Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1036: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:11, 7 December 2019

Revision as of 05:16, 8 December 2019

Line 661:

Another quick question, how can I change my username?--[[User:Gumshoe97|Gumshoe97]] ([[User talk:Gumshoe97|talk]]) 00:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

: {{re|Gumshoe97}} See [[WP:UNC]], there is a link there to request a change. [[User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed]] ([[User talk:RudolfRed|talk]]) 00:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Edits to [[Dylan Wruck]] ==

Hi Zamekrizeni I don't understand why you keep putting your own opinionated comments about injury to Dylan Wruck's profile. No other professioal hockey player has has an anything about their injuries or an injury report in their profile. So I keep changing the profile fit with the other profile of Professional player I read on this sight. I would appreciate if you would delete the comments that you put on his profile about his injury and the part about him going to Canada to rehab this has no bearing on his accomplishment as a athlete.

It seems as you have a personal issue here in which you need to overcome and instead of looking up articles that verify what was written by people that know the above person and his background of accomplishment. Something the non administrator can not do and it is not easy to leave notes on this sight. I have tried to leave you notes to verify the edits and looks like some of the other administrators has found the stats , from the 2009 U17 tournaments and other edits. I will leave it up you to remove what I have ask you to do. You know it is the right thing to do as again no other hockey professional has anything about injury his his profile this is not a injury report and a place to put personal edits from a journalist who has been taken out of context -with the return to Canada thing not sure what is so important to you to have that in there. Again Please remove Thank You <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.169.6.50|198.169.6.50]] ([[User talk:198.169.6.50#top|talk]]) 15:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{ping|198.169.6.50}} I think you may be posting in the wrong place. If this is aimed at {{u|Zamekrizeni}} you are better off posting on their talk page, or else on the talk page of [[Dylan Wruck]], which I assume is the article in Question. The Teahouse is for general questions about how to edit Wikipedia. [[User:Hugsyrup|<i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>]]^{[[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup]]} 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

::{{U|Hugsyrup}} Please remembver that pings don't work for unregistered (IP) editors. One can use a Tehouse talkback instead (as I have now done).

::IP Editor, I endorse Hugsyrup's advice, but would suggest posting to the article talk page, perhaps with a [[WP:PING|ping]] to the user in question. Remember, pings must be [[WP:SIGN|signed]] to work. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 15:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

::: I don't see any "opinionated comments" and I don't have any "personal issue". It is about facts which are "based on reliable, third-party, published sources" in accordance with Wikipedia rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources This is the case for the mentioned information in this article, in my opinion. It is untrue that "No other professioal hockey player has has an anything about their injuries or an injury report in their profile". It is easy to find several articles of pro hockey players which include information about injuries, which I think is relevant, because injuries are as much part of professional sports as accomplishments as an athlete. [[User:Zamekrizeni|Zamekrizeni]] ([[User talk:Zamekrizeni|talk]]) 08:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Inaccessible Sources ==

Dear all,

I am facing a situation that I'm not sure what to do about. The article I've been working on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kevork_Yeramian) has recently been declined due to insufficient sources. My situation is:

1. The article's biggest source is the content person's family (Mr. Kevork Yeramian's family): his wife and children.

2. Some sources are from the 80s and are not digitized, and don't exist in the internet.

3. Those sources in point 2 are inaccessible since they are located in war-torn Aleppo, Syria.

My questions:

1. How can I handle a situation like this?

2. Are personal testimonies acceptable as sources?

3. I could include a written/signed statement from Mr. Yeramian's wife that the information included in the article are valid, since she's the source to many of them (I have her permission to use the photos and more, since I am a family member as well). Would this be acceptable?

Mr. Yeramian's significant architectural contribution to the city of Aleppo mainly, and some other cities, are archived and verified through analog source which are inaccessible due to war in Aleppo-Syria.

All help, advice, and guidence is much appreciated.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and support. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Alex662607004|Alex662607004]] ([[User talk:Alex662607004#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alex662607004|contribs]]) 09:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{ping|Alex6626070}} I think you slightly misunderstand the type of sources we are after. It’s not so much about proving the information is true (although of course yes that is part of it) but establishing that the individual is notable, and has been given substantial coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. That is why personal accounts, photos, family documents, and of course personal knowledge are simply not usable as sources. They may verify the information but they do not tell us why it is notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. Now, some good quality reliable sources are also not available online - old newspapers being a good example (although most major newspapers are increasingly making archives available digitally) and it is absolutely fine to use them as long as you know the publication, and article title and date. But the source must still be [[wp:rs|reliable by our definition]]. [[User:Hugsyrup|<i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>]]^{[[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup]]} 09:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

::I'm going to disagree slightly with {{U|Hugsyrup}}, {{U|Alex662607004}}, though I agree with their overall answer. It is not just a matter of notability: unpublished information is '''never''' acceptable in a Wikipedia article, because there is no way that a reader next week or next year can verify it. Even if the information that you put in is 100% accurate, what happens if somebody comes along tomorrow and alters it, whether because they are mistaken, or they have an agenda to push, or they are simply vandalising it? Nobody has any reliable way of telling which is the correct information' (And notice that providing a signed statement from somebody doesn't really help - how is a random reader going to be able to read such? and how can Wikipedia verify the identify of the person signing it?) So the decision that was taken early on was to disallow any such unsourced information. I know this can be frustrating, but that is how the consensus has been to manage information in Wikipedia. See [[WP:Verifiability, not truth]].

