Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Teahouse

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pratap Pandit (talk | contribs) at 13:01, 28 April 2020 (→vandalism: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Pratap Pandit in topic vandalism
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Creating new page for a company

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Creating a new page for a company. Dear all, I need help creating a page for a 41-year-old company I'm working with. What could be the reason that the page was deleted. I want to mention that I did not want to publish yet, cause it's not ready, could not find a save botton, had to publish it, knowing it will not be online. Please advise me what to do as a beginner.

thank you Armen Sepetjian (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Armen Sepetjian, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have some misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First, everything, everywhere in Wikipedia is published, in the sense that it is visible (and in most cases, editable) by anybody in the world - articles, drafts, personal pages, everything. That is why the Wikimedia Foundation insisted that the "save" button be renamed "Publish". That is a different sense from when we "publish" something as an article in the main encyclopaedia.
Secondly, what we create here is not "pages for" a company or anything else; it is articles about notable subjects. Not every company (just like not every sports person, politician, musician, artist...) is notable in Wikipedia's eyes: we require that an article be based close to 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it, and therefore such independent published sources must exist. Your company may be notable, but most companies in the world are not. Thirdly, if you are working with the company, you almost certainly have a conflict of interest; and if you are in any way compensated by the company (whether as an employee or volunteer, or as a contractor) you are required to make a formal declaration of your status as a paid editor.
If you can clear those hurdles, then you may try to create a draft article about your company, using the articles for creation process. This is a very difficult task for new editors, and even more difficult for editors with a conflict of interest, because material that looks straightforward to you may look promotional to other editors. But if you want to try, Your first article is the place to look.
In short: if you are coming here to tell the world about your company, you are probably in the wrong place (I mean Wikipedia, not the Teahouse). That's not what Wikipedia is for. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Armen Sepetjian (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your prompt reply. Honestly, I was hired months ago to accomplish certain tasks, one of the most important one in this, being present on Wikipedia. It was my fault I tested an unfinished page. The company I'm working with is not similar to any other food product distributor. It's something related to Middle Eastern Culture, Lebanese culture. I have many reasons to believe that Al Wadi company must be present on Wikipedia. All I need is your advice, as you mentioned above, I will go to the "Articles for Creation page" and proceed from that step. Hopefully when I'm in need of help I will hear from you. thank you Armen Sepetjian (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not your fault if you were given a task that may be impossible to fill. Nevertheless, if this company is truly WP:Notable and it is shown to be so by WP:Reliable sources, then welcome! Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Has your business ever been covered in local history books about your city, in newspapers, or in cookbooks not published by you? Does your boss have a collection of old newspaper clippings? If you can find at least three good sources you can build your article around what other people say about your business. If you write your article that way, it could help keep it from being deleted. If your boss cannot give you any newspapers or magazines, then tell him he need to get friends who are reporters and authors, and that your Wikipedia task will need to wait--maybe several years until a good variety of sources can be published by third parties (not your own company). Once you have all your sources lined up, then consider going to WP:Lebanon and asking for help, though that may not help as there may not be many active people left in that group.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

HELP

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, I just noted that the user {u|Dean197} has deleted plenty of text from this article "Mi Notebook Air" url:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi_Notebook_Air. I had spent a lot of my time editing it and it now fees like a waste of time.... Was this article previously reviewed by a senior editor before acceptance. If so, is it ok for someone to remove most of the text from the article? Should I edit other articles or not? Can someone please review/? Thank you for your advice. Earthianyogi (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Earthianyogi, welcome to the Teahouse. From what I can tell Dean197 removed content that was considered unnecessary and/or lacked citations. I see you've left a message to Dean197 on the talk page; I have pinged them on your behalf. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Tenryuu, Thank you for your response. I did read his/her comments "content that was considered unnecessary and/or lacked citations.". Thanks for pointing it out. However, I think slightly different as follows:

1. I check this user's profile and s/he seems like an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia. Also, they have not yet replied.

2. This editor seems to have made no effort to correct it themselves. If they cannot, they should at least try to find the missing references. If they cannot, they should leave a [citation needed] tag on the article and leave it for others to improve it. If they cannot, they should contact the author of the article. I feel so because the article must have been passed by a senior editor and maybe worth it.

3. How can we assess this user's credibility in deleting the text? I mean, a text that is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to another, depending on their perspective.

4. If an editor feels that some content needs to be deleted, then they should first check with the author of the article or other editors before doing so.

5. I edited a few Wikipedia articles. I noticed that references are missing in many places in various articles. That does not mean that the text is any less relevant. I just feel that sometimes authors do not have the time or the energy to add these references, or some do not even have that kind of training to do so. Therefore, we should put a collaborative effort to make and improve Wikipedia, rather than just deleting another person's effort.

6. Please note I am not the author of this article. However, I had spent time editing it, and I feel like it has been a waste of my time when someone just comes along a deletes the text. I wonder how would the author of the article feeling.


I hope I am making sense. Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Earthianyogi. Yes, you are making sense; but no, that is not entirely how this works. The relevant policy is BRD. If you read this, you will see that your point 4 is specifically wrong. As for your other points:
  • 1 is not relevant, except that the other editor may also be unfamiliar with how we work.
  • 2: I agree that that would be preferable, but there are many reasons why people do, or don't edit in the most preferably way.
  • 3: I'm not sure what the "credibility" of an editor is. Editing Wikipedia is a combination of applying rules and policies, and balancing subjective views of what is appropriate: that's why we have BRD. AGF says that we should treat all editors equally unless and until their continued behaviour gives cause for concern.
  • 5:Wikipedia policy does not require everything to be cited, as long as it could be in principle, (see WP:PERENNIAL#Require inline citations for everything), but editors are often more picky about new material introduced. You are entitled to introduce material without citation (as long as you have verified that there is a source that could be cited - but then, why not cite it?); Dean197 is entitled to regard that as unsatisfactory, and remove it. The next step is to discuss the question and reach consensus.
  • 6: Usually "the author of the article" is a phrase without a referent. Most Wikipedia articles are the work of several, sometimes many, separate editors. It is in the nature of how we work that sometimes people will put in effort that is ultimately discarded. This is one of the reasons why it is sometimes a good idea to propose a change on the article's talk page before making a change.
Note that I haven't even been to look at the article and your edits, so I am making no statement about whether I agree or disagree with your additions: I'm just answering your questions about the process. --ColinFine (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
ColinFine, Thank you for your reply. I agree with all your points. Concerning point 4, I have not looked at the policy; however, I was just porpoising that we do so. But it is okay if that has already been thought through. I regard to credibility, I mean how do we ensure that the person has the right set of knowledge and skills to do so. Also, a text that is relevant to one person may be irrelevant to another, depending on their perspective. May be the person is just a fraud (how do we assess?). I mainly edited the text of the article, without adding any new info or removing any old info from it. It is okay that some of the work gets discarded, but It has to be done in the right way on a factual basis; otherwise, it is just discouraging. Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
ColinFine, also, I read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. It talks about positive contributions. Just deleting a text without any discussion does not sound positive or constructive to me. Also, it mentions nothing about deleting text. Another editor Tenryuu and I have left comments on Dean197's talk page, but have not got a response yet. Thanks. Earthianyogi (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Earthianyogi. You were bold, Dean197 reverted, now you're discussing. That's how it works. As for credibility: there is no particular knowledge required to edit any article constructively. There are some basic skills in using and understanding English, which we assume that an editor has until they give us reason to doubt that; there are some skills in how Wikipedia works, which we assume that a new editor does not have, but try to teach them gently. You are right that there are people who come on here not to build an Encyclopaedia; but we start by assuming good faith. And if a large edit is done by a vandal or POV pusher, it is usually straightforward to undo it, so nothing is completely lost. --ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
ColinFine, Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

From quick look, the article was tagged before Dean197's deletions with too much detail and citations needed - and much of what was deleted was separately tagged with citation needed - so the actions were not entirely arbitrary. If citations can be found for the deleted content it may be appropriate to restore it, or some of it. Personally, I agree that even if citations are available, there was too much esoteric detail. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a document that helps a person decide which notebook to buy. David notMD (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

David notMD, Thank you. I understand, but in that case, why should this article be accepted by Wikipedia in the first place? I feel that it should be completely removed, should n't it? Earthianyogi (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Earthianyogi: if you feel that the article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria, you may nominate it for articles for deletion. Make sure you read WP:BEFORE first. --ColinFine (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Tenryuu,:David notMD,:ColinFine,:Earthianyogi: This is a very insightful discussion and really helpful. As pointed out, I am a new editor. And as I noted in the edit summaries, I removed some sections due to lack of citations and what appeared to be overly specific detail that the regular person wouldn't be interested in. Some of the text also sounded like it was lifted from an advertisement, so I amended some of that to sound more impartial to the topic at hand. I can image how frustrating it would be to have someone come along and remove text you'd put considerable time and effort into making. However, so much of the instruction aimed at new editors is to be bold and as I am a professional writer in my day job I thought I'd take a crack at making the page more useful to the average reader. I could be totally wrong and have missed the point, however, and very much welcome any feedback from experienced editors out there. Dean197 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dean197, after a gross inspection (reviewed diff from immediately prior to your first edit & the current version), it looks like your copyedits improved the flow of the article and your factual changes were sound. Others are allowed to disagree, so discussion on the article's talk page is warranted, although the OP hasn't reverted your edits. It appears he doesn't understand the WP:DR process either, but it appears you both have enough info to go forward now. One thing for you though: please see WP:MINOR on what is and isn't a minor edit, and check your preferences. You may have the selection "mark all edits as minor" enabled. Probably should change that? You can also select to be notified if you haven't left an edit summary. Probably want to enable that. John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

why so many people are so keen to reject?

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Hallo, the AFD process for the bio I wrote just finished and resulted in a keep. The bio was declined twice and than rejected. I kept asking what was the problem and the only answer was not reliable sources. when I tried to understand what were exactly the sources to cause the problem I got no answers at all. if you are too busy to feed the writer of an article with all the information he needs to understand your decision and improve his article please just don't do anything. If you fail someone's work than it would be fair for you to be available to explain your decision and help. Honestly i don't feel that those who have rejected/declined the bio I wrote were moved by genuine intentions, otherwise they would have answered me and explained me what it was wrong in their opinion.

In the ADF talk page I was accused of going everywhere to ask for information, what was I supposed to do? if nobody answers me should I just let it be?

moreover, telling a person stuff like "fails WP:GNG", "fails WP:BASIC" or " fails WP:ANYBIO" needs to come with an explanation as those are very much interpretabile guide lines. If your point is to get something done fast please do something else. If your point is to improve wikipedia be there for giving all the necessary info.

thank you --19:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)AlejandroLeloirRey (talk)

moreover, when I received the rejection I went everywhere asking what I could do and everybody just told me there vere scarse possibilities for me to see the bio published. after I asked 1000 times someone finally offered me to put it in the AFD and I have accepted. This behavior is not constructive neither. don't Just answer "it is hard or it is almost impossible" tell also what is can be done. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
An acceptable article requires reliable sources that establish the subject as notable. If no-one can find such sources, then the subject isn't notable, and an article on it is not warranted. There's nothing that can be done to get round that. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Maproom: hallo, please ping people when you give them an answer otherwise they might never see our answer. I said that my article was kept, but this is not the point. the point is not if the sourcing is good or bad but the fact that if you tell someone his sourcing is bad than you need to explain a little bit your opinion, especially if you have the power of failing his article. if you say the source is bad than explain why in detail. probably the user spent a lot of time writing his article, you can take 10 min to let him know why his work is not accepted. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, AlejandroLeloirRey, I'll explain why some of the references in Marricke Kofi Gane do not help to establish that he is notable.
  • 2, 3, 4 and 8 report what he said himself, so are not independent.
  • 5, the link given is to a page that does not mention him.
  • 6, the link given is to a page with no content, but apparently written by him and so not independent.
  • 7 is to a list of articles by him, and so not independent.
Reference 1 however does seem to me to qualify as helping to establish notability. Anyway, I see that the article has now been accepted; so, congratulations! Maproom (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Maproom: I wan't talking about Marricke Kofi Gane but this one sounds like a very good answer. this is exactly the type of answers people should give when they fail an article.
To everybody, if you tell someone that this is not the right place to talk about anything than give the link to the most appropriate place. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
AlejandroLeloirRey, see [[1]]. You could create a new discussion on the same page. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I applaud Alejandro's sincerity and politeness. Thanks. I get so many snippy comments and rudeness from editors that I wonder how they ever made it through kindergarten. I am sure we all wish Alejandro success, and I, for one, hope he will stick around and help improve the encyclopedia by working on other articles. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
why so many people are so keen to reject?" Some people wish the honor of being considered an "expert" on something. Being able to reject someone else makes them feel better by gratifying their badness. Sort of like how a crackpot or crank enjoys tricking people into thinking they are an expert, but with less effort. Plenty will review things they have no expertise in. Also some people resent it when people make something or learn something new: in the real world not on the internet this is the sort of reason people like doctors and scientists need their professional groups. By supporting each other they can keep good work from being torn apart for petty reasons. So some people's motives are bad and childish. However, this website has a rule that people must assume "good faith" even when good faith is not shone to them. The purpose of this rule is to keep people from always assuming that people who disagree with them have bad motives--it is no way to run a discussion. But it comes with a trade-off--until you have gained "friends" of a sort to support your work (sort of like with like doctors and scientists), you are vulnerable to people being petty to you. My suggestion would be for a while to focus on trying to help other people who edit topics that interest you. Then when people treat you badly your "friends" of a sort might come to your aid. Obviously this is time consuming and a lot of work, and you may not find it a good idea for you personally--I understand. One other thing--when it comes time to publish a new article in articlespace you may find better luck with reviewers if you use your own sandbox or a userspace draft than community draft. Not saying you won't get the same issue there, though.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I reject the characterisation that (some) AfC reviewers see it as something honourable to reject a draft and I don't think there is any evidence for that either. There are certainly issues with the AfC process, but these comments aren't helpful. In addition, you don't need friends to get your draft accepted (though it may be helpful if your friend is experienced at Wikipedia and can advise you on how to write articles). By the way, any general criticism with regards to AfC should be posted here, not at the Teahouse. --MrClog (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for sharing how you feel about my last post; I will try to keep it in mind. No, you don't absolutely need friends to get your draft accepted--but if multiple editors edit a page some reviewers are more sympathetic--because they may believe that multiple editors will continue to support and develop an article after creation. For example, once I and another editor showed we would support a new editor's rejected draft. The other editor asked the person who rejected the community draft to unreject the draft, and the person did right away, saying that the work on the article would be better done in articlespace.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Personal help

