Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 600

Archive 595

←

Archive 598

Archive 599

Archive 600

Archive 601

Archive 602

→

Archive 605

<pre> versus <source>

Suppose a programming source text is to be included in an article. If syntax highlighting is available for the language, then <source lang=language> is reasonable. Is there a recommendation where syntax highlighting is not available? Any objection to <pre> rather than <source>? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi PeterEasthope and welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style#Code samples for recommendations. You can also use ... around text that you want to display rather than have parsed as in this question. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to recommendations. Please elaborate a little about "...". <pre> means preformatted. The content should be displayed as provided, with no change in format. Parsing for character references I suppose. Other parsing? Thanks again, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Constant edit count update?

Hey guys, The Phase Master here. I want to insert my edit count, but I want it to automatically update itself. How do I go about doing that?

Thanks, The Phase Master 19:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The Phase Master. I don't believe there is a way of doing this. If there is, you will probably find it at Help:Magic words or one of the pages linked from there. It may be possible to write a Lua module to do it, I don't know: see WP:LUA. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with ColinFine that this probably isn't possible at present, The Phase Master. If it was, I'm sure a lot of editors would use it on their user pages, and I don't recall ever having seen such a live count. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Phase Master: User:UBX/LiveEditCounter makes a link to a tool displaying the count. Users can install a script which automatically displays the count when they view the userbox but only 35 users have done that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I should ask if this can be created. In that case, where should I redirect my call?

The Phase Master 15:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Phase Master: Past suggestions have been rejected. See phab:T32353 for a declined request to add it to the core software, and Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots#Bots to update edit counts for updating it regularly with a bot. mw:Extension:Editcount can do it but isn't installed here and may not be for performance and other reasons. The only mention I found is User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 59#EditCountBot. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Highly appreciated, I was looking into this myself recently and was amazed that the preferences can show a quick counter yet no template seemed to exist to obtain the same counter. Thanks, —╰]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR╮ 20:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Phase Master: what I currently use is a link like this one on my user page. This counter appears to be simpler and faster than the main one shown at the bottom of the contributions page. —╰]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR╮ 21:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

How can I edit a reference in a list of references?

I notice that a reference has a wrong title in a Wikipedia page, but there is not a list of references when I clicked the "editing source".

Could you please tell me how to edit a reference in a list of references?

Thanks

Websling Websling (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Websling and welcome to the Teahouse. The references are defined where the numbers appear in the text, and then appear down in the reference list at the end. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how this is done. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma,

Thanks for your assistance. I figured it out on my own after I asked for help. I have corrected the wrong title of the reference in question.

Thanks again. Websling (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

IP addresses

How come some anon users have "usernames" like 2607:fea8:3ce0:7e9:943b:9160:40e6:df98 rather than having the simpler 119.159.119.230? Is there a difference between the two and if so, what's the reason for that? Thanks in advance. CubeSat4U (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The longer addresses are IPV6, which was created because IPV4 (the simpler ones) had too few characters and were being used up at too great a rate. Currently the simpler ones are being recycled among older model computers that cannot support IPV6. Here are some links that should help you: IPv6 and IPv4 address exhaustion. ;) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

my page is why deleted and redirected to another

hi iam edit my page many times but every thime i edit my page it deleted and show redirect to another page. My page is VAPPUZHA they said that the hediing is all in capital so it should deleted but i cant change its hedding into Vappuzha. I dont know how to edit my pages heading and save my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatious vappuzha (talk • contribs) 05:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The page history shows the reasons for the reversion of your edits to the page. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: First of all, the reason was not described in the history, it's just a description 'what happened' there ('restored redirect'). The reason was actually just suggested by a single word 'uncited'. Anyway the reason given is absolutely insufficient. The page Vappuzha redirects to Chazhoor, which does not describe, or even mention, Vappuzha. This way it's completely obscure why the former redirects to the latter, as there is no visible connection between the two for casual reader. Expanding the redirect to an article (even if it would be just a stub) is a reasonable way of clarifying things. The other one would be extending Chazhoor. Anyway that should be explained to a good-willed newbie editor, and not just dismissed. And if one cares that much about references, then they should not restore a redirect, but rather speedily delete it, as the redirect itself is equally unjustified as the proposed stub. --CiaPan (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Images