::On the other point, of non-digitised information, Hugsyrup is absolutely right: there has never been any question that sources have to be online, as long as they are published so that a random reader can in principle obtain them (eg through a major library). I'm not sure what the answer would be to your point 3: are they not in libraries elsewhere? --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 09:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Citations ==

Hello, I was wondering if anyone can help me, I am currently trying to add to a page about Ruth Dodd, and I have added a little bit of information about her to the page. I am struggling to understand the way to cite a website (the tyne and wear archives service) can anybody help me? (If you are looking at the page it is citation 2 that I am trying to fix. Thank you [[User:Slikitty|Slikitty]] ([[User talk:Slikitty|talk]]) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{ping|Slikitty}} I assume it's [[Ruth Dodds]] we're looking at? I've formatted the web citation for you, and for future reference you can use this template: [[:Template:Cite web]] for that. Hope this helps. [[User:Hugsyrup|<i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>]]^{[[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup]]} 12:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

: [[User:Hugsyrup]] Thank you for the information[[User:Slikitty|Slikitty]] ([[User talk:Slikitty|talk]]) 13:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Need help changing an article that was written as a resume ==

Hello,

I have been editing the Wikipedia page of Andrew Zerzan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Zerzan in the last few days, updating the content and adding new references.

At the top of the page there is a note saying: ''"This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic".''

I hope someone can give me some precise instructions what needs to be changed in the article to remove that notification. I am editing the page using the Visual Editor.

Thank You! <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bbernardos|Bbernardos]] ([[User talk:Bbernardos#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bbernardos|contribs]]) 11:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{u|Bbernardos}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if I have any specific recommendations, but the article reads as simply a list of what Mr. Zernan has done- it should read as a summary of what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that have given him significant coverage say about him. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @331dot

Thanks for the info. Is there a way to find out who posted the notification so that I can contact that admin and ask for more information and instructions? Any other contact person you can suggest I talk to?

Thanks <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bbernardos|Bbernardos]] ([[User talk:Bbernardos#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bbernardos|contribs]]) 13:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{u|Bbernardos}} You can examine the edit history of the article to see when the maintenance tag was posted and by whom. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{re|Bbernardos}} Of course you can contact the editor who posted the notification, although I don't think you really need to. It's ''MUCH'' more productive for you to go where the note points to, namely our guidelines about [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] and appropriate [[WP:MOSBIO|style]]. Additionally, I'd recommend to see our [[WP:BIO|gudeline on biographies]] and especially the [[WP:BLP|policy on biographies of living persons]]. Pages that do not follow rules defined there may get removed from the articles' space or even deleted from Wikipedia. --[[User:CiaPan|CiaPan]] ([[User talk:CiaPan|talk]]) 13:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== /* Paid COI */ I am unable to contact the editor who admitted to Paid editing. Please help me to remove the paid template. ==

Hi All, please help me to delete the maintenance template on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZS_Associates article as it's hard to track the user who had admitted the paid editing. Thanks in advance [[User:Jayjha89|Jayjha89]] ([[User talk:Jayjha89|talk]]) 11:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:''You'' are the editor (one of them, at least) who appears to be editing the article as part of their job. You need to make [[WP:PAID|the required disclosures]], or you are likely to be [[WP:BLOCK|blocked from editing]]. [[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Yunshui|<sup style="font-size:90%">雲</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/Yunshui|<sub style="font-size:90%">水</sub>]] 11:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

::Hi Yunshui, Yes I did edit the page but I'm not associated with ZS at all. The maintenance template was added on 29th June 2019 and I joined Wikipedia on November.[[User:Jayjha89|Jayjha89]] ([[User talk:Jayjha89|talk]]) 12:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:::{{u|Jayjha89}} Please don't post the same question in multiple forums, as I see you did at [[Wikipedia:Cleanup]]. Doing so is called [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]] and it fragments the discussion. --[[User:Drm310|Drm310]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Drm310|talk]]) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== How to get an article from the sandbox into public? ==

Hello!

I prepared an article about the German-based software company Ashampoo.

Currently the article is in my sandbox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArsLongaVita/sandbox

Please advice how to get the article into review and later on alive.

Thank you for your assistance. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ArsLongaVita|ArsLongaVita]] ([[User talk:ArsLongaVita#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ArsLongaVita|contribs]]) 09:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{ping|ArsLongaVita}} the answer to your question is to paste <nowiki>{{subst:submit}}</nowiki> at the top of your article. However, there is no point doing this as your article will not be accepted. Firstly, it has no sources (the company's own website is not a reliable source), secondly it makes no indication of why this company is notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry about it, and thirdly it is clearly written in a highly promotional manner. It seems very clear that you own or work for this company, and yet you have not made the disclosure required at [[WP:PAID]]. I very much doubt that Ashampoo is suitable for an article no matter how much you edit it, so I would suggest you abandon this and work on articles where you do not have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. [[User:Hugsyrup|<i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>]]^{[[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup]]} 09:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

::On your Talk page you stated "I am not employed by the company." Are you IN ANY WAY connected to the company? Consultant? Family member or friend of the people who own/operate the company? Invested in? Consultant would equal paid. Other connections would be considered conflict-of-interest. [[User:David notMD|David notMD]] ([[User talk:David notMD|talk]]) 14:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== ADDING PAGES ==

Hello,

I have been trying to create a new page for wikipedia, but I don't know where to start. I was wondering is someone could give me the basics for page creation, along with how to publish a page and create a title for it.

