Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1024

Archive 1020

←

Archive 1022

Archive 1023

Archive 1024

Archive 1025

Archive 1026

→

Archive 1030

What is the system for rating (and changing the rating of) articles?

Just curious. Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thatoneweirdwikier. It depends on which kind of "rating" you're referring to. Most article ratings you see on their corresponding talk pages follow Wikipedia:Content assessment and for the most part are "unofficial" assessments based upon one's interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines (often including relevant WikiProject guidelines). There are some specific criteria for "each grade" provided as guidance, but this is rather an informal system and how it's applied may vary from editor to editor. There is, however, a more formal type of assessment that is more rigorous and involves more serious discussion in which articles are nominated to be WP:GAs (Good Articles) or WP:FAs (Featured Articles). These articles are subject to much more scrutiny (sometimes by multiple editors) to assess whether actually the do meet the relevant criteria before they're awarded GA or FA status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) - @Thatoneweirdwikier: - assuming that you are referring to the article quality scale employed for mainspace articles, information can be seen here. Most often, such ratings are applied by members of the WikiProjects within under whose scope the article's topic falls. The ratings can be updated unilaterally, but it is good practice to inquire with the relevant WikiProject(s), or on the article's talk page, as to whether or not recent edits and enhancements to an article justify altering the quality rating. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If I am the person who has made edits in attempt to improve an article I do not then go to Talk to upgrade the article. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Help publishing a page

please help me and how to publish my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Verma KMP (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ravi Verma KMP and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to read Your First Article and Wikipedia's Golden Rule as startign points. It is usually easier to start in your sandbox, or by making a Draft. An article needs multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, for one thing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Where should I go about suggesting the creation a new template or something similar?

I'll copy over what I have posted on Wikipedia talk:Spoken articles, where this had had only one responde that was not sure where to go with this -

'There appear to be articles that were recorded as spoken articles many years ago where the pages have likely changed significantly since and need re-recording. Is there any way to highlight this? If not I think it would be handy if we could implement a way to highlight outdated spoken articles (perhaps a new template?). For example the spoken article for the Avril Lavigne page has not been updated in over 9 years.'

Any help regarding where to post about this or help dealing with the issue here would be appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Helper201, welcome to the Teahouse. We have around 5.8 million articles. Category:Spoken articles only has 1455 articles. When only 1 out of 4000 articles is spoken, I don't think there is much reason to encourage updating some of them instead of making new spoken articles. If we do it then {{Spoken Wikipedia}} can be modified for the purpose. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:, thank you for the welcome. In that case, how about a system whereby once an article reaches either good or featured status it can be (or perhaps is automatically) highlighted/requested to be recorded to also become a spoken article? I.e. it could/would recieve some sort of specific template or tag highlighting its request to be recorded as a spoken article. Helper201 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the tiny number of spoken articles is still an issue. Based on incategory:"Featured articles" -incategory:"Spoken articles" versus incategory:"Featured articles" incategory:"Spoken articles", there are 5312 featured articles which are not spoken and only 326 which are spoken. Somebody just looking at random featured articles has 94% chance of hitting one which is not spoken so why point them out? Any article can be added to Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests with {{Spoken article requested}} but I don't know whether anybody considers the requests. The category had 231 page views in the last 30 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Helper201: It seems {{Spoken article requested|Helper201|Needs updating to match article}} is the intended solution, adding the page to Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests. Getting people to look at the category is another matter. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

SaSaptashrungi... Forst road to temple....

Sir, I have written a small article on Forest Road to the temple of Saptashrungi Devi temple, in the word format in M&S office.   I wish to add it this page by #copy. paste.# method.  But the edit page does not accept this.

pl guide.... how can I copy my article to the edit space.  

I am registered member with I'd.. sushajo. S. G. JOSHI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushajo (talk • contribs) 16:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you wish to add your section to the Saptashrungi article or are you considering a separate article on the road? Also do not forget to use the four ~s to sign your posts. Carptrash (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sushajo. MS Word (like other word-processing programs) is not a very useful way of creating text for Wikipedia: it uses its own proprietary way of representing the structure and properties of the text. It is much better to edit using Wikipedia's own editors. I think I remember reading some years ago that somebody had a program to convert MS Word files to Mediawiki markup, but I can't find anything about that now. So I think that the best you are going to be able to do is to copy and paste just the text into an editing window, and then use the Wikipedia editor to reapply any formatting and references. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem with signing

I started editing in 2016 but then had to stop because of heart surgery in 2017, and I am now getting back into things.

When I sign a comment on the talk page of an article with the usual four tildes, the published version says that I had not signed, but signature was completed by a bot.

This may be connected with issues about my user page? Though there is a user page my user name appears in red. I have searched for articles about what to do but I am a bit stuck and need some guidance before I move on.Catchsinger 12:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catchsinger (talk • contribs)

Looks like editor self-fixed by creating some content for User page (not red any more). David notMD (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Catchsinger, welcome to the Teahouse. The easiest way to get a valid signature is to have no checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. Things seem to be going betterCatchsinger (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Catchsinger: Just for completeness: I'm guessing you had just "Catchsinger" in the "Signature" field at your Special:Preferences → User profile. Maybe the signing bot wasn't recognizing your signature as a signature – it was being included in your edits (e.g. here) but without any linking. It's possible that this, in combination with there being no space in front of it, kept it from being recognized as a signature by the bot, so it signed your posts again. It seems to be fixed now (you maybe blanked out the Signature field in your prefs?), but you should put a space before the ~~~~ for readability. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A signature must link the user page, user talk page, or contributions page per Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links. User:SineBot#What it looks for says the bot looks for a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page for the band Meteor Airlines

Hello, I'm nowhere near a pro editor. I simply wanted to create a page for a local band named Meteor Airlines and it was moved to draft although all the information was correct. Someone left a comment and pointed me here. Can you please tell me what to do ?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skygazer31 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Skygazer31 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The main issue with your draft is that it does not seem to have any independent reliable sources to support its content and indicate how this band meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band, written at WP:BAND. This band would need to meet at least one of the listed criteria there to merit an article, and you would need independent sources to support it. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and possibly use the new user tutorial to get an idea of what is being looked for in new articles. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is probably the hardest task here; it takes much effort and practice. Try not to be discouraged. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Trying to rename a page

I own the radio station KSVB and am adding content to the page and trying to change the name of the page from KSVB-LP to KSVB FM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSVB-LP

How do I rename the page?

Jeff Willis — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffLWillis (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

JeffLWillis Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As the owner of the radio station, you will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. Regarding your question, changing the title of the page is accomplished with a page move; you can request one at Requested Moves. You can then make an edit request on the article talk page to change the article content itself; you should avoid doing this yourself if possible. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Page

How do I get a wikipage and sitelink — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zudeek (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Zudeek Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media where people have "pages" about themselves. Wikipedia has articles about subjects shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. If you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, an independent editor will be the one to write an article about you, as autobiographies are highly discouraged, see WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

First, your User page is not the place to create an article of any type. Second, what you have created in your Sandbox does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article. David notMD (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bruno Murari

Hi, I'd like to add the previously deleted page Bruno Murari. As suggested, I wrote to the user that deleted the page, but he suggested to write here (take a look at his reply). Could you please take a look at my sandbox, in order to evaluate if that page could be recreated? Thanks, --PrinceMy (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi PrinceMy Welcome to Teahouse, I have moved your article to draft space and you can find your article here - Draft:Bruno Murari. please add {{subst:submit}} if you want to submit the draft article for review. Pls go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk if you need any assistance. For academic notability guidelines requirements, pls see Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

help?

i need mentoring cause im getting frustrated i thought wiki ment supporting one another with encyclopedic work. Baozon90 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Baozon90: Hi. Can you be more specific? Often, new editors might take criticism or messages about policy personally, but they are not – the community has standards, policies, and procedures that it has agreed upon in order to further its aim of creating a high quality encyclopedia. Is there a particular article or issue with which you are having trouble? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Baozon90, perhaps you are being frustrated at your drafts getting rejected/declined? I appreciate your effort to contribute. How about you start by reading WP:RS. Your articles about persons must have reliable sources to back the information up. Don't give up and keep trying. We were all new at some point. William2001^(talk) 01:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

An even better resource: WP:YFA. William2001^(talk) 01:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you are starting drafts with just a little bit of content, perhaps intending to add more content and references later. A better place to work in private would be your own Sandbox. Only after you have created the essentials of an article should you then submit it to articles for creation. Many new-to-Wikipedia editors are advised to work on improving existing articles before attempting a new article. I've been editing 10+ years, 18,000+ edits, zero new articles. David notMD (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Baozon90 Hi, I'm also new here and I totally get how overwhelming this new environment might feel with all the standards and procedures. However this system has been developing for years and everything we enjoy about Wikipedia came together due to all of those rules and standards. Your contributions are important but maybe you could start with something small slowly integrating into the system. In all spheres we gain knowledge with time and experience, why should this be different? I hope you perceive this as my support.Less Unless (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a reference using the "Manual" tab on Visual Editor?

Visual Editor Automatic tab - the 'Manual' tab is just right of it. (Click image to enlarge

I want to add this citation for a particular edit to the Wikipedia page on Tom of Finland: https://www.davidkordanskygallery.com/attachment/en/5afb0d546aa72c3f18720a36/Press/5cf44499efd750131f4e83c7

When I try, I get a message "We couldn't make a citation for you. You can create one manually using the "Manual" tab above."

What do I do here? How do I do what it is suggesting? Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Greg Dahlen: If you are trying to create a citation. Do it from the Visual edit page. Place your cursor exactly where you want the citation to appear, then click on Cite above, it will present you with various templates such as website or book, choose one.Oldperson (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Greg Dahlen. Adding to what Oldperson has said, do please have a look at Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 and the page that follows, where you'll see some helpful screenshots of using Visual Editor for referencing. If the 'Manual' tab there offers you all the fields you need, then do use Visual Editor. However, if you feel you need to add one or more of the numerous additional field options (like 2nd author names), then I have to tell you that Visual Editor is absolutely horrible to use for that. Instead, you'd be better off switching to the standard Source Editor (just click the thick black pencil icon to switch) where it's a lot easier to add additional fields. I don't know how helpful you'll find it, but I've put some notes together on using the alternative, source editor, here: User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. Hoping some of this helps you, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes for these links! Referencing is the most complicated thing for me so far. Can you please also give a link to an article explaining what to do if different parts of an article cite one source. Thank you!Less Unless (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph thank you!

How to rename my User:ChilakamarthiPrabhakar/sandbox and how many days taken to approval the my wiki page.

Hi, Last week i created to my biography wiki page, still i am waiting to approval and change my username. please anyone help to this issue. Thanking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChilakamarthiPrabhakar (talk • contribs) 04:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You haven't yet submitted your sandbox draft for review. When it is ready for submission, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft, but I would recommend that you don't do so yet because most of the material is apparently unsourced. There is also quite a lot of non-English content, which would need explanation to English readers. There is plenty of useful guidance at Help:Your first article and in the links therefrom. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC

Hello, ChilakamarthiPrabhakar, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what David Biddulph said, please note that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. If an article about you is accepted, it will not be your article, it will not necessarily contain what you would like it to contain, and it should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish about you, not on what you have said or published. --ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to planetary roller extruder

I would just like to explain the function of the planetary roller extruder here. Among other things, this extrusion machine is used in the plastics industry, such as single-screw and twin-screw extruders.Entex (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You have not made the mandatory declaration of paid editing so you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. And (as you have been told before) Wikipedia is not for promotion. The place for you to explain the function is on your company website: https://www.entex.de/en/technologies/extruder/ --David Biddulph (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)--David Biddulph (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, as you have been told on your talk page, your username contravenes WP:Username policy. Please create an individual account that is not the name of your company. Dbfirs 10:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Page not published

My page in the name of, " The blueprint Show" is not published. I have made 7 edits and the page was created more than a week ago. Please help me in order to resolve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashpashine (talk • contribs) 10:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Akashpashine, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox draft is not ready for publication. Please read WP:Your first article, and WP:Referencing for beginners. A subject needs to have independent WP:Reliable sources where it has been written about in detail to establish WP:Notability before it can become an article. Dbfirs 11:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Your Sandox draft User:Akashpashine/sandbox has not been submitted. If you submit it, it will be declined. As Dbfirs wrote, no references. When drafts are submitted to Articles for Creation, it often takes eight weeks or more to be reviewed and either accepted or declined. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help me in publishing my first Wikipedia article?

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia. Are there anyone who can help me in publishing my first articole in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harish139 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, what specifically do you need help with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Pigeon (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)The best place to start is here: WP:FIRST. There is a lot of advice there about how to create an article, and pitfalls to avoid. Generally, for new editors, it is much better to get to know Wikipedia a bit first by editing existing articles, before jumping right in to creating your own. Hug^syrup 15:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that you use Help:Your first article as a tool to help you create your first article BigRed606 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia Naturland page

Good afternoon,

We are Naturland, an association for organic agriclture, and recently tried to edit the Naturland page.