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Hey! I’ve been a fairly active editor for the past year, but lately have felt emotionally drained editing and have felt like I’ve come across poorly to fellow Wikipedians. Is there any sort of “support group” or community discussion areas where one can converse positively? I was running through this page and saw how kind all the responses have been despite the confusing and occasionally trying questions. It gave me hope after a bit of feeling pretty down about my involvement for a while and want to be more substantive. If this isn’t the page to ask these questions, I apologize; I’m still getting the hang of the “back-end” pages. Thanks! ~ 05:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Pbritti (talk)

@Pbritti: I'm sorry to hear you feel that you're burning out. Wikipedia focuses intensely on improving and creating good articles, so there aren't official spaces (that I'm aware of) where support groups are held. Have you thought about taking a WP:BREAK? Please put your emotional health before editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Pbritti: I try to stay upbeat on Wikipedia by reading the weekly/monthly "on the bright sides" Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-29/On the bright side. If you're looking for less formal places to discuss issues, I'd suggest joining the English Wikipedia WP:DISCORD. The conversation is certainly varied, and not structured as a support group, but I find it quite helpful and chat in there a great deal. A good place to ask for instant help/feedback or just share a funny page you saw while editing. Tenryuu is right though, if you're burnt out, sometimes its good to step back for a bit and do something else. Take care of yourself! Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 10:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Tenryuu and CaptainEek, thanks for your advice! I'm going to look into the break option, but probably will be taking a look at the "Bright Side" page as well! I'm glad that there are some aspects of community here! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Pbritti: I believe your comments on the page you and I are on, are constructive and well thought out. These times are emotional for most people, the world is in turmoil. Thank-you, for all your help with wikipedia that I'm aware of, and beyond. GunnisonMarmot (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
GunnisonMarmot, thanks for all your editing! You've been the first person I've met outside of a Wikiproject that has constructive and kind in your comments! Best hopes for you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes when I feel drained from WP, I will work on more mindless tasks like fixing orphan articles. These tasks are unlikely to involve arguing or people reverting me.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Pbritti, I feel for you. This place (not Teahouse, but Wikipedia in general) is driving me nervous (apologies to Alice Cooper). I think the huge infux of people with only passing interest in Wikipedia editing out of boredom due to the "current situation" is very contributory. Unfortunately, even general updates and such are difficult these days. Better days will come, and folks will be less uptight. John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
John from Idegon, thanks for your kind words. I'm looking forward to the end of this quarantine; hopefully with that off our collective shoulders stress will be far less heavy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Pbritti, we're all in this together. The big blue planet, and this little encyclopedia project. You're very kind, too. I count you as a wiki-friend and co-author.GunnisonMarmot (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to properly understand reliable source guidelines

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

india is so diverse, and high population. how much population is enough to call it popular. As even if a single kannada newspaper cover only one major city like Bangalore in Karnataka. It will have readership of crores. But editor being from north india or english speaking may judge it not reliable.

Saamna newspaper by shiv sena and national herald by Indian national congress Saamna is popular then its own circulation, will it be considered as unbiased and reliable source citing ownership by a political party. Lokmat is only Marathi its demographics is limited to Marathi speaking population only. The hitwad i know is some of oldest newspaper but no popularity.

Some language like konkani, sindhi have very less speaking population, but a specific news paper have loyal readership in the language speaking population. Above all no single newspaper can represent entire nation in detail, hence the need for regional newspapers. So my question is how notability is really established, which news source can be considered reliable. I went through guidelines several times, but have hard time understanding then in context of my question above.Nealtylor (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You ask a question that would require an essay to answer, Nealtylor; unfortunately, I don't know of any that already exist.
Readership has nothing to do with what makes a source reliable. There is some correlation, but that doesn't indicate a causative relationship. And reliability is just one of several characteristics required of a source for it to contribute toward notability. Others being that the sources be "secondary" as well as "independent" and the coverage be substantial, not just a passing mention or a routine coverage.
A source is judged reliable if, for example, it has been mentioned as a reliable source by other reliable sources, or if it has a reputation for accuracy and prompt redaction when mistakes are made, or if it is written by a known expert in the field with good reputation for accuracy and other desirable qualities, or if it has some kind of responsible editorial mechanism/board and there is no evidence that it publishes inaccurate/fake news, I think you get the picture. That means, "a Kannada newspaper that covers only Bangalore" would be reliable if it is one of those things I mentioned above. Same with Lokmat, hitwad, and "a specific newspaper in Konkani or Sindhi". Saamna and National Herald would have to be evaluated in light of their affiliations with Shiv sena and The Congress respectively. They could be reliable about certain things, and unreliable about other things. They will not contribute to notability of anybody or anything connected with their respective parties because whether they are reliable or not, they are not "independent" or "secondary" when it comes to their own parties. As to whether the local/regional papers contribute to notability, there is no general answer that would fit all. For example, if the topic is a Marathi writer or a book from before 1900s, and there is substantial coverage in Marathi papers and a few mentions outside Maharastra, that may be considered sufficient; but if it's a Marathi writer or a book from today, people might wonder, why there is no substantial coverage in national and international level,and even suspect that someone could have paid the Marathi sources to cover the topic, then that would not contribute to notability. Deccan Herald, AFAIK, counts toward notability most of the times. Isn't that a regional paper?
The actual content of the coverage matters too. Time and again, Wikipedians discuss whether Times of India should be considered unsuitable for evaluating notability of Bolly- / Tolly- / Kolly- wood related topics, because it writes filmy articles which read very much like paid placements, but then, people say, all Indian film coverage is bad; so, it's tolerated, last I checked, lest we run out of sources to use. On the other hand, English world has a ton of global sources, so there is a very high standard, and even large multi-national/global newspapers can get blacklisted.
Does it start to make sense? Feel free to ask for clarifications and follow-ups. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
It makes complete sense, but how i can use this information in real time situations, like it is a unwritten code of conduct between publications, to not publish about each other due to competitive nature between. Now how a new but going good in circulation publication can be cited in wikipedia. I seen several brands and publication pages in wikipedia in which publication page have its own links as references like bhaskar, jagran, how it is allowed and how a rather new publication will be or not be allowed to use its own references as it may marked as advertisement.
But other publication are never going to write about it.
Same for journalists and editors, except for few who keep on switching jobs i do not see accredited journalists mention in editorials for any award except for government website.
In this case journalist award reference link can be provided but no other references will be available.
All editorial mechanisms and responsibilities big brands automatically qualify, but how a new will be able to, on what points wikipedia editors will judge it.
Same for movies, short films which did good in film festivals but no coverage in big newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealtylor (talk • contribs) 22:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Nealtylor, again, you raise excellent questions, some of them really arguments, one of which I have previously used myself. The general answer is: Wikipedia is not perfect, we do the best we can. The policies here are all borne out of WP:CONSENSUS, and every editor has the ability to propose amendments to policies if they have the arguments to convince the rest of the community. You can visit WP:VPP to see some of that in action. Some of the problems you bring up has to do with WP:Systemic bias. Some of it has to do with how technology changes the world. Everything that was written about before printing was invented is considered automatically notable. Before the internet came along, and with it, clickbait, fake news, WP:COVERT advertising, and all that stuff, newspapers used to be considered almost always automatically reliable. At the end of the day, we service our readers and the philosophy of free knowledge for all; if erring on the side of caution with respect to the booming media landscape does it, whether and how much fair it is to the legitimate new media does not much figure into it.
Getting back to the important question of how to go about editing Wikipedia under these circumstances, all that need said, most likely, is, use common sense. Try your best to make sure the source you are using is reliable; and if someone reverts you, present your case in detail such as you have done here, especially focusing on why you think the source is good, and since you are new, ask politely what they know that you don't know that makes them conclude the opposite, and try and come to an understanding on what's best for the encyclopedia. If you can't find an agreement, there are other avenues of WP:Dispute Resolution. As I said, a lot of how Wikipedia works on is common sense and unwritten consensus. So, it is folly to try and figure out all the rules before you even start. Know that there is no hierarchy of editors here, but that, with experience, may come better knowledge regarding the most up to date community consensus on best practices, all of which may not be found in the written word, and that there are always avenues to pursue if you find yourself in conflict with other editors in any regard. In the meantime, you might be able to gain more insight by raising some of the specific questions you had, at, say, the WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics. I am thinking of questions like: "Why do Jagran and Bhaskar get to cite themselves, when it is spam in case of new publications?" or "Why should the state-level newspapers of India that serve more readers than many of the countries' national papers not be listed as reliable sources or sources adding to notability?", and so on.
With regard to some of those more specific questions used to illustrate your general point, WP:SNG is one compromise we have to try and make it fairer to topics that are important but do not have readily available coverage in mainstream sources. For movies and short films, the secondary criteria are listed at WP:NFO. As you can read there, a film without a ton of coverage will be presumed notable in the interim if there is at least verification that it has won a major award, for example. Similarly, for journalists, WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC provide for presumption of notability if there is evidence that they have won a major award, or have been cited many times by others, for instance.
Hope this is helpful. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Nealtylor had asked this question to me as well, so I found this response helpful. I also found these links that I feel are good advice. Please take a look.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_checklist Pratap Pandit (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Uses and indications of Traditional Herbal Medicines

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hello I want to post some changes and add Traditional Herbal uses of some of th entries in Wikipedia, can someone help me to understand what you refer to as reliable sources. In my work, I have used many traditional textbooks, such as Bartrams Encyclopedia of Herbal Medicine. Are these considered reliable sources for the information about the action and uses of herbs as remedies?Herbalthyme (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Herbalthyme, please visit WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard to discuss reliability of a particular source in general or in a particular context. Please read the notice on the top of that page before you make a post. Editors there are more specialised in evaluating reliability of sources. Wikipedia has a rather strict interpretation of what counts as reliable in health-related contexts (see WP:MEDRS), so my guess is, you could say "This book says this herb does this" (provided it is DUE), but you can't say "this herb is medicinal for this purpose". Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Herbs and other plants can have a Traditional medicine section. See examples St. John's wort and Ginseng. As you will see, reviews of human trial research often included as either support or counterpoint. David notMD (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I encourage you to edit the pages of individual plants--less people will oppose you, as their are many plants and not as many people editing plant articles as they used to. One good source I have is "Stern's Introductory Plant Biology"--there is a large appendix in the back with hundreds of plants and how they were (or still are) used as medicine. Because this book is published by a well known scholar and is peer-reviewed it might even raise less issues from the people worried about high standards on medical articles. When looking for sources online, you may want to search for the term "Ethnobotany"--the sources you find will help by explaining not just what the plant was used for, but who used it, or still does.
Topical encyclopedias are not good for proving that topics on Wikipedia are notable enough to have new articles about them, but they are still considered reliable sources for writing within existing articles. You can still use Bartrams to write within existing articles--just not to prove that a new article is notable enough to be published in article space. An example of how it is already used as source can be found here: Elecampane#Uses
This might seem odd that wikipedia, itself an encyclopedia, discounts other encyclopedias. The reason for this is that their are many encyclopedias covering popular topics like "Star Wars" or "Fan Fiction"--with so many niche topics that are of interest to only fans--so as a result it was decided that encyclopedias are not good for proving that an article is notable enough to avoid being deleted.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Page for a famous person

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

HI, I need to create a wiki page on an entertainer. How can I do that? Can some one guide me so that it is not objected. Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Earthianyogi Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have mere "pages", Wikipedia has articles. Why do you "need" to create this article? 331dot (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
(ec)Earthianyogi please collate the sources carefully and make sure that the subject meets either WP:GNG or one of the criteria at WP:ENT, then use the WP:Article Wizard. Reading WP:YFA before you start is recommended. Other editors can weigh in once you have a rudimentary draft with, for WP:GNG, a list of three best sources (WP:THREE) that establish notability, or failing that, requisite evidence for WP:ENT. On a sidenote, do you know why your signature is after the timestamp in your post? Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Usedtobecool, Thanks for your reply. I have no idea why my signature is after the timestamp in my post :( Is it a problem?
331dot, Thanks for your reply. Just for fun. Can I not? I have only created technical page/articles so far on Wikipedia, and want to make/write another type of page/articles as well. It seems slightly complicated...