Thanks, RAWRSON <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:RAWRSON|RAWRSON]] ([[User talk:RAWRSON#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/RAWRSON|contribs]]) 14:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{u|RAWRSON}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for wanting to contribute and being willing to create a new article(not just "page", a subtle but important distinction). I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. Users new to the process are more successful when they first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. Users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I tell you this not to scare you, but only because I want you to have a good experience here. I would as such suggest that you edit some existing articles first and use the [[WP:ADVENTURE|new user tutorial]] to learn more about how Wikipedia works.

:If you still want to start with creating a new article, you should review [[WP:YFA|Your First Article]], and then you can use [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] to create and submit a draft for a review before its formal placement in the encyclopedia. This way you get feedback first, instead later, when your work will be treated more critically. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Sabotaged Articles ==

Back in October 2019, I noticed that the article for the "Canadian Who's Who", a Canadian resource publication that lists the biographies of notable Canadians, was filled with wildly false, inaccurate and downright vicious statements. This is a legitimate publication by a professional company. It has been in print for over a hundred years. It did not take the tone of a factual article written by a third party. Instead, it seemed to be written with a passionate hate for the publication. Many of the sources used are either decades old, or have nothing to do with the actual publication.

According to the history, many changes were made in February 2019 by one user. On November 1st, I made revisions, removing the false information and pulling up-to-date information from the publisher's official website. On November 2nd, the article was reverted back to the previous version by none other than the same user.

What can I do to stop this back-and-forth? Can anyone provide insight on how to proceed to ensure purely factual information is being published?

I did not re-post my edits to avoid wasting time, so here is the article as it currently appears: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Who's_Who <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Artist2020|Artist2020]] ([[User talk:Artist2020#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Artist2020|contribs]]) 14:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: {{u|Artist2020}}: Wikipedia aims to avoid bias by reporting what has been written about a subject in reliable independent sources, rather than in sources connected with the subject. When you edited [[Canadian Who's Who]], you removed six reliable independent sources and the content that was based on them, and replaced it by information from the publisher's own web site, thus presenting a strongly biased view. Your edits were, quite properly, reverted. If you want the article to remain unbiased, you should leave it alone in future. [[User:Maproom|Maproom]] ([[User talk:Maproom|talk]]) 15:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== deletion ==

why is someone deleting the pages i recently made.?

i recently created some pages for a couple of articles for some football teams club in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. While waiting for more information on the teams i got this message

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on K&R Strikers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. XXX8906 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kemani16|Kemani16]] ([[User talk:Kemani16#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kemani16|contribs]]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{ping|Kemani16}} it sounds as if the message you received explains that the reason for deletion is that the articles were very short and lacked enough context for the reader to understand the topic of the article. Although we don't mind articles being short or incomplete, they do need to have enough information for the reader to at least understand what they are about. If you are still waiting for information to fill out the article, I would recommend creating these as drafts first, and submitting via the [[WP:AFC|articles for creation]] process. [[User:Hugsyrup|<i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>]]^{[[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup]]} 14:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

[[User:Hugsyrup

i understand the article were to short. i was creating the basic information for each teams then add the other important info later.

i recently created some teams from st vincent in the caribbean names and kits the easy stuff and once i finish i was just about to fill in the other information like player and where each team a plays manages and where they are based when i got a message saying my work has been deleted. the person who remove my work could at least send a warning and give me time before deleting everything i worked on creating. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kemani16|Kemani16]] ([[User talk:Kemani16#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kemani16|contribs]]) 15:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{re||Kemani16}} the trick is to make your article first (like you're doing in your sandboxes) then post it. That will give you time to improve it. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== COI Editing ==

Hello,

I recently made a coi edit request on a page. Because I am requesting to replace all the text on the page, I was told "To that end, the COI editor is asked to continue the conversation about these changes here, with local editors on the talk page. The use of the -request edit- template is not necessary for that discussion.

Does this mean that all I need to do is post in the relevant wiki projects and receive approval? Not that I think that is easy, just that I mean if I can find that, do I need to make another edit request? Or do I just ask someone in the project to do it? What is my next step after reaching consensus?

[[User:Theintern007|Theintern007]] ([[User talk:Theintern007|talk]]) 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{u|Theintern007}} You have been asked to discuss your changes on the article talk page, but not as a formal edit request just yet, so that other editors can discuss them with you and a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus reached]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|331dot}} Yes, I am just wondering what I do after, if they can reach a consensus. Do I ask the people I discuss with to make the edits or do I end up making another edit request? [[User:Theintern007|Theintern007]] ([[User talk:Theintern007|talk]]) 15:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:::Either would work. If a clear consensus is reached, the former would likely occur; if it's not so clear, an edit request might be more helpful as it would bring another set of eyes to the discussion. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Edit Wars ==

Good day, I am a new user and as I am certain most users start out, I saw a page that needed some work and tried to "fix it".