This was not possible and we were wondering if you could help us out?

We were not using our own sources neither did we want to make any advertisement.

It was solely about updating information by using third party references.

Thank you for your support.

Kind regards,

Alba on behalf of Naturland e.V.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresmahecha25 (talk • contribs)

Andresmahecha25 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There should be nothing preventing you from editing your draft. You in fact have resubmitted it for review, though it will likely be declined. I would tell you, however, that you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Andresmahecha25: Welcome to the Teahouse. Regardless of what edits you tried to make, and whether or not they were promotional, Wikipedia has strict policies on editing with a conflict of interest and when you are paid or receive any other compensation, directly or indirectly, for your edits. You would appear to fall into both those categories, so it is essential that you read this police: WP:PAID and make the disclosure required on your user page. You should also read this section of the COI policy: WP:PAY and follow the guidance there. I am going to leave a note on your talk page to this effect as well.

However, the reason your draft has been declined is not due to your conflict of interest, but because, as the note left by the reviewer says, it lacked sufficient independent sources to show that the subject is notable. I see that you have resubmitted it, but it still doesn't really seem to have attracted enough substantial, independent coverage so I suspect it is likely to be declined again. Unfortunately some organisations just aren't yet notable enough to have a wikipedia article about them, if the sources aren't there. Hug^syrup 12:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

At Draft:Naturland you have added a list of websites under References, but those are not incorporated into the body of the article as references. Oh, and declare paid on your user page and don't say "we", as editors must be individuals, not groups or organizations. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Andreshahecha25, but as far as I can see, not one of the references and links on your draft are independent of Naturland. English Wikipedia is basically uninterested in anything that an organisation says about itself - even if it said it in a press release or profile and somebody else published it. The question is, where have people who have no connection with your organisation chosen to do their own research, and written their own words about your organisation? If the answer is "Nowhere", then your organisation does not currently meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article will be accepted however it is written. If there are at least two or three such sources, then the article needs to be written from those sources, not from information that you or your intern have. --ColinFine (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about redirect

I created a redirect article King Shabaka. Yet, when I type "King Shabaka" in the searchbar, the article doesn't come up as a suggestion in the drop down. Did I miss a step when I created the redirect? -- Bait30  ^Talk? 07:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bait30 Greetings. I have tried in article search bar as well as normal search bar here and I could locate King Shabaka which redirect to Shabaka Hutchings. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What appears in the drop down is your redirect, not the eventual target article. The searchbar is functioning correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

​The reason it didn't show up right away in the search bar is that Wikipedia's search engine needs some time to update its index. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

ah so it's just a time thing. Thanks​! -- Bait30  ^Talk? 17:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Reusing/recreating a figure from a scientific paper

Hello, I would like to enhance NAFLD illustrations by using Fig1 in [1]. At first, I tried to look if it's possible to reuse it under a specific license such as this[2], but I guess this only works for federal works. The other way would be to create a new figure with some inspiration, but not reusing any asset, from this figure (which is good because it's accurate). Would this be ok? Would the latter fit into this exception[3]? Otherwise, is there any other way I can use this figure legally? Thank you very much in advance! --Signimu (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: - I have moved your question here as it is more likely to get an answer. The Teahouse Talk page is used for talking about the teahouse, for example proposing changes to it. Hug^syrup 15:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! --Signimu (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Signimu, according to the journal's rights and permissions statement, it does not offer any licensing that is suitable for use on Wikipedia. So yep, you are pretty much stuck with recreation. As this is a simple diagram, you would be free to create a version of your own from the base data (as per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Diagrams_and_other_images). This normally would depend on having access to the data, which appears not to be the case - I can't see any tables or supplemental information. However, these data are so simple that you could probably just go ahead and measure/read them off the figure itself. As you can't rule out a small amount of error in doing so, I would suggest very clearly noting this point in the figure description when uploading. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Thank you very much for clarifying. The figure is in fact based on information from a previous report from the AASLD, and nearly all the points covered by the figure are in the article NAFLD, it's just that it's a good reference to make sure I'm not drawing something blatantly wrong :-) I will create my own figure and note the sources of inspiration and data, I hope it will be ok! Thank you very much :-) --Signimu (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Helped --Signimu (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing Redirects

When is it appropriate to remove a Redirect from a page after the page has been deleted? BigRed606 (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Can someone answer?BigRed606 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, BigRed606, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please remember that this is a volunteer project, and repeating the question after 50 minutes looks like impatience. If an article has been deleted, then a redirect should not be left pointing to it. It may be that there is another article (perhaps less specific than the deleted one) that the redirect should point to; but otherwise it should be speedily deleted under WP:G8. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No what I am trying to say is that, lets say a discussion goes up and the people in the decide to redirect the page. Is it possible to remove the redirect from the page, and if so pls tell me the circumstance When that would possible.BigRed606 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ps I do not mean any harm. I waited over a hour and with no response. Nothing against anyone who volunteers at this incredible Q&A, but I know that the best way for my question to be answered if it has not already been, is to restate my question. Also I did also responded to someone’s other questions which might be part of the confusion.BigRed606 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

My question has still yet to be answered about Removing Redirects

I asked a question over a hour ago about removing redirects at the appropriate time, but it’s seems that you either skip or did not see my question and instead answer all the questions that other people asked after me. So I am going to restate my question.

When is it appropriate to remove a Redirect from a page after the page has been deleted?BigRed606 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

My, you are impatient, aren't you, BigRed606: three times in 90 minutes. As I pointed out when I answered your earlier query, this is a volunteer project, and people work on it when they want to. --ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, right, BigRed606: I think I understand what you are asking. After a discussion an article has been edited, to make it into a redirect, and you disagree with that decision. (And your impatience suggests that this is an issue you feel strongly about). It is certainly possible for the edit to the page to be undone: but if you edit against an agreed consensus, you will be editing disruptively. In order to change the decision, you will need to achieve a new consensus: please read about dispute resolution to find out what avenues are open to you.

One more point: no, repeating your question is a very very bad way of getting an answer, as it tends to annoy other users. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are wrong on your current assumption ColinFine.

In fact I was asking that after a article is redirected, is it possible to remove the redirect link and rewrite the article.

Ps this article has nothing to do with me nor have I ever edited this article. Pls don’t make guesses.BigRed606 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

And I would point this out, I am not impatient like you keep saying but merely wanting my question to be answered. Keep in mind that it took over a hour for my question to be answer while as the people who ask before and after my question got their question answer 50 minutes or less.BigRed606 (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please read Colin's comments above. Wikipedia is edited by a variety of editors all around the world. The volunteers work in their own time fitting it around work and family life. Editors will respond to those questions where they think they can help, if no-one responds to your question in an hour is simply means that no-one who is currently editing has anything useful to say. The person you want to reply may be asleep in bed. You need to allow at least a day for the earth to rotate before even thinking that anyone should reply. To put it another way: unless you are prepared to respond at half an hour's notice day and night, then please don't expect others to do so. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Some questions are easier than others, it all depends on someone knowledgable and willing coming across the question. If the article was redirected after a deletion discussion, it's good idea to discuss it before recreating it, such as with the editor that closed the discussion. What's the article in question? – Thjarkur (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Further to Martin's reply, there is likely to be a quicker reply if the question is clear and unambiguous. It isn't clear how what you are saying in your message of 18:02 UTC is different from what Colin had assumed in his message of 17:57, except that in his case he refers to a discussion having taken place before the article was turned into a redirect. If there hasn't already been a discussion but an article has been turned into a redirect with which you disagree, the best thing is to discuss it on the article's talk page. Of course if you give us a link to the page in question it would give a chance for volunteers here to give more specific advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

To David Biddulph I am sorry for the confusion. I will try my best to explain my questions to you in the most understandable way possible.

My question is that after a discussion is made about a deletion of a article and the discussion brings a consensus that the page should be redirected, but some editors later after the agreement was made to redirect, has enough independent sources to re established the page, could a editor remove the redirect and re establish the page?

The page is this KidBehindACamera BigRed606 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ps I am only pondering the ideal to re established the page.BigRed606 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@BigRed606: in principle, yes. If an article was redirected following a deletion discussion, and you believe that you can convincingly remedy whatever was identified there as the cause, then you are welcome to go ahead and recreate the article. This may come up, for example, if the original deletion was some time in the past for reason of lack of demonstrable notability, and multiple in-depth, independent sources have come up in the meantime. - However, in the specific case you mention (KidBehindACamera) I very much doubt that this is now the case. The original deletion discussion established that there was basically zero indication of independent notability, and I would be surprised if that has changed in the space of one year. Please don't try to recreate the article unless you are quite sure that you can meet all the requirements at WP:GNG, and that the issues noted in the discussion have definitely been addressed. Otherwise this is going to get deleted again pretty much right away. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your honest opinion. BigRed606 (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Quality of references cause rejection of submission

My most recently submitted article on Matthias Baldwin Park (submitted last week) was rejected because the references were not judged to be significant. There was an article from the NYT that mentions the park as the central point in the headlined development, and also two articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer specifically about the park. I don’t know what else to do to achieve publication. Help?15:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Boostyourgrades:. Firstly, there may be nothing else you can do to 'achieve publication' - some topics simply aren't notable enough for Wikipedia, and it's best to accept that and move on to something else. In the case of your draft, the NYT article appears to be the only high quality secondary source and from what I can tell it doesn't even mention the words 'Matthias Baldwin Park', or even say anything about a park, so I don't quite understand your assertion that it mentions it as the central point in the development. Even if it did, a single mention in a single article, even in a high quality source like the NYT, is almost never enough to establish notability. Hug^syrup 15:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Appears you have created Draft:Matthias Baldwin Park and a near-identical version in your Sandbox, both declined with reasons given. You can edit and resubmit the one that reviewers have identified as to go forward. If the other version has content you want to salvage, copy/paste it. Main reason given for decline was lack of valid references. David notMD (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Also note that your most recent user name, boostyourgrades, is also the name of a business, boostyourgrades.com, located in Pennsylvania, where your draft article subject is located. This user name runs afoul of Wikipedia's WP:Username policy. Please choose a new, non-promotional user name, in accordance with the linked policy page.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no view on whether the park is notable, and I haven't even looked at either of your draft versions. But I advise you strongly against maintaining rival versions of a draft on the same subject. Doing so is very likely to cause confusion for anyone who reviews one of them, for anyone who tries to help improve one of them, or even for yourself. Please get rid of one of them – or at least, blank one of them. Maproom (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if I should put a reference or not in this case

Hello Wikipedia Editors !

My name is Darkskyfire and I was recently editing an article named Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, And I was going to add a line in the Music section that goes like this "UV Sir J - Where Angels Fear to Tread (Disclosure)"<r.ef>MySoundCloudReuploadLink</re.f>, reinterpreted by "UV Sir J/Sir Jordanius" in 2019 as part of his album RE-18. And as you can see the link redirects to my Soundcloud where the song is uploaded, but since the original creator is not here anymore and has deleted every (safe) source there is, I reuploaded it. So, since it's my Soundcloud should, I be worried about violating any type of copyrights or terms and conditions ? I'm pretty new to this. I think I made an error somewhere in this message too.

PS: I do not make any money on any of the songs uploaded to my Soundcloud since I just want people to listen to what they lost. (Should I also put a date on this ?)

Sincerly, Darkskyfire.

Welcome to the Teahouse, Darkskyfire. Please do not. Adding a link to your own Soundcloud is considered spam. Unless you are paying royalties to the copyright holder, it is also a copyright violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Can i make a new article ?

Hey there , I want to make a new page for Makarov , a fictional character from call of duty modern warfare franchise. Characters like captain price , soap MacTavish and ghost have articles on wikipedia but not an antagonist of the franchise...

i just want to make sure that i get valid permission to create this article.

Thank you

Strike938 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That is your decision. Ask yourself if that is a note worthy character and if it is make an article about it. Then it is up to an admin to accept the article. Max Pigeon (Talk) i 17:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Max Pigeon: - just for the record, it doesn’t require an admin to accept an article; that is done by anyone with the AFC reviewer permission, the vast majority of whom are not admins. Hug^syrup 21:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: Oh.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Pidgeon (talk • contribs) 23:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Strike938, and welcome to Teahouse. You don't need permission to write a new encyclopaedia article for Wikipedia; but if what you write does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, then it will not be accepted, or it will get deleted. The most important criterion is notability: can you find at least two or three places where people unconnected with Call of Duty have chosen to write at some length about this character, and been published in places with a reputation for editorial control, such as books from major publishers, or respected periodicals? If you can, then it is possible to write an article, based on those sources. If not, then it is not possible to write an acceptable article on the character, and I recommend you don't spend time on it.

Another caution: writing a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months improving some of our millions of sub-standard articles first, to learn how Wikipedia works. In any case, I advise reading Help:Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Getting started

Hey I was just wondering how I actually start a new article, I’m not really sure where I can post my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3460:C5A:FCCF:98F:C047:35AF (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As an unregistered user, you can't create new articles directly; you will need to submit your draft for review using Articles for Creation. Before doing that, I would suggest reading Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

My article was deleted and I don't understand why

Hi,

My article was a translation from https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Galan and it has been deleted. I still have the draft though, that is being reviewed since months.