Earthianyogi (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Earthianyogi When a newer user says that they have a "need" to create an article, they often have a specific reason for their need. If you just want to create an article, that's fine. Be advised that creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. I would second the advice given to you by Usedtobecool. You may also wish to spend some time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, so you get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. It may also help you to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
331dot, Thank you, but I created other technical articles as well and have made significant additions to other articles (like copula, Positron Emission Tomography, Time-activity curve, etc.). I wanted to contribute (maybe I should have said - I wish to create....). I see now why it is hard to publish an article on Wikipedia, it can get complicated  :) :) Earthianyogi (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Earthianyogi, well, when the order is messed up, the reply-link tool doesn't work; makes it harder to leave a reply. That also suggests, at least a possibility that bots might potentially have a problem too. IDK for sure. It was weird enough to make me curious, that's all. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Usedtobecool: Having fixed the same (sig) problem in the section above, I fixed this one as well, not realizing it was being discussed. Odd that it happened to two different editors, and not in all their posts. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Usedtobecool: Mystery solved. If you type 8 tildes in a row, it is interpreted as 5 tildes followed by 3 tildes, yielding a timestamp followed by a userlink. Since we added the preload when people use the Ask a question at the top of the page, which has a somewhat obfuscated auto-signature in it, some more experienced users that are used to signing their posts, when they use that button, don't notice it and add their own ~~~~, which usually results in two signatures. There was a change made to the preload form that removed a space, so the two sets of tildes now run against each other. Pinging Tenryuu. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi AlanM1, the reason why I removed the space is because it would always render the signature as code in preformatted space due to the space preceding it, which as far as I could tell wouldn't allow reply-link to work. I tried to find examples in the archives, but they've been copyedited away by editors. Perhaps we should add another comment in the preload? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Tenryuu: I tried a couple of different things and didn't come up with a good solution. At least a comment that tells people not to manually sign it would be good. I'll work on it some more tomorrow. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@AlanM1: I've added a new comment to the reload. A possible thing we could do is add any one character before the signature, like "." and format its colour into white so that it is essentially invisible. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tenryuu: After fixing three more flipped sigs (the last at 2020-04-25T06:04Z), I inserted a space in front of the tildes in the preload, which seems to work fine (and is a good idea anyway so people's sigs aren't crammed up against their post). We'll see if any more show up. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • (Clarification added above) I also played a bit with the Lua String module to try to catch and remove the four tildes if the user types them, but from the results, it seems that the tilde substitution happens too early – the String module gets the already-substituted signature instead. So, we may just have to live with the double sigs if they don't see the instruction. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • AlanM1, I edited the preload yesterday. Like my edit summary says, non-breaking spaces should prevent code from becoming a code line. Double signing is fine; it's better than no signature and it doesn't stop reply-link.js from working. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Quandry on how to proceed

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I recently edited the article Haruhi Fujioka in which I edited what has often been a contentious opinion about the fictional character. I tried to be as factual and neutral as possible in my language. Without explanation, the editor of some of the original text (from 12/2018), reverted my edits back to their own, which (imo) reflects an unsubstantiated opinion. I left the editor a TALK message on 4/24/20 asking if there is a way we can collaborate on the language and am waiting for an answer. QUESTION: If the editor user:Maplestrip refuses to collaborate, what do I do next? This editor, in another area of the article, deleted a direct quote, removed language, re-inserted their interpretation of the quote, then used the original citation to validate their interp (see 07:32 1 August, 2016). I replaced the interp with the direct quote again. That was left in place, but the other edits were reverted without reason and without citation (in one case) to support their validity. Is simply asking for citation enough? And if we still differ, even after conversing, how do both non-cited opinions get listed within the article to comply with WP:NPOV?

Ouranista (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just woke up and am currently responding to @Ouranista: on my talk page. I hope we can figure things out. I didn't intend to come across as so difficult, but yes, I did revert stuff without explaining way and I shouldn't have done that. I hope I can be a better editor and we can figure this out together. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Maplestrip and I chatted honestly about the issues at hand and the article in question is now amended in a mutually agreeable way. I've also learned a bit more about Wiki-editing in the process. Thank you, Teahouse! Ouranista (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Does an article edited by someone else automatically get resubmitted?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I have written a article (Lee Fardon) that was initially rejected. I edited and resubmitted and it has subsequently been edited by two others. Does this mean it will automatically be resubmitted (by them) or do I have to resubmit? How do I know if my article will be accepted? Fencedown (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Fencedown and welcome to Wikipedia! The other two editors simply fixed up the draft, but you must click the "resubmit" button again as yet another one has declined your edit. I will warn you, though, it is probably a good idea to find some reliable sources to back your article - there has been cleaing, yes, but a lot of your sources are not ideal. -- a lad insane (channel two) 08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, Fencedown - I just made a comment here and then realised that I'd misunderstood your query, so I've deleted it. Good luck with the draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
If your article is edited after resubmission it is just fine--such editing doesn't remove it or even bump it back in the query. The people reviewing an article's submission only see the link and the first few lines until they click on the article. When they click on it, they will be sure to see the most recent version of your article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I am writing a biography in English. The spouse of the person has a page on the Swedish Wikipedia. When I try to link it claims that the page does not exist. I saw some references to how it is done, but sadly it is unclear, and in my experience (I am new to Wikipedia editing) as unclear as many help/tutorials I saw in/on Wikipedia on other subjects. Thanx Danishom (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Danishom, welcome to the Teahouse. You need the language code sv for Swedish. See Help:Interlanguage links#Inline links (links in the text of the article) and Template:Interlanguage link. We can usually give better help with less effort if you give specifics like the name of the page you want to link, and where you want to link it. {{Interlanguage link|Name of spouse|sv}} produces Name of spouse [sv]. "Name of spouse" is intentionally a red link to the English Wikipedia as long as we don't have an article, while "sv" links to the article in the Swedish Wikipedia. You didn't name the article so my example link doesn't work. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Another way to do it is to put a colon, sv, and another colon before the article's name in Swedish. Like sv:svenska. But weirdly, only the second colon appears, the first one is hidden. Click on edit to see exactly what it looks like.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Editing

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can you give me any advice on Editing? Wale18 (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wale18, Welcome to the Teahouse! Please read WP:MFA then come back and ask specific questions if that doesn't provide the answers you need. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I know I looked ate it. I just wanted some advice from my fellow editors. Wale18 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wale18 If it's not about anything in particular, you might see WP:TWA and/or WP:TUTORIAL to give you an idea of how and what to do. The Wikipedia:Community Portal has various areas in which you might participate. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Very much! I appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wale18 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Editing Wikipedia via a proxy

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. I was blocked by my family from accessing Wikipedia for a short while, and, as I am a wikiholic, I used the proxy User:5.153.218.57 ([2]) to access and edit Wikipedia. I could not log in to my account from that proxy, and I subsequently got blocked for a month for making edits in my userspace. Recently, I have read WP:NOP and have realized that the edits I made on that proxy are inappropriate. As I live in Ohio, not China, what should I do now?? should User:5.153.218.57 be blocked indefinitely? Computer165 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

According to your block log you have never been blocked. Ruslik_Zero 20:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
User:Ruslik0 User:5.153.218.57, the IP I was using, is blocked. I'm wondering if that block should be changed because it is a proxy. --Computer165 (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses says that Open proxies may be blocked on sight and I was using a proxy. I don't know what to do now. --Computer165 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Computer165public: I recommend listening to your family and taking the Wikibreak. --Hillelfrei• talk • 16:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
User:Hillelfrei I will try. --Computer165 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wish to contribute content to an existing page, but I wanted to share it with the page creator

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

On the Wikipedia page USS ARIZONA SALVAGED ARTIFACTS, it references that an artifact has been donated to the Veterans Memorial Museum in Laurel, MS. I am the website administrator for this museum and I wanted to provide a photo of the artifact/display to the Wikipedia page. I really didn't want to have to go in and do a full blown page edit. Can you help me out here?Jweby70 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Jweby70 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Jweby70, this is best done on the article's talk page. If you wish to release a photo for Wikipedia's (and by extension, everyone's) use, please read WP:CONSENT carefully as to how to waive your rights to the photo. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Jweby70, the stated scope of the article USS Arizona salvaged artifacts is "articles displayed throughout the state of Arizona". Cannot see how any contribution you could make would be on topic. However, your addition of photos of the museum exhibits would be a great contribution to Wikipedia Commons, and if say a state level AAA magazine wanted to do a story on your museum, those pictures would be readily available. John from Idegon (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
If you have multiple images, a good way to show multiple pictures is an image gallery at the bottom of the page. Because you work for the museum that will be producing the pictures, it is important to get someone else to put the images on the page and probably not do it yourself. I encourage you to upload all of the photos on to Wikimedia Commons and to use long, detailed captions. The captions should link to relevant wikipedia articles using the interwiki linking method of placing :w: prior to the wikilink. This will allow your Wikimedia commons images to link directly to wikipedia articles relevant to the topic.
I should add that you will need to release even the commercial rights to the images. As commercial involvement is sometimes prohibited by museum policies, you should check with your museum to see if they allow it. For example, would you feel exploited if a business in your town made post cards with the images you put on WP and sold them--competing with your own gift shop? These are good things to bring up to your museum board of directors or supervisor prior to uploading the pictures. See also c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography.
Then, when you are done uploading all of the pictures you want to add, post your request and links to your photos on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. Someone may see it and add it to the article, and since the other person will not be a museum employee, this will not violate the Wikipedia policies on conflicts of interest. If you state on the talk page that you have a conflict of interest and need help, I expect that somone will understand and be considerate of your request. As some people can be sort of snobbish with photos, make sure they are taken with high resolution and good lighting. Many indoor pictures taken in museums are too dark and as a result are unhelpful for wikipedia.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Article on famous television series

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I want to create an article on a famous television series. Can someone guide me in a detailed way so i can create article without the risk of deletion. Hansi Choudhary (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hansi Choudhary: See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Use reliable independent external references to establish the notability of the series. I'm not sure we have a notability guideline about TV series, but WP:NFILM will help give you a sense of whether the subject is likely to meet our requirements. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Hansi Choudhary: This may seem like an obvious question, but are you sure there is not already an article about it (i.e. have you WP:SEARCHed in the Main (article) and Draft namespaces for its name and any potential variation)? What is the name of the series? I think it may be quite unusual for there to be a notable TV series that does not have an article in mainspace or one already being developed in draft space. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 06:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Odd formatting on wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The page shows a third bullet that is incomplete. The underlying text is this:

