for been too promotional... however i have edited in accordance with the wikipedia guide lines. my question is ..Can i create same article again?

thanks Smilejorge (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Smilejorge, You can not write the same because it would be again deleted for being Unambiguous advertising or promotional article. If you want to create this article again you need to re-write it in accordance with neutral point of view and there should be no puffery. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 06:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

thanks (^talk) I said i have re-written the article in accordance with NPOV. I was article if i could create a new article with same title as the deleted ? Smilejorge (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Smilejorge. Under normal circumstances, it would probably be OK for you to re-create the draft if you like by going to Draft:Sharon Okpamen and starting again if you're sure you can do so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines; however, in this case you might want to wait and see how your discussion with HickoryOughtShirt?4, the administrator who deleted the draft, at User talk:HickoryOughtShirt?4#Deleted draft: SHARON OKPAMEN goes before trying to do so. If what you posted on HickoryOughtShirt?4's user talk page is what you intend to add to the new draft, then I'm afraid that it's only likely going to end up be speedy deleted once again.

You might also want to look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for reference as well since you and perhaps Ms. Okpamen (who seems to be paying you to create the article) might not quite understand what a Wikipedia article is. Even if an article about Ms.Okpamen was to be created and survive any deletion challenge, neither she nor anyone representing her or connected to her would have no editorial control over the content of the article; article content (even negative content) will be assessed soley based upon whether it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not be what's best for Ms. Okpamen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Good day house please help look up this re-write and let me know if all NPOV criteria has been met, and if not please help edit where needed.

Many thanks

SHARON OKPAMEN

Proposed language

Sharon Okpamen is a Nigerian actress, singer and movie producer. She hails from Abudu, Edo State. Sharon was born February 16, 1989. She attended Mary Milek Nursery and Primary School and University Preparation Secondary School (UPSS), Benin, Edo State. She studied English at National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN). Sharon started acting in Asaba, Delta State in 2010. She was introduced to acting by Nollywood star John Okafor, popularly known as Mr. Ibu. She starred in her first movie ‘Touch Not My Own’. Sharon started her movie production company in 2015 as “Sharonny Production Enterprise”. Aside acting and filmmaking, Sharon is a beauty and fashion entrepreneur. She is also the CEO of Sharonny Glamour World. She has produced and featured in several other Nigerian movies. Some of the movies she has produced and featured include The Great Servant, Touch Not My Own, Take A Fall, Eshikito, Enibokun Nollose, Ovbieze Odehiomwan, Olighi, Night Hustlers, Ighosusu, Uvbi Nollose, Efosa, The Housewife, Avbakaosa Omomebo. Sharon ranks among the new category of Nigerian actors cum producers who are making a difference with their craft and worth at the moment. Following her emergence in the entertainment industry some ten years ago, through the assistance of comic actor, Mr. Ibu, thrusts on her some form of responsibility to impact positively on her environment. She released most of her flicks on the stable of her outfit, Sharonny Production. In 2018, she started making music with soundtracks on her movies in a 2019 single titled “Ukpo Vbe Gba”. Most of her movies shot mainly in her hometown and presented in her Bini dialect. With just a pair of award to her credit, Sharon says, the recognition has made her understand that her career as an actor and a singer is highly respected. So far, she has got Best Producer of The Year and Best Actress in a Lead Role. Her latest movie, Night Hustlers, was released straight to her YouTube channel sharonokpamentv in July 11, 2020. Her family live in Europe, a place she first visited when she was just an eight year-old. Her hobbies include travelling and cooking. And her favourite colour is red.

Smilejorge (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, not all NPOV criteria have been met. Your draft was rejected, not declined. What rejection means is: Stop. So please stop. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your second draft is no better. Still highly promotional, peacock-worded, and still no references. David notMD (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I do a 'quick search' from a list to see if wiki pages already exist?

Hello - I'm creating a page about someone from C19th who had connections with lots of institutions. I've created a table with a list of about 40 institutions and want to add links to the relevant Wiki page if there is one. Is there any way I can do a quick search to flag up which have wiki pages and which don't, or do I have to search for each page individually in the wiki search engine? Ruthhenrietta (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You could just link them and see if the links are blue or red. NB the 19th century was big on grandly/vaguely named institutions, and it wasn't rare for a single name to be shared by two institutions (usually at different times). So you should check that the bluelinked title is about the institution that you have in mind, not merely a namesake. -- Hoary (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course - I didn't think of that - thank you Hoary (I'm very new to all this) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta: Another little tip is to switch to the Visual Editor, highlight the institution name you want to wikilink to, and then click the chain symbol in the editor's Tools bar to add a wikilink. This rather cleverly then gives you a dropdown of potentially matching names for you to select from. Sometimes it's easy to see which is the right one to choose, but you can always 'right-click' the name to open that link in a new page to check. Hope this helps, too. Nick Moyes (talk)

Thanks Nick Moyes - much quicker! Many, it turns out, don't have pages - what's best - to have them as red 'page does not exist' or just leave as normal text... or decide which I think ought to have a page? Ruthhenrietta (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta: That's a really interesting question. It sort of comes down to judgement. Looking at your work in progress, I'd say that nobody would want to see a page full of red links like that - it makes them think someone is over-plugging these institutions. But if you genuinely feel a few of them both ought to have pages and especially if you think you, yourself, might get around to making that page some day, then do put it as red. "But if in doubt, don't add 'owt!" Another person can always add that link later. So, for example, I am fairly confident the Colston Society would now be a notable page and highly relevant in the wake of the Bristol incident, and of great interest to some people, especially it's recent vote to disband itself. But I suspect the Prudent Man's Friend Society might take a lot longer to get written about, were it ever to meet our notability criteria, so I'd not bother to wikilink that right now, myself.

Oh, BTW: another Top Teahouse Tip for you: If you go to your Preferences page (link at very top of every page) and then to Gadgets Tab, you can select Display links to disambiguation pages in orange - this is really useful for showing if you've accidentally linked to one of pages in error (not that you have done that in your sandbox at present). I can, however, see there are lots of REDIRECTS - these show up as green hyperlinks to me. But, I can't for the life of me remember right now how I set that one up. Someone is sure to remind us, though. Hope you're still enjoying the learning curve! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Afc Draft:Tyler Adkison is declined with comment of Copyright violation

CLOSED

Duplicate from the Help desk. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Sir, Due to lack of knowledge I had used content and reference of few websites in my draft Draft:Tyler Adkison. Post getting the comments from a reviewer. I have tried to fix the problem in my knowledge. And resubmitted Draft for review. Can you please guide me how can I remove the speedy deletion event against this article page.

Thanks you so much. Vsp.manu (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please dont ask the same question in multiple places. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Primary Source in a public archive

Hello,

I have an unpublished document by someone who has researched information by using a public archive. Is it ok to use the Archive as a Primary Source reference, even though the archive catalogue doesn't mention the subject of the page, and similarly, is it ok to use websites as a reference, even if they don't mention the detail?

This is what I'm talking about: I'm writing a page about someone called Thomas Daniel. The unpublished research says he was a silver token holder at Bristol Old Vic Theatre. Bristol Archives holds the archival material - http://archives.bristol.gov.uk/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=TR - and there are references to the Silver Tokens online e.g. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2015/june/old-vic-silver-tickets.html which refers to the original research done by the person whose unpublishe document I have.

But I don't have a published reference to the fact that Thomas Daniel owned a silver token.

So do I not mention it, not give a reference, or give the references above? (It's a bit odd that the Bristol Old Vic page doesn't mention the silver tokens - but I'll leave that for another day!) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is it taking too long for articles to get reviewed ?

My article has been pending since 3 months, it was supposed to be reviewed within 2 months. Can someone please review it ? Draft:Tallukh WikiSantashines (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiSantashines There is a limited number of editors that review articles, and they are volunteers who do what they can when they can. They are also reviewed in no particular order; you will need to continue to be patient. You are welcome to do other work in the encyclopedia while you wait. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Where did you get your "3 months" from? You first created your draft on 2 August, so just over 2 months ago, and it was reviewed and declined the following day. You resubmitted it for further review on 4 September, so it had been waiting just over 1 month, not 3. It has been reviewed again today, and declined for a second time. David Biddulph (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between creating a new article and simply moving it from draft to main space?

Hello, I'd be grateful for any help, as I may have misunderstood the new article approval process.

It was my understanding that a new article has to be approved by the Wikipedia community - but it seems that, just by moving an article from draft space, I've kind of stumbled into publishing it to the main space, without having to send it off for approval. It certainly looks published anyway!

Here's the draft I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAIRR_(Farm_Animal_Investment_Risk_%26_Return)

Have I misunderstood the new article process, or have I been reading old instructions? Is the article now published?