Can somebody help me understand why it was deleted?

Thank you, H sans MS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippolyte sans MS (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft exists and is awaiting review. It could take months for the review due to the current backlog.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hippolyte sans MS. It seems you moved your draft article directly to the encylopedia without waiting for a review through the Articles for Creation process. Another editor moved it back to Draft:Christian Galan, where you can continue working on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Hippolyte sans MS. It does appear that you created Christian Galan, but it was moved back to the draft namespace by an administrator named Bearcat. There could be a variety of reasons why Bearcat did that, so perhaps it's best to ask him about it.

You mentioned that you translated the article for one found on French Wikipedia. Did you follow WP:TRANSLATE and properly attribute your translation? Wikipedia's general licensing does allow its content to be re-used, but you need to properly attribute the original source of the content, which in this case would be the French Wikipedia article for it to not be considered a copyright violation. You need to do this even for a draft. The attribution you've provided on the draft's talk page seems insufficient; so, you should try and remedy that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Hippolyte sans MS did comply with WP:TFOLWP in the edit summary here. Bearcat said the reason was "AFC draft moved by creator without review" at here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that once you've created a draft and submitted it to the AFC review queue, you have to wait for an AFC reviewer to review it — you're not allowed to bypass that step by moving it into mainspace yourself the very next day while the AFC review template is still on it. It looks good enough, and has enough references in it, that I think it's virtually guaranteed that it will be accepted by the person who reviews it, and then moved back into articlespace as part of the acceptance process — but once you've submitted it to the review queue, you have to wait for an AFC reviewer to decide that it's ready. Unfortunately there are hundreds of drafts being submitted each day, so we can't promise you that a draft will get reviewed quickly — but if I find a page that is in mainspace but still has the "pending AFC review" template on it, I have to move it back to draftspace if it wasn't moved by an AFC reviewer as part of the proper AFC acceptance process. Bearcat (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat, it is absolute;ly not correct that once you've created a draft and submitted it to the AFC review queue, you have to wait for an AFC reviewer to review it — you're not allowed to bypass that step by moving it into mainspace yourself}. This was recently discussed at WT:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Could_we_have_a_bot_tag_untagged_drafts_with_submission_instructions? The author of a drat may at any time move it directly to mainspace, skipping the AfC process entirely. However, it is then subject to new page Patrol/review, and may be tagged for speedy deletion or sent to Afd if it does not seem suitable for the main article space. An author who is not somewhat experienced in creating Wikipedia articles may be unwise to do that. If it is so moved, it should be edited to remove the AfC templates, which do not work properly in the main article space.

Hippolyte sans MS, you are probably better advised to wait for an AfC review, but you do not have to do so. If you move it directly, you may find it promptly deleted altogether. hat is far less likely in draft space, although it can happen there if the problems are serious enough, particularly for copyright violations. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hypotheticals

Are hypotheticals appropriate subjects for WP articles?Oldperson (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson Hello and welcome. Wikipedia has articles about subjects that receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources and meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If you are aware of a hypothetical subject that meets that criteria, it would merit an article. There are numerous articles about future events yet to occur, such as Next United Kingdom general election, 2028 Summer Olympics, and others. 331dot (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Just going to add that you need to be careful that it's not WP:TOOSOON for what is intended to be the subject of the article or that it's not a case of WP:CRYSTAL (also Wikipedia:Future event). For example, a yet-to-occur event may actually have an article created about it if it is or has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources regardless of whether the event ultimately does occur, but there should be significant coverage in reliable sources specific to the event and it shouldn't just be someone's WP:OR on what may happen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

COI Protocol

Hi all!

Are there places I could go to find the latest information on Conflict of Interest protocol? I want to make sure I'm following the right steps but it seems like COI guidelines shift frequently.

John at SKDKDigital (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes - the COI policy is here: WP:COI. Hug^syrup 15:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@John at SKDKDigital: When you want to request/propose an edit be made to an article like you did at Talk:Time's Up (organization)/Archive 1#Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, you're likely going to have more luck attracting someone else's attention if you add Template:Request edit to your post. I've gone ahead and done that for you.

You should also try to remember to WP:SIGN your request and other talk page posts because (1) it makes it easier for other to see who posted what and when and (2) some templates may not work as intended when used in unsigned posts.

Another thing to remember that if you're going to include formatted citations as part of your request, then it's help to use Template:Reflist-talk so that the sofware doesn't keep pushing the citations down to the bottom of the page each time a new post is added below yours. Template:Reflist also works just as well. You don't need to add a formatted "References" section to your request; just adding either one of those two template should do the trick and keep everything in the same discussion thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, John at SKDKDigital. As well as the behavioural guideline page WP:COI, when asked about the COI process, I usually point people to WP:COIREQ, which gives clear, step-by-step guide instructions for making COI requests. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Do let me know corrections for the article 'Lakshya CA'

I have pasted the content for the content I intended to post under the title. Kindly help me figure out the mistakes. . . .

extended content from draft
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lakshya (Lakshya CA) is an Indian educational institute, providing coaching for professional commerce management courses across Kerala. They have educated 1500+ children in 7 centers across 7 cities in Kerala.[1] It is run by Orwell Lionel and Adheesh Damodaran. Lakshya has a core team based in Ernakulam, and campuses spread across over 7 cities in Kerala- Ernakulam, Calicut, Trivandrum, Kannur, Kottayam, Trissur and Tirur. They currently provide coaching for CA, ACCA[2], CMA INDIA, CMA USA, CS, Bank Coaching[3] and School Tuition.[4] Currently Lakshya is open to franchising, thus allowing new branches to open both nationally and globally. History Lakshya was founded by Adheesh Damodaran and Orwell Lionel. They fleshed out the concept of Lakshya and formed a founding team with friends, peers and members of the community. The first generation of Lakshya, started with Chartered Accountancy coaching. The first chapter of Lakshya was set up in Ernakulam with an ICAI accreditation. From that point on, Lakshya grew exponentially. They set up a total of 7 centers spread evenly across Kerala. Others to have played seminal roles in the growth and success of Lakshya has been their center heads who have been an inexplicable part of their success. Today, they have expanded to other educational fields such as Entrance Coaching, Bank Coaching and School tuition. Facilities Lakshya is known for their technology driven education. They have employed IT solutions that keep students engaged and learning. Their digital classrooms are interactive and more engaging than traditional education methods. This is reflected in their retention rates and test scores.[5] Lakshya also provides well organized hostel facilities for both girls and boys separately in all their campuses. Virtual libraries at Lakshya overcome traditional library limitation by expanding student's horizons in learning.[6] They can access an enormous amount of knowledge and share contents with others, facilitating the expansion of education. Their collection of test papers and model tests are accessible to their students at all times. Events Lakshya is widely popular for their various extra curricular activities and events amongst students. They are meant to bring out the best out of each and every person connected with them for overall excellence. All students of Lakshya are automatically members of Lakshyanz which includes clubs and societies covering a wide range of sporting, CSR, volunteering, literary, cultural and artistic interests.[7] Lakshya which has close links with schools and colleges, conducts commerce career seminars in association with Malayala Manorama for high school students providing details on each career stream. On the 7th of August 2016, Lakshya started a very novel initiative known as Lakshyanz. This was aimed to provide a platform for their students to rediscover and groom their talents and skills to interact, learn and spread knowledge through a wonderful and fun filled experience. Apart from this, they continue to create a social commitment among the students by undertaking various charitable activities. Lakshyam is a 3-day organizational event conducted to bring employees closer together.[8] Team building events were conducted to break down walls and barriers for a more productive and creative workplace. This helps in building a strong team of employees excited to come to work and put their best effort into providing the best for students. Onotsav is a major festival celebrations with much gusto and splendor with variety of programs. It helps to bring the students, staff and employees closer in prosperity, joy and happiness. From decorating Pookkalam to Pulikali and Thiruvathira, Onam is celebrated in grandeur. Lakshyotsav is an event organized periodically by the institution. This is a stress-free environment for students where they are provided with a platform to express their talents.[9] From dance performances and musical events to games and concerts, it is the day eagerly anticipated by children and parents alike. Students are also given an opportunity to showcase their various talents and interact with their teachers[10] in a more informal environment. This is also the day when achievers are felicitated for their accomplishments in the academic year. References "Lakshya Company Overview". www.crunchbase.com. Crunchbase. 2019-04-16. Retrieved 2019-09-17. Jeffin, Shruti (2019-08-09). "Why choose ACCA over other accounting degrees?". medium.com. Medium. Retrieved 2019-09-17. "Bank Coaching (SSC-CGL) classes in Kerala". lakshyaca.com. Lakshya. 2019-03-15. "Lakshya Campus sets record in CA examination". tendegreenorth.com. 2019-02-02. Retrieved 2019-09-17. "5 main benefits of Digital Libraries at School". Acer for Education Magazine. 2017-10-17. Retrieved 2019-09-17. "Benefits of Digital Learning over Traditional Education Methods". Pan world education. 2017-03-23. Retrieved 2019-09-17. "Best CA Coaching centers in Kerala". ask.shiksha.com. Shiksha. 2018-02-19. Retrieved 2019-09-17. Tax, Guru (2019-06-18). "Top CA Coaching Centers in Kerala". Fin Updates. Retrieved 2019-09-17. "UK-based CA courses get popular with city students- Kochi News". The Times of India. Retrieved 2013-10-30. "Renowned presence of faculty in Lakshya". Lakshyaca.com. Retrieved 2019-09-17. History Lakshya was founded by Adheesh Damodaran and Orwell Lionel. They fleshed out the concept of Lakshya and formed a founding team with friends, peers and members of the community. The first generation of Lakshya, started with Chartered Accountancy coaching. The first chapter of Lakshya was set up in Ernakulam with an ICAI accreditation. From that point on, Lakshya grew exponentially. They set up a total of 7 centers spread evenly across Kerala. Others to have played seminal roles in the growth and success of Lakshya has been their center heads who have been an inexplicable part of their success. Today, they have expanded to other educational fields such as Entrance Coaching, Bank Coaching and School tuition. Facilities Lakshya is known for their technology driven education. They have employed IT solutions that keep students engaged and learning. Their digital classrooms are interactive and more engaging than traditional education methods. This is reflected in their retention rates and test scores. Lakshya also provides well organized hostel facilities for both girls and boys separately in all their campuses. Virtual libraries at Lakshya overcome traditional library limitation by expanding student's horizons in learning. They can access an enormous amount of knowledge and share contents with others, facilitating the expansion of education. Their collection of test papers and model tests are accessible to their students at all times. Events Lakshya is widely popular for their various extra curricular activities and events amongst students. They are meant to bring out the best out of each and every person connected with them for overall excellence. All students of Lakshya are automatically members of Lakshyanz which includes clubs and societies covering a wide range of sporting, CSR, volunteering, literary, cultural and artistic interests. Lakshya which has close links with schools and colleges, conducts commerce career seminars in association with Malayala Manorama for high school students providing details on each career stream. On the 7th of August 2016, Lakshya started a very novel initiative known as Lakshyanz. This was aimed to provide a platform for their students to rediscover and groom their talents and skills to interact, learn and spread knowledge through a wonderful and fun filled experience. Apart from this, they continue to create a social commitment among the students by undertaking various charitable activities. Lakshyam is a 3-day organizational event conducted to bring employees closer together. Team building events were conducted to break down walls and barriers for a more productive and creative workplace. This helps in building a strong team of employees excited to come to work and put their best effort into providing the best for students. Onotsav is a major festival celebrations with much gusto and splendor with variety of programs. It helps to bring the students, staff and employees closer in prosperity, joy and happiness. From decorating Pookkalam to Pulikali and Thiruvathira, Onam is celebrated in grandeur. Lakshyotsav is an event organized periodically by the institution. This is a stress-free environment for students where they are provided with a platform to express their talents. From dance performances and musical events to games and concerts, it is the day eagerly anticipated by children and parents alike. Students are also given an opportunity to showcase their various talents and interact with their teachers in a more informal environment. This is also the day when achievers are felicitated for their accomplishments in the academic year. References External links Official Website Category:Indian educational programs

Please, Browniegastronaut do not post entire drafts or even large section here. instead link to them In tjhis case to Draft:Lakshya CA. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a couple of thoughts –

It's all too promotional in tone. Sentences like "It helps to bring the students, staff and employees closer in prosperity, joy and happiness" do not belong in any encyclopedia.