so it's obviously ignoring everything up to the comma. But I'm not sure what's wrong with it and don't know how to edit it.

````  or >> ````

or Markell West, in case that doesn't work or I misunderstood!

Markell West (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand your question. It isn't ignoring everything up to the comma; it is providing what appears to be a sensible working link to edit the reader's user talk page. It would, however, seem appropriate to change the punctuation from a comma to a semi-colon. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@David Biddulph: I went ahead and changed it to a period. ​ —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Markell West, I'm not seeing what the issue is. The use of the comma is a little awkward, but that's easily changed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Markell West: Like the others, I saw "Click here to ask for help on your talk page". {{edit}} adds the class noprint so I guess you saw the page in a printed or printable version where the class is hidden. <span class="noprint">This text has noprint</span> produces "This text has noprint". I see "This text has noprint". It's not shown in the printable version. It's admittedly confusing to hide the link in some circumstances without hiding the text after the link, so I have removed noprint.[3] Alternatively, noprint could have been added to the whole line, but I think users who view the printable version should know the link is in the normal online version. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Markell West. You sign a post with four tildes (~~~~). You seem to have tried to sign with four backticks (````). --ColinFine (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
... but don't sign at all if you add a new section using the Ask a question at the top of this page – it already has code in it to append the signature-producing tildes. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

SPLIT: Forming a new article from the text in an existing article

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I have added a lot of new content to the 1.7.2. 'Bones' section within this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography. I left a message on its talk page proposing that a new article can be formed using 1.7.2. 'Bones' section. However, no one has yet replied. I am asking for suggestions as I intend to write more on BONES sub-section and add a few more figures on this topic. I noticed that the page is loading quite slow. I am not sure, but any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thank you. Earthianyogi (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Earthianyogi. Have you read Splitting? (By the way, when you refer to a page here, it's more helpful to use a Wikilink rather than a URL: [[Positron emission tomography]] rather than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography). --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello, ColinFine. Thanks for your response. I will read it and get back. This Positron emission tomography page has reached 108,412 bytes and I have more to write. Cheers Earthianyogi (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear All, @ColinFine, Keith D, Sbharris, Kablammo, Joao Sousa (UU), Le Creusot, 202.142.86.208, 190.145.38.136, Kirigiri, Wtmitchell, and LM200:. I have noticed your valuable contribution on this Positron emission tomography article/page. This Positron emission tomography page has reached 108,412 bytes and I have more to write. I propose that section 'Bones' within the article Positron Emission Tomography be split into a separate page called PET for Bone Imaging. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. . Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Earthianyogi: Content discussions should be had on the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Positron emission tomography) so they are easily found in the future. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AlanM1:, Thank you. Moved as suggested... Earthianyogi (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Suppressing reference group naming

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – Code provided by AlanM1; remaining questions asked over at WP:VPT. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Gonna jump on the other side of the fence today. I've been reading up on reference grouping because I am currently editing an article that would look best with multiple notes in a reflist at the end of each section. To separate them I have been using <ref group="" name=""> tags, but when I call them, the superscript marks read as "group 1" instead of "1" as I wanted them to do. Anyone know a way of suppressing the group name from showing up in superscript? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Tenryuu Do you mind sharing the article you are working on? I have a couple of thoughts, but I do better playing around a bit (without saving, but will share what worked in preview mode). And, you are not trying to separate notes from citations, but to have separate reference lists by section, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@CaroleHenson: I'll be honest, it's not here on Wikipedia but on a different wiki (external link's here if you're interested; go to the "Thief" section to see what I'm talking about). I'm trying to get a notelist for select sections, which is why I'm using the grouping feature in the cite software. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I see. Good luck with it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tenryuu: If you use {{Efn}} and {{Notelist}}, it will use the lower-case letters and they can be re-used in multiple sections (i.e. the {{Notelist}} shows only the {{Efn}} since the last {{Notelist}} (or the top of the article if none)):

Section 1

Notes:

  1. ^ a b Note a
  2. ^ Note b
  3. ^ Note c

Section 2

Notes:

  1. ^ a b Zote a
  2. ^ Zote b
  3. ^ Zote c

The {{Efn-lr}} and {{Notelist-lr}} (with lowercase Roman numerals) are less confusing when multiple references to the same ref might be used, which also produce lowercase letters. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

P.S.: I assume we're talking about "notes" only here, not actual references (which should remain together near the end of the article, AFAIK). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@AlanM1: I'm talking about notes, not references. I'm actually editing a page for another wiki, which doesn't have those templates. I'm guessing that without templates like {{efn}} and {{Notelist}} it's impossible to do with the original cite software? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Tenryuu: The functionality does seem to be in the basic reference handling (at least as of the current wiki software version, though I think it's been so for a long time). Here's examples with roman numerals without templates. Note that if you try to use one of the section 3 references (like "x1") in section 4, you get a "not defined" error, so they are definitely isolated. You can even re-use names between sections on the same page (though that's not nice to future editors  ):

Section 3

Notes:

  1. ^ a b Xote 1
  2. ^ Xote 2
  3. ^ Xote 3

Section 4

Notes:

  1. ^ a b Zote 1
  2. ^ Zote 2
  3. ^ Zote 3

@AlanM1: That's what I'm looking for! Thanks! So I need to use div tags to make this work? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tenryuu: Yes – at least the style property is necessary to make it use the lower-roman numbering on the list so it matches the superscripts in the text. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AlanM1: I think I'm doing something wrong; I've copied the line for the references group and for some reason the superscript still reads "lower-roman 1". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Tenryuu: Well, there's nothing obvious in the HTML of the rendered page, so I'm stumped (HTML, CSS, etc. is not really my bag). Someone at WP:VPT may be able to tell you what's in enwiki's config that makes it emit "[i]" instead of "[lower-roman 1]", that isn't on your other wiki (and, for those who are silently screaming, we know it's gone off-topic here  ). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
AlanM1, alright, I'll give the folks at VPT a shoutout. Thanks for the help!   —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have a draft pending. Is it okay to make a article on that?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I recently made a article namely Draft:Basic Level Examination. It is a type of examination which used to be named District Level. Previously, It used to be conducted by particular district. But now it is conducted by Municipal Education Board. So, I felt it was necessary to make a article. District Level Examination is the previous system of board examination for Grade 8 students. Please suggest me necessarily. NecessaryEdits (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy link: District Level Examination.   Maproom (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


NecessaryEdits, you seem to have requested deletion of your draft. So, it's not clear to me, what exactly it is that you are asking. District Level Examination, it appears, is the same , except for the change of stewardship from Districts to Municipal councils. So, it seems sufficient to note that change in the existing article; a new article seems unwarranted. If you have the sources to back it up, you could move the article to the new name as well. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
As now of today, the style of the examination has been changed. The name must be change according to the type of the Examination. The examination used to be of district level but it has been modified. The system of the examination has also changed. The format of taking examination has also been changed. So, I felt necessary that a article should be made. Concerned User:Usedtobecool and User:Maproom

NecessaryEdits (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

hyperlink below article ta:பிலார் உருயிசு இலாபுயெந்தே

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

it contains hyperlink above "From விக்கிப்பீடியா" and below "பிலார் உருயிசு இலாபுயெந்தே" in desktop mode [ i mean tapping desktop at bottom of page, NOT "request desktop site". is this some kind of error ? Leela52452 (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Leela52452: The Teahouse here can only handle questions about the English Wikipedia. Each language is a separate project with its own rules that are not necessarily the same. Please ask at the Help desk of ta.wikipedia.org. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Leela52452: It's done deliberately on all pages in that wiki by installing mw:Extension:ShortUrl. The url's for non-Latin scripts look bad because they use percent-encoding, e.g. this for your example:
https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%8D_%E0%AE%89%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AF%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81_%E0%AE%87%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AF%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%A8%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%87
Your browser may display it in the script in the browser address bar so it looks better to you there, especially if you know the script. https://ta.wikipedia.org/s/7ctr is an automatically created redirect to the article. It uses the page ID so it still works if the article is moved. In a wikilink you can write ta:பிலார் உருயிசு இலாபுயெந்தே but that only works from within Wikipedia, not when a link is posted externally. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  Done @PrimeHunter: it is concise and absolutely no nonsense answer. thank you very much. Leela52452 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Way to format an image with a heading, without using the multiple image template

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am working on edits to an article, Procuratie, which uses a {{Multiple image}} template (vs. formatting with the standard "File:" format). I created this sandbox page with both formats for the same image, and the only difference is that there doesn't not seem to be a way to add a header to the File: format.

  • Is there a way to add a header to the File approach that I am just not aware of?
  • Is it okay to just leave the single image formatting using the multiple image template?

I have investigated templates and image how-to pages and cannot figure it out - and I wasn't sure where else to ask. Thanks so much! –CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

CaroleHenson,
  • I looked too, and did not find one. Going by the (lack of) other answers, the answer is likely no.
  • Does not seem to have broken anything; I don't see why not? Perhaps implement it and wait for someone to object?
Help talk:Pictures says it has 729 watchers, so, worth a shot? Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was beginning to get the same thought - that there's not likely a clear good answer. I will leave it for now... and also reach out to Help talk:Pictures. Thanks so much for your response, Usedtobecool! And, if you used to be cool, but aren't anymore, maybe that's because you're getting plenty of   –CaroleHenson (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
CaroleHenson, Yeah, I wanted to be hot, you see. Seemed like an acceptable price at the time. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Correcting mis-linked English and Danish pages

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The English entry for an area of Copenhagen variously known as: the Kildevækd Quarter, the Strandvej Quarter, the Svanemølle Quarter and the Composers' Quarter is here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kildev%C3%A6ld_Quarter

It should be liked to this Danish page

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strandvejskvarteret

It is currently linked to this page which related not to the Quarter but to a street which forms part of it:

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kildev%C3%A6ldsgade

I am not sure how to decouple this link and connect the two pages correctly.

Would also make more sense to title the English page 'Strandvej Quarter' for consistency with the Danish one.

If anyone would like to do this for me, or tell me how to do it, that would be great, thanks. Betongmandarin (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Betongmandarin: thank you for the heads-up about this. Language links between different Wikipedia versions are stored at Wikidata, and I have removed the English-language link from the Wikidata page about Kildevældsgade and added it to the page about Strandvejskvaerteret. There is an instruction page for how to use Wikidata, in case you want to make other similar changes in future. --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot, what about renaming the English page? I was worried that doing this might create some other problem. (Betongmandarin (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betongmandarin (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Problem solved, I worked it out Thanks Betongmandarin (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can I propose a redirect page that was denied multiple times 10 years ago?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think it only makes common sense to have a redirect from Articles for Deletion to the page WP:Articles for Deletion. I see that several requests to create the page Articles for Deletion were denied in the past (>10 years ago), or that the page was deleted for random reasons. Is there a reason that this is a silly question? Is there a reason the page shouldn't redirect to the right AfD page? Thank you for opinions. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ikjbagl, there is an essay on cross namespace redirects at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. The current consensus is not to redirect from mainspace to project space. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 07:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Alex Noble thank you Ikjbagl (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ikjbagl, note that the disambig page AFD has a link to the WP:Articles for Deletion page. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Article under development requires your support and guidance

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Team, I have written a articleDraft:Nisha Ravikrishnan. Thus article was rejected because of notation issue.Wanted to know what needs to be added from my end.This article is my first ever article, so would need your support and guidance on what needs to be done. Would like to improve on your guidance and support. Cinemapremi (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Cinemapremi, as suggested by Robert, for Nisha Ravikrishnan to be notable (and hence be accepted), she must have played a significant role in several films/shows with an article. So far not yet seen in the draft. If she is indeed notable (as from above), then please leave a message on the draft’s talk page and tell others. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
My understanding is that draft Talk pages are rarely looked at as part of draft evaluation (if the Talk page exists at all), and that the best course of action is to significantly improve the draft before resubmitting. David notMD (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
This may be WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
David notMD, Robert McClenon told the user to note on talk page. Seems too soon though and not enough demo of notability. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 13:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wondering how I can improve my draft to pass submission

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Sam,

If an individual is listed in several different books in different publication years and editions should that be listed also, or is it redundant? Mhjelm (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mhjelm. Mere "listings" of an individual do not contribute to their notability; while they can sometimes be used to support a specific claim about somebody, more substantial material is usually preferable, and is certainly needed for the bulk of the information in the article. Citing multiple editions of the same work is counter-productive, unless there is different relevant information in the different editions: a draft full of citations to multiple passing mentions tends to create a suspicion that there aren't any substantial sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hi Colin,

Yes, there is different relevant information in the various publications. I am wondering what a substantial source is since it seems many accepted submissions seem to include an array of websites instead of actual published books by reputable publishers.

Courtesy - this is probably about Draft:Lisa Munsterhjelm. Quality is more important than quantity. If all the books have is a list of names with that person included, then does not contribute to notability. P.S. Remember to sign your name after every comment by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
And, to answer another part of your reply, Mhjelm: Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of substandard articles, which would not be accepted if they were submitted today, and are only there because none of the thousands of volunteer editors has been interested in improving or deleting them. Please see other stuff exists. Some websites are regarded as reliable, if they have a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking; but many are not. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to move an article from sandbox to live?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm finishing editing my article. What is the next step to move out the sandbox? Mediapals (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mediapals. I'm afraid that, like many people, you've plunged into the difficult task of creating a new article without having learnt how Wikipedia works; this is like going to your first piano lesson and expecting to play a concerto. The next step (which ideally would have been the first step, before writing a single word) is to find multiple independent reliably published sources which discuss Monteux at some length, and cite them: without that, your draft does nothing to establish that his is notable, and will never be accepted as an article. Remember that nothing written or published by Monteux or his associates, or based on material directly from them (such as interviews or press releases) is acceptable, and neither is anything from a user-generated site such as iMDB or blogs. We need places where people who have no connection whatever with Monteux have chosen to write at some length about him, and been published by reliable, professional sources. Reviews in major newspapers might do it, provided they devote some space to him, not just to his works.
Please have a look at So you made a userspace draft, and, if you haven't already, Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


The first step is to add references to published reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject and to support the text. You also need to remove the external links from the article text. You'll find further advice at WP:Your first article, and I'll add a welcome message to your user talk page to include some further useful links. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know how to make infoboxes?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know how to make info boxes? CUZ I DON'T. So I tried a couple of times. It NEVER worked. I think I did something wrong in the source editing mode but I'm not sure. Reach me out in the DOES ANYONE KNOW INFOBOXES? talk page. Flipsosmasos (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Flipsomasos: Have you checked our list of infoboxes? We've created many of them for different purposes and it's likely that the one you need may be in there somewhere. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Pinging Flipsosmasos correctly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I didn't find any attempts to make an infobox in your saved edits. If you post or link your code then we can see what is wrong with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. My responses to all the responses (:D): 1. I was trying to find a game oriented infobox, but there wasn't one (darn) 2. The reason that I didn't have a infobox entry in my history was cuz I never would be able to actualy make one while editing (didn't recognize the template). I had to remove all my attempts cuz u prolably know why. Thanks for the help though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipsosmasos (talk • contribs)

@Flipsosmasos: A board game, video game, or sports match would have different infoboxes. If you want help then say what you want help with. If you have chosen an infobox then you can post your attempted code at User:Flipsosmasos/sandbox. If you want help finding a suitable infobox then say exactly what it is for, e.g. the name of a game. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help! Even tho i figured out how to make an infobox. I used the article Template:Infobox video game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipsosmasos (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Missing information