How do you insert an image — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMN19 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello @TMN19:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Uploading images should cover all the basic information. Simplifying in short: 1) Make sure the image is "Public Domain", freely licensed, or you own its copyright and are willing to release it under a free license. 2) Upload it to our sister project Commons (where most free media are hosted). 3) Link the Commons file in the Wikipedia article. A lot more details, background information and additional aspects are covered in the linked information page. Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

To use an image on Wikipedia, follow these steps:

1. Ascertain carefully the copyright status of the image. If in doubt, ask. As a rule of thumb, images that you did not take yourself are almost always under copyright, and images that you took can be released under a free license.
2. If the image is in the public domain, or under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons' license requirements, or if you hold the copyrights and are willing to release the image under such a license, upload it on Wikimedia Commons using the Upload Wizard.
3. If the image is neither public domain nor available under a free license, check whether it satisfies all non-free content criteria. In particular, photographs of living people almost never qualify. If it does not, it cannot be used on Wikipedia; do not upload it. If it does, upload it on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia Commons).
4. Once the image has been uploaded to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (either to Commons or Wikipedia), follow the steps in the picture tutorial to place the image in an article.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP Addresses on Air India's page

How can I protect a from editing by IP Addresses on Air India's page? One IP Address: 2601:19c:4780:f0b0:89ec:1bd4:91f7:7410 and similar are doing disruptive editing despite being warning to them many times. They don't provide any source and state unusual things like: YOU WILL GET ILLEGAL PUNISHMENT IF YOU REMOVE THE CONTENT. How can I protect the page to avoid diruptive editing? FlyJet777 (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey FlyJet777. If the vandalism gets pretty bad you can report the page to WP:RFPP. But right now it's probably too quiet for protection, which is usually reserved for articles with particularly high levels of vandalism. But I've added the article to my watchlist and I'll keep an eye out. TimothyJosephWood 13:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot TimothyJosephWood. That IP Address which I've stated above is almost everytime adding wrong content which is not leading to the improvement of the article. And Yes, If the vandalism gets too hard to control then I will surely report it to WP:RFPP. Thank You for your help! :) Regards: FlyJet777 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A Seemingly Incomprehensible Editor's Comment

I agreed as a service to Lisa Kemmerer to set up a page about her and asked what she would like. This was done, then all hell seemed to break loose when I tried to post some of her images. Despite requesting they images be undeleted and a note by her to Wiki telling it that she has rights over all her pictures - all are indeed on her own web site - I find the pictures are still undeleted and the article given the following tag:

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

How can I resolve this?Rz7dd4 (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Rz7dd4. Welcome to Wikipedia. There's a lot to unpack here.

First off, you should review our guidance on conflicts of interest if you haven't already. In general, editors are discouraged from editing in areas where they have a personal connection, since it is exceptionally difficult to remain neutral in these situations.

Second, edits like this are problematic because they introduce a lot of content on an article about a living person, but it doesn't include sources to back it up. According to our policy on biographies of living persons, any unsourced content can and usually should be removed. Also, because Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume, we normally don't include exhaustive lengthy lists of publications, but instead would usually only include the most important works, and summarize the rest, for example, by saying "Kemmerer has written encyclopedia articles for Lexikon der Mensch-Tier-Beziehungen, the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, and the Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relations, on topics including X, Y and Z."

Lastly, if the subject would like to release images under a public license they need to follow guidance at WP:CONSENT. This is a legal process with legal consequences, and so if images are widely available online, we usually err on the side of caution and delete them if they don't appear to have the appropriate license. But if they follow the right channels, it should be possible to upload them appropriately without the risk of being deleted again. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rz7dd4: There is a discussion about this at Talk:Lisa Kemmerer#COI. If you find Jameslwoodward's concerns incomprehensible then perhaps asking him to clarify them would be a better thing to do instead of asking him whether he gets out a lot or posting that he is clearly insane (even if meant jokingly). Jameslwoodward is a Commons administrator, a Commons bureaucrat and a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team which means he's respected member of the Wikimedia community and would likely not post such a comment unless he though it was something which needed to be discussed. You can start a discussion at WP:COIN where you can ask for the opinions of others if you like.