The "History" section has no references, and doesn't even say when the Institute was founded. Maproom (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

User protect his/her own page or talk page

Can an extended confirmed user protect his/her own user/talk page with the help of Twinkle or an admin? Main CentralTime301 page and talk 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@CentralTime301: Only administrators can protect pages. If the page is under attack from vandalism, you can request the page be protected at WP:RFPP RudolfRed (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@CentralTime301: RudolfRed is quite correct. Personally speaking, I think it could be helpful if the system did permit users to protect their own user pages from edits- but only from non-autoconfirmed editors - for a max period of, say, 3 to 6 hours, in any 24 hr period without having to go to an administrator. But we are where we are, and we don't have that function. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, At present, user pages, but not user talk pages, are essentially semi protected by abuse filter 803. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@OxonAlex:. It's being able to immediately protect oneself (usually one's talk page) from those who choose to use various IP addresses or create a new account solely in order to leave nasty comments for other users that my idea would help address. It would give the editor a little more self-control and sense of safety from abuse. But I accept the Teahouse is not a place for me to tease out that proposal. Thanks for your reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Replacing a redirect page

Sorry I think I have asked this here before but can't remember the solution! The mainspace page Menstrual suppression is a redirect but there is a draft of this name in AfC that I have reviewed and want to publish - but can't publish as there is already a page by this name. How do I do this? TIA! MurielMary (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If there's only one line in the history of the redirect, you should be able to move over the redirect anyway. Otherwise, you can request a move at WP:RM#TR. rchard2scout (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Moving over a redirect only works if the only version in the page history is a redirect to the page you are moving from. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• @MurielMary and Rchard2scout: The redirect in question has trivial history, so it falls under speedy deletion criterion WP:G6 (which will be faster than RM). (Usually I would tag myself but here I will not be performing the move, so I will let you do it.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tigraan, I have put a tag on the redirect page and will watch it. Cheers! MurielMary (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

EDUCATION

WHY PEOPLE DIFFER IN UNDERSTANDING? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALBERT J SAFARI (talk • contribs) 10:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

ALBERT J SAFARI Hello. This board is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? Please do not write in all capital letters, that is considered yelling. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

How to make custom template labels

For the article Canterbury Female Boarding School, I want to add a custom label "Supporters" to Template:Infobox school for supporters of the school, influential people who contributed significantly though in most cases not directly, such as William Lloyd Garrison. I would also like to create "Enemies" (Andrew T. Judson), "Students" (name, age if known, where they were from; only about 7 are known), and "Legal issues" (Connecticut legislation created specifically for this school; cited by Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Brown v. Board of Education).

The help pages on Templates are overwhelming and I'm hopeful someone can advise me. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added supporters partially just to show how to do it. There is a tendency to try and cram every fact into an infobox, this is not what infoboxes are for. I would strongly suggest that enemies (a rather emotional term, would "critics" be better?), students and legal issues are best left to the main text. I'd also remove the museum website from the infobox, the article is about the school, not the museum. HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

How to print entire full page - including all the side links?

How to print entire full page especially with the "blue box"' to the right of the page that offers so many useful links to be cross-referenced? I could do "copy-and-paste" but I just tried that for half-an-hour and was not able to finish even one article = way too slow unless last option :(

... and now I gotta figure out how to get back here to check for answers, meanwhile, on with the research :)

- and surely there is a better way to seek basic Help such ass this w/o crashing an Edit forum??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C6B0:AD90:690A:CB68:96F:51E4 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. You're most definitely not crashing any edit forum - you're coming here to ask a sensible Wikipedia-related question, which is precisely what this forum is for! You can easily download a PDF of any article, and then print it out. That PDF will not only include the 'Infobox' on the right side of the page, but it will retain working hyperlinks to other pages here, as well as external links in the references.

So, to download a PDF, make sure you are viewing Wikipedia in 'desktop' view - i.e. not in summary 'mobile view'. (You can switch between them via a tiny link at the extreme bottom of the page.) Now, look to the left hand side of the page and towards the bottom you'll see a section labelled Print/export. Click the link labelled Download as PDF to save a latest version of the article to your computer. If you can find your way back here, do let us know how it worked for you! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Dutch version of Wiki on OTTO LIEBERMANN

Dear friends at the Teahouse,

Being the author of the original English version of the Wiki on Otto Liebermann, I discovered just a few days ago a "Dutch version" under "nl.qweryu.wiki". Being a native Dutch speaker, I was totally shocked by the translation into what not even approaches the Dutch language. It was horrible !!! So I want to try and edit it, but could not find any possibility for editing. The adresses "nl.qweryu.wiki" and "qweryu.wiki.nl" do not exist. Could anyone please tell me how to go about? Thank you so much ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffDellbart (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello JeffDellbart and welcome to the Teahouse. The Dutch Wikipedia is located at [nl.wikipedia.org] : the address you listed isn't part of a Wikimedia Foundation website. There are many sites that either mirror Wikipedia or may be set up as similar looking for domain squatting purposes: however, the WMF wikis are located at .wikipedia.org. Cheers, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rubbish computer! Your answer greatly helps in restoring my belief in humanity! There certainly are some bad hombres out there (to quote a famous philosopher). Thanks again, JeffDellbart

(edit conflict) Hello JeffDellbart and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no article about Otto Lieberman on Dutch wikipedia (search here). What you might have stumbled across was some other form of wiki article, totally unassociated with Wikipedia. I could actually find any such Dutch account anywhere and, as you didn't provide a link to whare you saw it in Dutch, I'm not sure how further I can help you.

Having looked at the article on English Wikipedia, I was surprised there were no other language version about him, and that the structure and referencing of the article itself is very basic. I suggest you add some inline references to sources with page numbers and immediately delete what appears to be a vast amount of copyright violation from J C Deelman's self-published book on Lieberman as identified here. There is only an open access statement, which I don't feel suffices to meet our licencing needs. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nick Moyes, Thank you very much for your reaction to my question. By now I know, that the site encountered is not for real. On the other hand, I do have to assure you that there are no copyright infringements at all involved in my Wiki on Otto Liebermann. Please do try to think a little bit harder about this very statement: there is only one correct answer. With many thanks and kind regards, Jeff Dellbart

@JeffDellbart: Thank you, but I'm really not very good with mysteries or hard thinking. (You'll have to help me a bit, I'm afraid). I did however do a little bit of thinking about Creative Commons licencing, and I concluded that a document simply stating 'Open Access Publication' is not the same as content released under a CC-BY-SA licence allowing anyone to copy, remix and resell that material. But, of course, I'm no expert. Maybe they are the same? You tell me. If you can show us, rather than simply hint in some mysterious and knowing manner, then we'll all be able to deal with this more quickly. If you are the author of J C Deelman's publication, you are free to formally release your work under a CC by SA licence, and you can do that with an appropriate declaration on your website, or by contacting the WMF from your registered address. (We can advise on the best form of words) If you aren't that person, than I think you will find it helpful to put both me and any deleting administrator out of our delusion that the material you used to create that article was freely released for non-commercial and commercial use. I note that another editor has since removed that content and requested its permanent deletion from Wikipedia. So help us to help you, please, and as soon as you can. And I'd suggest you post a copy of your non-cryptic thoughts on the matter both here and on the article's talk page too. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

So when you wrote "Copyright 2003, 2008, 2011 by J.C. Deelman" did you not mean that? Dbfirs 13:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: I'm no expert on these matters, but my understanding is that content released under a Creative Commons licence still remains the copyright of its creator. There are various sorts of CC licences by which copyright owner can release their content for re-use, even commercially. It's a subtle but important point that needs clarifying. Thus, I've released all my media uploaded to Commons under a CC-BY-SA licence, even though I believe I still own the copyright of the images I created, and have only released them for you to use or make money out of, providing you conform to the terms of the licence under which I released them. My doubt here is whether someone glibly stating 'Open Access Publication' on their website on which they've made that publication available (see here) and which they've cited without linking to that website has managed to meet the conditions set by the Wikimedia Foundation for accepting content for use. My very 'non-expert' opinion is that it does not. Pinging Diannaa - one of our copyright experts here on Wikipedia, and who is always welcome to comment at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Open access" does not mean that the material is released into the public domain or is compatibly licensed and ok to copy. What "open access" means is that we don't have to pay to read it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. I note you have now deleted the revision history which included all that copyrighted information, for which I'm grateful, even if JeffDellbart probably isn't! Jeff: you are free to rewrite the article in your own words (other than in the format published under copyright), making sure to avoid close paraphrasing. Equally, you can release the content under an appropriate Creative Commons licence, and then you can slap it back in, verbatim. Do remember, too, that nobody 'owns' any article on Wikipedia, nor do we call single encyclopaedia page here, nor indeed websites edited by just one person elsewhere, 'Wikis'. Our strict interpretation and action on copyright infringements is predominantly intended to protect the rights of individual content creators, as well as to protect WMF against legal action for hosting content that it should not be hosting. Hope this helps your thinking. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

An image of the Sun.

I noticed the following whilst sitting in the Sun today, wearing Sunglasses. Close one eye and look through the other lens, (just to the side of the Sun not looking directly into the Sun. A small dot is visible which could at first sight be mistaken for a dew type substance. Further inspection leads me to believe that this is an image of the Sun which can be safely looked at and manipulated. I can find nothing on this on Google. I assume this to be an image of the Sun, as I can clearly see the flares around the edge. I look forward to hearing from you. David Shattock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.63.124.235 (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello David Shattock IP user. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore not an appropriate place to report new findings. Your discovery is best covered in a scientific journal. Wikipedia will not publish your findings, unfortunately, until they have been discussed in reliable secondary sources.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just joined Wikipedia, now what?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HavocEidolon (talk • contribs) 14:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@HavocEidolon: I don't understand why you should ask that. According to your userpage (User:HavocEidolon) - which is about to be speedily deleted - you say you are a highly skilled Wikipedian. What kind of help do you actually seek, my friend? (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Your Contributions list shows you have only made one article edit to date, that was reverted, and then you created a Barnstar and a Beer on the Talk page of the editor who had reverted your posting. I suggest you blank your User page (before it is speedily deleted) and learn more about the operations of Wikipedia before continuing.

Thanks! HavocEidolon (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)HavocEidolon

Page that lists unreliable sources?

For academic works, we have WP:CRAPWATCH. Do we have something similar for non-academic publishers? For example listing the Daily Mail[4]? Thank you in advance! --Signimu (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: There is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources which lists sources (good and bad) that are commonly asked about. There is also WP:RSN for asking about sources. RudolfRed (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah thank you very much! But is the addition to this list a systematic procedure? For example right now there is an RFC for The Epoch Times[5] which for the moment seems like it will be deprecated (bad source), so can I expect the new consensus to be added to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources? --Signimu (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Helped I think I see: it's not a systematic procedure, but usually people will update the list. That's great! Thank you very much! --Signimu (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

How many wikilinks are enough to remove the notice

Hello again! I was editing this page Rafel Nadal which had notices "orphan" and "underlinked". I added a wikilink leading to the page and removed the orphan notice (sorry if it's too early). I also added some new information and 2 wikilinks. Now I wonder - can I remove the underlinked notice now? How many wikilinks is enough? And also how many wikilinks leading to the article is enough (taking into consideration the orphan situation). I understand it probably depends on the size of the article, but maybe there's some ratio? And can I remove the notices? or is there special people who do that? Thank you!--Less Unless (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: It seems well linked now, but underreferenced. I changed the hatnote accordingly. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thank you, but the question remains - how many references are enough?Less Unless (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: My personal rule of thumb is that I don't write an article unless I can find 8-10 independent third party media sources of coverage that aren't just passing mentions. At least two sources need to be in-depth profiles. If an article is close, but doesn't meet those goals, I don't flag it, especially if there are sources but I don't have time to add content and sources to the article myself. In its current state, Rafel Nadal isn't close, but a lot of the coverage is in Spanish, and what I can see indicates that he's notable. Here's a good source for The Last Son's Secret, which says his name is actually Rafel Nadal Farreras. [[6]] You can see how the Spanish article treats this - Rafel Nadal is a pen name (nom de plum). [[7]] Here's another source in English for The Curse of the Palmisano [[8]]. It would help to have the English names of his books in the article as well, since this is the English Wikipedia. Good luck. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Great tips, thank you. It's not about Nadal in particular, I just didn't get it in general. Now I have a clearer vision. And thank you for your time on Nadal research! Less Unless (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Zakir Naik Wiki page

Dr Naik has written various books but the page only highlights one. I propose to amend and add the following via this link. Please confirm if this OK.

https://www.justdial.com/verticals/orderbooks?pagename=query&query_str=dr-Zakir-Naik&source=&version=&nh=&wap= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutowriter123 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link Zakir Naik. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

For books, what is needed are the title, publisher, city & state of publisher (or equiv for other countries), year and ISBN. Please do not add all (Wikipedia is not a resume). You could call the section selected publications. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Help me

What is the difference between musicians, public figures, record labels, and how they are or aren't allowed on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWriter121215 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheWriter121215: Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability, for the general guidelines. The box on the right side has links to more specific guidelines for music, sports, etc. RudolfRed (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

In regard with Publishing contributions

Dear Teahouse,

I have a contribution for Jino Kunnumpurath and i have tried to publish my contributions. But it is yet to be available publicly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jino_Kunnumpurath this is the page. Could anyone help me to publish it and the steps for getting it approved.