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This concerns this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_microorganisms_tested_in_outer_space

In the above page there is a table of organisms. Some are red and some are blue. They are clickable for more information on the specific organism, but color difference is not explained. 73.60.214.239 (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You'll find an explanation at WP:Red link. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

RoshanG2907 (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Every picture has a name. The example pictures have example names. First, figure out what the name of the picture you want to add in is, and then replace the example picture name with the correct name. With few exceptions, only use galleries near the bottom of an article. Getting your picture right is tricky--I recommend using the "sandbox" link near the top of the page to practice. No one will mind if you make a mistake in your sandbox.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Content getting on main server

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My question is how much time any new or old content takes to get verified and publish on main server? Manoj shrivastav (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Manoj shrivastav. You have attempted to create an article on your WP:User page. That will never get indexed, because your user page is not part of the main encyclopaedia: it is for sharing some information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor if you wish.
If you want to try the extremely difficult task of creating a new article, please start by reading your first article. If you are in any way connected with Prince - the Desi Rapper, you also need to read about editing with a conflict of interest. If you are the rapper, then you need to read autobiography to learn why writing an article about yourself is a very very bad idea. --ColinFine (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I posted a translation (from a native speaker) at af:Cannabis_in_Suid-Afrika and an Admin deleted with no explanation and deleted my question on their Talk. Solution?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, let me emphasize I had a native speaker proofread before moving to articlespace. I posted a machine-translation of the intro of Cannabis in South Africa on a Draft page: af:Draft:Cannabis_in_South_Africa. I got a native Afrikaans speaker to proofread it, and only then moved it to articlespace. But then a couple days later an Admin deleted the page with zero explanation, and today when I posted on their Talk (which they appear to be using as just another userpage, no conversation on it, and I did double-check the page title to make sure it meant Discussion), they immediately reverted my attempt to communicate.

I don't know if they deleted it for legit technical reasons, or out of an animus towards the topic, so I'm trying to assume good faith. If this Admin simply won't provide an explanation or respond to Talk page posts, how do I find someone to look into this and tell me if I'm in the wrong, or the Admin isn't behaving appropriately? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney but English Wikipedia and Afrikaans Wikipedia are entirely separate projects, with different personnel and different policies and rules. It is unlikely that anybody here can help you: youll need to take this up on af-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I know some other projects like ja-wiki have an "Embassy" page, but not seeing that on af-wiki. I guess I can try to poke around and see what's their general Talk page and post there. And I imagine most internet-savvy Afrikaans speakers also speak English, so that could be easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk • contribs)
I think I've sort-of untangled it, no further help needed at the moment, but thanks for your response! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

ASK PAGE ACCOUNT TO BE RE-ACTIVE

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Good Afternoon Everyone! I Benjamin I Request That This Page You May Reconsidering On It And Help To Re-Active Again It Will An Honor To Get Back In Line Thank You! O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 16:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)

Hey @Benjamin GASIGWA:. Welcome to the teahouse. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically sign and link your name. I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please ask a little more clearly? Thanks, Hillelfrei• talk • 17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Benjamin GASIGWA. I'm afraid that your sandbox has been nominated for speedy deletion, because it is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and any article must be almost entirely based on material that has been written and published wholly independently of the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi ColinFine! So It's Means That I'm No Longer Able To Use Sandbox?? O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 17:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)
You may start a new article in your sandbox, Benjamin GASIGWA, but it should not be about yourself, and it must be something that has a chance of becoing a Wikipedia article: that is, it is a neutrally written and non-promotional summary of what independent reliable sources have published about a notable subject. All the blue words are links to useful pages; but I suggest you start by reading your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Thank You Very Much Colin O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 19:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Your content is now at Draft:Benjamin Gasigwa. It is not submitted. If submitted, it will be Declined or Rejected, because there are no references, and because the content does not support that you meet Wikipedia's requirement for notability. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not social media. It is an encyclopedia. And please, do not capitalize every word. David notMD (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank You Sir David O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 21:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)

Flora Sheffield photo

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can I add the photo of Flora Sheffield into Wikipedia from this page https://www.listal.com/flora-sheffield. Thanks Ghoraghatalpha (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Ghoraghatalpha: Wikipedia requires that images not be copyright, as per Wikipedia's Image Use Policy. In general, this means you cannot use photos you find online, rather, you would need to take the photo yourself and upload it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons. Since the photo you are referring to looks old, there is a small chance the copyright is expired, but you would have to look into England's copyright rules because they likely differ from United States. --Hillelfrei• talk • 18:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

AM I BANNED From WIKIPEDIA ???

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I Want To Ask Did I Banned To This Page?? Because Nothing As I See Allowed From Talk, Sandbox To Contribs All Pages Are Saying Deletion Deletion So What Can I Do O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin GASIGWA (talk • contribs)

No, you are not banned, Benjamin GASIGWA. Your attempts to write about yourself have been deleted, because they were not appropriate content for Wikipedia. But you are very welcome to join us in improving Wikipedia: we have six million articles, and many of them are in need of some care. Please have a look at Help:Introduction. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
User:Benjamin GASIGWA - You are not banned from Wikipedia, but occasionally editors who write only about themselves and ask almost the same questions over and over again may be banned from Wikipedia as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. So please don't push the limits of our patience. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Robert McClenon maybe you understand my question different!? It was just question I didn't mean to make you angry Robert So Sorry O.G.n.T.B.D.ME 21:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that Robert is angry. He's used to dealing with new users, and is just giving you good advice. Maproom (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

how to improve this page

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

how can i improve this content so that it can get published on wikipedia.please do mention your mail.id with answer Manoj shrivastav (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please start by reading Wikipedia:Autobiography. --Hillelfrei• talk • 17:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Manoj shrivastav You have edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place for you to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself and your career. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where article subjects, such as musicians, must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case the definition of a notable musician. If you have read that definition and truly feel that you meet at least one of the criteria, you shouldn't be the one to write about yourself- you should allow others independent of you to take note of your career and write about you.
Also understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer or prevent others from editing it. Lastly, do not ask others to post their email addresses in this public forum. Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

can't get page published but not sure why!

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

  Courtesy link: Draft:Samuel Mori Voit

A duplicate draft, Draft:Sammy Voit exists.

Please help me. I have created a page for Samuel Mori Voit and the code was checked. It is being rejected and I don't understand why. It has been going on for over a year. Please help! Fayerez303 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fayerez303 You have asked this at the AFC Help Desk; please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


I don't understand what you are saying. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayerez303 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You asked this in more than one ___location. Please only ask a question in one ___location. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Fayerez303: Your draft hasn't been rejected, but declined, which is not as serious. I suggest deleting your other draft and improve the one you currently have before re-submitting it. Also, refrain from using promotional language, as it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles.

Pinging Fayerez303 properly this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. How do I delete the previous draft? Also do you have suggestions for the edits on the page? I am not sure how to improve on it. Thank you.

If you wrote it, put db-author with {{}} around it at the top of the page. Someone with the ability to delete will do the task for you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Update: Draft:Samuel Mori Voit is deleted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

how do you upload a pdf for documentation purposes?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Awnearn (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Courtesy link: based on User talk:Jacona#Establishment of Evangelical Christian School in Memphis, TN, this is likely about Evangelical Christian School. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

you could link to it instead of uploading it. You'll need to upload it to your school's website first before linking to it like the references already in the page.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, Epiphyllumlover, but that advice is not right. Awnearn, what is the status of the book Shine on that you say is the origin of the material? If it was published by a reputable publisher, then you can cite it, even though it is not available online. You just need to give standard bibliographic information like title, date, publisher, author, page number. See Template:cite book for how to do this. Uploading a PDF or a scan is likely to be a copyright violation, and cannot be used as a reference because the provenance of a PDF held on a site not known to be a reliable publisher is not itself reliable.
If the book was not published by a reputable publisher, then it's not clear that it can be used as a reliable source in any case.
I see that the Pohlmann book lists ECS among the "sizable group of private schools formed during desegregation". Wikipedia goes with what the reliable published sources say, so that statement cannot be challenged in Wikipedia by an unpublished or privately published source. Reading around it, it seems to me that when Pohlmann says "during desegregation" he is referring to the whole of the period from the Memphis 13 - ECS is not the only pre-1973 school in his list. I'm sure that the wording in the Evangelical Christian School article can be emended to explain this better, and I encourage you to post an Edit request on Talk:Evangelical Christian School. But the article should not say something directly contrary to Pohlmann unless another reliably published source can be adduced. --ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is this an example of “sealioning”

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

There’s been a recent edit at the page of Nick Fuentes by a user stating that word not used in the sources cannot be used on the page. The user argued that the words “encounter, filmed, and criticism” do not appear in the source article and thus should not appear on the page (and then proceeded to remove the entire sentence). The source used does not use the words but very clearly shows the encounter, the filming of it, and the criticism that ensued from said encounter. Is this a valid argument to make on Wikipedia or is this an example of WP:SEALION?

Edit: I forgot to to mention that the user said to find sources using the words mentioned above or “accept this edit [removal]” Nigel Abe (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, this is not a valid argument. It seems that editing this page is harder than most because it is a biography of a living person--I encourage you to avoid edit warring over this. Their are different ways of solving this--Have you tried waiting maybe a few weeks and seeing if the problematic user gets bored and goes away? You could also tag the person's talk page with a message that they are being a nuisance. If enough people leave such messages over months or years of misbehavior, the nuisance-causing editor could get punished.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information. I’m going to leave a message on his talk page, and revert him a second time. If he persists and starts edit warring am I safe to take him to the administrator noticeboard?Nigel Abe (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

He won't be punished for just one offence from one person. After leaving a message on his talk page, I encourage you to stay away from this conflict completely for a while. How long? That is a judgment call on your part and depends on how active the other editor is. Let him get into more trouble with other editors so he can learn from his errors on his own or get punished after offending multiple people.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Never mind, I take that back--he could get punished from offending you, he has enough of a rap sheet already.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Epiphyllumlover: Just to clarify, users are not "punished". If they are disruptive and break the rules (not merely "offend" someone), they can have various administrative sanctions applied, including being blocked for a period of time in order to prevent further disruption or damage to the project. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for letting me know.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Draft submitted

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the past, I used to write biographies of models and beauty queens, I lost my account. Now I am back with a new account to make biographies of young and notable activists, innovators, entrepreneurs and humanitarians. Yesterday, I completed a draft called Draft:Benjamin Bocio Richardson (Category: AfC submissions by date/26 April 2020), I think that I did an amazing job, I noticed that all the drafts posted on the same day have been checked, but nobody says anything or moves the article that I did from draft. What should do? Humanitarian2 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Humanitarian2. Your draft Draft:Benjamin Bocio Richardson has been submitted, and is awaiting review: scroll down to the bottom and you'll see the message. There is nothing you can do to speed it up: reviewers are volunteers, and will get it it when one of them chooses to do so. One thing you could do in the meantime is to edit the draft to refer to him as "Richardson" (or should that be "Bocio"?) rather than "Benjamin", according to MOS:SURNAME. --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Change name of a draft

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

How Can I change or simplify the name of a draft that I created. I created the Draft:Benjamin Bocio Richardson and I want to simplify it to Benjamin Bocio Humanitarian2 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Humanitarian2: Press "more" on the top right and then press "move". --Hillelfrei• talk • 22:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) @Humanitarian2: I'll move it. Also, you may want to check out this guide I wrote on how to create articles that won't be rejected. In short, before the draft is approved you should focus on just summarizing three or more professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about Bocio but not affiliated with, connected to, nor dependent upon him nor any organization he has ties to -- and nothing else to distract from this proof of notability. Material from other sources can come after the draft is approved. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

vandalism

Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

A false account labeling me a pirate was opened on my name and was captioned my picture. I tried to edit it but did not work. Just FYI, my name is Abdi Garad, I'm doctoral researcher from the University of Birmingham, and I need help. 81.104.254.67 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Multiple different people seem to have that name, and one of them is a Somali pirate Zoozaz1 22:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoozaz1 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Abdi. The article Abdi Garad was created back in 2009. Is this not simply a case of two people having the same name? (According to Google, I am actually a New Zealand accountant, acquitted of setting light to my ex-wife's wedding dress in my front garden. Whilst those thoughts have occasionally crossed my mind, I am actually a relatively stable person living in the UK with no accountancy experience and, unlike my namesake, have never been charged with arson.) Whilst all three of the citations in the Abdi Garad article appear dead to me, I do find mention in national media of a Somali pirate who has the same name as you both here and here. Whilst this might be embarrassing, would you mind explaining why you feel this article is actually an attack page on you personally, as I do not see that here at all? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Zoozaz1, a Wikipedia article exists called Abdi Garad, and it is about the pirate. What you are seeing is a "Google Knowledge Panel" which confuses you with the pirate. Below the panel is a link to "claim" the panel. You should click on that link and explain the problem to Google, as they created the panel. You can also click on the "feedback" link and report the mistake. Wikipedia finds this situation regrettable, but, as it is caused by Google, you should notify them about the problem.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Quisqualis: Thank you for pointing us to the Google Knowledge Panel - I didn't think to check that. As you say, this has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever, but I feel the IP editors anguish, and have just sent Google my own complaint that they have linked the image of an innocent person to one of our articles about a Somali criminal. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for pointing us to the Google Knowledge Panel - I didn't think to check that. As you say, this has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever, but I feel the IP editors anguish, and have just sent Google my own complaint that they have linked the image of an innocent person to one of our articles about a Somali criminal. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
So looking at the page history, what happened is that 81.104.254.67 changed the page to an article about himself very recently. The page was originally about the Somali pirate, but he changed it to be about himself. Since the Somali pirate is what the page was created for and is notable compared with a phd candidate, I have reverted to that version. The specific reason the knowledge graph did not display the updated version is that the Google crawling is not instantaneous; in other words, a page changed on Wikipedia will not be immediately reflected in the knowledge graph because it takes time for Google to crawl the page. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Zoozaz1 You did the right thing. But I cannot blame the IP editor for thinking Wikipedia was suggesting they were a Somali pirate, when Google is the one at fault here, not us. Although they received at least three warnings on their page for editing the article, I feel their attempts to change the page about the pirate were somehow done in good faith, in an attempt to protect their reputation. I would not block them if they tried again without first making clear how the misunderstanding caused by Google had occurred. I really feel for them, though there is nothing our editors can do, except maintain the integrity of the page about the Somali pirate. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I do understand the predicament, especially since Google pairs an image of the researcher with its are article about the pirate, so I added a note to the pirate article saying Not to be confused with Abdi Garad the PhD candidate for clarification. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Zoozaz1: I think adding a hatnote to differentiate between an article title and any other non-notable person is not the way to go about things. Thank you for your concerns, though I'm pleased someone else removed the hatnote. Having reported the issue to Google myself - and probably the IP and others did too - I now note that Google Knowledge Panel has now been removed entirely by Google in its search results - so reporting seems to work! Nick Moyes (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Am I right in concluding that the PhD candidate hijacked the wikipedia article of the Somali Pirate ? :D Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Conflict of Interest