My edits were changed back and the erroneous info was added, this time with a single book reference from 1903.

I would like to make the necessary changes and get on with the rest of my life. Is there a way of contributing updated research without getting involved in a debate about the authenticity of a "fact" written in a hundred-year-old encyclopaedia etc.?

Thank-you in advance <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης|Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης]] ([[User talk:Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης|contribs]]) 15:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{u|Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As there are no edits in your account edit history other than your above comment, I assume you made that edit while logged out. Without knowing which article you edited, it's hard to give a specific answer, but I can say that this is a collaborative project, and you must work with other editors to arrive at a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] as to what the article should say. There is no way to by fiat post one's version of what they think the article should say- this is because if there were, everyone would use it and fight with each other anyway. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης}} I must agree with 331dot just above. I will add thsat any time there is a disagreement about the correctness of a fact or statement in a Wikipedia article, or the reliability or appropriateness of a source, discussion on the article talk page should be the first step in solving the matter. I note that you said that another editor had provided {{tqqi|a single book reference from 1903.}} Did yoiu provided a newer source, or indeed any source, for your fixes? I reapat that, as 331dot said, without knowing what article this is in regard to, we can only answer in theoretical terms. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 16:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I was signed in at the time, or so I thought. My edit history states that I have made 10 edits.

I have been a volunteer curator at Geni.com for many years and am well versed in fact checking. My edits were accompanied with updated sources, compared to the 1903 reference provided by the Greek-speaking admin who refused to give timeous feedback. Hardly collaborative.

The page I am referring to is an info-page on the surname Armenis.

Αρμένης (επώνυμο)

[[User:Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 16:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Are you sure that you're not confused between edits here on the English Wikipedia and those which you have made on the [[:Ειδικό:Συνεισφορές/Αλέξανδρος_Αρμένης|Greek Wikipedia]]? --[[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 16:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{ec}} {{u|Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης}}, was this page on the Greek-language Wikipedia? Please understand that each language is a separate project, and may have different rules, procedures, and standards. This page is for help with the English-language edition of Wikipedia, and cannot provide any assistance with projects for other languages. I would hope that some similar help page is available on that project, but I do not know what it is called. Your edit history is separate on each project also. For this project it is at [[Special:Contributions/Αλέξανδρος_Αρμένης]]. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης}} Your edit history on the English Wikipedia shows that you only have four edits, so I think David Biddulph is correct in that you are discussing something on another version of Wikipedia, which as noted is a separate project. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

: Correct, I did not realise that the different language projects are governed by their own rules and admins. I was hoping that the better established English Wikipedia project would provide some oversight and transparency. Thank-you for your assistance.

[[User: Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης]] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 16:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== SuggestBot ==

How do I get [[User:SuggestBot]] to give me a list of articles to fix up on my talk page? <span style="color:blue;">[[User:WikiWarrior9919|'''''ωικιωαrrιor''''']]</span><span style="color:purple;">'''''[[User talk:WikiWarrior9919|ᑫᑫ1ᑫ]]'''''</span> 16:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

: See the bullet list at the top of [[User:SuggestBot]]. --[[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 17:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== First time editor here; is there a proper etiquette to suggest changes? ==

I am a first time editor here.

I noticed some discrepancies on the wikipedia page "List of Equipment of Republic of Singapore Air Force".

Is it okay if I just make a comment on the "Talk" page?[[User:RonaldYeo|RonaldYeo]] ([[User talk:RonaldYeo|talk]]) 16:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{u|RonaldYeo}}, On Wikipedia, we mainly operate on the [[WP:BRD]] policy. Users see a problem, they make the changes they feel are needed, and then if another user takes issue with the changes, they revert your edit and enter discussion with you to reach consensus on the edits. If you see an issue on the page, change it! [[User:Jebcubed|<span style="color: blue">'''Jeb'''^'''3'''</span>]][[User talk:Jebcubed|<span style="color: orange">_{'''Talk at me here'''}</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jebcubed|^{What I've Done}]] 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article appears to be [[Equipment of the Republic of Singapore Air Force]]. [[User:David notMD|David notMD]] ([[User talk:David notMD|talk]]) 17:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Question re edit of "John Rennie Short" from a total novice ==

Hello, and thank you for having this neutral and polite space for questioning. I submitted a Wiki page a bit before Thanksgiving (John Rennie Short), and it was responded to within 1 day by DGG with lots of good guidance. I am ready to upload the new version, but I'm not quite sure where/how I should do this. Also, in the course of incorporating your suggestions especially re the bibliographical entries, some vertical red lines have appeared outside the left margins of the bibliography. I've tried and tried to get rid of them, but have been unsuccessful. Please help.17:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[[User:Ahjazzer|Ahjazzer]] ([[User talk:Ahjazzer|talk]])