Regards, Sreejasandeep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreejasandeep (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to submit your draft for review. You can do this with the submit for review button, if you see that on your page. If not, paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft. It will then be reviewed at some point, but there is a substantial backlog so this is likely to take several weeks and could take even longer, especially as several of your sources are not in English which means not all reviewers will be able to read them. Hug^syrup 14:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sreejasandeep: I cleaned up the syntax and grammar for Draft:Jino Kunnumpurath, but the article will have a hard time getting accepted without more sourcing. I did a brief search but can't find any English language coverage of him or his albums. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.)TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Page Draft Being Accepted

Hello. I have drafted a page for a musical album to be accepted. How do I go about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnw28/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnw28 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnw28:. Welcome to the Teahouse. If you see the 'submit for review' button on your draft then click that. If not, paste {{subst:submit}} at the top. I should warn you that your article is currently very unlikely to be accepted as it does not appear to be notable. I'd suggest you read the guidelines on albums here: WP:NALBUM and consider whether your album meets one of those criteria. I suggest that you also read our guidelines on conflict of interest as I suspect those apply to you as well. Hug^syrup 13:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnw28: I'm going to echo Hugsyrup's comments - the sourcing is currently insufficient to demonstrate notability, and I did a quick search for more media coverage and can't find any. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

question about wikiprojects

How do you add articles to a wikiproject? Do you just tag the wikiproject in the talk page or are there some extra steps I have to do? Also, if I am not a member of that wikiproject, can i still tag them in the talk page? -- Bait30  ^Talk? 21:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bait30. I believe that most WikiProjects list the types of articles they cover on their main project pages; sometimes it might be quite obvious, but other times it may not. Most WikiProjects also have a banner template that can be added to the top of talk pages of the articles that fall under their respective scopes; so, basically all you need to do is add a project's banner to an article talk page, and it will be listed/categorized as followingfalling under thatits scope. Some WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography have WikiProject banners (e.g. Template:WikiProject Biography) which have lots a variations as to how they can be completed; so, you can just add the banner in its most basic form or you can complete as many parameters as you feel comfortable doing as explained on the template's documentation page. I personally leave the |class= and |importance= parameters blank so that the article is categorized as unassessed; another editor, who is perhaps a member of the WikiProject or who works on WP:ASSESSing articles, will eventually come along and fill the banner in. You don't need to be a member of a WikiProject to add its banner to an article talk page. If you're not sure about whether an article falls under a particular WikiProject's scope you can always ask on the project's talk page or you can check the talk pages of similarly categorized articles, but it's not a huge deal if you "mistag" an article since the banner can always be removed. -- 21:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to tweak some wording. -- 23:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)]

This is exactly what I was looking for. I just didn't know if it was wrong to tag wikiprojects that I'm not a part of. Thanks! -- Bait30  ^Talk? 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

unwarranted removal of references

I've observed a user who's been removing references, with various terse explanations, such as "remove vandalism". I've only checked out a handful of the removed references, in one case, the cited web page had changed (in a bad way), but a suitable archived page was available.(It might be a mitigating factor that there were other citations for the same statement, though I think a lot of effort would have been required to verify that the deleted citation did not complement the other citations.) I challenged him on his talk page about these changes, but got no response.

Given the significant effort made to provide citations, it seems that these citations are being removed too casually. Are there any "best practices" that apply to such removal of citations? Fabrickator (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page.

...Wait, just says "Citation bot" on the user page. I'm going to block. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait, no, they know how to communicate but need to. I'll check back tomorrow. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just reverted a few of their recent edits, based upon wholly incorrect edit summaries. Had they said 'removing linkspam' I might have agreed! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

sandbox

I am trying to access my sandbox for the 1943 Detroit Race Riot but I am having trouble. When I click the button to get to my sandbox it says "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name." What should I do? I need to access this page to do my school project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lransler (talk • contribs) 01:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lransler, and welcome to the Teahouse. You sandbox is at User:Lransler/sandbox but it is now empty, and does not ever seem to have had any content about any race riot. I cannot find that nyou ever saved any contenht on that topic, at least not under this user name. Your edits can be seen at Special:Contributions/Lransler, and there are only 8 of them so far,. It is possible that you entered the content in your sendbox, but failed to click the "publish changes" button, which saves changes to the Wiki. (I think the name od the button is a bit unfortunate). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Lransler, The article, which you linked to on the course page, is at 1943 Detroit race riot. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh and, Lransler, please sign your postes on talk and discussion pages, like this one, wioth four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this into a link to your user page, or to your custom signature if you set one up. Signign in this way can help the software properly identify talk threads, and helps users know who wrote what. Do not sign in articles, however. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-English New Users

Not sure where to ask, but is there a "help me" template to ask for a translate for a non-native English speaker new user? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir. Perhaps Template:Welcome non-latin, Template:Uw-English or Template:Welcomeen (see Category:Non-English welcome messages) are what you're looking for. However, if you want something more personal or specific to the editor in question, then you might try a relevant WikiProject or WP:TRLA to see if someone can help you out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you, but unfortunately I'd tried those and there appears to be no template for Tamil and no active editors listed who can translate. I was hoping there was some other resource I'd missed. If not, though, c'est la vie. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Google translate will help? You can try some of the primary contributors of Tamil language and Tamil script since you might find one you can read and write Tamil, or someone from Category:User ta. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wiki World

Hi Everyone,

Indian Style Tea Biscuits with Chai

It's my pleasure to introduce myself. I am Lubna Shaikh, hails from Mumbai. I am new to Wikipedia and very curious to do my first edits. Please help me with the editing process. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubna S. Shaikh (talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, Lubna S. Shaikh. Here's a nice cup of tea for you as you take a few moments to learn about editing here. First off, please have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure - an interactive tour of how editing this encyclopaedia works. There are 15 badges to collect as you progress. Or simply read Wikipedia:Tutorial. In you enthusiasm, avoid adding anything to a Wikipedia article based on your personal knowledge or on unreliable sites such as social media platforms. You might be tempted, for example, to add details about your home city, or your favourite sports personality. Everything on Wikipedia should be sourced from published sources that anyone else in the world can check for themselves, and which are inserted as references. If you can do that, and add content in a manner that matches the style and layout used throughout Wikipedia, you'll be on your way to becoming a great editor.

But many people rush to make huge improvements from day one, only to find their edits reverted for reasons they fail to understand. So, best advice is to take it easy to start with. Look at articles about things that interest you, then read through and see if there are minor fixes like correcting spelling or grammar that need doing.

Without revealing personal information (like age, college or contact dtetails) feel free to add a few lines about yourself on your user page. This should be just enough to show to others what your editing interests might be. Home town and sports and hobby interests are often mentioned. For more ideas to get you going, there's a nice friendly introduction at Help:Getting started. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My page was deleted

I have no idea why or even how to speak to the person who deleted it \ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whip Around (software) (talk • contribs) 07:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Whip Around (software) If click on User:Whip Around (software), you see that the page was deleted by an administrator named Fastily per speedy deletion criterion U5. Since I'm not an administrator, I cannot see the content of the page; however, Wikipedia user pages are usually deleted per criterion U5 when the content is deemed too promotional for Wikipedia's purposes or seem to be mistakenly using the page as a free website for something unrelated to Wikipedia. If you want to know exactly why the page was deleted, you can post a message at User talk:Fastily.

In addition to your user page being deleted, you choice of username also seems to be a problem per Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names. I'm just guessing here but "Whip around" seems to be either the name of a company or the name of a particular software product just from a cursory Google search. If that's the case, then you probably should considered changing your username to something else. Accounts with promotional usernames may be soft blocked by an administrator if the administrator believes that the account is only being used to promote someone or something. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Whip Around (software). Based on what I read on your talkpage, there are several problems here, but you are not the first to stumble into them. Take the time to carefully read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:PAID. Also, per WP:PROMONAME I think you need to get a new username. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Help with editing a rejected article

Hi, I need help reviewing an article I submitted through Articles for Creation process and that was rejected for being 'essentially self-promoting'. I've since reviewed the article and taken out anything that strikes me as 'self-promoting', but I'd like some advice from the more experienced editors on here, if that's ok! It's accessible here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bhasker_Sharma Thank you very much for your help, it's very appreciated! TheDee (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As your User page states that you are not Bhasker Sharma, self-promoting was not correct. But what is the nature of your COI with the topic? As written, the draft contains far too much content about what Sharma has written - books and articles - and very little of what people have written about him. David notMD (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@DeepakMashru: From a quick scan, the article is still a long way from being acceptable. The issue is not primarily about the tone or content (although that definitely needs some work, and you should remove the long lists of publications). The issue is mainly with the sourcing, which is inadequate to establish notability.

Regardless of whether the article is or is not self-promotional, it can't be included unless the subject is notable, and that means having received substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. You aren't making it at all easy for a reviewer because you have packed the article with 164 sources, most of which are essentially worthless because they are books and papers written by Sharma himself, YouTube videos, primary sources like world record websites, and so on. I think the best thing is if you just delete all of the sources, and then start again by adding in only the best five sources you have that are: 1) completely independent, 2) in reliable publications (well-known newspapers, journals, etc) 3) are secondary sources and 4) cover Sharma in substantial detail. If you do that, it will be much easier for a reviewer to establish whether the subject is notable or not, and to give advice on further improvements.

I want to be clear, in giving this advice, that my personal opinion on looking at the article is that the individual is not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article and so no amount of editing the article is going to fix that problem. However, I am always willing to be proven wrong, and if you wish to continue trying to get the article accepted then you need to do some serious work on the sources. Hug^syrup 09:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Per other editors's suggestions here and on your Talk page, I deleted the lists of books and articles by Sharma. Also mention of Golden Book of World Records as not a reliable sources. I recommend you convert the list of books about Sharma into references that can then be used to support factual content about Sharma. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this is incredibly helpful. Agreed reliable sources are difficult to come by and many are not available online or published in small, local or regional newspapers. I will do the necessary to uncover more substantial evidence of notability. David notMD (talk · contribs) Thank you for your contribution and your advice, I will follow your suggestion and try to access the second-hand sources themselves to establish verifiable and reliable facts about Dr. Sharma. Cheers to both of you, I'm much clearer now on the reasons for rejection!TheDee (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Picture Problem

Dear sirs,

I can't seem to get this right. I made a Wikipedia page called Valhalla Festival today. It's my first Wikipedia page and it was almost perfect! There's one thing I can't get right though. As you see here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_Festival, above the picture of the logo in the menu on the left there is some text.

"266px|"

I have tried for over an hour to remove it, but I can't seem to get the text out of there. Below you'll find a link for a page of another festival, which has the picture in the way that we would want it.

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Open_Air

Does anyone have an idea how I can transform my picture settings from the first link, to how it's done on the second one? I'd really appreaciate it if someone could help me!

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimDuivenvoorden (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi JimDuivenvoorden, please note that this is the Teahouse for the English Wikipedia, and things are not all the same on the Dutch Wikipedia.
That said, I think I have fixed your problem - Images in Infoboxes have a different format - no "file" parameter and no size, thumb etc, just "filename.jpg" - If this was not what you wanted, please revert my edit to that page - Thanjks - Arjayay (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want a caption, on the English Wikipedia that is a separate parameter "caption =" - but I don't know what the Dutch for "caption" is - the full information should be under "Infobox muziekfestival" Arjayay (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arjayay, thank you so much! You solved the problem exactly as how I wanted it. Thanks for the quick help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimDuivenvoorden (talk • contribs) 12:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Is my article about Brett Stuart notable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brett_Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornitdibbo (talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dornitdibbo: - Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't tell you if Brett Stuart is notable or not, but I can tell you that your article does not establish his notability and would not be acceptable to be published. You have only three sources, of which one is a YouTube video (almost never a suitable source), and the other two are interviews/coverage on websites which do not appear to be independent or reliable. Hug^syrup 11:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The references seem to be a YouTube video featuring the subject and two interviews with the subject, so at first glance nothing to demonstrate notability. What Wikipedia needs is not what the subject says but what published independent reliable sources say about him. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

can you help me out to make this arcticle notable?

I forgot to mention as topic relation disclosure, but Brett Stuart's work changed my worldview in these recent years. He also can be considered one of the modern populazators of remote viewing and practical applications of psychic abilities - which makes me even more interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornitdibbo (talk • contribs)

@Dornitdibbo: - it's not really a case of making the article notable. If Brett Stuart doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability because not enough reliable, independent publications have written about him, then there is nothing we can do to help. I can't find any references to him in what I would consider reliable newspapers or journals, or published books. Can you? If so, post the links here and I'll happily take a look and tell you if they are suitable. Hug^syrup 11:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: - Can a book written by the person himself be considered notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornitdibbo (talk • contribs)

@Dornitdibbo: - I am not sure if you mean 'can the book be considered notable' as that is a separate question - do you mean 'can the book be used as a reference to establish the notability of the author'? If so, then 99% of the time, no it cannot. Firstly because it is a primary source, and secondly because it is not independent. If the book has been reviewed in reliable, independent publications then you could include those reviews and they might help to establish the notability of the author. By the way, please sign your posts by typing four tildes like this ~~~~ after it. Hug^syrup 13:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Referencing

Please I have learnt some definitions of some tools and materials on here but I need the authors of those who gave the answers for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.18.1 (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. I don't fully understand your question - are you using Wikipedia as a source, and therefore need the names of the authors of pages? If so, I'm afraid that isn't possible - no single author writes any Wikipedia page, and almost all editors are anonymous. That shouldn't stop you using a Wikipedia page as a reference, however - here is an explainer of how you can do it for Harvard referencing, for example.