Many thanks,

Iona Oiona (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oiona Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft is now formally part of the encyclopedia, but I would urge you to move it back to Draft space and run it through the Articles for Creation process. Unless you have a great deal of experience in article creation, you will save yourself a lot of grief if you do that. If you directly create an article in the main encyclopedia, it is assumed by other editors that you know what you are doing, and if they do see an issue with the article, they will treat it more harshly than they would if you left it as a draft and asked for a review.

I can see several reasons why the text your wrote is problematic; it only tells about the organization and what it does; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organization have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The sources you have offered seem to be press-release type sources, announcements of routine business, or brief mentions, which do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

An editor has moved it to unsubmitted draft: Draft:FAIRR (Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return) David notMD (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, i want to correct and update some numbers. I'm doing this since 2016. Simis333 (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What article(s)? David notMD (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Simis333. I assume you are referring to List of European countries by average wage? You are welcome to update the contents, but remember to ensure that the sources and url's cited also link to reliable pages which includes that updated information. It's easy to update a table and forget to check whether the source links still point to the right place. Should you feel that other editors might take issue with your updates and sources, you could always discuss this first on the relevant article's talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Simis333: Did you have a specific problem editing the page? I see that you last edited it in August. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Simis333: Please do remember to add edit summaries. Especially on a big, complex page like that, it is helpful to tell other editors what you're doing. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

My sources is reliable other person dont accepted my reliable sources to what i can do

I want to know if my source is reliable but other person's who is senior editor but not administrator dont accept my source what i should do.

If two persons have different but reliable sources both have different views and opinions on same article's how i can improve the article's one person say my source is correct other say mine is correct Adsmohali (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adsmohali: Please take more care when posting your questions - you seem to have deleted another user's question - that is not helpful to anyone. I have now reinstated it. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

please excuse me i am new by mistake i have deleted other person's post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsmohali (talk • contribs) 12:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adsmohali: This is a hypothetical question, right? I can't see anything in your contributions which suggest you've come up against another editor with very different views. It doesn't matter whether the person is new, an experienced editor, or an administrator - everyone here has the right to contribute content, based on Reliable Sources. Where someone removes cited content that you have added, the best action is to discuss their concerns. Often, this is best done on the article talk page, or you can discuss it on the reverting editor's own talk page. The choice is yours. The former often alerts other interested editors, which can be helpful. Avoid edit warring (see this shortcut: WP:3RR) because it just causes disruption and can get both editors blocked for a while. We work by consensus (agreement) here, so discussion of sources and their reliability is important. If nobody can agree, you can take the issue to this discussion noticeboard for others to comment on. Depending on the topic and the sources, it can sometimes be appropriate for an article to give two alternative viewpoints to an issue. a good example might be land disputes between two nations where different sources publish different views as to that claim. Not to worry about the accident earlier. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.). Regards, 15:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Nick Moyes (talk)    

Article Reverts, and Redirects

Hi, are there any bots in the wiki system, that like to revert pages. I am trying to edit the Yamaha FZ6R wiki page, and actually fill it with solid information instead of a re-direct to something else that has zero information. Every time I do it, someone or something reverts it back to the Re-Direct page. What can I do here. RideThe6 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@RideThe6: Welcome to the Teahouse. It was not an automated bot, but an experienced editor who redirected Yamaha FZ6R back to Yamaha Diversion#XJ6 Diversion, XJ6 N and XJ6 Diversion F. This is an encyclopaedia, based on reliable sources, and not a list of unsupported specifications and petty minutiae which nobody can verify. You included no references at all and, as such, this machine does not merit a stand-alone page. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: , yes I understand what you are saying but all this info and specs are from the Yamaha FZ6R operators manual. I own two of these motorcycles and can say that the information is accurate. Why would I go through such a lengthy process to fill out false information. If the senior editor is such an expert, ask him to show me any information on the re-direct page for the FZ6R. The current links and data for this motorcycle is completely inadequate. I was hoping to change that. But I guess not. I thought this was a place for information. Well right now I see none, other than my edits. If it sources I need, then just say we need sources and not completely revert the article. I will upload sources, if it suits your highness.

@RideThe6: Please see your talk page, where I have left a message that explains some of the things with which you are having issues. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't need the sarcasm, but we do most definitely need the sources for verification. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Sources were uploaded, and still not good enuf. I don't know what else is required. The moderator that revoked it has not responded, so I will just do nothing. (RideThe6 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC));

@RideThe6: Thank you for adding that source. I suspect the issue is that, because this is an encyclopaedia, not a spec sheet, we also need to see content based on sources that have written in detail about that model. Detailed reviews in motoring literature would be ideal if that particular model is notable in its own right. I'm sorry you're finding this frustrating, but 'notability' is the key issue here. By way of example, in the computer world there are innumerable series of devices (eg. HP Envy) within that there are many sub-ranges like the HP Envy 17, then within each sub-range there are many individual models - literally hundreds of them. We would not expect a separate page on the HP ENVY 17-cg0002na, the HP ENVY 17-BW0005na, the HP ENVY 17-cg0511sa, the HP ENVY 17-bw0999na and so on. Now, I know nothing about motorbikes, but I suspect the issue is roughly the same here, with too many individual models not being uniquely notable in their own right. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC). 

Help my friend

My friend's IP address and my friend's account are all blocked. His IP address is (redacted) and his name is Ben Preston OHLA. Someone please unlock your account and help my friend's IP address. If something goes wrong, my friend has corrected it and is looking forward to their forgiveness. He asked me to help. He's naive, so everyone including Deepfriedokra will let him go and forgive him for once. 222.109.223.177 (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ben Preston OHLA (talk · contribs) has an open appeal at UTRS appeal #35552, at which he has not addressed the reasons for his block. This is not a moral issue, requiring "forgiveness". It is a matter of preventing further disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I know him very well. He never did anything wrong or anything bad. He told me that he did so for a reason. He told you already but you don't understand so I had to ask for my help because I was close to him since I was a child and I consider him like a real brother. He already knows his fault, so please if you still have some conscience, Deepfriedokra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.109.223.177 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

222.109.223.177: Please do not copy someone's signature formatting and place it at the end of your own comments, and then not sign your comment yourself. It makes it look like the comment came from that other person, not you. The correct way to mention another user is {{U|Username}}. I've corrected the instances above. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sikh empire

hi there I am not a history writer of something like that I am having some information regarding some influential members of sikh empire which is not available on internet Griffinjunior (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Griffinjunior and welcome to the Teahouse. Editors do not have to be experts; but they do have to follow Wikipedia's policies such as verifiability. If you have a reliable published source for the information you want to add to an article, please go to the article's talk page, and make a suggestion for adding the information, with a reference to the source. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please review my drafts

Hello, I wonder if someone can review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saath_Nibhaana_Saathiya_2 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ghum_Hai_Kisikey_Pyaar_Mein let me know your feedback on what's missing, how to improve it and more. Thank you. Unknownnreasonn (talk)

Draft for Roam (musician)

Hey, I've been editing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Roam_(Musician) for a few months now, improving upon the version that was previously rejected & I think it should be ready for another review and quite possibly inclusion, HOWEVER before then I need to know which is the better format for the discography: what I have there already or do I have to put everything in a table of some sort? Does it even really matter? Tiddlewinker (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Tiddlewinker, I just reviewed Draft:Roam (Musician), & I’m sorry it may not be the response you were expecting. Asides the notability issue, it is also very promotional which isn’t why I declined it, but just so you know another editor may come across it and tag it with a CSD G11. Celestina007 (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Visual editing vs normal editing

Please explain difference between visual editing and normal editing Adsmohali (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adsmohali: The Normal Editor (better known as Source Editor) is the powerful editing tool preferred by most experienced users. It writes using a very simple set of instructions for bold, underline, italics etc called 'wiki-markup'.  Visual Editor is a cut down version, more WYSIWYG in appearance, often preferred by newer users. You don't need to write using that simple 'wiki markup', but there are some things that are much harder to do with it. But writing content and adding references can be done easily with either editing tool. You can switch between editors whilst editing an article, simply by clicking the dark sloping pencil icon on the right side of the editing toolbar. You are using Source Editor here on this page, and we tend to answer questions based on that being the tool of choice unless someone tells us otherwise. You will find a lot of your newcomer questions answered by working trough some of our Help pages. Help:Introduction should help you with this one. I suggest you take our interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. If you complete it all you can collect 15 separate competency badges along the way. Best of luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adsmohali, “Normal editing” is subjective as it depends on the preference of an editor. However I think you are asking what the difference between 'Visual' & 'Source' editing is, Visual editing, is an easy way of editing whereby you are able to see in 'real time' how the output of your edit would look like once you save your edit whereas in 'Source editing' which is 'normal editing' for me, is a more complex form of editing because you’d be editing the 'Source' & this requires an editor to understand Wiki coding to a satisfactory level. Furthermore you seem to be testing your edits on mainspace, please do not do that again and you might want to cut down on using emoji's as they may make you look like you are not serious or just trolling. Thanks for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Goldbach conjecture