Also, maintenance templates are added to articles in order to make other editors aware of a potential problem. These templates often are connected to corresponding categpry pages where editor can check to see which pages amy needs to clean up. It's generally OK to remove such a template as explained in H:MTR if you've have addressed the issue yourself, but you shouldn't remove a template simply because you find it annoying like you did with this edit. The sources currently cited in Kemmerer article appear to be one written by her and one for her publisher, which are primary sources per WP:PSTS. Primary sources are not helpful in establishing Wikipedia notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF, so better sources need to be found to support the information within the article and establish her Wikipedia notability. Pretty much every edit you've made to Wikipedia seems to be related to the Kemmerer article and there's nothing wrong with being a SPA per se. However, it does mean that you may not be as familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines or at least not as familiar as an experienced editor such as Jameslwoodward. So, it might be better to assume good faith regarding their concerns and try to resolve them more amicably through discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Problems with images I understand. The conflict of interest comments because I am supposedly close to the author (she lives in the USA and I live in England) I just cannot understand, even if made in good faith. As it happens, I am not an animal rights campaigner or a member of any such group. We are not related in any way. However, Dr.Kemmerer is a respected academic and it does not seem unreasonable for her to request a wiki page from someone that knows how to do such things. She is not an even vaguely technical person and when I sent her the link to to WP: CONSENT, she could not make sense of it - and I cannot do that for her. So forgetting about the images (I can see why you would want to be too careful), I understand the comments about it not being a resume and can edit the list of publications. However experienced an editor, making unproven assertions about a person having a close relationship with someone he does not know is, I think, a step too far.Rz7dd4 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not know either Kemmerer or Rz7dd4, but the latter has said that he or she was asked by the subject to write a WP article. Since one does not engage in such a project without a reason, there is a reasonable presumption that a COI exists -- that might be financial, friendship, or family. If no such COI relationship exists, then all that Rz7dd4 should have done was to say that and ask that the COI tag be removed. So far, though, neither of he parties has explained why he or she agreed to write the article.

As far as the images of the books go, it is straightforward Commons (and WP) policy. We have no way of directly knowing who any of the parties are. Unfortunately we get fans and vandals who falsely claim that they have the right to license images. Also, as a general rule, the copyright to book covers is held by the publisher, not the author. Therefore policy requires that in order to keep book cover images on Commons, an authorized official of the publisher must send a free license using OTRS. This is routine black letter policy and no amount of rant by an anonymous contributor will change the fact that policy requires a traceable free license from the copyright holder. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rz7dd4: Since Jameslwoodward has addressed the issues with the images, I'll try and address the issues with the COI. The fact is that you are a single-purpose account whose only edits in the mainspace seem to be related to the Kemmerer article. It also seems as if you have been in contact with Dr. Kemmerer and were requested by her to create the article. That's enough to make a lot of experienced editors wonder whether you do have some kind of connection to her per WP:APPARENTCOI. You don't have to be physically close to another person to have a conflict-of-interest; you only just have to be editing on their behalf in a manner that does not comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you say you don't have a COI as defined by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, then the community will take you at your word in good faith. Please understand that Jameslwoodward's concerns were not meant to be a personal insult to either you or Dr. Kemmerer, but is something that seems quite understandable given the particular circumstances. FWIW, COI is not something expressly prohibited by Wikipedia; it's just something highly discouraged because it can quickly lead to more serious problems.

Having posted the above, the article does have problems with its sourcing (or lack thereof) and it's not clear whether Dr. Kemmerer (at least to me) satisfies either Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Individuals do not get Wikipedia articles written about them simply because they want an article and being "respected" is not in and of itself a sufficient reason for having such an article written. Only subjects which can be shown to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources are typically considered Wikipedia notable enough for an article; so, that is what clearly needs to be shown for Dr. Kemmerer. One last thing, subjects or articles have no final editorial control of any article content; it is the Wikiepdia community which decides such things based upon relevant policies and guidelines. Many people find out the hard way about Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing which is something you might want to mention to Dr. Kemmerer if you are in contact with her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Asking how to find an article

Hello!