If that isn't what you meant, then apologies for misunderstanding, and can you explain a bit more? Hug^syrup 13:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Following on from Hugsyrup's reply, rather than using Wikipedia as a reference it is usually better to use the sources which are cited for the appropriate facts within the Wikipedia article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you add a photo graph to a article?

I tried so many times and it just doesn’t seem to work and I need help doing that, please respond to this please. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by The person who should not be named (talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lord Voldemort(?), welcome back to the Teahouse, and thank you for changing your username. Are you trying to add an image that is already on Wikimedia Commons, or are you wanting to know how to upload an image that you created yourself? If you can answer that, we can help you more effectively. Meantime, Help:Pictures should give you some idea what to do. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m trying to learn on how to do both except I didn’t create an image yet but I’m wanting to know how to upload an image on Wikipedia and I have no idea how to add an image that’s already on Wikimedia. Sometimes I practice on my User page and it gives me the wrong image 😐. —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Quality scale ratings

Hello Teahouse hosts. I've been writing and submitting a few articles for creation, and they've almost all been accepted. What I notice is that some of them have conflicting quality ratings within the article. The Edward Von der Porten article is the one with the greatest difference in the ratings. The article has on overall rating of a B and then below that is is rated start class by the military project assessor. I wonder why the differences and even why there is more than one assessment. Which of the quality assessments is the valid, reliable, and accurate assessment? I appreciae any attention that is given to my question.Hu Nhu (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hu Nhu. You can found out more specific at WP:ASSESS, but most likely the different WikiProjects whose scope the article fall under have different assessment criteria. It also possible that the assessments were made by different editors. Most of the "quality ratings" you will find on an article's talk page are really just "unofficial assessments" that can vary based upon who's doing the assessing, what criteria they're applying and which version of the article they are actually assessing; so, there's probably inconsistency to be found among similar articles and even with respect to the same article. More formal assessments like WP:GA and WP:FA tend to have a more structured review process and assessment criteria with multiple editors often working together to assess the article; so, there tends to be more consistency. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Marchjuly. Your explanation helps me understand this oddity.Hu Nhu (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about User Pages

Every time I go down to a talk page, I'm always drawn to the cool guys with the colorful, bold names like "Jimbo Wales" that I've seen. So far I know about user boxes, and I've added a few to my own profile, but other things like Barn stars and other quirky certifications make me slightly jealous. Are these cool things like colored names and humorous certifications just for people who have been on this site for a while, or is there a way get more info on these things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kugihot (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kugihot, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any registered user may use a custom signature, as described in Wikipedia:Signatures. Wikipedia:Signature tutorial § Real-life examples shows some examples of custom signatures used by various editors. Please be careful not to overdo signature customization. It can be distracting, and may not enhanece your reputation.

Barnstars are given by one user to another, to indicate approval of some action or series of actions. There are many different barnstars, recognizing contributions from the relatively minor to the very important indeed.They are all informal. There is no process for awarding them. Any user who thinks it appropriate can give a barnstar to any other user. See Wikipedia:Barnstars for more detail on these and how they are used.

People can have a wide variety of other tings on their user pages, including pictures, quotes, lists of articles worked on or to be worked on, statements of principles, etc. People should not use user pages as free personal web pages, but may describe themselves to soem extent, particularly as it relates to their work on Wikipedia and their attitude and interests here. None of this is restricted to people who have "been around a while", but limits on non-wikipedia-related content are more strictly enforced on people who have not made any significant contributions to the project. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Spam edits by an IP

Hello Fellow editors,

One IP user making spam edits continuously on the "Polyphia" page. Even after serval warnings he not stopping. How to treat such users? Thank you.Daringsmith (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Daringsmith. There are various user warnings that you can use (some examples are given in WP:WARN). Generally, you start at level 1 and work up to the highest level, but many IPs like this just show up out of nowhere without little or no idea as to how Wikipedia works let alone how to respond to posts on their user talk page; so, often you never get a response and the IP just keeps going on as before. At some point you're probably going to have to request administrator intervention either by requesting page protection or by reporting the IP at WP:ANI, WP:AN3 or WP:ANV. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The IP has been warned by another editor in addition to your earlier warning, and seems to have stopped for the moment. Perhaps it was just someone messing around and they have now moved on. If they come back, then you probably should report the account at ANV. An administrator is unlikely going to protect the article at this point as long as the disruption has stopped, and as long as it's only a single IP causing problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

As the vandalism was intense and included BLP violations, I decided to semi-protect for a week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328 & Marchjuly for your prompted helps. Daringsmith (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Cullen328 & Marchjuly More than 75 edits done on the page Coleen Rooney within 5 hours. Most of the edits are IP edits and new user account edits. Can you please both look into the matter and let me know what to do in such situations? Thanks.Daringsmith (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Daringsmith. The Colleen Rooney biography has already been semi-protected by another administrator. Please file reports at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and/or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if you run across similar situations in the future. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

For Hugsyrup Couldn't find the "mention" where you mentioned me -

First an enormous THANK YOU for all of the editors and photographers, one who I met in person who's taken over 3,000 pix for Wikipedia as a volunteer - I want to put that up front before I express my frustration. This couldn't be done without you, but unfortunately, because of the system, you're preventing other volunteers to participate.

I went to the link - oh!

and I tried to provide a Bitly "PleaseSimplifyWikipedia" but of course the post is now refused. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Increasing_diverse_voices_with_a_Wiki_101_approach%3A_Editing_should_be_accurate_and_unbiased_but_not_difficult. (just tried to use your "insert link" - geez - hope it works - because it looks like it won't . The email link has the beginning of your post - "Many of the ideas you have highlighted are issues that Wikipedia is well aware of, such as making editing eas..." - but I have no idea what the end it.

If Wikipedia SINCERELY wants more editors they need to make it easier to use than UNIX, okay? (a picture of 80's hairstyles follows) https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d4/10/ce/d410ce9b35c755caa3595b20ba54848e.jpg

Cityfolk (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)City-Folks

Hi Cityfolk. I think this is the conversation you're referring to: [9]. Not sure I quite follow what your question is though? Hug^syrup 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cityfolk: As the note at the top of this question forum now states, "Completed questions are archived within 3 days". This is because of the high level of activity and number of posts here. So, to refind an old post, one of the best ways is to search for your own username in the archive search box. That yielded the link which Hugsyrup has helpfully provided you with. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cityfolk. You're not talking to the right people here. Few of the people who read and respond to this page have any role in implementing the software. I suggest discussing it at VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Holy Family Cathedral, Orange

I am looking for some help. In July the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange in California dedicated Christ Cathedral (Garden Grove, California) - the former Crystal Cathedral. Holy Family Cathedral in Orange had been the diocesan cathedral up to that point. Since the dedication of their new cathedral I can find no evidence that Holy Family has been changed to Holy Family Church (Orange, California) and yet the Wikipedia page has been changed to that title and the editor who has made the change will not discuss the matter. I understand that the status and name of a church that has served as a cathedral is generally changed when a new cathedral is dedicated, examples being St. Laurence Catholic Church (Amarillo, Texas) and Sacred Heart Church (Raleigh, North Carolina). There is also a tradition of maintaining the cathedral name in part, St. Patrick's Old Cathedral or Proto-Cathedral of St. James the Greater. In this case, Holy Family Parish and the Diocese of Orange continue to refer to it as Holy Family Cathedral. I can locate no decree from the diocese or the Vatican changing the status or name of the church building, which is the common practice in the Catholic Church. I do not want to get into an edit war over this, but I cannot get any answers from those who are making the changes and I want others to weigh in on this for guidance. It seems to me that we cannot make this change, Wikipedia can only reflect what the proper authority has done and we cannot anticipate what they have not done. Farragutful (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Farragutful, and welcome to the Teahiouse. It seems that then other editor has now responded. Remembrer that we are all volunteers, and may not be available at every moment. Alsdo remember to assume good faith. I have also posted on the artivel talk page. Note that names used on Wikipedia need not be official, merely commonly used in reliabel sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Are you kidding me? The other editor has not responded. Available every moment? I first contacted him on September 1, well over a month ago, and followed up on the 13th. How much time am I supposed to give him? The "official page from the City of Orange" is a photo history page from the local public library. It is about a photo of the previous parish church building, which was never a cathedral, and it refers to the present Holy Family as a cathedral. And what makes you think that Holy Family Church is the "common name" when all the sources refer to it as Holy Family Cathedral including the one you cite. Do you understand the situation and the importance of the status of a church building in the Catholic Church? If not, you're not being helpful. This might still be a cathedral. With your attitude, it is no wonder people think Wikipedia is a joke with unreliable information. Farragutful (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, Farragutful I saw your interaction with Lupin VII and thought Lupin was "the other editor" when I wrote the above. I now see that you are concerned about Diegobcardenas. That was my error.

The page at https://www.cityoforange.org/1014/Holy-Family-Catholic-Church, which is cited as a source in the article, refers to its subject as "Holy Family Catholic Church"and refers to "Holy Family Catholic Parish". That is an official page of the City of Orange, which would usually be a reliable source. If that is referring to a previous church, the article fails to ay so

Yes I am quite aware to to a Catholic the name of a church can be very important. and I am not saying that the common name has changed. I am merely saying that if the common name has changed, Wikipedia follows that even if the "official" name has not.

Now, can we please take further discussion of this to the article talk page, and I will try to get to the bottom of it, and be of so9me assistance? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Farragutful: I think that DESiegel was trying to help you sort this out and you perhaps should be a little more willing to assume that he did so in good faith. Not every answer you get at the Teahouse is probably going to lead to an immediate resolution, but it may point you somewhat in the right direction and it may be helpful to others having a similar question. So, please try not start going after a well-meaning Teahouse host just because their answer might not have been exactly the one you were hoping for.

You've stated you've made attempts to discuss your concerns with the other editor and they haven't responded. They're not obligated to respond, but you're not obligated to wait forever until they do. You made the effort, so you can now move to the next step of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and seek wider input. You seem to have already started to do that with discussion on the article's talk page, but you can also ask for assistance on the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects (just be aware of WP:CANVAS). Since you feel the page move was unwarranted, you can also just WP:REVERT the edit per WP:MOVE#Undoing a move and WP:BRD, but explain why in your edit summary and on the article's talk page. In addition to your reasons for reverting the move, you might also want to add a something about WP:RMUM since the move was not discussed to begin with as a way of letting others know that you are open to discussing this further and also as sort of a "warning" against anyone initiating a move war over the article's title without discussion. Keeping your comments/edit summaries as civil as possible, focusing on relevant policies and guidelines as much as possible and avoiding comments about other editors (like the ones you've made in your above post) may help keep the discussion from turning into something resembling WP:USTHEM or WP:BATTLEGROUND, neither of which is going to be productive.

Finally, regarding your comment about people thinking that Wikipedia is a joke, please take a look at WP:WPNOTRS: Wikipedia articles are not really intended to be reliable sources for information in and of themselves; they are only intended to reflect content found in reliable sources cited in support of their article content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you. That was the guidance I was looking for. Farragutful (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

broken template

Hi, Is there a place to report a broken template or just in its talkpage? HR2023 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, HR2023, and welcome to the Teahouse. If it is causing a problem, the technical pump (WP:VPT) is a good place. Or you could mention it here. That isn't our prime function, but a number of helpful and experienced editors watch this page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@HR2023: As far as I can see, the template is not broken at all. It simply displays Tadawul instead of Saudi Stock Exchange because that is how it is set. i.e. it shows the alternative name for that organisation. You can see that if you click the 'edit source' tab, but please don't change it without prior agreement, as it's been like that since 2012. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new article

Hi, I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for one of my clients. It is starting to seem as though it is more difficult to create a page that I originally thought that it would be!

Am I not allowed to create a new page for a philanthropist/entrepreneur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.185.103.75 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, unregistered editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and is significantly harder than many people think. Also, it cannot be done directly unless one registers an account and has it confirmed, although unregistered editors can use the Articles for Creation process. Below are some steps which, when followed, often lead to success:

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, disclose your connection with the subject in accordance with the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Since you are a paid editor, you must create an account and make the mandatory Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is your first step and is non-negotiable. Familiarize yourself with the guideline on editing with a Conflict of interest, and follow it carefully. Then read and study Your first article. You can write a draft and submit it through the Articles for Creation process. Here is a question for you: What makes you think this person is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Booth Lusteg

Dear Editor, Thanks for your quick response. Sorry I didn't get rite back to you, as I've been very busy.