on 6 th October,2020 I wrote my conjecture, which I think,can be a generalization of the G.C.. But a person deleted it .Now I only request Wikipedia to prevent my post in the cancellation box ,so that no-one can steel and deliver it with their name ,because it was invented by me. Debdoot guha (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Debdoot guha I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If your generalization of the Goldbach Conjecture is noted by reliable sources in mathematics then it may be recorded on the GC's article. You may want to look elsewhere to get it published. Also keep in mind that text written on Wikipedia is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. realsanix (Hello!) 13:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Debdoot guha. Wikipedia does not permit the publication of 'Original Research', so you will need an alternative platform on which to publish your thoughts, ideas, conjectures or theories, sorry. This edit was certainly not in keeping with our encyclopaedia format! I would however point out that whenever anyone publishes and text here, the terms of service show that they are releasing it for free use or re-use by absolutely anyone, albeit with attribution. So perhaps that wasn't a good idea after all. See WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTWEBHOST for more on these limitations. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Debdoot guha If you would like the edit to be removed from the page history, you can request for revision deletion.Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#How_to_request_Revision_Deletion. realsanix (Hello!) 14:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi, how do I add a page I created Karmen Karma to a Wikiproject. I need more assistance in expanding it. 154.160.9.116 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Ajpoundz. You posted here as an IP, but I'm guessing I'm pinging your account correctly as the article creator. You only added part of the necessary template to the page, which rather messed it up. I've removed that and simply added: {{WikiProject Pornography |class= |importance= }} which should, in the next 48 hours or so, add it to this assessment section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. I've filled in the fields as 'Start' class and 'Low' importance. (See Wikipedia:Content assessment for more details on how articles are assessed here.)

Bear in mind that adding it to a wikiproject doesn't necessarily draw extra editors in (unless you post on its talk page), but this article alerts section might do just that. Hope that helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about more Notability for company page

I drafted an page about a company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AX_Semantics, and is declined because of missing significant coverage. I would have guessed that the reference on a Forbes Article (#7) and including in one of 5 vendors in Gartners Market Guide for NLG would qualify enough. - any specific hints on what to look out for more? Arachnoprobe (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Arachnoprobe, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Forbes article is based on information from the company and is therefore not independent, and makes no contribution to meeting the criteria for notability. Your use of the phrase "company page" suggests that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Your draft is not of a "company page", but of "Wikipedia's article about a company". A Wikipedia article is not for the benefit of its subject, is not owned by its subject, is not controlled by its subject, is preferably not written by its subject, and should be almost entirely based on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it. What the subject has said, done, or published is not very relevant, except where independent sources have talked about that. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, for taking care and the explanation. I think I get why the independence of the article is questionable, so I researched some more in the research area on this topic, would one of these (or these combined) qualify: (1) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/natural-language-engineering/article/natural-language-generation-the-commercial-state-of-the-art-in-2020/BA2417D73AF29F8073FF5B611CDEB97F (https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BA2417D73AF29F8073FF5B611CDEB97F/S135132492000025Xa.pdf/natural_language_generation_the_commercial_state_of_the_art_in_2020.pdf) (2) Coverage in the "Routledge Handbook of Developments in Digital Journalism Studies"? then I would expand on that, and work that into the article.

How to request a cite or an update

A certain part of a paragraph of a page needs better explanation or needs a cite but how to request for one Kommune12 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kommune12;- the simplest way is to tag the relevant section {{huh}} which produces or {{cn}} which produces - and/or start a discussion on the articles talk page. There are lots of other templates that can be used, see Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup for details - Arjayay (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there an option to semi protect your talk page?

Is it possible to restrict any people from posting your user page? I'm asking that so I don't have to worry about trolls saying random posts that mean nothing on my talk page. Is this possible? Toad62 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toad62: Only if there are troll edit wars, then yes. Even if so, it might not be permanent --♦/\/\/\TheGeometryDashFan/\/\/\♦ (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toad62: User talk pages are not usually protected absent a habitual problem with vandalism or harassment from multiple people. It won't be protected as a preventative measure. There are times where others must contact you by policy, and others also need to be able to ask you questions if needed. You are free to remove almost all content from your own user talk page that you don't want there(there's a few rare exceptions), and harassment and vandalism can be reported to the proper forums. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks guys! Toad62 (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I change the name of a draft article?

Good day, Teahouse folk. I have just submitted an article for review. It is about someone named Stuart Harris. But after I clicked the Submit button, I realised that Wikipedia already has articles on other people with that name, including a public servant, an author and a priest. My Stuart Harris was an architect.

So is it possible for me to change the title of my draft to something like "Stuart Harris (architect)"? And, if so, how do I go about it?

Thanks in advance for your help. This is all my fault. I should have checked for duplicates. After all, it's not such an unusual name. Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Mike Marchmont: and welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry – this kind of thing happens sometimes and it won't be a problem. When Draft:Stuart Harris is reviewed, if the reviewer accepts it, they will find an appropriate name to move it to (I agree that Stuart Harris (architect) seems like a plausible title), and you don't need to do anything about the title of the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 16:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea:, thanks for that very prompt reply, which is reassuring.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Edits reverted

Hello, my edits to the wikipedia page "Dustin O'Halloran" were wrongfully reverted. How do I fix this? Blue Weta (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Blue Weta It appears that your edits were restored. If this happens to you in the future, the correct thing to do is discuss your concerns with the other editor on the article talk page, or with them directly on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

what is the 2nd land form or body water in mexico

 71.92.39.86 (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. This is the Teahouse - a place for helping new users actually edit articles. We don't answer general knowledge questions here. I think you should either try a browser search on your own, or, if you aren't confident in your abilities using a search engine, you could ask the folks over at WP:REFDESK, who might help you. Try and make your question as clear as possible, though - it does look a bit confusing to me. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

StoveTeam International page still has Maintenance Template Message

Hello!

I made the changes requested in the Maintenance Template Alert Box on the StoveTeam International page, but I am unable to remove the Maintenance template because I have a conflict of interest. Could someone remove the box for me? Thank you! Forestresener (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I have removed the cleanup tag, Forestresener. I see no problems that require continued use of it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Rename article

Hi, I've added a much enlarged introductory section to my article Draft:Direction Finding by Amplitude Comparison, as advised by Wiki editors and now wish to resubmit it. However I'd first like to change its title to "Microwave direction finding by amplitude comparison" to distinguish it more from an existing article. How do I do that, or will the editor do it anyway, if my article is accepted? D1ofBerks (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

D1ofBerks Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you resubmit your draft and it is accepted, the reviewer can rename the draft. You could leave a note on the draft's talk page noting what the title should be. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Marcel Miska

Hey there, I need help with creating a wikipedia page. I have tried to publish it but it got declined. I have saved the code. Maybe I wrote too much? I would be super happy if anybody could have a look at the page I have created to let me know what I did wrong...

Best, Marcel MarcelfromLondon (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MarcelfromLondon. I'm afraid that the "help" I am going to give you is: don't write about yourself in Wikipedia. It's not forbidden, but it is very difficult for most people to forget absolutely everything they know about themselves and their lives, and write based only on what people who they don't know have published about them. But that is the only way to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. If you have three or four places where people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish significant coverage about you, in reliable sources, then it is possible you might interest an editor enough to collaborate with you. But unless you have such sources, that will be a waste of time for both you and them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Go back and redo an article

how do i go back and redo a article if i messed up. foodboy1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodboy1 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Foodboy1, and welcome to the Teahouse (I added a header before your question). If you are talking about your edits to Head of government, Serols has already undone them. Or are you talking about something else? --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Re-submitting article for Consideration

CLOSED

Duplicate thread to a WP:AFCHD thread from today.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, so happy to finally familiarize myself with the community. I have edited several articles on Wikipedia, but it is my first time trying to publish one. I have fully disclosed on my page that this time around I'm getting paid to do so. A person who originally attempted to publish the article has been rejected on several occasion and now I cannot resubmit the edited article for consideration. Could you please give me guidance as to how to jump start the process again. I am happy to learn any recommendations and I am opened to criticism.

Thank you! --Anya Kurkina (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Anya Kurkina (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please dont ask the same question on multiple places. Its yust a waste of everyone's time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename articles

What's the SOP for changing the title of an article? — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Meliora: This is done by moving the page, which you can request at WP:RM. It might be a good idea to raise the question on the article's talk page first. RudolfRed (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Abuse by a privileged editor

In the last couple of days, I spent much time improving a page. I discovered today that a privileged editor, a New York librarian, has reversed wholesale all of my work and has used his apparent status to prevent an undo. Having already spent much time, I am not now willing to manually restore my work (and besides, another editor has made two good small edits that should not be disturbed) and am sufficiently upset to want to learn exactly how this kind of behavior is enabled and tolerated at Wikipedia. Does anyone know? 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:39DC:3F51:6B41:C9BF (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This Teahouse post is the only edit from your IP address, so it is impossible to comment as we can't know which article you are referring to, or what the reason was for reverting your edits. What is the article title in question? --bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: in case this involves you... 97.90.151.52 (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have never edited the article mentioned below; I have never edited anything by the ip editor above,; there are at least 10 other active librarians in NYC who edit WP, many with advanced permissions. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

--Thank you, Bonadea, but I would like to focus on the principle of a person with special privileges at Wikipedia making such a devastating move against any contributor.