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, Could someone kindly check and see if a Template message citing insufficient citations is still justified for this article? I do agree that its still a stub, but can someone give their opinion on if this template still needs to be there? I happen to know the person so I do not want to remove the Template as it may violate the conflict of interest rule. Thank you Saffura9 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Saffura9: Please link to the article - my mind-reading skills are a bit rubbish these days.
@Saffura9: fixing ping. My typing's clearly a bit off, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Article in question seems to be Naeim Ghalili. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisqualis (talk • contribs) 03:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Nick Moyes: Yes, that is the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saffura9 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Advanced graph formatting?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm working on a graph at User:Eddie891/GAGraph, and there are several things I wan't to do, but don't have the technological know-how to do. Anyone who can advise on what to do/or tell me it's impossible on-wiki, would be greatly appreciated. 1) I want to gray out the background for sections when backlog drives are in progress, like how this graph is done. 2) I want to highlight specific points on the graph (i.e. all time lowest numbers, highest, etc.). Again, any suggestions would appreciated! Eddie891 Talk Work 00:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Eddie891: I'd recommend asking at Template talk:Graph:Chart to get a more focused audience. If you don't get a response after a couple of days, maybe ask at WP:VPT. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why do I need a Creative Commons license when I own the sole examples of pictures created by my late mother?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

More specifically, I want to create a page about her on Wikipedia’s ‘List of South African women artists’. SO I wish to include some examples of her paintings in my possession. I‘m not concerned that anyone else might download these JPEG images, and use (or even ‘misuse’ them) in that unlikely event… Thanks! ```` DeSoto 383 (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@DeSoto 383: You may have inherited ownership of the paintings' copyright, in which case you can release them under a Creative Commons license. All content (except for some fair use content) must be released under a free license, so it can be reused by anyone. --MrClog (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@DeSoto 383: The good folk over here on English Wikipedia aren't the same people who deal with images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I think MrClog was right in what he says, though be prepared for someone to challenge whether or not you have the rights over your mothers images. (I am in the same boat myself. I've been thinking of uploading a semi-naked image my own mother drew of the wartime model, Quentin Crisp, which is in my possession. I am the sole heir to her will, and thus I now, sadly, own the rights to all her work. But how do I prove that? If challenged, I guess I might have to resort to supplying a copy of the UK 'Grant of Probate' which shows I managed her estate. It would have to be sent to their so-called 'OTRS' Team for checking.) The reason for challenging people over image rights is not to be a nuisance, but it is there to protect the rights of people against having their work maliciously or incorrectly released against their will. It is possible to upload an image only to Eglosh Wikipedia, where we are somewhat less strict on image rights interpretation. As an important aside, any entry into 'list articles' does generally require a pre-existing page about that person to exist here on Wikipedia. That itself, requires certain 'notability criteria' to be met. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)     Reply
Hello, DeSoto 383. We cannot advise you on South African inheritance law, but if you are your mother's sole heir, then it is possible that you also own the copyrights to her paintings, and can release them under an acceptable Creative Commons license. As for List of South African women artists, that is a list of artists who already have a Wikipedia biography. If your mother was truly a notable artist, then the first step is writing a biography of her. You have a Conflict of interest regarding your mother, so you should use the Articles for Creation process to write a draft for review by experienced editors. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes. A tilde looks like this: ~ . Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The necessary status needed to edit the article on The Lord of the Flies

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article on the novel Lord of the Flies fails twice to identify the most important and most fundamental theme of the novel: Golding's view of human nature, specifically his view that human nature is inherently violent and fearful. I've inserted edits in two sections to rectify this omission. I see there is a notice: "This page is semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need help getting started with editing, please visit the Teahouse." So here I am. I'd like to be able to edit the article. Can you give me the necessary status? Chandlerburr (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Chandlerburr, Not sure what the issue is, as you are autoconfirmed? Users with 10 edits and 4 days tenure get it automatically. You seem to have made four edits to the Lord of the Flies recently, see here. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi Chandlerburr. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:No original research for reference if you're planning on adding any kinds of interpretations about the book to its Wikipedia article. Anything you add on Golding's view of human nature is going to need to be supported by citations to secondary reliable sources. Otherwise, such claims can be challenged and even removed at any time per WP:BURDEN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Providing our own entry to the European Landscape Convention, with many links to relevant publications, etc.

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We are responsible for the European Landscape Convention of the Council of Europe and would like people to be able to find our documents through Wikipedia. How could we do this? Susan Moller, European Landscape Convention, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France Smoller67 (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Smoller67. First of all, Wikipedia accounts are for the use of only one person, so you should speak as "I" rather than "we". You seem to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. It is a neutrally written encyclopedia consisting of articles that summarize what reliable, independent sources say about various topics. It is not a web host or a repository for documents of various organizations. Please read and comply with the mandatory paid editing declaration and the guideline for editing with a conflict of interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
(ec)Smoller67, if you check the "Further reading" and "External links" sections at European Landscape Convention you may get an idea. Guidance at WP:Further reading and WP:EL. This is assuming "our" refers to Council of Europe or somesuch. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello, Smoller67. Before I retired, I worked for a while in a conservation planning team, with colleagues who were intimately involved in promoting Landscape Character Assessment within one English county. They spent weeks going round photographing characteristic landscapes, and wanted to retain tight control over them all, which is a shame from my perspective as a Wikipedia editor, as I cannot use any of them here. The one thing I might suggest you could very usefully do to help everyone improve a raft of Wikipedia articles is to encourage all those that you have dealings with - who take or supply landscape photographs for you - is to release some of them under a licence that is acceptable for use here on Wikipedia and its related projects. Photos are generally uploaded first to Wikimedia Commons, and all have to be properly released by the copyright holder under a Creative Commons (CC-BY-SA) licence. It's a simple but essential process. This means re-use is clearly allowed, both for non-commercial and commercial purposes. You probably have no idea how utterly frustrating it an be for us editors when we want to improve an article, only to find that there are no images available on that topic with a suitable licence for use on Wikipedia, yet there are thousands out there labelled 'copyright' which we cannot use in any way. This also applies, albeit to a much lesser extent, to text content. We can always reword and rephrase text - but we cannot redraw a brilliant photograph that has no clear licence. (Many professional photographers, museum and other organisations fail to appreciate that all they need to release for use on Wikipedia is an image at a quite low resolution, just suitable for screen display. They do not lose their rights over their original photograph, nor their commercial possibilities, and the terms of the release licence obliges us to credit them when they are used here.) So these really are two things you could do to highlight within your team as, without it, our hands are quite tightly bound.
Finally, if you do want to make suggestions for improving any page on Wikipedia, and feel that you are perhaps too closely involved through your organisation, you can always post a suggestion and relevant link(s) to the article talk page, pointing out what you think could be done to improve a page, and the source that supports it. What we like best here are independent sources that talk in detail about the subject, rather than simply trotting out what some convention or law actually states. That helps shows the subjects' wider significance. There is no shame in working for an organisation, but do please follow the advice and above and pop a note on your userpahge to declare your connection to the subject. That way, we as editors, can help and guide you most effectively. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please guide me how to include reference of books by links, if the books are not available on internet. Rangan Mitra Ray (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Rangan Mitra Ray, and welcome to the Teahouse. Information about how to cite books is at WP:Citing sources#Books. As it says there, the template Template:cite book can assist. Note that, even if a book is available on the internet, the bibliographic information mentioned there is the important part of the citation: a URL is a convenience for a reader, not a significant part of the citation. --ColinFine (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Remember to include page number and if possible a short quote from the book that supports the text you want to include in the article. Help:Introduction also has "how to" guidance on referencing, supposedly aimed at newer editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to be an editor/admin of a page

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Hello,

I am a newbie and I would like to know the steps to become an editor of a page that has been translated to two different languages. Your inputs are highly appreciated. Thank you. Lithuaniacitizenship (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lithuaniacitizenship Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there is a particular article you wish to edit, you may do so- you are then an 'editor' of that article. That's all you need to do. Most articles are free for anyone who wishes to edit to do so. A small number are protected from editing in order to stop vandalism or edit warring, but you may still propose changes to those articles on their associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would add to that that editing in order to promote your own consultancy office is not appreciated, because Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements. --MrClog (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yeah- didn't realize that was a website name. Thanks MrClog. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
(ec):Hello Lithuaniacitizenship! Help:Introduction has good info on basic editing. Assuming you want to edit an en-WP article, the en-WP "rules" about WP:Reliable sources, WP:NOENG etc apply. If you want to edit another language WP, their "rules" apply, and they may be different. Unless the articles you think about is WP:PROTECTED, you can be WP:BOLD, WP is a learning by doing place. Also, you can't be "admin of a page". Hope this helps a little. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
You are (temporarily) blocked on two counts: Your chosen User name is a business name, and appears you want to promote the consultancy office. Must change name. See your Talk page for all details. David notMD (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm really new, trying to translate a page, but how should I add pictures to my translation from the original page?

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I am trying to translate the Enoch L. Johnson page to Hungarian language, but I don't know how can I add the pictures from the original page's infobox to the translated page. I can't just upload it like it's mine, but I don't know any other solutions. I am really new, so PLEASE if you answer, try to be very specif about the steps.

Thank you! Ergepard (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ergepard. Most photos in Wikipedia are held in Wikimedia Commons, and can be directly displayed from any Wikimedia project, including other-language Wikipedias. However, the photo on Enoch L. Johnson has been uploaded to English Wikipedia, because it is not free of copyright, and Commons accepts only free images. If you pick on the image, you will see that it has been uploaded with a specific justification for its use here according to the rules of English Wikipedia.
Different Wikipedias have different rules about the use of non-free images (for example, I believe the German Wikipedia does not allow them). You'll need to check what the rules are on Hungarian Wikipedia, and see if they will allow that image. If they do, I believe the only way is for you to download the image to your own computer, and then upload it to hu-wiki, following whatever rules they have about non-free images. --ColinFine (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the answer, I will try to do what you suggested! Ergepard (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Updating an exisiting Wikipage

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Hi,

I am trying to update an exisiting wikipedia page with updated information. However as this is my first time editing/uploading something on here. I have the article saved on my sandbox, if someone could reivew this and give me a few pointers as to how to go abut updating the exisiting page without causing any conflict with previous editors?

Thanks! S5omr (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

S5omr Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you state you are working with Kevin Stephens, you will need to read and formally comply with the conflict of interest policy. If you are being compensated in any way for doing so, you will also need to comply with the paid editing policy. The article(not just a "page") does not belong to Mr. Stephens and he cannot grant or deny permission for any editor to edit the article about him. The draft you have written is, frankly, loaded with promotional language and is completely unsourced to independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Mr. Stephens. Wikipedia is not interested in what any article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it. Any expansion of the article about him should only summarize what others say about Mr. Stephens, such as news articles or completely independent reviews of his work. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi 331dot,

Many thanks for your help here and your prompt responce! Due to the nature of Kevin's work, majority of independant reivews come in the form of comments on social media and inteviews. The current page on Kevin is not up to date, would you be able to advise the best way to update this without causing confilt with current/past authors? S5omr (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

S5omr You need to read some of our policies and guidelines I'm afraid. WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You might find it easier to learn the ropes by starting helping out with some minor edits to other articles rather than a wholesale rewrite of a biography. Our rules are complicated for a newbie. You need to learn how careful we are with BLPs generally, especially with negativity. How to handle discussion of children who are minors. And on top of that you have a conflict of interest. Oh and mostly removing his notable career from his biography isn't a good idea. You're just not in a good position to do this task, at the moment. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

This has been very helpful and has made this sitation much clearer. In regard to removing his notable career, I was unaware of the policies in places (due to my own misconceptions about Wikipedia) - is there somewhere/someone I can apologise to for making such edits?S5omr (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

S5omr (edit conflict) Unfortunately, social media comments are not reliable sources. What is required are professionally published sources that have a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. If you have sources that do that, you should make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page(Talk:Kevin Stephens) once you comply with the policies I have mentioned above. If information does not appear in such sources, it cannot be on Wikipedia- even if this means that the article does not describe his current status or career. Mr. Stephens is free to use his social media to give any information he wishes about himself. Again, Wikipedia is only for describing what independent reliable sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
You can, however, make suggestions at Talk:Kevin Stephens. If they are inline with WP:s policies and guidelines as 331dot writes, people may listen. Your best bet is finding good references per WP:RS. Without good references, there is unlikely to be any changes. Btw, does he have some sort of personal website? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your very helpful input Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I will go back and collate any worthy references relating to Kevin's career and propose these as mentioned above. He does have a site but will be going live in the later part of this year (2020). You may find the site at stevothemadman.co.ukS5omr (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, my browser warns me not to visit that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@S5omr: That's apparently because the website's security certificate expired on 16 March, 2020. Is that the correct website? If so, you'll need to contact your provider to renew the certificate. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The website is still under construction, which may be why the certifiate has not been renewed since the 16/03/2020. If you click through (past the security message) you should be able to see a page with various pictures of Kevin as well as a text box to sign up for the newsletter.S5omr (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Follow-up to I want to enquire about the delay in publishing my article

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

I republished the article uploaded on Wikipedia about a month back. Could you please let me know the status of the article? Also, if you could specify which part need to be worked on, then it would be great. This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:B.PAC

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparnapthk72 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Aparnapthk72 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As indicated in the draft, it was reviewed and declined. Please see the messages from the reviewer for advice. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

WEB-PAGE THEFT

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

What is the procedure to re-instate the Wiki-page ‘Battle of Chalgrove’? The title of this Wiki-page has been stolen/changed to ‘Battle of Chalgrove Field’ and contains serious breaches copyright. John Hampdens Regiment (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@John Hampdens Regiment: Please read WP:OWN. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oh, wait, sorry @John Hampdens Regiment: looking at the history for the Battle of Chalgrove article, "Battle of Chalgrove" was always a redirect to Battle of Chalgrove Field, which is where your edits have always been. One cannot re-instate what was never -instate to begin with.
Still should read WP:OWN, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
John Hampdens Regiment, what exactly are the "serious breaches copyright" you're referring to? creffett (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Judging from your comments on other user pages, I suspect that you're referring to File:Chalgrove_Battle_Map.png. That file was uploaded by you on 7 March 2016, and according to that page you said it was your own work and agreed to release it under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 license. In short, that means that you agreed that a) you owned the copyright to that image, and b) you released that image to be used by anybody and for any purpose as long as they properly attributed it to you. In other words, you cannot claim it is a copyright violation because of how you licensed it when uploading it. creffett (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
John Hampdens Regiment Once you release an image under a Creative Commons license, you cannot revoke that. You are attributed by Wikipedia as required; if you click on the image, it lists you as the source. --MrClog (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ian Thompson - it is accepted that you are correct and the map was uploaded to Wiki by me. You state that the ‘image to be used by anybody and for any purpose as long as they properly attribute it to you’. Where is that accreditation on the Battle of Chalgrove Field webpage? Your comments on the statements under would be appreciated and if you prefer Robinvp11’s interpretation of the Battle of Chalgrove to give the reason why. Where is Wikipedia’s Academic Excellence?