: The way to produce your new version is to edit the existing draft [[Draft:John Rennie Short]]. Remember to include inline citations for your [[WP:REFB|references]], as well as addressing the points which the reviewer made. I don't know where your vertical red lines might be coming from, but if you edit the page other editors will be able to see what has gone wrong. --[[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 17:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Series overview ==

On the [[List of Ackley Bridge episodes#Series overview|series overview of Ackley Bridge]], I've tried tweaking around with the fourth series, but it won't seem to display itself on the table correctly. Would someone be able to fix it? Thanks – [[User:DarkGlow|DarkGlow]] ([[User talk:DarkGlow|talk]]) 14:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

: You had left the old end-of-table marker in place before your addition. Fixed in {{diff2|929387004|this edit}}. Your addition might be reverted as it was [[WP:unsourced|unsourced]]. --[[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 14:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

::{{Re|David Biddulph}} Thanks! I'll add a ref now, just wanted to sort that out first. – [[User:DarkGlow|DarkGlow]] ([[User talk:DarkGlow|talk]]) 18:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Accused of being a sock ==

<s>An editor accused me of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UberVegan&diff=929312101&oldid=929310471 being a sock here]. It is not true! How should I proceed? What are my options to move forward? This is incredible!</s>[[User:UberVegan|<b style="color:#181818;padding:0px;">Uber</b>]][[User talk:UberVegan|<b style="background:#6EEF09;color:#CF5615;">Vegan</b>&#x1f33e;]] 00:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

{{reply to|UberVegan}}The same thing happened to me once, because some bum decided it would be funny to vandalize wikipedia, and unfortunately the person was within my IP range, so when I got blocked, I requested help from an admin, ([[User:ST47|ST47]]), and explained the whole thing to him, and then he contacted the blocking admin, who understood, and unblocked me, also in the future in case your account is compromised you should use the committed identity template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Committed_identity, so they would know it is truly know, and lower your risk factor, and if you have 2 accounts you should really get both of them confirmed, by filling out a request [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Confirmed&action=edit here]. I hope you find this info useful! --[[User:Gumshoe97|Gumshoe97]] ([[User talk:Gumshoe97|talk]]) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{reply to|UberVegan}} Given that the editor that is making the accusation appears to be doing so in response to you commenting on an AN/I discussion about them, my feeling is it would be entirely reasonable to take it straight back to AN/I as harassment. On the other hand, given that the accusation is coming from someone that has been repeatedly pulled up for edit-warring amongst other infractions it probably isn't going to get much attention so you could also just ignore it. [[User:Physdragon|Physdragon]] ([[User talk:Physdragon|talk]]) 02:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

<s>He really has accused me of being a sock because I had some edits on a few similar pages, but considering that we seem to be Jewish and have the same interests, what are the chances?

Using his logic, I looked into him and one other editor and I found that they edited 262 of the same pages, him making 4,954 edits and the other 3,080. And the amount of time between some of their edits were astonishing: 36 seconds, 50 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes.

Following are only the first 25 mutual pages of 262. Is there any policy against this? I could use direction. Should I speak to the administrator who recently sanctioned him? Thank you.</s>

{{cot|General questions are fine for the Teahouse, but this is not [[:WP:SPI]] or [[:WP:ANI]]}}

<s>

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|-

!Page

!Min time between edits

!Snooganssnoogans - 4,954 edits

!Grayfell - 3,080 edits

|-

|User talk:184.153.38.168

|36 seconds

|1

|1

|-

|Dave Rubin

|50 seconds

|74

|39

|-

|Talk:South African farm attacks

|1 minutes

|36

|26

|-

|Talk:Center for Immigration Studies

|2 minutes

|96

|11

|-

|Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

|2 minutes

|49

|2

|-

|Gatestone Institute

|4 minutes

|142

|14

|-

|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

|4 minutes

|139

|31

|-

|Talk:Jack Posobiec

|4 minutes

|3

|13

|-

|Ben Shapiro

|8 minutes

|69

|19

|-

|Tim Pool

|8 minutes

|13

|57

|-

|Jack Posobiec

|10 minutes

|27

|14

|-

|Talk:Ben Shapiro

|12 minutes

|33

|21

|-

|Talk:Douglas Murray (author)

|13 minutes

|10

|3

|-

|Jordan Peterson

|19 minutes

|38

|27

|-

|John Solomon (political commentator)

|23 minutes

|87

|4

|-

|Steve Bannon

|24 minutes

|10

|18

|-

|The Daily Wire

|24 minutes

|35

|13

|-

|Talk:Tim Pool

|25 minutes

|13

|57

|-

|Sean Hannity

|27 minutes

|114

|1

|-

|Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

|32 minutes

|113

|97

|-

|Talk:Gatestone Institute

|35 minutes

|57

|11

|-

|Charles C. Johnson

|59 minutes

|18

|59

|-

|South African farm attacks

|1 hours

|34

|45

|-

|Stefan Molyneux

|1 hours

|24

|87

|-

|Larry Elder

|1 hours

|7

|3

|}

</s>

{{cob}}

[[User:UberVegan|<b style="color:#181818;padding:0px;">Uber</b>]][[User talk:UberVegan|<b style="background:#6EEF09;color:#CF5615;">Vegan</b>&#x1f33e;]] 05:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|UberVegan}}. It's OK for you to ask for some general advice here at the Teahouse, but the Teahouse isn't really the place for you to post [[:Help:Diff|diffs]] or other "evidence" about another editor's behavior. There are various other [[:WP:PNB|noticeboards]], such as [[:WP:SPI]] and [[:WP:ANI]], which are more suited for such a thing. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 06:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