It is difficult to provide any insight without knowing more information. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the IP editor referring to Treemonisha? gnu57 17:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

--Well, 331dot, I am not in a dispute with the person. I can't compete with someone who has access to tools unknown to me. I thought we were all on the same level at Wikipedia. The person has opted not to challenge any part of my work but to simply remove it all, in one action. That's not right. I want to know how it is possible.

This is the Teahouse, where we provide help in editing Wikipedia. We don't discuss general cases here. If you give us the specifica, then we might be able to help. Incidentally, your edits are almost certainly not lost: they will still be there in the article's history. --ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a competition, we are all editors here to work on improving this project. If your edits were removed or otherwise challenged, you should discuss the matter with the other editor on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

--How do you "discuss" such an action, one that is not about any part of the work?

Well, as we don't know anything about the context of the "action" it is impossible for us to give any input except what you have already been given. If this is in fact about Treemonisha, there was a discussion at the article's talk page, Talk:Treemonisha, which went on for a a couple of days; three editors agreed that the best thing would be to revert a lot of edits even though some of them may have been constructive, for reasons that are explained in that discussion. If that was the article you mean, feel free to go to the talk page and participate in that discussion. If it is about some other article, you have two alternatives, if you want to understand what the reasons were for that revert: post to that article's talk page and ask about it there, or post on the user talk page of the editor in question. --bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

--I don't use the Talk feature. Never have, in 12 years of Wikipedia editing. Usually editors just make the specific corrections they feel necessary. That works for me, without a whole background thing going on. Many of us just don't have time, you know? We would rather put the effort into the actual page improvements. And usually there is no need to "discuss" because the material advances organically.

--Here in the Teahouse I am still left without a grasp of how someone can go in and wipe out countless hours of constructive work in one fell swoop without raising a single specific concern, and apply special tools to enforce their action. It is abhorrent. It should not be permitted. I take ColinFine's point above that the work is not "lost," but I have no idea what to do next. No contributor can be expected to argue from a point of ZERO, with everything undone, as if he has to win every point one by one, just because another person has opted to do one massive revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:39DC:3F51:6B41:C9BF (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, we can't really say any more (with any accuracy at least) without knowing more about the situation you are referencing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and while some things can be done without communication with others, being willing to communicate is a necessity. Most decisions here are made by consensus after editors discuss issues with each other. As you've been told, you should begin a discussion on the talk page- which isn't a mere "feature" but an integral part of this project- in which you detail your concerns and request more information from the other editor involved. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup. WP:Communication is required. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Over a three day period you made about 45 edits to Treemonisha (all of which can be recovered from View history). Several editors with an interest in this article discussed your changes on the Talk page of the article and agreed that one of them should revert to the draft before you started. Part of the discussion was that some of your changes were probably valid, but others not, and so intertwined that the decision was to roll all back. At one of the IP addresses your work was posted from, an invite was left on Talk to join a discussion on the article's Talk page. So yes, either withdraw from the fray, or else post one change at a time, slowly, while making a case for the changes on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

--I wanted to identify, 331dot, how it is possible for an editor to use such hidden tools against any contributor. That is why I used the word "privileged" up top. Yes, the page in question is Treemonisha. It is time for bed here now. Need to rest before Pence v Harris! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:39DC:3F51:6B41:C9BF (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The user who ended up reverting the IP edits on Treemonisha (which, again, was done after two days' worth of discussions between three different editors who all agreed that it was the reasonable thing to do) has no "hidden tools" at their disposal. They made a regular revert back to an earlier version of the article, with an explanation in the edit summary and an invitation to the article talk page. Pretty much a textbook case of how such as situation should be handled, from what I can see. --bonadea contributions talk 19:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

--Thank you, David notMD. I would invite you to compare "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treemonisha&oldid=982087126" with what is there now. Good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8F2C:3600:39DC:3F51:6B41:C9BF (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm the editor who did the revert. This entire discussion belongs on the talk page, not at the Teahouse. As mentioned above, this decision was discussed on the talk page: Talk:Treemonisha#Substantial_edits. I even said that I would not revert unless others agreed - and they did, even more strongly than I felt. We all felt that your edits added no information and was more an attempt at WP:OWN. If you can not take the time to register and participate in discussions, then only you are to blame for not engaging with others. - kosboot (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I also support kosboot's comments; as I was the first to bring my concerns to the Help Desk regarding the use of the tool: Twinkle. Even at that stage, the edits were quite extensive and questionable. I brought the discussion to the Talk Page (where it belonged); but having known for quite some time that it is impossible to tag / invite an unregistered IP address user to a discussion, I thought it best to proceed with WP protocol. The discussion was engaged and consensus was agreed upon. I stand by my comments on the Talk Page; and will continue the discussion there if necessary. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

2003: While registering an account is not required, doing so makes communication easier. Note that over time your IP number changes, so difficult for editors to Talk to you directly. My impression is that Kosboot and the others have the best interests of the article in mind. Engaging with other editors should result in some of your changes being accepted. David notMD (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I know nothing about Treemonisha, and so cannot comment competently on content. David notMD (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

From Draft To Article

How do you turn your draft into an article Spotify1451 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Oliver Vorasarn

Spotify1451 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review by another editor. However, if you were to do so right now, it would almost certainly be declined, as it has no independent reliable sources to support its content and show how the film meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable film. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Please see Your First Article for more information. Please do not be discouraged; successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Please help!

I was looking at Marton Mere for info and it’s location. Someone has obviously edited the website at the beginning and the wording is offensive. Please review it and if you have a way of stopping this person from editing web pages in future, I hope you will. There’s no knowing how much other damage he could be doing. We all use Wikipedia so much nowadays, it would be a shame that someone, who may only be doing this in jest, could be doing a lot of untold harm. Here is the web page:

Martin Mere Sand Crane (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sand Crane, Hello! Dear friend, the edits have already been reverted. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 18:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sand Crane Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you viewed the article after a vandal edited it; the vandalism has been removed. Vandals may be reported to WP:AIV; if vandalism is a habitual problem for the article, page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Some Help?

Intro

Hi. I had created a draft and it got turned down three times. Well, I gave up on the third try and because it's 6 months now, I can't edit it anymore. I have a question.

Question

Can I rewrite the document?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky7Chromebook (talk • contribs)

@Lucky7Chromebook: See WP:REFUND for options to access the draft. You can attempt to rewrite it, but unless you can address the issues that resulted in it being declined, it is likely to just be declined again. If the issue was a lack of sources demonstrating notability and you cannot find such sources after looking, then the topic is not notable and there is nothing you can do to create the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Lucky7Chromebook (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Submitting article

I submitted an article on the artist William Heaslip and I have no idea if I did it correctly. It was submitted July 28. Have I failed to do something I should have? Please help! Thanks! S. Fiegel Safiegel (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft was submitted and is pending. As this is a volunteer project, you need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that William Heaslip is notable and that we ought to have a Wikipedia article about him. Here is a link to a book entirely devoted to the work of two aviation artists including Heaslip. His work is in the collections of major museums. However, the current draft fails to show that Heaslip is notable, because the referencing is so poor. The four references in the draft are what appear to be an unpublished registration card, unpublished archives of an organization, an unverifiable museum exhibition from 80+ years ago, and an unpublished letter from 1939. Those references do not establish that the topic is notable. But a Google search indicates that it is. Safiegel, please read and study Your first article. You need to identify the very best reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this artist. You can easily do far better than your four mediocre sources. Neutrally summarize the best of those reliable sources, and you will have an acceptable Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits

why were my changes reverted? 50.83.3.212 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

None of your changes (see Special:Contributions/50.83.3.212) have been reverted. David Biddulph (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis just told me my trolling is not allowed here

Quisqualis just told me my trolling is not allowed here on my talk page, what I do? I never even trolled or even talked to this "Quisqualis". Is there an option to make them not talk to me on my talk page or something? Toad62 (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I suspect Quisqualis was suspicious when you post on other people's talk pages and say that you don't know what the 'lead' of an article means (diff) and that you're new here, and yet your user page says you've had two previous accounts here, and by your 3rd edit you've added userboxes and categories to it. That would tend to make make me a little suspicious too. You can ask people not to engage with you, but people may still leave friendly warnings or notices if they have concerns over your editing style. Because you appear to be underage, Caleb, you might wish to take note of Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors for your own safety. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC) (@Toad62: oops fixing ping. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC))

The Cremator/ Spalovac Mrtvol

Hi, I would like some help with The Cremator. I apparently violated some copyrights? I would like help detecting what specifically I violated and then fixing that and reverting everything else that is considered okay. Can someone help me with this?--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I ran a copyright check program and it identified copyright infringement with https://imdb-api.com/title/tt0063633 HOWEVER, that site states that it took info FROM Wikipedia.David notMD (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Subject of image for taxobox

Close up of a close relative - Grammonota gigas

I noticed the wiki page for Grammonota texana does not have an image for the taxobox. I happen to have an image of a specimen that I took and was planning to upload it to Commons/add it to the taxobox. The image is of a preserved specimen and does not show the entire body, only a side view of the carapace. I figured this was the best image to use as the shape of the modified carapace in this genus, from a lateral view, is diagnostic in terms of its ID.