Does anyone know how I can quickly find a page in need of editing?

When I became a user, Wikipedia gave me the option to find one, but after that one I don't know how to find an article to edit.

Thanks,

OA123

OA123 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey OA123. Judging by your user page, you may be interested in the backlog at Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. TimothyJosephWood 13:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@OA123: As a new user you may have seen the feature at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. You can fror example try it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarshan_Gautam?gettingStartedReturn=true. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

POTD template

Could someone please help me troubleshoot why the POTD template on my talk page is not displaying the image properly? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi I enjoy sandwiches. User:I enjoy sandwiches is your user page and not talk page. I have reverted edits which broke Template:POTD/2017-04-06. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see, it was an issue with the source template itself. Thanks PrimeHunter. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Assistance for adding location map

How can I add a location map on my article about a school I go to?

Harrison-Montsho (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The easiest method is to insert a coords block on the page, such as {{Coord|30|35|16|N|91|9|59|W|display=title}}, which uses the DDMMSS format. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 17:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

creating an article

can I create an article about a record producer? he is not famous yet but just adding informations about him and his career? Adobecashe (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to prove Notability for possible future actions. This record producer could end up being the next big thing, or they could disappear off the face of the Earth. Due to the requirements needed to get an article approved, I feel like it would be an effort that would lead to rejection (*currently*). By all means, you could easily write up a draft article in your sandbox and add to it as you gain reliable sources, until which point you feel it meets the guidelines presented above. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Adobecashe. It is very unlikely an article is appropriate or would not be deleted if created. I probably should just say "you cannot", but I am considering an outside possibility that the person is notable, but not at all famous, which is possible but not common for a topic like this. Wikipedia only has articles on notable topics – subjects that have been written about substantively (not just passing mentions) in published, reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic. That is the main notability standard. There are also some subject-specific notability guidelines (though I believe they all should be deleted, even though I created one of them—at a time when I did not foresee the destruction they would cause to Wikipedia's mission). A person can be notable but not famous if the types of sources (and depth of treatment) I mentioned, exist. However, for a record producer, fame probably strongly correlates with whether he or she has or has not been written about in such sources. It may be appropriate, even if a stand-alone article is not, to mention this producer in existing articles, where that would be relevant, such as in articles on records he or she has produced. However, please only do so if you can cite a reliable source that verifies the addition. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Should I worry about this message I got? I created a page recently and this came up. "speedy deletion". Also how long does it take for my page " Roger De Luna to be easily search for. I can't seem to find it by just searching for it on the web browser.

Roger De Luna

Roger De Luna (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

it means your page is going to be deleted in a short time.

Adobecashe (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Roger De Luna and welcome to the Teahouse. User:Roger De Luna is a user page, not a Wikipedia article, so it won't show up in a web search. Articles need to be about topics that are already well-known and written about elsewhere first. You need to remove the article about yourself from your user page or that page will be deleted. See Wikipedia:User pages for what you can put on user pages. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

How do I add an external link to 2 articles on a page?

I am trying to add external links to articles on a Wikipedia page. How do I format the articles appropriately/ add the links to the already listed article?

24.185.100.169 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. It's not easy to tell what exactly you mean. We don't add external links in the body of articles. However, we may provide convenience links to URLs for existing citations, and how to do so depends on what format they are in. For example, if a citation uses a citation template, then adding in |url=http;//www... as a parameter would be the typical way to do so. However, if the citation does not use a citation template, then you would typically format the title of the work cited to link to the URL, e.g., [http://www... title]. Or maybe you mean you want to add a citation to a source that is online? If so, see referencing for beginners. Or maybe you want to add external links to an external links section? – in which case, you should only do so if such external links comply with the external links policy. What would be really good is if you told us the specifics: what external links you want to include, in what location, of what page, for what purpose? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hyperlink broken

I need to put the following code -> Died on April 21 into a project page, and it is working fine in my sandbox, but in the table it shows up like "Died on April 21]" and I don't know why. Does anyone know? Thanks! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, A lad insane. I'm not sure why you're getting a stray bracket, but since that's not an external link, you shouldn't link to it in the way you have. The correct code is [[Death of Prince|Died on April 21]]. See Help:Link on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@A lad insane: Cordless Larry may have been thinking of articles. There are valid reasons to link an old revision in project pages. External link syntax has no pipe so the correct code is Died on April 21. The faulty pipe must have been interpreted as part of the table syntax. It also failed here but in another way: It made a wrong link. By the way, it is possible to make a wikilink to an old revision: Died on April 21. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Thanks! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding Organization Logo

Hi,

I think I just got hit by something a lot of first-time writers have experienced here. My first logo image got deleted.