The Battle of Chalgrove was added to English Heritage Battlefield Register because the Chalgrove Battle Group’s interpretation undermined English Heritage’s main source of information. English Heritage had relied heavily on Oxoniensia Vol 38 pub 1973 ‘The Raid on Chinnor and the Fight at Chalgrove Field’ J. Stevenson & A. Carter which the Independent Review Panel who were convinced by the Group’s argument was utterly flawed. Robinvp11 interpretation mirrors that found in English Heritage’s Provisional Register which was dismissed by the Independent Review Panel.

Oxoniensia Vol 80 pub 2015 ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove 1643’ Lester and Lester which academically and to the satisfaction of the peer reviewers totally refuted Stevenson and Carter’s interpretation of Chalgrove.

Robinvp11 relies heavily on Oxoniensia Vol 38 pub 1973 ‘The Raid on Chinnor and the Fight at Chalgrove Field’ J. Stevenson & A. Carter for his interpretation. Robinvp11 confuses, misquotes and is dismissive of statements made by Lester and Lester see his Ref (9) and page 34. The Chalgrove Battle Map is not referenced and is unattributed, it is the writer’s copyright and is found on page 36 of Oxoniensia Vol 80. Robinvp11 should read page 28 to get an understanding that George Nugent-Grenville’s (Lord Nugent) interpretation found in his book pub 1832 ‘Some Memorial’ is pathetically inane. Quote from vol II p431 has ‘He (Hampden) instantly mounted’ his horse to go and fight 2,000 Royalists leaving his regiment safely tucked up in their beds in Watlington. How else can it be explained that Hampden was at Chalgrove without his officers and regiment!? The Independent Review Panel thought this statement was hilarious and threw out English Heritage’s claims. Are Wikipedia’s founders horrified by the absurdity that is damaging its name for academic excellence being published on its website?

Sir Edward Hyde (Clarendon from 1661) was in Oxford with King Charles I on the day of Battle of Chalgrove. The senior parliamentarian officers captured from Chalgrove hours earlier were asked why they were fighting as troopers. Would Robinvp11 care to read what was recorded by Hyde and the King on the day!? A transcription of the original document is found on Battle of Chalgrove Wiki webpage.

Oxoniensia Vol 80 pub 2015 ‘The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove 1643’ Lester and Lester can be viewed in Flipbooks formation on the Battle of Chalgrove Wiki webpage or at www.johnhampdensregiment.org.uk. This website is linked to webpage Battle of Chalgrove and has copies of the contemporary documents written out in full so as to assist the reader.

It is the administrators’ duty to restore the Wiki webpage ‘Battle of Chalgrove’ as the definitive interpretation. Regards, Lester & Lester, a leading authority on the Battle of Chalgrove — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Hampdens Regiment (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
the post immediately above was moved by me from the top of the section, to reduce confusion about the discussion sequence. Will add a note to the user's talk page, about replying below other posts --bonadea contributions talk 11:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

John Hampdens Regiment Have you readWP:OWN yet? It is NOT the administrators’ duty to restore the "Wiki webpage" to your preferred version, if you have any dispute with content please discus it on the article's talk page. Regarding the map, you have released your copyright by uploading it to Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am a new editor and do not know much English. Could someone show me around? Rey de los Pirineos (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello and welcome, Rey de los Pirineos! Start with Help:Introduction and/or WP:ADVENTURE. Since this is the english WP, you may have trouble if you don't know enough english. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rey de los Pirineos: You might want to try WP:TWA or WP:TUTORIAL. Let us know if you have any specific questions. (@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: ? The OP is perhaps being modest. The post is, refreshingly, grammatically correct and properly formatted.  ) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Major content removal of China national football team article

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello,

User:Pestick and User talk:14.231.64.162 who I believe are the same, has recently been removing large amounts of content from this article using the disguise of Recentism. Upon inspecting his/her edits they have deleted numerous historical content and sources leading to systemic bias and lack of neutral point of view.

When I undid one of their edits and clearly stated the reasons why, I was confronted with this on the China national football team: Revision history page

"There is a discuss in the talk page, made by another editor. You are up against two editors including me. I'm trying to condense the article per TP:Overly detailed. Please don't disrupt the article's renovation process. This is not mainly about dead links, it's about condensing the article and getting rid of excessive intricate details." (16:09, 25 April 2020‎)

I looked this up at the Talk:China national football team and all I could find was David Tornheim wrote, "I hope editors can review the sourcing and fix broken links." (10:04, 21 April 2020) Further research lead me to User talk:14.231.64.162 where Materialscientist suggested this person use Sandbox. David Tornheim came in and was encouraging to the new editor, suggested a more neutral tone, replace sources that were lacking and read up carefully on any rules that editors say you have broken. Unfortunately when he wrote,

"If you start getting more warnings and anyone gets testy with you, please let me know, and can see what is going on." (10:03, 21 April 2020)

this person has selectively read that they have carte blanche to do whatever they want. This has lead to further numerous instances of vandalism deleted numerous referenced material under what they believe is condensing, poor English, only English cited sources and dead links to name a few. When I confronted this person I was met with Ownership of content and bullying language as this person now believes they have to administrators backing him/her and the perception of power. I wrote to David Tornheim about mu concerns, but he has not responded and Materialscientist has a "busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." sign on their talk page.

So I am asking for help to stop this person vandalising this page and several others, they are not improving this page at all because if they were they wouldn't be deleting the same passages and references used in the Nederlands Featured article of the same name. Kai Lau (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Kai Lau. You are having a content dispute with two other editors. This is perfectly normal, according to WP:BRD. The way we resolve such disputes is explained in dispute resolution. Please do not describe other editors' actions as vandalism unless they are clearly intended to damage Wikipedia. What is done in a different-language Wikipedia has no bearing on what should be done here, as they are completely independent projects. (I have not looked at the edits, so I do not take a position for or against you: I'm just explaining how things work on English Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear ColinFine

I have been following the content dispute and dispute resolution project pages. I have approached the the editor and anyone else involved, I have attempted to go back to improve the article but was met with ownership of content and bullying language. I've attempted to step back and wait a few days to focus on the content but when this person is maliciously removing encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view to suit their bias opinion and seeing this person do the same to other articles is not easy. I am looking for a Third opinion because if i do go further with the content dispute how do I go about it? Kai Lau (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Kai Lau: I took a look. I believe I returned article to "status quo ante". I have encouraged you to both discuss your edits on the talk page of the article. Per WP:BRD, when a WP:BOLD change is reverted, one should not revert again, but instead discuss on the talk page. I am not taking a side in this dispute. I will try to look at the talk page & I might state my preference of keep vs. remove. It would probably be better if you found others who are more interested in this subject to break ties when you can't agree. I do agree with ColinFine that it is a content dispute, and that Pestick is not vandalizing the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notability question - Happiness Curriculum

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A friend of mine would like to create an article on "Happiness Curriculum" - a program by Government of Delhi and an NGO, which daily 40-minute class that takes place in all state-run schools, focusing on social skills, emotional learning etc. I would like to know if it is notable. It has received good coverage from several sources, but I am not very sure at this point. Kindly help!

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.

KCVelaga (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@KCVelaga: Looks very well-covered by reliable sources to me. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can a user create more than one page??

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Factedits (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Factedits Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles- but yes, there is no limitation as to the number of articles you can create. However, be advised that successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. You will greatly increase your chances of success by first spending much time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. You may wish to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean user pages? You can edit your own user page (almost) however you like, and you can do the same with your sandbox (link is at the top of the website). You can also create extra user pages for articles you are working on with a slash between your user name and the page's name, but that is a bit trickier.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

While editing an existing article

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

While editing an existing article requiring citation, is it sufficient to add a relevant link. Does that qualify as a citation? Factedits (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:CITE for information on citing sources. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Factedits: WP:EASYREFBEGIN is a good primer on how to properly cite references. Please revisit your recent edits to correct those incorrect cites. Also note WP:MINOR – only trivial changes (like spelling and punctuation corrections) should be marked as "minor edits". Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have created a page called "Bangalore International Centre" which is on my watchlist currently..What is the next step?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Factedits (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Factedits I would ask you to make sure that you post your question in the larger edit window; the smaller window is for a section header or title. I did delete your user page, as it was not appropriate for your user page. Your user page is a place to tell the Wikipedia community about yourself as a Wikipedia user, and not a place to promote an organization. If you are associated with the organization, please read about conflict of interest. If you have any follow up question or comment, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section. This is easier to do using the desktop version of Wikipedia(even if on a phone). 331dot (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why is an objective page being rejected for being promotional?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have written an article about a company and it has been rejected for being promotional. I understand wikipedia is extremely specific about content being purely for informational purposes, so I ensured the content of the article was purely factual and that every line was annotated and cited. There are many wikipedia pages about businesses and I feel that this was written with the same objectivity. Do you have any suggestions for how I can write about a company without getting flagged for being promotional? I have a journalism degree and like to think I know how to write about something objectively. For reference the draft is Draft:Hometap Home Equity Investments I was doing research on this business and others like it, and when I discovered this company did not have a page and other companies like it did, I decided to create a page to distinguish the different business models.

Any help would be appreciated. Mateo1259 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mateo1259, the key is to not write it as if it's a promotion. While I can't speak to the reliability of the sources you provided the section "Model" particularly reads like an ad copy. I see the use of WP:PUFFERY in In June of 2019, Hometap was recognized as having one of the most impressive engineering teams in Boston tech by VentureFizz (emphasis added), even if that is in the title of the source that you used.
I feel that a significant part of it is the casual tone being adopted (for example, the use of contractions which is discouraged in formal writing). It's being written to connect, and while connection is the most important thing that writing is supposed to do, the casual tone used such as in The process works in just a few steps (emphasis added) gives it a nuance of persuasion, which is not what Wikipedia is for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Improving an article

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello,

I’ll start by introducing myself. I’m a Director of Brand Strategy in Marketing at Apple. I’m reaching out today because myself and some of my associates would like to enhance Apple’s page and change some of the content and nuances on the page to make it represent Apple more positively. Because of the large amount of users on Wikipedia, we believe this will be an effective method by which to reach potential customers. I ran the idea by some of my superiors, and they were all for me communicating with Wikipedia and working out an agreement. Obviously, this would benefit Wikipedia because we would keep the page updated and ensure it contains all relevant information. How can we arrange this? Please advise how to proceed.

Thank you for your help. 184.144.119.19 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You need to read about conflict of interest and make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Per WP:PROMO, of course not. WP is not for helping Apple reach potential customers. It's not Apple's page, it's WP:s article about Apple. But per David Biddulph, consider making suggestions at Talk:Apple Inc. And thanks for asking first, unlike these guys. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
When you say "myself and some of my associates would like to enhance Apple’s page and change some of the content and nuances on the page to make it represent Apple more positively. Because of the large amount of users on Wikipedia, we believe this will be an effective method by which to reach potential customers", those are exactly the things we do not want. Wikipedia has no interest in how Apple is portrayed, and has no interest in helping potential customers. Apple is free to do this on its own website(which I would think would be a more effective use of your time as Apple is an extremely well known company). Feel free to show your superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your replies. What I originally had in mind was a sort of mutual agreement in which we would manage our own page. I did not fully understand the Neutral Point of View aspect of Wikipedia, I thought content merely needed to be accurate information, which of course we would have provided. I now see that my request is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policies. Thanks, 184.144.119.19 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Declined Article

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, I am writing to you to tell you about how Wikipedia has declined my article Draft:Dubuc Tomahawk. I do not understand this happened, especially as I have spent about 3 days writing it. Please help! Electrostar378 (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Electrostar378 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry you are experiencing frustration at the process to create a new article. Creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and unfortunately you are finding this out the hard way. That said, the reviewer gave you some good advice, and since they did not outright reject your draft, that means there is at least a chance the article can be improved to meet standards. Do you have any questions about the advice you were given? 331dot (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
You don't need to tell us about how your draft was declined. The draft was grossly malformatted, so among other things you need to read the useful links which were provided to you, both on the draft page itself and on your user talk page. One useful hint is that a template call, such as infobox, cite web, and cite news, not only starts with {{ but also finishes with }}. If you use "Show preview" before saving the page it will give you a clue whether your formatting is screwed up. If you get the formatting right, it will give the reviewer a chance to read it correctly to see whether the content is acceptable. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Electrostar378: yes, I'm afraid virtually everything about that draft is currently a total 'pig's ear', with such bad formatting that it's virtually impossible to envisage that three days work could look so bad, and yet you hadn't noticed. If you want help on specific issue, we'll try to assist you. For starters, see my guide on adding references at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Electrostar378, in addition to what other editors have observed, please understand that articles should have a neutral point of view, something that should also be in the "Background" section of your draft. Phrases like In fact, it was such a great car are not suitable for an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Carlo Masi-Ruggero freddi photo

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

hallo, this picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ruggero_Freddi.jpg was taken from here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/188146761@N05/49826675387/in/photolist-DZtLh-6Em6Ch-9T599o-9T2na6-9n5TvN-52Soij-9T59Lw-4ZBJ44-ohYp1-4ZQZic-54jQy5-5nDrvr-aPksrX-54fB3g-6nNhCo-2kFxHT-26WVeJK-gsSNM-apwb74-odwbDB-hpgHi-52N8fx-owexTj-2iV1JE8-DaKqAD can someone tell me why I can not use it? thank you AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@AlejandroLeloirRey: You already asked the question to the nominator at Wikimedia Commons. It is best to wait for their answer. I think the reason your picture was noiminated is that they could not verify its source, because you only included "Flickr" as source, without a link. --MrClog (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MrClog: I am very frustrated, I have been trying to upload a picture for days. Emails where sent by the subject of the picture and the person who took the picture and didn't get any answer. So the picture was uploaded on flickr but even this seems not to be enough. What it realy frustrate me is that every time I tried to upload a picture it was reported by the same person, exactly 2 minutes after I uploaded it. one minute later I leave a message for that person to explain him and he takes one day to give a general answer. I know it is not personal but still, why people are so efficient at deleting and so slow at answering? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, but you apparently don't. Please do not upload any photographs unless you took them yourself or they have a definite license to do so. You were told on Commons that "It previously appeared numerous other places on the internet, e.g. here in 26. June 2018. This is called license laundering, and continued misreprestation of copyright status may result in a block". Theroadislong (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) @AlejandroLeloirRey: I won't comment on the nominator's behaviour. However, the pictures you uploaded on Commons where uploaded the same day on Flickr, meaning there is reasonable grounds to suspect you may have uploaded the pictures on Flickr yourself, not the actual copyright holder. If the copyright holder agrees with the picture being uploaded, consider pointing them to the Wikimedia OTRS release generator. --MrClog (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Theroadislong: as you should know, if you want me to read you, you should ping me, thank you. the subject in the picture (also its owner) and the person who took the picture sent an email to wikipedia, I think it is pretty reasonable to think I try to do the things right. @MrClog: or may be we both live in the same country so we are on same timing, as I have explained 1000 times I and Ruggero Freddi both have FaceBook and I can send him messages (like anybody else). The moment he sent the email and uploaded the picture on flinkr he sent me a message and told me I could finally use it the way I like it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AlejandroLeloirRey: If he sent an email, then you should wait until an OTRS volunteer has taken a look at the email, which may take up to two weeks. And, while I do ping people when I respond to them, it isn't fair for you to be angry about the lack of a ping, considering you didn't ping Theroadislong either when you came here to compain about them. --MrClog (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MrClog: I can see you ping, re-read the message, I wasn't complaining about you not pinging. I did not ping Mr. Theroadislong at the beginning because I did not want to make the comment personal, indeed I didn't mention him. As far as I can see it is a general behavior: I delete your work 2 seconds after you uploaded it but I answer your questions about my decision one day later. If you give a look to Caro Masi's page you shall see that it was rejected many times before finally ending up on the AFD, and there it passed even though every person who rejected left a message on the discussion, they were all wrong and they were all too busy to listen to me explaining why they were all wrong. Sometime believing in good faith is very hard, but I still do. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@AlejandroLeloirRey: I know you weren't complaining about me not pinging you. However, you complained about Theroadislong in your second message without pinging him, meaning that if he doesn't ping you in his reply, you can't really complain about that either. MrClog (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MrClog: the end of the story? I got a PERMANENT blocked, lol. the reason? because I uploaded the picture on wikipedia right after his owner uploaded it on flickr (see above). will I get involved with writing stuff on wikipedia in the future? not sure at all. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