Is there any issue with using an image of part of a creature's body, provided it emphasizes a helpful morphological feature, such as in this case? Teal Reverie (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Teal Reverie, and welcome to the Teahouse. The three key issues are that:

a) your taxon identification is definitely correct ( a misidentified image is worse than no image, and there are virtually no checks on species ID on Wikimedia Commons (a major weakness in my view))

b) Your image is encyclopaedic and potentially useful. It definitely does not have to be of the entire body. See this image by way of an acceptable one.

c) The image was taken by you (i.e. that you own the copyright and thus the right to release it to Commons)

Whilst Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not an ID guide, I see absolutely no reason for you not to contribute your specimen photo(s), and thank you for asking here. It's nice to see an article that Qbugbot made being enhanced with a photo. Do pop back if you need further help with the upload or embedding process. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I suppose it was a rather elementary question, but I wanted to be sure that it was okay. To address your points:

a) I identified the specimen using available literature, so I'm certain it's correct. I definitely agree that misidentified images that make it into the public domain are problematic.

b) That's exactly the kind of image I was referring to/interested in using. That clears things up nicely.

c) Yes, I took the image in question.

I've gotten the hang of how to upload images to here and Commons in one fell swoop, so I should be good. I'll get in touch if I do run into any setbacks though. Thanks again! Teal Reverie (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Teal Reverie: Great stuff. Glad this cleared up any concerns. I rarely see it done here, but if the Genus is a critical one, and liable to future re-working, you description on Commons could benefit from you stating the work used to ID it. I'm sure that if I uploaded photos of uk spider taxa keyed out from my ancient 3-volume copy of Lockett, Milledge & Merrett (and Linyphiids all look the same to me!), someone would probably shoot down my IDs as no longer valid under current systematic thinking. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind dropping the references I used for the ID into the description. It's a great suggestion so I'll be doing so from here on out.

One quick question about images again: if I'm using an image created previously and cropping it for upload, the creation date should be that of the cropped image, not the original, correct? Teal Reverie (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Teal Reverie: To be honest, I would go for the original image creation date, not a date when you subsequently edited it. For example, an old image I might have taken of the New York city skyline photo showing the Twin Towers would cause confusion if I cropped and dated it 2020. So stick with the original date, in my view. (To notify another editor, make sure you include their user name and that you sign your post in one and the same edit (more advice in WP:PING). I nearly missed this follow up question. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Put up article

hello please am trying to put up an article on Wikipedia so i was told this "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." so how do i resolve the issues so it can be approved and not deleted Mr.Right Gmcfr (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr.Right Gmcfr Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you done as the advice you were given suggests? Reading the links you were provided will explain what you need to do. In order to merit an article, this company must receive significant coverage(not press releases, interviews, brief mentions, or routine announcements) in independent reliable sources showing how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The draft as it is now just tells about the company and what it does; that is insufficient to establish notability.

If you work for this company, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to review the paid editing policy and formally declare that status. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

He came onto -en-help and was told pretty much the same thing. His responce was to proposition the volunteers who were trying to help him. Needless to say, he's been removed from that channel (and naturally, both told him no in no uncertain terms). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 00:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk page comments on Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

I have made a number of contributions to a Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Benghazi_attack#Orwell). I have never deleted, modified, or changed anyone else's contributions. However, several folks have deleted my Talk page comments. They are Soibangla and NorthBySouthBaranof. What should be done about this? I view it as malicious vandalism. Pschaeffer (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comments are inappropriate and violate guidelines and policies for the use of Wikipedia talk pages. Talk pages are not a general forum for you to discuss and share your personal viewpoints about issues. They are a place to discuss the article and improvements to it. If you have specific suggestions about how the article can be improved, and specific sources to support those suggestions, please feel free to post. Ranting about Hillary Clinton with an accusatory, possibly-libelous section headline will simply be removed or hidden. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I provided a factually accurate statement about the conduct (misconduct) of Hillary Clinton. My factually accurate statement was supported by FactCheck.org. It is also supported by comparable material appearing in the Washington Post and the report of a Congressional Committee. You should know that the truth is perfect defense against accusations of libel. My Talk page contribution included a link to FactCheck.org page. You don't have to like the truth, but denying it is rather poor conduct. Peter Schaeffer Pschaeffer (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages aren't places for you to discuss what you think is or is not the truth. If you don't have a specific and actionable change to the article to suggest, you need to move on to some other topic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is demonstrably not true that you have "never... deleted anyone else's contributions".[2][3][4] Further, you have been edit-warring with several other editors in order to retain an unsourced defamatory remark about a living person. This is a breach of one of Wikipedia's core principles, and if you continue acting in this way you are likely to find yourself blocked from further participation here. RolandR (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

How can I submit a draft for review?

Hello, How can I submit a draft for review? Thanks Ala.academics (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ala.academics. If the draft you're referring to is Draft:Sharif Moghaddam, then I've added Template:AFC draft to the top of the page and all you need to do is click "Submit your draft for review" when you're ready.

Now, you're not connected to Moghaddam in any way, are you? Did you just decide to create an article about him or were you asked to do so by someone else? If you're connected to him in any way, please carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest because it contains information that you might find helpful. You might also want to read through Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names for reference as well just to get a better understanding of some important things about Wikipedia that new editors like yourself aren't usually aware of. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please address all of Marchjuly's questions. I deleted a lot of CV-type content from the draft that has no place in a Wikipedia article, What is missing are references ABOUT Moghaddam, as the majority of references are to stuff he has written. Google search results are not valid references. David notMD (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Draft article to Duplicate subject in article space

What is the current consensus on merging from Draft to Article Space? Is it allowed yet. I'm dealing with a request at Merger Request Noticeboard and am unsure how to proceed. Input welcome. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 02:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The unnamed man who appears in Jesus's cave in Mark?

Hello, I would like to make a suggestion for a new page. The unnamed man who appears in the cave in The Gospel of Mark after the women roll the stone away. Naked fugitive has his own article so I am not sure why this other unnamed man does not. Thoughts? Mr. 123453334 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. 123453334, there are a variety of (often subjective) considerations that are made about whether a topic should have a stand-alone article or be merged into a broader topic. One very important consideration is whether the topic passes the general notability guideline. If you can find sufficient sources for this unnamed man and think he warrants coverage separate from the Gospel of Mark page, feel free to write the page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Mr. 123453334. Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for more details, but generally arguing that an article should exist simply because a another similar article exists is not always a good approach to take because it's sometimes the case that the other article shouldn't exist. So, any article you create about this subject will have a better chance of surviving a deletion nomination if you can establish that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability on its own merits. Perhaps a good place to ask about this would be at Talk:Gospel of Mark or even at one of the Wikiprojects listed at the top of that talk page because those are places where you're likely going to find people familiar with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi protected (2)

Hello, I got a message yesterday that I have completed ten edits but I am still unable to edit semi protected pages.So I have to know why this is happening Eroberar (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eroberar: you should be able to. Which page are you attempting to edit, and what is the exact error message you get? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I try to edit some semi protected pages but it doesn't work and I didn't get any error message but I get informed throw notification that I completed ten editsEroberar (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Special:UserRights/Eroberar you are autoconfirmed. In what way does it not work – what happens when you try to edit the article? --bonadea contributions talk 06:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding a ping also, again, which article is it you are trying to edit? --bonadea contributions talk 06:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eroberar: I see that after posting here you were able to edit the semiprotected Banaphar. Did you perhaps forget to save your edit before? —teb728 t c 08:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Creation Suggestions (2)

What can I write on Artificial Intelligence? Editingwork8 (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your contribution history suggests that you like to add references. Perhaps it's better for you to have more practice in improving and augmenting articles before you try creating them. Cyc is an example of an article with plenty of unreferenced material. (Randomly chosen example, after removing markup: The US Government reacted to the Fifth Generation threat by passing the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984, which for the first time allowed US companies to "collude" on long-term high-risk high-payoff research, and MCC and Sematech sprang up to take advantage of that ten-year opportunity. MCC's first President and CEO was Bobby Ray Inman, former NSA Director and Central Intelligence Agency deputy director.). The article on Cyc might also be improved by augmentation: I'm not qualified to judge. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added "(2)" to your subheading: it's confusing when a subheading is duplicated within a single page. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Editingwork8, you could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, which is a reasonably active WikiProject. You may also want to work on any of the pages listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Technology#Artificial intelligence concepts (15 articles)—from that page, I notice that Deep Blue (chess computer) was recently delisted from being a good article, so you could work to bring it back up to standard, or you could try to improve Friendly artificial intelligence or Weak AI, both of which are rated as low-quality. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Hoary Thank you very much for this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingwork8 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Brian Bevan