I am writing about an organization and their logo needs to go on the article. How can I do that without violating the copyright? The organization is aware of the article and have no objections for using their logo.

Please help!

Thank you, HH Huma.hamid (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Huma.hamid. Non-free images like that logo can only be used under a proper claim of fair use, for display in an article only when in the article mainspace. Where that is possible, the image must be uploaded locally, to Wikipedia—not to the Wikimedia Commons where the deleted file was placed. So: 1) if and only if the draft article is moved to the article mainspace would a non-free image uploaded in relation to a fair use be possible (and right now it is not ready for a move there, because the draft does not demonstrate the tpic is a notable one by citation to reliable, secondary and entirely independent sources); 2) if the article draft can and does reach that threshold, upload it here, not to the Commons; 3) make sure the upload is of relatively low resolution; 4) make sure to place a filled-out fair use rationale and a copyright license when you perform the upload. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for making it easy to understand.

About article's notability, is your feedback be considered as a review feedback or there will be an official feedback provided to me?

Huma.hamid (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your draft will get a review when you submit it by following the instructions in the section above this one, Huma.hamid, but it's worth taking Fuhghettaboutit's comments on notability into account before you submit it for review, to maximise the chance of the draft being accepted. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This is very helpful feedback!

Huma.hamid (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please also note, Huma.hamid, that the organisation's wishes are of zero relevance to Wikipedia. if the organisation is Notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then we may have an article about it, and if it is not, then we cannot: the organisation's wishes do not enter into the matter. Nor does anything the organisation has said, or wants to say, about itself: an article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject: see WP:42.

However, your reference to the organisation's willingness about the logo suggests that you may have some connection with it. If that is so, please be aware that you are discouraged from working on any article about it. Please see conflict of interest for how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: It is a very valid and a very important point. Thank you for bringing this up and sharing the COI link.

76.178.148.137 (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How to move from Draft to Publish?

Hi,

I read about the move function and a few other requirements about being an authorized editor, but it does not answer my question. How can I publish my draft?

Thanks, HH Huma.hamid (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huma.hamid: you can add {{Userspace draft|date=April 2017}} at the top of your page, which should supply a submit button. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 04:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added this line at the top of my article in visual editing settings, but I don't see any submit button. What am I missing here?

Huma.hamid (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong template to use, Huma.hamid (because the draft isn't on a user page). Try {{AFC submission}} instead. That should give you a button to press when you're ready to submit the article for review. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

David Biddulph has done this for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Small correction for the benefit of others, {{AFC submission}} (without any further parameters) would not have given a submit button, but would have submitted the draft there and then. It's {{AFC submission|T}} or {{subst:AFC draft| username}} that gives a submit button. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops - my mistake! Thanks for the correction, David Biddulph. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your draft wasn't in user space, so I've changed the tag from {{userspace draft}} to {{AFC draft}}, and you now have the submit button. I was surprised to see that the {{userspace draft}} tag apparently didn't display anything at all in draft space; User:PaleoNeonate may be able to explain why? --David Biddulph (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out!

76.178.148.137 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I need help

How can I edit wikipedia during school? --Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It should work. I do daily, and it works fine. If my comment doesn't work, then please contact a more experienced editor. :) GermanGamer77 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Welcome, Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian. Well, you probably shouldn't edit Wikipedia during school hours, but that is not my business. Anyways, you should be able to edit it just fine.

It is possible, however, that if you are using a school computer to edit Wikipedia, its IP address is blocked (i.e. forbidden from editing), because previous users vandalized Wikipedia, for instance. You should nonetheless be able to edit after you log into your account. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My page has been deleted many times, WHY?