Regarding the Booth Lusteg Wiki page errors, you wanted me to provide 2 sources verifying birthdate. (I was his only daughter and very close to him for 49 years.)

I have a copy of his passport & his license. It is privileged info & don't want the public to see it. I ask that you would delete it afterwards.

How should I attach it or let you view it? Thanks, Lisa Lusteg- Bennett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlisa (talk • contribs) 21:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is a courtesy link to the previously archived discussion. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Courtlisa: You've previously asked about this same thing before at the Teahouse as Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1015#Wrong info in "Booth Lusteg Wikipedia" article on Google and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1019#Booth Lusteg article, and there has also been information some general information provided to you about conflict of interest editing on your user talk page. The "sources" you are describing are considered to be primary sources by Wikipedia which means they are fairly difficult to use. Moreover, there's no way to keep them out of public view if you're going to try and use them since they need to be published and accessible for verification purposes to allow Wikipedia to use them.

Wikipedia can only go by what's published in reliable sources, and there are two sources (the one cited in the article and one which is an official Buffalo Bills 1967 team yearbook, the latter is one which you have even posted on your own tribute website to your dad here) which gives your dad as being born in 1939. That information may be incorrect, but what Wikipedia is going to need is some other published reliable source (perhaps an old newspaper article or magazine article) which provides some different information. Your dad was partly known for pretending to be his younger brother so as to improve his chances at being picked up by the Bills. This may explain partially explain why some reliable source are getting his birth year wrong, but Wikipedia needs other reliable sources which give his birth year as 1938 for verification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

HELP CREATING ARTICLE

HELLO

I was wondering of there is any kind of template or easy way to create an article on wikipedia that will get accepted easy for my business. I just want to show up on wikipedia and be recognized for the business i have which ive been running for years. If theres anyone that can help me pleae let me know as I am always limited with time to read through all the guielines..

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoneJackInstallationLosAngeles (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@PhoneJackInstallationLosAngeles: The short answer is no, there is no guaranteed way. As well, your username is unsuitable for Wikipedia: usernames must represent one person, rather than a corporation. You fall into the second category. Please follow the instructions here. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhoneJackInstallationLosAngeles. This is an encylopedia. It is not a business directory. There is no easy way to write an acceptable encyclopedia article, and you have a conflict of interest. You must read the guidelines if you want to edit. Start by reading and studying Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked this user for a promotional user name combined with promotional edits and the apparent intent to make more such edits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to WP:PinkLock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Original poster has been indefinitely blocked for being not here; so, any further attempts to help them are probably better off made on their user talk page instead of here at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Tanmayy Mahajan

Hi, we are looking for a person who can help us in removing the page on Wikipedia due to negative comments on the page. please feel free to contact on (removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanmayymahajan (talk • contribs) 11:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed your email address, as you should not solicit off-wiki contact. When you say 'we', can you confirm if more than one person is using your account? Finally, a page will not be removed because it has negative comments on it, although if information is inaccurate it may be possible to edit it, you should post on the talk page of the article in question explaining what information you want to have removed, and why, and get agreement from other editors. Since I suspect you have a conflict of interest, I suggest you also read these two policies and ensure you abide by them before making any edits: WP:COI, WP:PAID. Hug^syrup 11:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Tanmayymahajan. I'm happy to take a look at any issues you're having. Just let me know which page you're having a problem with so I can check it for you. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: - It seems to be about Raheja_Developers. Some context here User_talk:Bishonen#Tanmayy_Mahajan. Hug^syrup 12:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Editor now indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit warring in Operation Peace Spring/2019 Rojava offensive

This page is currently subject to community sanctions as part of the Syrian Civil War, which I'm informed limits users to 1 revert of logged-in users every 24 hrs.

There appears to be substantial dissent over a variety of topics [especially the page name], resulting in users User_talk:A4516416, User:Takinginterest01, User:Sakura_Cartelet, and IP address User_talk:86.50.68.196 appearing to exceed the 1 revert/day limit.

I'm not an experienced editor and don't feel qualified to comment on whether the reverts in question are of clear vandalism [which would not be subject to the sanctions] - can someone more familiar with the guidelines please help sort it out? Reyne2 (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Reyne2. Thank you for reporting what may be a significant problem, and it definitely involves areas of great interest to administrators. Please file this report at Administrators noticeboard - Incidents, where competent people will look into it. It is very late at night where I live, and I do not have the time for a detailed examination right now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I posted there earlier and reverted after noticing it said to post in the Teahouse if you were confused. Reverted the reversion to let someone else sort it out - thanks. Reyne2 (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Correcting name of public figure

I want to correct a first name of a public figure. I know the person personally. I reconfirmed spelling of first name. I signed up but options in Edit don’t include editable Name-field. Pls help. Tku very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaDcun (talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@IsaDcun: welcome to the Teahouse! I'm guessing that you refer to the title of the article, which has to be changed by an article move. New users are not able to move pages, but you can go to the talk page of the article in question and post a request that the page be moved (you will have to provide reliable sources, though – knowing something personally is not sufficient I'm afraid). --bonadea contributions talk 07:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Citing inside parentheses

I'm wondering where to place an inline citation when the sentence is inside parentheses. I see two ways:

• (Example sentence.)
• (Example sentence.)

Which one is preferred, if at all? Thanks in advance! Poml (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Poml Hello! I think the first option is more correct as it serves as a logical end to the whole previous semantic part, which includes a reference as a proof of the stated information. I haven't found it in any guidelines though, it's my personal impression.--Less Unless (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You'll find the answer at MOS:REFPUNCT. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Problem Publishing Our Article

Hello, we've written an article about a prominent politician in Taraba State, Nigeria but up to now it is still not yet published on Wikipedia. We can only view/see it through our link but it is not yet on Wikipedia or the search engines as well. Kindly help.

Note: this is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shaakaa24/Yushau_maihanci

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshswacide (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moshswacide: - your article is currently only a draft, and is not published on Wikipedia. You would need to submit it for review by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top. However, your draft in its current format will definitely not be approved because it does not have a single reference. Articles will only be accepted if they have sufficient reliable sources talking about the topic/person in enough detail to establish that they are notable. I also suggest you read WP:NPOL for the criteria that politicians must meet to have an article about them. Hug^syrup 12:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Moshwacide Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not submitted the draft for review; you will need to do this using Articles for Creation; however, your draft is completely unsourced and would not be accepted. Independent reliable sources are a must for any article, but especially an article about a living person, please see policy in this area. You may also want to read Your First Article to learn more about creating an article(the hardest task on Wikipedia) and use the new user tutorial.

I would also ask who "we" is. Accounts cannot be shared or represent a group. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You can continue to edit as an individual (avoid "we"). If there are other people who intend to work on this draft, each of them should create an account; it appears Shaakaa24 already has. Questions: do you know the politician personally, or are being paid to attempt to create this article? David notMD (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

How could I generate proper citations

Hej,

I am new here and I worked a lot at the right-wing terroistic 2019 Halle synagogue attack. Especially at this lemma, it is important to have good sources and cite them in a fine way. Is there an automatic "machine" for me as an author, to generate the sources in the way it is mostly displayed in the lemma (nameof media, url etc). Thnaks a lot! --Outdoor-Bro (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Outdoor-Bro: I find ProveIt a useful tool for formatting citations in a consistent way. --bonadea contributions talk 09:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Outdoor-Bro: We do have a help page of guidance for beginners on adding references, but I find it rather confusing. If you do, too, take a look at User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. May I just add that there are quite a few wholly uncited paragraphs and statements in that article, which is quite surprising for a breaking story like that, as most editors are normally quite strict on allowing any content in without supporting references. The sooner you can help address that, the better. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Where to brag

I'm quite proud of an article I posted today, Union Literary Institute, and I'd like to invite readers. Is there an appropriate place to do that? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe, first go to WP:DYK quickly so you can get it on the front page. You'll get thousands of hits. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

New articles can be submitted to "Did you know?" You actually have seven days from the creation of the article to submit a DYK. Other than that, there is no means of inviting readership. In time, the Wikipedia article will appear as search results when someone searches Google or other search engine of that topic. David notMD (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That having been said, it's pretty common practice to maintain a list of articles that you've created on your user page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: That looks a like a nice article - well done. Can I suggest you look at making the lead a single paragraph, and the rest the content that is there just a part of the article? Right now, the page is just a bit imbalanced. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Apart from DYK, you can post "please improve my article" messages at related WP-projects/article talkpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Since DYK is new to me, would someone please check if my self-nomination is correctly done? Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link Template:Did you know nominations/Union Literary Institute TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I think if it was done right, it should be visible at Template talk:Did you know. Gerda Arendt, can you take a look? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the nom and don't know where to comment. Trying here first: deisenbe, welcome to DYK, and relax, you have days for a nomination. You should have a bold link to the new subject in every hook, and somehow you have all print in a small font. Can you repair that? Then I'll look futher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the small thingy. Please word a hook or two mentioning the new article, and then we need to transclude it to the nominations page. One step after the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The small was in the template I understood I should use. I took it out. I tried to put in the links. I am amazed at how complicated this is, or to put if differently, I haven't learned to understand the world of nested templates. I wish someone would recheck it and tell me if it's good to go or needs more work, and if so, what work. And thanks for the courtesy link. deisenbe (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe:. Just a general comment, but the "hooks" you provided for the DYK nomination are quite general and likely not something which is going to convince others that the article is DYK worthy. Something along the lines that Gerda Arendt added is much better per WP:DYKHOOK. A "hook" is literally intended to be for hooking readers into looking at the article; so, if there's something timely or unique about the ULI that will help do this, then consider adding that to the hook. DYK reviewers also seem to like nominations which have images; so, if you can possibly find some freely licensed or public domain of the ULI to use then you should consider adding that to the nomination. A non-free image could possibly be used in the article (if you can find one), but it cannot be used in the DYK nomination. Finally, I wouldn't really suggest stating that you'd like to use DYK as a way to "brag" about your work since that may turn off some of DYK reviewers and perhaps seen as a little bit of WP:NOTHERE. It's best just to let the article content speak for itself. If your nomination is approved, you can "brag" a bit by adding {{DYK user topicon}} or some other DYK template to your user page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

{ Deisenbe, I agree with the advice of Gerda Arendt, and Marchjuly. I would add that a DYK "hook" should be an interesting fact about the listed article that will tempt readers to click the nlink and look at the article. In a sense all of DYK is "bragging" but try to think of it as "informing the readership". I had linked the nomination template into the main DYK page earlier today in response to your earlier posting. I agree that alt2 is the best of the three hooks so far, but an even "punchier" hook would be good if possible. Usually 1 out of every set of 8 DYK hooks on the main page (or is it 6 now) has an image displayed there. Since new articles with acceptable images are rarer than 1 in 8, articles with images often get priority, but only if the images are freee and look well at a small size. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a regular occurrence at the Teahouse, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see an editor asking for this kind of assistance and finding so many people willing to help. Airbornemihir (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Vipul Singh

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia. I tried my hand at writing an article but it was declined. The reasons cited for the same were that it looked promotional and the person did not seem to posses enough notability. Could someone please guide me as to what approach to take in order to make it better and more in line with Wikipedia guidelines and standards? Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassingby712 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justpassingby712. Since you're asking the AfC reviewer who declined Draft:Vipul Singh basically the same question, it might be best to let him give you some more specific details. While you're waiting for him to respond, perhaps you should take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) for some general reasons why drafts like the one you submitted tend to be declined and what types of subjects are generally deemed suitable to create a Wikipedia article about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

And also WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, Justpassingby712. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I need help

1) Please can u tell me if I’m in right place? 2) can u tell what is going on for my boyfriend case. Coz I really goig true for this opposition i swear. 3) can u tell me how i can solve all this problems i have please help me🙏🙌 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariam ally (talk • contribs) 17:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Mariam ally I'm sorry this is a place to ask about using Wikipedia. We cannot give you advice unrelated to Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft article

Hi,

I just created a draft titled "Goleadoras" and had two questions. First, how do u go directly to that draft from my Wikipedia and second, do you believe it is ready to submit for review to see if it can be added to Wikipedia?