On two occasions I have corrected mistakes on Brian Bevan's Wikipedia page, namely his date of birth and the spelling of his middle name. On the second occasion I was very careful to give a precise source - but still my edit was undone and the incorrect information is back on the Wikipedia page. Brian Bevan, a huge figure in the sport of rugby league, was born on 24 June 1924 (not January) and his middle name was Eyrl (not Earl). How can I make sure the correct information appears? I am happy to chat with whoever is undoing my good work, by phone, email or through Wikipedia. I just want the right facts to be available. Gary Slater Garyslater61 (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Garyslatee61 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You should discuss the matter on the article talk page. It may help you if you provide a more complete citation; see WP:CITE for information on making citations. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garyslater61: I'm afraid the cause of your edit being reverted is, as 331dot says, a lack of a proper citation. This edit would have been seen by another edit as unacceptable and reverted. It really is terribly easy to add a full and proper citations to any website, book, periodical or news outlet. But. like anything, it takes a while to learn the simple tricks. Just use the 'Cite' button in the editing toolbar, and then click on the 'look up' function or magnifying glass icon to auto-insert much of the details. You just then need to check and add or correct anything not right. My advice is to add references using WP:Source Editor - it's much better than Visual Editor - especially if you want to add extra fields like a second author, though the choice is yours. There's helpful guidance and videos at WP:REFBEGIN, or on my own page at WP:ERB. Hope this helps you improve your editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes. Thanks for your reply. I have again corrected the two mistakes on the Brian Bevan page taking great care over the source. I think the problem may stem from the rugbyleagueproject source which has the wrong date of birth. I have emailed them directly and am waiting for a reply. Thanks again for your help. Gary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyslater61 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Garyslater61: You're welcome. We had a bit of an edit conflict, as I'd written what follows before seeing your reply above. Whilst not perfect, your reference is better now. But a really good, well-constructed inline citation to his middle name and birth date that you should have used, and which would have stood no chance of being reverted, would be like this or, better still, this.

Interestingly, I noticed afterwards that the Australian Dictionary of Biography reference was already in the article, so that could have been cited again to support your changes. To reuse an existing citation, see WP:REFNAME. Just remember, nobody ever reverts you out of spite - but they can't read your mind either. So we do the best we can and reverse changes that seem unlikely. In this case you were quite right, but hadn't given the other editors enough to go on to Verify what you added. Better luck next time! I hope you find this extra bit helpful. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

New laws of thermodynamics.

Hi, I can create new laws of physics using the concept of duality, this means I would have to edit your page on the laws of thermodynamics. The new laws are:- Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy (Shannon) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. The conservation of duality (energy) -- the 5th law of thermodynamics. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Energy is duality, duality is energy. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. If you want me to add these new laws then I will need some help on how to use Wikipedia? Hyperduality (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hyperduality Per WP:No original research, I don't think we do. But if you're interested in editing WP in general, you can try WP:ADVENTURE and/or WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Book republished under a new title

Hi there, I'm editing this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Kelly_(author)

One of the author's books has recently been republished under a new title. Stone Mothers is now We Know You Know

How do I include that in the bibliography, to reflect both titles? I've already included a note in the 'Novels' section to explain it. Apologies if this is included in an FAQ post but I couldn't find anything.

Thanks Kantel6 (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kantel6. My suggestion would be to add a new level underneath Stone Mothers in the "Bibliography", as follows:

• Stone Mothers (April 2019)
  • Republished as We Know You Know (date here)

Alternatively, you can have the older book underneath the newer one saying "Originally published as..." depending on which one is more notable. Hope that helps. Isabelle ^🔔 14:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Isabelle Thanks for your reply, that helps!

Patents as primary sources?

In declining the draft:Luminar Technologies Synoman Barris said in part that it relied on primary soures and did not show significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources.

In noting my use of primary sources, was Synoman Barris‬ referring to the use of the US Patent and Trade Office to document Luminar's patents? If so, I would argue the fact that an 8-year old company has been assigned over 80 patents related to LiDAR technology goes a log way towards establishing WP.GNG. Other than USPTO and Google Patents, I know of no other way to document these.

Luminar Technologies has had significant coverage in national publications for its work on LiDAR technology in self-driving vehicles. Much of the company's foundation and early history is covered in George Gilder's book Life After Google, which I have cited.

Magazine feature articles that were cited came from Forbes, The Verge, VentureBeat and Fast Company.

Cited news organizations covering Luminar include Wired, CNBC and Market Watch.

Cited industry tech/trade publications covering Luminar include MIT Technology Review, IEEE Spectrum, Car and Driver, Automotive News and Optics.org.

Finally, Synoman Barris‬ questioned whether I was being paid to create this page, and if so, to disclose. I did declare via WP.PAID on the talk page when this was initially posted. This, and the fact that the page was declined only 4 minutes after it was posted leads me to question how carefully this submission was reviewed.

I am happy to continue working on the Luminar page to improve it, but feel that reliable secondary sources have been used in the creation of this page, and the citing of patents supports the case for notability.

I welcome any suggestions for moving the Luminar page forward. Tlvernon (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging Synoman Barris. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This was the version of the draft I declined, my main reason for declining the draft was because it read like an advertisement and it did not adhere to the neutral point of view. I never really did mention the use of primary resources as my reason for declining (see my comment). When writing about companies we should always adhere to the neutral point of view even though it may be difficult at times. The whole point of AFC is to make sure an article is near perfect when moved to main space to avoid deletion or being tagged. Cheers Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 13:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

My question

Why isn't there an abuse filter to prevent and block those who blank pages? ♦/\/\/\TheGeometryDashFan/\/\/\♦ (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

https://badquotevusers.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/history/4/item/7 is an example ♦/\/\/\TheGeometryDashFan/\/\/\♦ (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

GeometryDashFan12, from my experience ClueBot NG normally catches these edits. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Queen of England

How old is the Queen of England? Hankerr21 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hankerr21: Great question - though not really relevant to this help forum about editing Wikipedia.

Now, if only we had an encyclopaedia we could look it up in... How about you try: Elizabeth II? Good luck, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

AVN

Hi, could someone please tell me when a source like Adult Video News is considered reliable and when it isn’t. What is the problem with Draft:Kenna James (adult model). Thanks in advance.Szilard (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Szilard, and welcome to the Teahouse. The content of AVN might be reliable in a literal since, but it looks to be an insider magazine/news outlet, and thus isn't regarded as an independent reliable source of in-depth, unbiased information (see WP:RS). The days are long gone when Wikipedia regarded porn film actors and actresses differently from other entertainers. The criteria for notability are laid out in WP:ENT and, I suspect, insider awards such as 'tightest twat' or 'best lesbian sex scene' in a non-notable film are rather equivalent to McDonald's 'employee of the month' awards, and don't count for much here. If the person has been written about in detail and in depth by non-insider magazines and promotional websites, then they might be considered under our WP:NBIO criteria. Please read through these shortcuts links in detail to understand Wikipedia's perspective on 'Notability', and how to meet it. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

How do I submitted my draft into an article? Spotify1451 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spotify1451:, You have already re-submitted the Draft:Kokusai himitsu keisatsu: Kayaku no taru for AfC review. If it is found to be fine per Wikipedia guidelines on the subject, an AfC volunteer would accept the draft and move it to main article space. Have a look at WP:NFILMS to know what kinds of film articles are accepted on the Wikipedia. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 15:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Making a page

Hi! I was wondering how to make new pages? I wanted to make a Wikipedia about a website and what they do. HTTP://teenagerswithexperience.com Allmynasa (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Allmynasa! See WP:ORG for the criteria on if a website can have an article on WP. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem.", then move on to Help:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Allmynasa: If you want the ability to create a page, your account must have 10 edits and a life span of at least 4 days ♦/\/\/\TheGeometryDashFan/\/\/\♦ (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Allmynasa, and welcome to the Teahouse. While GeometryDashFan12's answer is accurate, I think it is misleading. Unless you are a very experienced Wikipedia editor, I would advise you not to try to create an article in this way, but rather to use the articles for creation mechanism to create a draft. I would also go further, and say that creqating a new article is one of the hardest tasks in editing Wikipedia, and editors who try to create a draft without having at least a few weeks' experience of improving existing articles often have a very frustrating time, and sometimes waste their effort trying to write a draft about a subject that is never going to be accepted, because it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Writing an edit summary in the visual editor

When I write an edit summary in the visual editor, a dropdown appears showing my edit summary history. This does not happen in the source editor. I would like to know if there is way to get rid of the dropdown showing my edit summary history. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, this is directly implemented in VE code and cannot be changed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, I can get another editor who has knowledge with VE to confirm that it is not possible. Interstellarity (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Where do I request interface features

I want to request something to be added to the interface. ♦/\/\/\TheGeometryDashFan/\/\/\♦ (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GeometryDashFan12, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the sections of the WP:Village pump would be most appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs)

War in Donbass

What is the War in Donbass? HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryFanOfItAll1999: This sounds like something you should Google or use Wikipedia to find out, rather than expect this editing help desk to answer for you. You could always try WP:REFDESK, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, HistoryFanOfItAll1999, we have an article called War in Donbass. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this a real publisher?