My page has been deleted many times, WHY?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinay_maurya {help me}Seovinay (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seovinay: As was explained on your talk page (three times), Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself.

You are not supposed to write about yourself here. We are not Facebook or Linkedin. We do not do "personal pages". We are not a place to post your resume or CV. All articles require multiple reliable sources that are not affiliated with the subject but still specifically about it. Each of those sentences is a link to a page you need to read. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Seovinay. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information.. --ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seovinay: Please remember there is no such thing on Wikipedia as 'your page'. There may exist a page 'about you' and there may exist pages '(co–)written by you', but no Wikipedia page is 'your' – please refer to Wikipedia:OWN page for more detailed explanation. --CiaPan (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Seovinay, in addition to the reasons outlined in the previous answers your username & occupation ensure your articles will attract extra scrutiny. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and continually struggles to fend off attempts to use it for advertising. Emphasising your work in SEO in your autobiographies and in your username guarantees your work will be scrutinised more closely. At present your only contributions appear to be attempts to promote yourself. Wikipedia is created by volunteers; we volunteer to build an encyclopedia; we don't volunteer to advertise you. Cabayi (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia professional for hire?

Hello - we have been persisting with trying to have a page accepted for over seven months. Can someone recommend a person in Australia to help us at this point? The issue seems to be one of notoriety even though we have provided links to government awards (Citizen of the Year), JC's award (Outstanding Australian), winner of a Churchill Scholarship, founder of one of Australia's largest charities working with homeless youth... founder and instigator of the New Zealander of the Year awards (highest profile and largest awards program acknowledging achievement by individuals and communities in NZ). Unfortunately most of the achievements prior to 1985 are in print media and not in digital format. Perhaps this is the obstacle? We have hundreds of clippings from 1974 to 1995. We're frustrated and wondering if an external advisor or consultant can help us meet the criteria for publishing. Jeffreyjhopp (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeffreyjhopp, I would NOT suggest hiring someone to get the article in. PAID editing, altho allowed, is highly discouraged and the subject of much controversy and strife here. That being said, sources do not have to be online to be usable. Do you have a draft of the article? If you'd share a link to it, we'd be much better able to help you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that the article is Draft:Jeffrey Hopp, in which case it is either an WP:autobiography (which is strongly discouraged), or the account is impersonating, which is forbidden. My guess is that this has been done in good faith, imagining that to write an article about somebody you should use their name as an account: if that is the case, please change your username, Jeffrey Hopp (or abandon that account and create a new one). Also, please note that Wikipedia accounts may not be shared. If there are several of you, you must use individual accounts.

As John from Idegon says, sources do not have to be online. They must be reliably published, and you must give information that would allow a reader in principle to obtain them, eg from a major library. Please see WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jeffreyjhopp. Unless you misposted above, you seem to be mistaking "notoriety" for "notability", in particular Wikipedia Notability. Wikipedia defines "notability" in a manner which probably different from how many of us commonly use the word in the non-Wikipedia world. In order for your draft to be accepted you are going to need to show how it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people). The best way to do this is provide citations which show that Hopp has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Finally, one more thing about paid editing. You probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest#Law of unintended consequences. It might be possible to find someone willing to take money from you to write the article you want, but they cannot guarantee that whatever they create will never be deleted or edited by others. Any article can be edited by anyone at anytime and any article can be nominated for deletion by anyone at anytime. The Wikipedia community hopes that edits are made in good faith and in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and will usually steps in when they are not. Likewise, the community will endeavor to keep and fix articles whose subjects are Wikipedia notable, but will not hesitate in deleting those which are not. No matter how well written or how perfectly formatted an article may be, it will likely not survive for long if the subject is not Wikipedia notable. So, basically what you'll be paying someone to do is Google for sources about the subject and anything they find you probably could have found yourself for free. If you find the significant coverage needed, you can simply write the article yourself or ask for help at Wikipedia:Requested articles. If no such sources exist, then the other person may still take your money and may still write a "pretty" article, but it probably won't be long until it's nominated for deletion. Be aware of anyone who offers you any guarantees about creating an article because either they have very little idea as to how Wikipedia works or they are not really being totally honest with you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How to add a certain format of "patents filed" to a biography