: UberVegan has just been confirmed as being a sockpuppet.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UberVegan] [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 18:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Is there a place to store research in progress for the next guy? ==

I did a bunch of research trying to track down a fact and found no support for it in a bunch of places. However, there are print journals that I can't get to that may support the statement. Is there a place/way to put the list of what I already checked somewhere so the next person doesn't have to start from zero? Thanks. [[User:Gwen the Cat|Gwen the Cat]] ([[User talk:Gwen the Cat|talk]]) 18:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

: {{re|Gwen the Cat}} You can put some notes onto the article's talk page. Also, check out [[WP:RX]]. There is where you can find Wikipedians with access to journals and other resources that you may not have access to. [[User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed]] ([[User talk:RudolfRed|talk]]) 18:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! [[User:Gwen the Cat|Gwen the Cat]] ([[User talk:Gwen the Cat|talk]]) 18:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== editing an addition to Biography on Wikipedia Page "Edward Francis Anhalt" ==

A new publication (2018) has been authored by Dr. Edward Francis Anhalt entitled "Mandatory Reading: Open Your Mind to 18 of Life's Most Important Questions". A portion of sales of books has/and is being given to the Susan G. Komen Foundation (Wisconsin Chapter). The ISBN # is 978-0-692-05865-7, and the book can be found at https://books.google.com/books?id=L3tptAEACAAJ&dq=mandatory+reading&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz17KGip_mAhVMJKwKHVntAgMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg.

I am looking for someone who can assist in adding this publication to the Wikipedia page. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/172.1.150.25|172.1.150.25]] ([[User talk:172.1.150.25#top|talk]]) 18:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Your addition was [[Special:Diff/928974472|removed by another editor]]. It's best to raise the issue with them on the article talk page and attract their attention with the {{tl|ping}} template.

:FYI, whatever financial arrangements are behind sales of the book are of no interest here. What is of interest is knowing if you have any [[WP:COI|personal involvement]] with the promotion of this book, particularly if you are being [[WP:PAID|paid to do so]]. --[[User:Drm310|Drm310]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Drm310|talk]]) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

==Linking Old Revisions==

How to I link an old revision for my talk page? [[user:MegaGoat|MegaGoat]] [[User talk:MegaGoat|talk]] 18:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

: {{re|MegaGoat}} first you need to know the old revision ID, then you can simply use a wikilink like [[Special:Permalink/929421268#Linking Old Revisions]]. Or you can use a Template from the {{tl|Oldid}} family. --[[User:CiaPan|CiaPan]] ([[User talk:CiaPan|talk]]) 18:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, now i'm going to put these links in my sandbox so I can look back to see what I need to do. [[User:MegaGoat|𝘔𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘎𝘰𝘢𝘵]] ([[User talk:MegaGoat|talk]])

== editing references ==

I need to edit a reference, but editing is not allowed under Visual Editing. I can't open a window under Source Editing to make edits in references. I'd be grateful if someone could tell me how to do this. Thanks![[User:Kjysoi4|Kjysoi4]] ([[User talk:Kjysoi4|talk]]) 18:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

: References are placed not in the "References" section but in the text with the facts being referenced, see [[Help:Referencing for beginners]]. --[[User:David Biddulph|David Biddulph]] ([[User talk:David Biddulph|talk]]) 18:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== help ==

how do i make uploads <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zokatone|Zokatone]] ([[User talk:Zokatone#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zokatone|contribs]]) 17:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{u|Zokatone}}, Using the [[WP:FUW|File Upload Wizard]]. [[User:Interstellarity|Interstellarity]] ([[User talk:Interstellarity|talk]]) 19:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Cost to Run Wikipedia per month? ==

What is the total cost to run to Run Wikipedia per month? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/199.67.140.56|199.67.140.56]] ([[User talk:199.67.140.56#top|talk]]) 18:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Howdy hello! You can see the fundraising and expense stats at [[Wikipedia:Fundraising statistics]]. In 2017/18, the WikiMedia foundation spent 81 million USD, averaging almost 7 million a month. You can look at [https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ this] to see the WMF's official audited expenditure reports. [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''Captain Eek'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]}[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 19:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Citing scientific journal articles? ==