A citation was added to Cognitive psychology by a wikiedu student yesterday. Comparing the book text to the article revealed large sections of identical (cut and paste) content. My first assumption was plagiarism by a WP editor, but upon further investigation of the publisher ED-TECH Press, it seemed possible that the plagiarism runs the other way. All of the large selection of books on the site give an impression of being fake, from the cover images to the author's names, which include no academic affiliations. WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The publisher seems to exist, they're registered at a real address, at least. But the book doesn't seem to have gone through any kind of editorial process, with a typo in literally the first sentence. I'd assume this is some kind of predatory publisher that publishes anything sent their way. Additionally, I don't see any information about "Sabian Fleming" online outside of references to this book. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The "real address" shown on google maps is a commercial street in the UK that is likely just a mail drop. The companieshousedata page linked above says "There are 33 companies at this address". The question is, should the apparent plagiarism simple be ignored, the citation deleted? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is copied by a publication, it makes little sense to cite such a publication as a source for any Wikipedia article, does it? Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia articles, so the citation ought to be deleted.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

'Universal' sign-in

Hi folks,

• Question about the 'universal' sign-in. Is it truly universal in that I don't need to sign in to edit articles on other language sites?
• And related: I need to create User pages on other language sites as well, correct? - Many thanks for any and all insight. Bob Ramsak (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Bob Ramsak (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Bob Ramsak:

1. So long as you don't sign out, yep! If you stay logged in, and look up another Wikipedia, you should be logged in! (This also has a weird consequence that you can sometimes get welcome messages from Wikipedias you've never edited - just this week I got one from the Bengali Wikipedia, which I have never even visited.)
2. Not really. If you create a userpage on Meta, the 'Wikipedia for Wikimedia projects', it will automatically become your userpage on all projects that you haven't created a userpage for. For example, on Wikimedia Commons, (which I haven't created a UPG on), my Meta-wiki userpage comes up. That said, you can create a dedicated userpage for a certain project (by clicking on the 'Create source' or 'Add local description' buttons). An example of a dedicated userpage is my English Wikipedia one, which you can find here --> Giraffer ^munch 18:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

What is with these numbers?

For some reason, when I go to the edit history of anything there will be these numbers that are green and have a plus sign in front of the number, red with a negative sign in front of the number, and one that is just grey and the number is always 0. What do these mean? Toad62 (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Toad62, welcome to the Teahouse! Those numbers tell you whether the edit added content or removed it, and how much, net. —valereee (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

... (see Help:Page history). --David Biddulph (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Stay safe! Toad62 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Toad62: these numbers indicate the difference of the revision and the previous one in bytes. Red numbers mean bytes have been removed, green numbers meen they have been added, and a grey zero indicates that both versions have the same size. Please be aware that one character is not nessesarely one byte, certain characters like special characters and emojis may take up to 4 bytes. Victor Schmidt (talk)

Request for independent re-creation of current Wikipedia page for Larry D. Thomas

I have had a Wikipedia page for many years (under the name of Larry D. Thomas). This morning, I noticed on my page that a box was added indicating that my page has multiple issues. Would it be possible for my page to be independently re-created to absolve the issues noted?

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Most respectully,

Larry D. Thomas 73.98.126.125 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

73.98.126.125, Hello. That would be a conflict of interest case and you should avoid editing the article about you. On the Wikipedia, articles lacking certain things are tagged with curation/maintenance tags. Once the issues are addressed by editors, they remove the related tags. The article has been tagged with three different issues, a GNG fail, lack of inline citations and perhaps a COI tag, that it is edited by someone close to the subject. The third thing may be discussed on the articles talk page. However, the first two issues need to be addressed with addition of inline citations from independent reliable sources having significant coverage about the subject. If an article remains failing this criteria, it may likely be deleted. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

In case if the article subject is notable (article is not deleted though it may be AfD'd by any editor until there isn't any source which verifies the notability), the unreferenced content is removed or some editors try to add references. Depending on the nature and interest of editors. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 19:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, TheAafi, Mr Thomas did not suggest that he would do anything to the page, but asked if it could be re-created - I take that to mean that he is asking if somebody else would do that. Mr Thomas: the problem is that everybody here is a volunteer, and works on what interests them. Furthermore, if you look at the deletion discussion, you'll see that one editor has looked for sources that would let you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and failed to find any. The only way you can save the article (which, by the way, is not your article: it is Wikipedia's article about you) is by finding two or three places where people who have no connection with you, and have not been projmpted or given information by you or your associates, have chosen to publish significant coverage about you, in reliable sources. If you find such sources, you may contribute to that deletion discussion: you'll presumably give a "keep", and then be transparent about the fact that you are the subject, and give bibliographic information (and links if they are online) to the places where you have been independently written about.

But I'm afraid that if even you cannot find such sources, then you do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article about you will be accepted, whoever writes it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Template for TCMDb title and TCMDb name needs updating

Turner Classic Movies (tcm.com) has recently changed its website to a new system and now all of the existing external links in Wikipedia articles using the TCMDb title and TCMDb name templates opens a page on their website that says "Oh no! It appears the page you were looking for doesn't exist anymore or might have been moved." Could anyone out there fix these templates for use in future edits, and if it's possible, do a batch update of existing ones? Lee Leander (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I noticed this a few days ago and reported it here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#TCMDb snafu. It is being worked on but it may take awhile to get all the kinks worked out. MarnetteD|Talk 19:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent

This is maybe a two-part post. First, it is a request that other experienced editors look at it and see if they agree with my decline. Second, it is a request that other experienced editors look at film notability guidelines and see whether I am misreading the guidelines, whether other enthusiastic editors who follow movie news are misreading the guidelines, and whether the guidelines should be clarified.

I declined the draft because it is about an unreleased movie that has begun principal photography and has not been released. The author appears to be saying that it qualifies for an article because it has begun principal photography.

My reading of the guideline is that a film that is still in production is notable if there has been something notable about the production itself, such as that the Chicago Tribune reported that several blocks in downtown Chicago were closed to vehicular traffic for filming of the car chase scene, or that Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the producer fired the supporting actress and reworked the scenes. My reading of the draft is that a reliable source says that production started.

My follow-up question is whether the guideline on future films should be rearranged somewhat. The first paragraph says that films are not notable until principal photography begins. The third paragraph then says that films that are in production are only notable if the production itself is notable. This may cause editors to think that the start of production is more important than it is, when what is usually important is theatrical release.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

On this particular draft, Robert McClenon, my response is this. On the desirability of reworking the guideline on future films: I have my own ideas, but I think that any discussion should take place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) unless there's a good reason for an alternative. This teahouse seems ill-suited to it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Paid Question

Hi all,

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I am still familiarizing myself with the interface. I have disclosed that I am being paid to edit an article, however, since it was rejected due to my new boss not disclosing her identity, I am having trouble submitting for revision. It says that the article will no longer be considered? How should I jump start the submission process again?

Thank you.

Warmly, Anya --Anya Kurkina (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Anya Kurkina (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

After Rejection

I will restate the question. Draft:Scott Dadich was rejected (not declined). There isn't (to the best of my knowledge) a standard procedure for what a submitter can do after a draft is rejected, other than leave it alone and work on something else. At least the Original Poster is asking the question politely and is now trying to edit in accordance with our rules. (We won't go into past errors.) Would it, for instance, be appropriate to G7 the rejected draft and start a new one, possibly with a comment saying that it replaces the rejected draft?