Hello, I'm working on the insertion of a biography, this one contains a section of "Patents filed" and it was delivered to me in the following order of information : 2014 Patent Application xx/xxxxxx ; "Name of the patent" ; co-inventors xxxx, xxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxx Can anyone tell me how to insert it and with which Patent/Cite Patent style ? Or do i have to change the order of information or add any other information to it ? Thank you very much. Samy Ghannouchi (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Samy Ghannouchi. There is a template you can use, Template:Patent. But before worrying about the format, I suggest you step back and ask whether this information should be in the article at all. Do you have a reliable published source, independent of Tej Tadi, which discusses his patents? If you have, then how they are treated in the article should reflect how they are treated in the source. If not, then probably they should not be in the article at all. If the information you have is simply from the patent authority, then be very cautious about using it: see WP:PATENTS.

One more point - you say that the information was "delivered to you". Was this by Tadi, or an agent or associate of his? If so, then you may have a conflict of interest in writing about him, and need to be aware of the recommended best practice in this case. --ColinFine (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I used {{Ref patent}} when I added the Patents to William Helmore. Now, nearly 9 years later, looking at all the patents, it looks like way too much. My best advice, Be selective. Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Still in Queue

I have attempted to get an article published and it was rejected twice. Both times, it was reviewed within two days. I edited the article again in an attempt to better meet Wikipedia's standards and again submitted it. This was over two weeks ago and it is still waiting review.

Could there be any reason it is taking so long other than a long queue of articles? As in, maybe because this is the third time it takes a backseat to first-time attempts? Or is it just that the editors are backed up?

JRose1317 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JRose1317, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's just the backlog, I believe. You've submitted Draft:Moonstone Arts correctly, so all you need to do is wait. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, JRose1317. I agree with the comment above that the backlog is the reason you have not received feedback on the article. As far as I know, the number of resubmissions should not be a factor. As I write this note, the New Pages Feed shows "18,544 total unreviewed pages", so many other users are waiting for reviews, also. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Though note that draft reviews and new pages patrol are different things, Teblick. The queue for the former is currently 752. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Cordless Larry. I failed to notice that difference. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are there two drafts? Draft:Moonstone Arts and Draft:Moonstone Arts Inc.. Pick one, stick with it, and get the other one deleted (add {{db-author}} to the top of the article). Chopping and changing looks like you're trying to ignore the first assessment (even if you aren't). Cabayi (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Will I get banned? And what in particular are mistakes?

I've already completed the tutorial adventure, but I'm worried that I'll still get banned. Is there anything one of you can do to help? And what exactly counts as a mistake?

GermanGamer77 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Only /you/ can prevent yourself from getting banned. Continue to make constructive edits, cite your sources, and stay unbiased. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:GermanGamer77 - Why are you concerned that you will be banned? Do you have a history of making enemies in various communities, or of quarreling? If not, you probably won't in Wikipedia either. Editors who get banned quickly usually get banned because they are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, such as trolls, flamers, and vandals. Occasionally good-faith but highly combative editors get banned, but they almost always have plenty of warning and chances to shape up. Why are you concerned that you will get banned? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:GermanGamer77 - Some good-faith new editors do make common mistakes and get blocked, which is not the same as being banned. Most blocks are temporary. An indefinite block is similar to a ban, but most blocks are temporary. Some of the mistakes that result in blocks are edit-warring, personal attacks, and tendentious editing. Those are easy and common mistakes to make, and blocks for them are temporary, and you should learn from them. Avoid those mistakes, and you are unlikely to be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• @GermanGamer77: You already had useful feedback here and at your talk page, but I will take this series of edits as an example. Why did you do these changes? I can only guess, but either it is your personal analysis (you think that is the truth), you read it somewhere, or you lie to advance a political point ("it should have ended this way"). The problem is, the previous version is fairly clearly the common consensus among historians, from verifiable, reliable sources. To make a change to sourced material, you need even better references backing it up; and to make that change, you would need ironclad sourcing.