Hi! Hope y'all are doing well. I was wondering what the rules are about citing scientific journal articles that are copyrighted. Are they allowed to be cited, but all findings must be paraphrased properly so that the content is not copied? Or can you not even cite them? Thanks for the help! [[User:Brsmith19|Brsmith19]] ([[User talk:Brsmith19|talk]]) 19:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:Hello, {{U|Brsmith19}} and welcome to the Teahouse. Any published [[WP:RS|reliable source]] may be cited if it supports statements in a Wikipedia article. This includes scientific journals, newspapers, magazines, news sites on the web, books, and other such sources. (The rules of copyright are the same for all kinds of publications.) It is never a violation of copyright to cite a source. In addition, short quotatiosn from a source may be included in an article. The text must clearly state the source of the quote, must mark off the quote with quote marks or using {{tag|blockquote}}, and must also cite the source in a footnote or other inline citation. Additional information from the source can and should be used, but rewritten in original phrasing. See [[Wikipedia:Quotations]] for more detailed advise on how much quoteed t4ext is advisable, and how to format quotes. See [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing]] for advice on rewriting source content. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 20:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== NPOV and the subject of bias ==

I've been reading over the debate about neutrality within the [[2019 Hong Kong protests]] article. So far a common argument I've seen that neutrality can be curved if the reliable sources themselves have decided that something is right or wrong. An example from a user is "If reliable sources declared Hitler is evil, then Hitler is evil, despite it not being neutral towards Hitler." Essentially, reliable sources can overrule the neutrality rule despite it being biased? Do a certain number of reliable sources overwhelmingly supporting one side dictate what overrules neutrality? What is the line between saying what reliable sources say and neutrality on a certain article?

Again, all answers and opinions are helpful. [[User:YouGottaChill|YouGottaChill]] ([[User talk:YouGottaChill|talk]]) 20:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{ping|YouGottaChill}} It’s a tricky topic, but NPOV doesn’t mean everything has to be straight down the middle, “nothing is good, nothing is bad, everything is neutral”. Rather, it means articles have to ''reflect the available sources in a balanced way'' and without allowing the editor’s own point of view to come in to play. If a majority of sources say something is bad, Wikipedia can absolutely say so, and that doesn’t breach NPOV rules. If a small number of reliable sources disagree, we can include a section to that effect as well. What would breach NPOV would be if I only used sources that were negative, or only picked the negative elements of sources, or drafted the article using language that emphasised the negative and threw doubt on positive elements. [[User:Hugsyrup|<i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>]]^{[[User_talk:Hugsyrup|syrup]]} 21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Ronald Kruszewski draft ==

Hi, my name is Meredith and I work for [[Stifel]], which is disclosed on my profile and at [[Draft talk:Ronald Kruszewski]]. I submitted an article about [[Ronald Kruszewski]] at [[Draft:Ronald Kruszewski]] back in August, but I'm still waiting for a review. I thought I'd post a message here in case editors familiar with Articles for Creation wanted to take a look. I'm confident he is notable based on the amount of coverage received, and I believe editors will find the draft to be accurate, neutral, and well-sourced. I don't plan to edit live pages related to Stifel directly because of my conflict of interest. Is someone here willing to take the page live?

Thanks for any help! [[User:Meredith at Stifel|Meredith at Stifel]] ([[User talk:Meredith at Stifel|talk]]) 21:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:Editors here are not necessarily article reviewers. And given that this is the first time you have created an article, advice is to wait for the AfC review. If declined, you will get advice on what needs improvement. Taking an article directly to Main space runs risk of it being nominated for Articles for Deletion (AfD), a worse place to be. P.S. Your declarations as PAID on your User page and the Talk page of the article are appreciated. Many new editors neglect this requirement. [[User:David notMD|David notMD]] ([[User talk:David notMD|talk]]) 23:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Requesting for information about a mainspace article ==

Hello ,greetings from Zimbabwe .i came across this article [[Tony_Ganios]]and i have noticed it has 2 references which includes Youtube which cannot be used as a reference ,the second reference mentions almost nothing about him .Is there an exception of [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources]] given to subjects like him that i'm not aware of? .Also what should i do when i find similar articles?,I'm here to learn ,thank you [[User:Georgiamarlins|Georgiamarlins]] ([[User talk:Georgiamarlins|talk]]) 22:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:Hello, {{U|Georgiamarlins}} and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has many articles which are not fully up to current standards. Some are old from a time of different standards, some slipped past, some are just borderline. Do note that for an actor in films or television, the credits of each released (published) work he or she has appeared in are an implicitly cited source confirming that actor's appearance in that production. Also it is not at all the case that Youtube cannot ever be used as a reference. Many of the videos on YouTube are self-created, or are copyright infringements, and so are not reliable or not usable here. But quite a number are posted officially by reliable broadcast organizations or journalists, or by recognized experts in the relevant field. These can be cited, just as if the same organization or person had published them separately on the web. I am not sure if the particular video in [[Tony_Ganios]] is from a reliable source or not.

:You could 1) look for sources, and add any useful ones to the article; 2) tag the article with {{tl|BLP sources}} or some simiaolr tag to call attention to the issue, or 3) Nominate the article for deletion at [[WP:AFD|articles for Discussion]] if you ahve done a sufficiently though search to be confident that needed sources do not exist. See [[WP:BEFORE]] on the scope of a needed search. Or you could do none of these, and jsut leave the article as it stands. Any of these would be acceptable, it is your choice which action you take. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 23:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

::Thank you {{U|DESiegel}} i have added external links to the article since i din't find sources for inline citations ,thank you for the information ,next time i will know what to do.Cheers![[User:Georgiamarlins|Georgiamarlins]] ([[User talk:Georgiamarlins|talk]]) 23:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

== Deletion ==

I was under the impression I submitted an article for review, but apparently, I didn't do that. It has since been marked for deletion. I'd be happy to start the process over again, if that's easier. I am just not sure what to do, as I had provided numerous links and tried to create the page in accordance with the rules. I checked out multiple pages to get an idea of what things look like like, in addition to reviewing the rules.