Thank you in advance,

JuntasCambiamos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuntasCambiamos (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The easiest way to find your draft is to click on the "Contributions" list at the top of any page. The thing that will make it easier for a reviewer to see whether it is suitable for publication would be to expand the references rather than leaving them as bare URLs. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

JuntasCambiamos, It seems like you draft at at User:JuntasCambiamos/sandbox/Goleadoras. I think its ready to be submitted for review. Interstellarity (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

How does one access archived comments and pages

I run across sections and even talk pages that are archived. How does one access archives? Why are they archived in the first place?Oldperson (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages are archived to stop them getting unmanageably large. You'll find information at Wikipedia:Archiving. If the job has been done properly, there should be an archive index like there is on this page. You can type either a user name or a thread title or any other recognisable text string into the archive search box. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Oldperson. Adding to what David Biddulph says above: One sometimes finds that an individual has not set up their archive correectly, and that maybe there's no link to it on their talk page. To find it (assuming it exists), go to their talk page and click the 'Page' Tab and go down to click 'View Sub-pages'. That should reveal the names of any archive pages they've created there. If it's missing, go instead to their main Userpage and repeat the process. That shows every single sub-page they have, irrespective of its location. Very rarely, an editor simply deletes their talk page contents without ever archiving it. In that case you might have to scroll through the 'View History' tab at their talk page and look for the red byte counts showing deleted content. There's a row for every single edit saved on that page. To see the version of the page prior to that big deletion, click the timestamp of the entry immediately below it, or use the radio buttons to compare the difference between selected revisions of that page. Hope this might help, too. Kind regards Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete of edits

Hi

Is it standard here to delete edits of users ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcflyhigh1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Mcflyhigh1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can think of several different interpretations of your question, so it would help if you clarified what exactly you are asking about. Is it about one of your edits that was removed? 331dot (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, an edit that uses only Facebook as a reference is liable to be deleted because Facebook is user-generated, and so is not regarded as a WP:Reliable source. Dbfirs 20:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

What you want to add to Statue of Jeff Goldblum may well be true, but you appear to be having difficulty creating a reference(s). I suggest you practice with the text and refs in your Sandbox before copying it into the article. I also left a note on the article creator's Talk page, suggesting the article would be improved with information on who/how it was created. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Report User

105.105.52.169 making destructive changes on Korean Drama page and delete something without valid sources. I already making edit to last constructive changes. This kind of people sometimes make me frustrating. Thanks and sorry for my bad English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts. To report the user, try WP:AIV. Hope this helps. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you just help me blocked this user? 105.105.120.219 make destructive changes again.delete 1 film without tell any reason. Any help will be appreciate.Michaelelijahtanuwijaya

Page not published

My page " The Blueprint Show " is not published inspite of taking all the precautions into considerations. Kindly help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashpashine (talk • contribs) 07:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Akashpashine: welcome back to the Teahouse. Your previous question about User:Akashpashine/sandbox was answered in this thread, and nothing has changed since then. There are still no sources (and almost no content) on the page. --bonadea contributions talk 07:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made certain changes on my page, " The Blueprint Show ". Can this page be published now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashpashine (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it is very far from being an acceptable Wikipedia article (and should probably be speedily deleted as spam following the latest addition). Please read the information provided to you in the earlier thread. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Akashpashine: This Week (American TV program) is an example of what a reasonable article on a news program should look like. Note, in particular, the many independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability, and the lack of WP:PUFFERY like "uncompromising", "hard facts that form the bedrock", "the biggest exposes", and "consistently set the news agenda, and will continue to do so". Please also see WP:TONE. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

It is okay to make fanon stories in my sandbox or in the main sandbox? PencilmationFan999 (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PencilmationFan999 and welcome to the Teahouse. You really shouldn't. The main sandbox is automatically reset fairly often, so that is like writing on paper and tossing it into a fire. Your own sandbox is subject to WP:CSD#U5 which prohibits Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, with the exception of plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 02:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Biggest Waves Ever Surfed

I have painted a collection of paintings of the biggest waves ever surfed in history from all over the world. These do not exist anywhere in a comparative manner except my web site. These are true-to-scale, based on photographs and videos, but painted for higher definition and higher contrast to illustrate the awesome scale of big wave surfing. These are found on my web site "biggestwaveseversurfed.com" which takes the user to my pages on Fineartamerica.com, also called "john-kaelin.pixels.com. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

I was thinking of posting it under my name as an artist, John Kaelin. I have done other artwork during my lifetime, but starting in 1998 I devoted my efforts to illustrating a definitive guide to the "biggest waves ever surfed." The source for everything is my website:

https://john-kaelin.pixels.com/

Is this a possibility for wikipedia?

Thanks,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Kaelin (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi John Kaelin and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to know that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that publishes only information that has already been reported in WP:Reliable sources. There is a policy of WP:No original research, so I think you will have to find other outlets for your work until others have written about it. Dbfirs 04:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi John Kaelin. You might also want to add Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Namechecking, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and perhaps even Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing to you reading list since you're likely to find the information contained in them helpful. That last one, in particular, goes into some possible drawbacks about trying to add content about yourself to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Please help me with this!!

Hello there Seniors, I saw a page about a saint where i found some of the statements false, and that false statement has been cited with non relatable foreign language links which has nothing to do with the statements, so how can i remove those paragraph!? Bollymine (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bollymine. As explained in WP:NONENGLISH, as long as a source written in a language other than English is considered to be reliable and used in proper context, then there's no reason to remove it just because it's not in English. If you are unable to read the source to assess it's reliability, then you can add at template like Template:Verify source just after the citation, but you probably shouldn't remove the citation outright. You can also try to find someone who might be able to read the source at a relevant Wikiproject or maybe even at Wikipedia:Translators available.

Now, if you can read the source and can assess that it's not reliable or not being used in proper context, then you should treat it the same way as you would if the source was written in English. If you can revise the relevant context so that it better reflects the source, the perhaps do that. If the source has absolutely no value at all, you can remove it and the content it's intended to be supporting per WP:UNSOURCED, or just replace the source with a more suitable one you were able to find or with a Template:Citation needed. Regardless of what you do, you should leave an edit summary explaining why so that others don't mistake your edit for vandalism. If necessary, you can clarify further on the article's talk page. If someone reverts your edit and disagrees with your assessment of the source, you should then discuss things with this person on the article's talk page. Perhaps through discussion someone will be able to find a better source or figure out a way to better use the existing source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource texts what are you allowed to do with it?

Dear Tea house member,

I have a question concerning the wiki source texts. As I understand it, you are allowed to use wiki source texts for commercial purposes. But what about the following situation. I would like to make a graphic novel using text from Alice in Wonderland would I be allowed to publish it then for commercial purposes?

Best regards,

Charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.248.63 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Any text in Wikipedia articles may be reused if you provide attribution for it. See Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content. If you are wanting to copy a book, then you will need to check the copyright on that book. RudolfRed (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the question is about Wikisource, rather than Wikipedia, RudolfRed. IP user: Wikisource is a separate project from Wikipedia, and you should really ask there; but I'm pretty sure that you can freely use the text of Alice in Wonderland. See s:WS:Reusing Wikisource content for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

True will check with the wikisource people. However thanks everyone for the help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.90.248.63 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding good content

How do you add good content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettermaker6 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not a serious question from the user, who has been indefinitely blocked for repeated vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I want to submit my draft (article) for review, kindly help please

Hello, I want to submit my article (draft) for review. Kindly help please: User:Moshswacide/sandbox

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshswacide (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Moshswacide and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft at User:Moshswacide/sandbox is not ready to be submitted yet because it has no references. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been discussed at length, and add these as references to establish WP:Notability. Dbfirs 10:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ice castles

I would like to create a page on ice castles, but there is already one on ice palaces, that gives just the same definition, but has totally different contents comparing from what I would like to put on the ice castle page. Can you kindly give me your own opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd2304 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ddd2304 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You should discuss what it is you would like to do on the article talk page and explain how it might be different from or add to the current article content. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding something new to LPDDR --> LP-DDR4

Hello! I don't really dare to make changes to Wikipedia. But I work in the memory industry and the company Intelligent Memory just released new LPDDR4 and LPDDR4X memories that have an automatic ECC error-correction logic inside. This is brandnew to the market and increases the reliability of such parts a lot. I though it would be a good idea to add a reference to the press-release https://electronicsmaker.com/intelligent-memory-has-released-samples-of-their-new-ecc-dram-product-line-for-both-lpddr4-and-lpddr4x-technologies

This information is so new that even Intelligent Memory's website does not yet show much on their website (www.intelligentmemory.com) about the parts. But we have early samples and they are really impressive. Whom could I ask to make changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twmemphis (talk • contribs) 11:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Twmemphis Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to post cutting-edge information or publicize something. Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources; press releases are not such sources, coming from the company itself. These products need to receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to give coverage to your company or its products. It doesn't sound like you have that in this case, but if you do, you should discuss it on the article talk page and possibly make a formal edit request.

Since you are discussing your company's field and its work, you will need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies, as there are some mandatory declarations you must make. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

My article draft got rejected tried to discuss it. No response....

Hi!

{{AFC submission|d|exists|Log file|u=Kriegel-Peter|ns=118|decliner=xxxxx|declinets=20191004135802|ts=20191004123733}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->

{{AFC comment|1=Logging (computing) already redirects to  Log file so that article should be expanded with content from here instead of having a separate article. [[User:xxxxxx|<strong><span style="color: #606060;">xxxxx</span></strong>]] ([[User talk:xxxx#top|<span style=" color: #663300;">bark</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/xxxxx|<span style="color: #006600;">sniff</span>]]) 13:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)}}

>>> Logging (computing) already redirects to Log file so that article should be expanded with content from here instead of having a separate article.

Yes i am aware of this technical misleading! I am absolutely convinced that "Logging (computing)" points to the wrong Topic here.

>>> Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Log file instead.

To expand the already existing article "Log file" we have to change the article headline (article Name) because a "Log file" is NOT the act or process of "Logging". A "Log file" is only the end product of "Logging" "Log file" is NOT not the course of actions (the process) of "Logging".

For me a "Log file" is to "Logging" like a Wheel is to a Car. So for me to put the description of the act of "Logging" into the Article "Log file" is like to put the description of a Car in an article named Wheel. Again, I am absolutely convinced that "Logging (computing)" points to the wrong article here.

For me we have the following Solutions:

1. Rename the article "Log file" to "Logging" and I will put my content there
2. Stay with the article "Log file" which needs an complete overhaul AND add the article "Logging" (both are valid)
3. I will never ever put my content about "Logging" under the Term "Log file", so Wikipedia can stay with the article "Log file" and my work will get lost for Wikipedia.

Any other suggestions?

greets Kriegel-Peter (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kriegel-Peter and welcome to the Teahouse. Our existing article on logging is about the usual meaning of the word in general use. Logging in the computer sense is the action of producing a log file, so I don't see why Wikipedia needs a separate article. If you disagree, then perhaps you should discuss it on the talk page of Log file. Dbfirs 11:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with Dbfirs that this discussion should be carried out at Talk:Log file, you would need to explain more clearly (in such a discussion on the talk page) why there should be two articles, alternatively why the title should focus on the process rather than the product. Looking at your draft, quite a lot of it actually discusses log files rather than the process of logging, either directly or implicitly, so it is not clear how and why the topics should be split. That you did not get a response on your user talk page is not very odd, since user talk pages are rarely read by other editors (there are ways of calling others' attention to a discussion on a different talk page – but in any case, this discussion shouldn't be on a user talk page where few people will be aware of it.) --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments.

I took the challenge to learn the Wiki page language. I tried to follow citation laws... To me to write an Wikipedia Article it seem it is not to contribute content, it is to fight the Wikipedia bureaucracy VERY bad written and crowded out by details Help Pages and non responding Users... It is too time consuming and demands on too much Wikipedia voodoo knowledge. So i am going to quit writing articles here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriegel-Peter (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Writing a new article from scratch and getting it approved is indeed one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia. Some of your content would be appreciated at Log file. Dbfirs 14:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

My article

Hi, I created an article which is called Mediterranean Shipping Summit which is organized by BS Group on May 5, 2020. I am working in BS Group as a digital marketing manager and it is my job to add this event in wikipedia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia deleted my article because of some incomprehensible reasons, can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSGROUPHR (talk • contribs) 09:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, BSGROUPHR. No, I'm afraid we cannot help you, as this is an encyclopaedia of notable things, not a place to promote your future event or conference. Please tell your employer that you cannot assist them. Should the world at large take note of your event and independent, reliable sources write about it in detail and in depth, then there might just be a chance - most likely after the event has happened. But we are not a free webhost for the promotion of future events. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@BSGROUPHR: In addition to what Nick has said above, the fact that you are editing Wikipedia as part of your job means that you are a paid editor and it is essential that you comply with the disclosure requirements before doing any further editing. I have posted a notice on your talk page with more information - please ensure that you read it and follow the steps required. Hug^syrup 09:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for details! Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSGROUPHR (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

BSGROUPHR, did you really think the reason given for the deletion, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", was incomprehensible? I thought it was pretty clear. I have now deleted your Draft:Future Solar Energy Summit for exactly the same reason. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia, please see WP:NOTADVERTISING. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC).

Submitting my drafted Article for review

Please I want to submit my article for review. I've added the references now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shuaibu_Isa_Lau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshswacide (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Moshswacide and welcome to the Teahosue. Draft:Shuaibu Isa Lau has been submitted for review. it is waiting, along with a large number of other drafts. Reviewers may choose which drafts to look at from the available pool -- they are not done on a first-in, first-out basis. It may take 8 weeks or sometimes even more, although it may be done sooner. In the meantime, if you (or any other editor) finds improvements, such as additional reliable sources to make, you may freely edit this draft -- that will not delay a review. Please be patient, reviewers are unpaid volunteers not unlike yourself. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, in future please sign posts here at the Teahouse and on talk and discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature when you save the edit. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)