I have many times advised the author of a rejected draft to discuss before trying to resubmit, but this may be the first time that there has been a civil question of how to resubmit a rejected draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that this user took up the effort to create this article after her boss who created the draft failed to create it; the OP said the other user was the article subjects PR person so I blocked them as a UPE. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's a passable article buried in the poor formatting. The existing sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability. I may take a shot at it next week if nobody else wants to. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The draft in question was created by an undisclosed paid editor, User: MisMurphy, in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. I think this draft should be abandoned as fatally flawed, and a new draft should be started from scratch. Anya Kurkina, be scrupulous about following all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Need review from others

Hello everyone,

I have worked on this article - Gary Vaynerchuk - where the notice at the top of the page said that it needed improvement by removing promotional content. I have removed a lot of promotional content but have kept the essence of the article the same. It would be great if someone can please review it and see if that notice was addressed and the issue was fixed. Thanks! 24.39.110.82 (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Have reworded a little bit more and removed the tag. Could be changed even more though, there's still some sort of a promotional essence to the article, but there's no longer any directly promotional content that I could see. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"First known as a wine critic who expanded his family's wine business, Vaynerchuk is now more known for his work in digital marketing and social media as the chairman of New York-based communications company VaynerX, and as CEO of VaynerX subsidiary VaynerMedia." The links, which are currently red, are mine. If what he's best known for is running two companies, I'd expect that en:WP would have articles about these; as long as it doesn't, I wonder about his notability; as long as I wonder about the notability of a living person (particularly a living businessperson) who has an article in en:WP, I wonder about promotionalism. (Of course, saying this may prompt the creation of another article that might seem promotional.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Greetings!

Long time reader, new member. I had an auto-pay set up to support the site monthly (go team!). But one day I clicked edit on whatever it was I was reading, just to see what would happen, and saw that I had been banned from editing?! I think I was even labeled? Idk. It's been some time ago by now, and I really didn't think to lean into it, never even looked around for where to inquire. Just cancelled my auto-pay & kept it moving, until the donate notice popped up today & jogged my memory.

I have no idea if this is the right place to ask, but I'm just curious about it. I don't submit anything here or wish to, but I did see a discrepancy that one time and was moved to see about a correction when I noticed the ban. Guess I must've felt a way since I canceled the donation, but I didn't see the logic in sending money each month to a place where I couldn't even get a notice or inquiry about whatever infraction I committed.

Anyways, hiiii *waves* banned newbie here!

Take care, And stay safe! 2601:3C7:4200:AAC0:CCAC:1F0F:78B6:84C5 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, IP user. Please note that, as an IP, you are not a "member" and are not using any Wikipedia account. If you do have a Wikipedia account, it would help us to help you with your problem if you were to mention the user name of the account so we may review your editing history. Thanks and stay safe--Quisqualis (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Were you banned while using a different IP, or were you logged into an account? I ask because the ip you are using is not currently blocked or banned. I don't think we can help you unless we know that. Ghinga7 (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• The most likely explanation is that your internet service provider rotates IP addresses between users (see DHCP) and as a consequence you ended up with the address that someone else had used previously to vandalize or cause other mischief. If you create an account, you will not be subject to IP bans, so we strongly recommend it if you intend to be editing. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Vineet Bhatia Article Help Writing

I need help from a volunteer to help tweak this article on Vineet Bhatia so that it can be read with an impartial tone. Ronbhat24 (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Appears to be about Draft:Vineet Bhatia rather than the existing article Vineet Bhatia London (one of his restaurants). David notMD (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Something's broken on Teahouse Archive 1062

Hello, just noticed this while reading the Teahouse Archives (Mobile Version). All is as usual until you reach question (#141 If you're counting) "why an old page which was active for some years in subject to deletion?" it appears like the last topic on the page. But when you expand it a lot of other topics appear, with headlines and all, but they act "as one", you cant expand/hide them individually. (In desktop mode it seems to be normal). So what's amiss here? Something to do with the mysterious "sidebar" in question_141? Maresa63 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting the problem Maresa63; I think I have fixed it. Someone wrapped the {{sidebar}} in a {{collapse}} but closed the collapse before the close of the sidebar. —teb728 t c 05:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Works fine for me! Thank you very much 😁! --Maresa63 (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Owning a article

If we were the legitimate owner of information, we have the ability to create an account with our legal name then send the necessary documentations to confirm that, we are the legitimate owner of information, and that we know it best, so if Wikipedia approves, no one else is able to make changes to the information we put out. Does this policy or rule exist? Nakhonmuengin (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nakhonmuengin. Wikipedia policy is the opposite of that: Almost anyone can edit almost any article, but the subject is strongly discouraged from editing an article of of which it is the subject. And only an individual may have an account. —teb728 t c 03:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nakhonmuengin. As teb728 points out, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and even in some ways Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not would not allow you any such control over article content; so, if that's what you're looking for, then perhaps one of the sites listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets would be better suited to what you seem to want to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

what about Office_actions? I need to write an official content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakhonmuengin (talk • contribs) 05:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

That is for when the Wikimedia Foundation - Wikipedia's owners and maintainers - need to step in. We don't do "official" content. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

uploading an image?

How do I upload an image for an article's poster? The image at the top of the page? I put it in the area it said to but when I clicked to upload nothing showed up. Mr. 123453334 (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. 123453334, the image parameter is the name of the file on Wikipedia (of Commons) not the url of the file on the internet. You have to upload the file as described in WP:Files before you can use it. —teb728 t c 06:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, please be aware that There are two steps in adding an image to an article: (1) Upload the image to Wikipedia or to Wikimedia Commons (freely licensed files only, not suitable for most files found on the internet) . (2) Add the image to the Article, like showing on the right. Check the source code of this setion to see how its done.

An example image

The first step is the step that is more error-prone, because it requires at least a basic understanding of the copyright rules regarding images, which are quite complex. Therefore, I recommend that you use the File Upload Wizard for step 1. If you are unsure about something in the wizard, please ask again with all Information you already have about the image. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. 123453334: If your photo was of a promotional poster for the film The Junk Shop, I suspect this could only be uploaded to Wikipedia and there and only there under a WP:FAIRUSE licence. Wikimedia Commons does not accept any images under a fair use licence, so it would have to be a direct upload to English Wikipedia. I did intend to look for your failed edit but, because you have hardly ever used EDITSUMMARIES with your edits (80% failure rate), I wasn't willing to wade through each and every one of them to check for you. Please remember to use edit summaries every time in future - it helps both you and everyone else. (You can change your Preferences to prompt you if you forget - something I wish English Wikipedia we had activated by default). Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Image syntax

Hi I have a simple question: How do I position a photo that I have uploaded on a page I am writing? 2406:E003:1CA9:D101:6CF9:584:1025:2B08 (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, see Help:Pictures. Ruslik_Zero 08:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Seeking help to add content to my Wikipedia page

Dear Wikipedia volunteers. I have a Wikipedia page and it is incomplete. I know that I am not allowed to edit/delete or add content on my own, so seek a Wikipedia volunteer to do this for me please. Previously CaptainEek, a volunteer, helped me insert a photograph of myself to my page, but he is now too busy. Now I would like to include more facts about my career that are verifiable with newspaper articles and online news stories (I can supply links to these). I'd be grateful if someone can step forward. Thank you. (Please note that I was blocked in the past because I unknowingly used my website address as my username here. I have since been unblocked and changed my username, request is pending)Wwwedgoldcouk (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Wwwedgoldcouk (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wwwedgoldcouk, hi and welcome to the Teahouse! Please do {{edit request}} on the page's talk page! Happy editing! Heart ^(talk) 08:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797,Thank you very much for your reply. I am new to making contact with volunteers on Wikipedia and have a great deal of trouble to navigate the different pages. Please can you give me an extremely simple description of exactly I need to go to, in order do what you suggested. For example, you wrote "Please do {{edit request}} on the page's talk page!" - on which page's talk page? The Teahouse talk page or my talk page? Please give me a step by step guide of where I have to go to, in order to ask for help. Thank you.Wwwedgoldcouk (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wwwegoldcouk All WP articles also have a talkpage. So, you would place the edit request on the article’s talkpage, not your current Wwwgoldcouk user talkpage. Two curly brackets, then the words edit request, followed by two curly brackets. Just a note...people tend to get a bit bothered by certain wording, here. So, if WP has an article about you, please don’t refer to it as “your page” or “your article”. Otherwise, you will be informed that the article “belongs” to Wikipedia...which is true, of course, but there’s no need for you to offend, now that you know! Hope this helps, and good luck.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Senzo Mazingiza

Hi, Team. I have created by my own knowledge an article Senzo Mazingiza, but it was tagged for speedy deletion. the topic is notable its just i don't know how to rewrite it in proper so that it could fit for Wikipedia article. You may use some reliable sources from Google and other source. I hope that i will get the help. THANKS 4realtz (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@4realtz: please review WP:NPERSON along with WP:42 and present us your best three sources you think would help establishing notability of the subject. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving a Draft to Main Space

I have seen a lot of videos and looked into many articles as well, but I am unable to find a proper way of taking my draft to the main space. Can you please help me. I have already sent the draft for a review, but it seems like everytime its being dropped. Nehanair86 (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could look at my page and let me know if I am missing something - Draft:Mmmmm

Nehanair86 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You cannot directly create articles until you are autoconfirmed- meaning that your account has at least 10 edits and is at least four days old; you meet the former criteria but not the latter. However, even once the four days are up, it is strongly advised that- unless you have great experience in article creation- that you use the review process and allow it to play out. The draft will be treated better under a review than it would be if you moved it immediately to article space, should problems be found. In the case of an upcoming film, you will need to show that it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable upcoming film. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)