You were blocked on Commons for sockpuppetry regarding User:Rcmf2020. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Stubs and notability

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I came across several stub pages while editing through the community portal and task center. I researched some of those subjects, but couldn't find much more beyond what was included in the stub already. At most, I could add some additional trivial information to some of those stubs, but they would have remained stubs even after the update.

So, here's my question. Does lack of information about a subject tantamount to lack of notability?

  • If no, what can an editor do about expanding those articles?
  • If yes, should they be marked for deletion or left alone?

Thank you. NawJee (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

"lack of information about a subject tantamount to lack of notability" no, it doesn't
  • "expanding those articles"--you could let someone else expand them; some are better left for people with access to offline sources
  • Merging is sometimes an option. Some stubs work well as sections on a larger article; some should be left alone. These are often subjective decisions--do what you think is best, but be sure you personally care enough about it to see whatever decision you make through to the end.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, makes sense. I think the best strategy, at this point given my experience, would be to improve the ones I can as much as possible and leave the rest up to more experienced editors. NawJee (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hey, NawJee, that's a very mature attitude. There are far too many editors out there who wrongly think it's a badge of honour to get articles deleted from Wikipedia. Personally, I think it's an ignorant and pathetic attitude that's akin to a newcomer stamping on insects because they don't know what they are. Only those who have the skill or take the time to identify whether the bug/insect is harmful should be putting their boots on. There are lots of tiny insects out there that serve a great purpose in this world; there are equally many Wikipedia articles here that could do the same, if only someone gave them a bit of tender, loving editing. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi Nick Moyes, thanks for the encouragement. I absolutely agree with you. Generally, in life, I believe that 'seeking forgiveness is better than permission', but this is an encyclopedia. I would rather seek guidance to do the right thing than going out on a whimsy and ruin things all together. I am here to learn and contribute, so that is what I shall do. Again, thank you. NawJee (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi everyone, i'm back, as always. I have another question about my talk page. Is it possible for me to archive things? I am starting to have so many topics, its getting annoying for me. Is it possible for me to arrive things on my talk page? Thanks. Also, if I do archive all the topics on my talk page, is it possible for me to have a bot that sends a message to the people that their topics got archived, like the TeaHouse thing? Thanks. Shadowblade08 (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Shadowblade08, You should take a look at Help:Archiving a talk page. Various bots can be configured to automatically archive pages. You might also find User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver useful. I'm afraid that sending out notifications, like the Teahouse bot, is probably not possible, nor even really advisable. Generally Teahouse discussions are closed real fast since we get so many questions a day. But most user talk discussions will remain on the page for some weeks or months.CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Help!

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wrote an edit notice, and I would like to put it all into a box. How is that possible? Thanks. Shadowblade08 (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Shadowblade08: I gave it a tweak to start you off. What do you think? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

how to submit a draft for review

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

  Courtesy link: Draft:Accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy

Hi I would like to submit the draft of my article for review. I forgot how to do it. the article is accelerated experiential dynamic psychotherapy Carrieruggieri (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Carrieruggieri (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Carrieruggieri: I have added it to the draft for you. For future reference the template to use is {{subst:AFC draft}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to prevent Stack Overflow Error?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How can I prevent a stack overflow error?



How can I prevent a stack overflow error? AdjustingFramework (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

AdjustingFramework, Howdy hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Can't say I know what you're referring to? Stack overflow is a problem in some technological applications, but I'm not aware of it occurring in Wikipedia unless you're writing code for backend gadgets. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sourcing images

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, I've created several articles about notable wildfires; however, I could not find 'free-to-use' images for them. There are plenty of images in the news articles and journals that I used as sources. Is it a good practice to contact these sources to get the images, if possible? I can send out an email to some of them and see if they respond. Thanks. NawJee (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

NawJee, Howdy hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it can be a good idea. I occasionally reach out to sources to ask permission to use files. You should read the steps at Commons:OTRS, they have some example form emails I believe. Be aware that if a source gives us an image, they must release under a free license, which means that anyone, not just Wikipedia, can re-use the file with attribution. Many organizations don't like that, but please be clear and up front with them. You'll probably get declined or ghosted more than you'll succeed, but in the end it is quite worth it, as images are one of the most important parts of articles. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi, thanks for the welcome and your response. I just found this list of public ___domain image resources. I'll go through it first, I think that would be a better approach. If that doesn't work, I'll try reaching out to the sources to get images as per the guidelines you shared. NawJee (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@NawJee: If you do decide to contact a source, it would be a good idea to point them to the Wikimedia OTRS release generator. --MrClog (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@MrClog: This is very helpful. I will definitely share this link with the sources if needed. Thank you. NawJee (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • That's a hard road in most cases, NawJee. News organizations are generally for-profit companies. They're going to be very reluctant to share, as releasing an image to us destroys their ability to sell it. On the other hand, if you are talking about the US, photos taken by federal government employees in the course of their work are in public ___domain and need no release. Perhaps the Forest Service could help. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

French/spanish references for English article

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Can I use non-English e.g. French/Spanish references for an English article? Thanks Ghoraghatalpha (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ghoraghatalpha: We prefer English sources if they are available, but using non-English sources is allowed (and a good idea if you cannot source the content with English language sources). --MrClog (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)
Hello, Ghoraghatalpha, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst it it preferable to supply Reliable Sources in English, it is definitely not a requirement. Foreign language sources do still need to be reliable, independent and verifiable, of course. But they're fine to use if nothing more accessible is available. Thank you for your astute question. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
For more information on the policy, check WP:NOTENG. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ghoraghatalpha It was a very well hidden secret if you were just reading the WP:NOENG page for guidance, until just now, but many popular citation templates support an optional language parameter alerting readers that the source is in a foreign language. Use the parameter "language =" or "lang =" with the full language name or the standard MediaWiki language code. Multiple languages are separated with commas (with no 'and' before the last one). Example: de, fr, es TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

/* Performance */

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hi how do you change the edit page by inserting? Ihiiiiii (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ihiiiiii, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're looking to edit, most pages have an "edit page" or "edit source" at the top. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How do i get help from an admin

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How do i get an admin to help me with someone that is stopping me doing a rfc in error? The page in question is Talk:Dark Phoenix (film). There is a user that is stopping the rfc because they wrongly think that there has already been a rfc.ToeFungii (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

ToeFungii, hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears the other editor has revised their position and the RFC is open again. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Was just coming here to say that although they've made the top of the rfc very confusing because they simply won't remove those confusing sentences but oh well. At first I thought they might have been a shill of some people from the prior discussion trying to stop the rfc but that doesn't seem to be the case now. thanks. ToeFungii (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I John Josef Gresko am the studio drummer and inventor of Extreme Isolation headphones.

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I thought I could add an edit about the headphones used by 3 of my friends in the music business. I have 4 patent numbers for my headphones. Is this what I need for verification? I also have many published articles in the music world about the headphones.I was unaware that I was violating rules about an edit. Should I be able to start a story about My Extreme Isolation headphones the invention of the first hearing protection headphones in the music industry? The headphones have been used for 20 years by hundreds of famous music icons. Please accept my apology for violating the rules and I hope to clear my name from any wrong doing. Sincerely, Studiodrummer (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Studiodrummer, do you have any independent reliable sources stating as much? To put it bluntly, Wikipedia does not care if you are the creator of these headphones, and if you are, you most certainly shouldn't be inserting this information into articles yourself as it is a conflict of interest and will be seen as promotion, which is not allowed on here.
Should I be able to start a story about [...] (emphasis added): Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such we do not have mere pages on subjects, but articles. We do not add anecdotal blurbs to Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Studiodrummer, Wikipedia is not for promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we do not exist for the promotion of any person or product. We summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, not what the subjects say about themselves. If you'd like to honestly contribute to Wikipedia, you should take the Wikipedia Adventure. But if you're here only to talk about your headphones, this is not the place. If you want more people to know about them, contact an advertising agency, don't try to edit it into Wikipedia. If you'd like to edit music subjects, not related to yourself or any business interest, I can try to point you in the direction of some good places to start. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Move request could not be completed

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
MOVED
Has been moved to the desired name as part of a Wiki Ed assignment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

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.


I am having trouble moving User:Wendi Warren Binford to a separate article page. I was unable to move the page and change the User format to an Article format. Due to this, I tried to move the article back to my User page, but failed to do so. KGFerrer (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

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.

Who’s who from Villanova university, 1966

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Looking to find students from this grad class 76.108.42.75 (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikipedia! Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you may have better luck on social media than you will here. Good luck, Wildcat! GoingBatty (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
You may also be interested in List of alumni of Villanova University. --Hillelfrei• talk • 04:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

what if someone is a shill

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  FYI
 – Re-added due to an edit conflict. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Someone appears to have created an acct because of being unhappy with another editor. It's "IhateCharles" and look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_conflict_(2003%E2%80%93present)&action=history

and i'd guess they were/are using the ip address starting with 2601 but are rather unhappy with Charles Essie. How should it be handled as this is a new one for me. ToeFungii (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC) ToeFungii (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Where to report unreliable sources so that they can be blacklisted?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know that there is a list of blacklisted spam sites at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and a noticeboard to discuss if a particular website is reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I want to know if there is a page where I can report unreliable sources to get them blacklisted (I found a discussion to get one such source blacklisted but the page where it is has been declared to be inactive). The sources I wish to report still haven’t been used on Wikipedia as far as I know, but since they are known for cherrypicking information to make certain political groups look bad, spreading fake news and so on in India, I thought it would be appropriate to report them before they get used on Wikipedia.
So, could someone point me in the right direction?
Regards, RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I know a list of commonly used sources(successfully or not) is at WP:RSP, you could post on its talk page requesting that your source be added and see what they say. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Draft: PLANETISATION

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I would like to ask for support regarding my attempt to write an article about the term Draft:planetisation. Can some body please give me an advise how to make the next steps to improve my draft. thanks in advance. Mike 06 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mike 06, welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to read WP:REFBEGIN to learn how to cite references for Wikipedia articles. Please note that we do not cite Wikipedia as a source, as you did with Noosphere and Globalisation. The references you use should be cited to the sentences using footnotes.
Another question to ask is, aside from providing information on the subject as some of your sources provide, do the sources establish the subject's notability? Wikipedia only accepts articles if the subject has proven to be notable by Wikipedia's definition of WP:NOTABILITY. If you have any questions please get in touch with the reviewer who may be able to explain why they declined your draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to change how an article shows up in a google search

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am trying to edit an article so that certain sections of it show up underneath the link when google searching. How do I edit which sections come up? 80.4.51.93 (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

You would have to speak to Google as to how they display search results. I think they just take the opening line or paragraph and display it. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hello. The fact that you are concerned about what shows up in a Google search suggests that you are trying to use Wikiedia for promotional purposes. The fact that the only recent edits from this IP address are to the article Mark Stewart (guitarist) suggests that you are trying to use it to promote Mark Stewart, and that you are quite probably Stewart or somebody connected with him. Please be aware that promotion of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia, and that if you are connected with Stewart you should be aware of Wikipedia's position on editing with a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Locations

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you are describing a historical figure's birthpace, do you put the name of the country/region at the time say Yugoslavia or the current name. say Croatia? Is there a wiki protocol for this? Random Tyke 09:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomTyke (talk • contribs)

RandomTyke, good question. Template:Infobox person says "Use the name of the birthplace at the time of birth" which I think is generally good advice. You can see a couple of examples at Gandhi and Miloš Zeman. "Yugoslavia, present day Croatia" is not wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

60 GHz

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why are there no entries when searching for 60 GHz?. There should be an entree because of the present controversy. Information about the following is hard to find, even in wikipedia: 1. the unregulated use of 60 GHz devices and their connection with 5G networks, 2. the 60 GHz connection to Oxygen when carried by blood cells, 3. the similarity of the symptoms of oxygen deprivation and Covid-19. 4. the banning of any discussion of this on social network platforms. I have up to now always used wikipedia as a place where I can trust the information. This is because many entries have a paragraph called "Controversies" that seem to make the entree honest and neutral. 194.230.155.123 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you are unable to find an article about a particular subject, it just means that no one has written it yet. Please note that Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to how sources cover a subject; fringe theories and claims that are not broadly accepted are covered accordingly. Also note that Wikipedia is not intended as a reliable source; Wikipedia summarizes information and provides the sources so readers can evaluate the sources and judge the information for themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
It could perhaps be added to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#5G with appropriate sources, though there are many minor fringe/crank nonsense theories floating around, and not all of them are notable just because someone creates a hashtag on Twitter. What is described here is not a "controversy", it is a conspiracy theory. As you say, it is important to try to keep Wikipedia as free from misinformation and false claims as possible. --bonadea contributions talk 11:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Autoblock

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My account is often autoblocked for reasons that my IP address was used by a blocked user for 'undisclosed paid editor'.

This happens always and sometimes twice a day. }} Ugbedeg (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Have you read WP:IP block exemption? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

How to publish an article

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi everyone. Having ploughed through all the Wikipedia help stuff I still can't make out the answer to the following simple question. My article is in draft,how do I now publish it, or submit it for publication? Help please CarolineFHarvey46 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

At the moment it's nowhere near fit for publication. You'll find advice at WP:Your first article, and links to further advice at Help:Getting started. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
CarolineFHarvey46 (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate information to your draft to allow you to submit it for review, but you should not do so yet, as David is quite correct. Your draft needs to be formatted in the style of a Wikipedia article, in terms of structure, links to other Wikipedia articles, and in how the sources are formatted. Please read Your First Article as well as this guide to citing sources which should help you, before you submit your draft for review. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Need contributor about IDE WinDev

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Good morning all. I would just like to inform you that I am looking for a contributor for my future article on WinDev (which you will find on Draft: WinDev). It's an IDE, a development language (wlanguage), and I don't think I can make a good enough article without someone's help. Draft:WinDev Yesicantexas (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=953669950"