How to handle?

[[User:Wpearce1983|Wpearce1983]] ([[User talk:Wpearce1983|talk]]) 22:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC).)

:{{u|Wpearce1983}} Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears to me that most of the references in your draft are press release-type articles or routine announcements. These types of references are not what is being looked for. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of [[WP:N|notability]](in this case, the definition of [[WP:BIO|a notable person]]). Significant coverage is more than just a routine announcement or press release, but something extensive that the reference has chosen on their own to write. The nature of your references causes the draft to read like a resume and not an encyclopedia article. Have you read [[WP:YFA|Your First Article]]? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I find this reaction confusing. My post was published articles from reputable sources.

Is it best just to delete the page myself and start over, given that I missed the standard process (despite, as I indicated above, operating under the impression I was following the regular process)?

[[User:Wpearce1983|Wpearce1983]] ([[User talk:Wpearce1983|talk]]) 22:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC).

:You haven't necessarily done any wrong in terms of the process. The sources are 'reputable' but that isn't the issue. The issue is the references themselves. They largely consist of routine announcements which mention Mr. Olesky little if at all. At least one other had a quote from him- but that is not an independent source. What is needed are references that largely discuss him and are independent of the subject. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:Successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, and it's easy to get discouraged, but my intention isn't to discourage you. Have you used the [[WP:ADVENTURE|new user tutorial]]? That may help you understand the process more as well. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

:Since you have reached out for help, I have removed the speedy deletion tag for now. I would suggest that you use the tutorial before working on the draft further; feel free to continue to ask questions here as well. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification (and apologize if I came across as testy). I've acquainted myself with the process but will do so again, then try to create the page for the subject using the article for creation link provided elsewhere so it will be given proper review.

[[User:Wpearce1983|Wpearce1983]] ([[User talk:Wpearce1983|talk]]) 22:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC).

:Hello, {{U|Wpearce1983}}. You can and should work on the existing [[Draft:Lee Olesky]], which several other editors have now made minor improvements to. When you think the draft is ready, just click the blue "Submit your draft for review" button at the bottom of the grey "Draft article not currently submitted for review." box at the top of the draft. Do not leave the draft unchanged for a period of 6 months, as it may be deleted as abandoned. You should be warned a month before that could happen.

:Please try to be sure that the draft contains several [[WP:IS|Independent]] published [[WP:RS|reliable]] sources that discuss Olesky in [[WP:SIGCOV|some detail]]. That means not interviews or press releases, not fan sigtes, forums, or blogs, and not routine announcements. There should be at least three or four sources, '''each''' of which has at least several paragraphs about Olesky or his specific creative work.

:However, try to avoid over-sourcing. I note that one sentence has seven different sources cited. It is a little unusual for that many separate sources to be needed at the same point. If some of those support only a single fact in that sentence, they can be moved to just after that fact, so they are not all bunched up. If soem of them essentially duplicate others, keep only the best 1 or 2. -- and perhaps note the alternates on the talk page. But the key is to get those detailed, reliable, independent sources.

:Note that once you submit, there may well be a delay of several weeks or even months, because there is a large backlog of draafts awaiting review. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]][[Special:Contributions/DESiegel|_{DESiegel Contribs}]] 00:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

== [[Francis Drake]] article ==

Hello Teahouse hosts. When reading the [[Francis Drake]] article, I see significant sections that are not adequately cited. I believe they are egregiously lacking citations and should have an appropriate message on the talk page to indicate such. However, I am unfamiliar with the proper process to do this.

I have found what I believe is the correct template. You can see the template to which I refer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hu_Nhu/sandbox '''HERE''']. I am glad to post it myself it that is acceptable. I would like others' thoughts, those much more experienced than I, regarding the matter. Kind regards, [[User:Hu Nhu|Hu Nhu]] ([[User talk:Hu Nhu|talk]]) 19:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

:On your user page I inserted a template for when a section is lacking citations. [[User:David notMD|David notMD]] ([[User talk:David notMD|talk]]) 20:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

::Hello {{U| David notMD }} and thank you for your kind attention and response. I am having trouble with the template. Each time I insert it into the [[Francis Drake]] article, the template reads THIS ARTICLE and not THIS SECTION. Might you try it to inquire as to what results you have? Kind regards,[[User:Hu Nhu|Hu Nhu]] ([[User talk:Hu Nhu|talk]]) 03:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

:::I tested, and was able to add the THIS SECTION tag by editing a section and making the tag the first line in the section. I then removed it, because the top of the article as a THIS ARTICLE tag, and because so many sections are lacking citations, I don't see a need to tag each section. [[User:David notMD|David notMD]] ([[User talk:David notMD|talk]]) 03:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)