Such one-off mistakes are not a problem and you will likely not get blocked for it. However, if you stubbornly try to reinstall your version, or keep doing the same mistake again and again without learning, then you will get blocked. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You see, I keep accidentally making these biased things, but I don't really do that anymore, so that's not the problem. What is is that I'm fine now, and I made some correct edits on Hannibal's crossing of the Alps. So, I'll be OK now, so there is no need to help anymore. Also, I'm gonna need an article to expand. :) GermanGamer77 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

article rejected

Can you help us to establish why out article has been rejected? I have reviewed all of the information that they have supplied but I am unsure what else we can do, can you help? Nedcoten (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Nedcoten. I assume this is about Draft:Ned_Coten. If you read and understood what was posted at your user talk page (admittedly a lot of links), what the reviewer Winged Blades of Godric said is that the subject of the article is not "notable" enough (at least yet) to have an article on Wikipedia. If you disagree, you need to provide references to show notability (how to do that is covered in the links of your talk page, but do come back if something is unclear); if you agree, the best thing to do is to drop the article entirely, because no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! If it was a sandbox draft, it'll usually be rejected. I learned that the hard way. Happy to help, GermanGamer77 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

GermanGamer77, article drafts can be placed either in the Draft: namespace or in a user sandbox or other user subpage, but the differences are very minor. It should definitely not impact whether (once submitted) the draft is accepted or not. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, Tigraan. I submitted a ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) article, but it was rejected. Many thanks, GermanGamer77 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

IMDb data to Wikipedia

Is there any easy way to transfer data from IMDb to a Wikipedia article ?

Noemmy22 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't, they're not a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, don't. See here why Wikipedia:Citing IMDb – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have an article that needs expanding?

I'd like something to expand. Thanks in advance, GermanGamer77 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, GermanGamer77, and welcome to the Teahouse. Stubs are very short articles that need expansion. You can find all stubs here in a tree format that lets you find one in a topic that interests you: Category:Top-level stub categories – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Great! GermanGamer77 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have successfully edited Soviet partisans by expanding it. :) GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Creation for ĀR RÄ

I am trying to create a page for a notable individual. However, I am having difficulty doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%C4%80R_R%C3%84

Thanks!

66.255.30.19 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. The problem is that most of your sources seem to be to an official website, which doesn't help establish that the subject meets our standards for notability, because it's not an independent source. A lot of your other sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]) don't really seem to have much content at all, and definitely don't qualify as in-depth coverage, which is the kind of coverage that actually does establish that the individual is notable.

So what you need to include are references that have in-depth coverage, are independent of the subject, and otherwise meet our standards for reliability. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, please remember to log in before posting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How to add templates?

I've seen other people's user pages, and I see that they've added things like "This user is a mammal" and "This user is a Christian". I'd like to add things like that, but I don't know how! May I please have some help? Thanks so much, GermanGamer77 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, GermanGamer77, and welcome to the Teahouse again. These are called userboxes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Then how do I make a userbox? GermanGamer77 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Also, I don't know how to get the thingy to make a certain image appear on a site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanGamer77 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC) How do I make a userbox appear, and how do I put an image in it? GermanGamer77 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I really need help with userboxes. GermanGamer77 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Finnusertop linked the userbox page above, which contains directions for creating your own, as well as entire listings of already made userboxes. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 18:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Experienced editor input appreciated

Hello again. I have started compiling a list of available procedures for dispute resolution. I'm confused myself about those, being relatively new to those procedures. It may contain obvious errors, and it's not at a stage where I would like to gather more official consensus for a guideline, just an early work in progress. Input and fixes are welcome here. Other than a reference work for myself, it may perhaps also become useful to link to other editors where relevant in the future. Thank you very much, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I have misunderstood your purpose for the page, but doesn't Wikipedia:Dispute resolution already cover this, PaleoNeonate? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It does, up to a certain point (and is also linked in that list of course). Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Trying to get an article accepted

Hello, I am trying to create a Politician article and it has been declined. Help would be gratefully appreciated. I received the following comment: does not meet the requirements of the Politician category "there is no point resubmitting the article unless she receives significant coverage in reliable sources." I have cited multiple sources from reliable resources, for example, the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Please help!!!

We did a lot of research on the front end about other political figures, including the following: Sam Massell, Anna Peterson, Theresa Thomlinson, Ceasar Mitchell, Mary Norwood, etc and it does not appear the notability as presented per the their page is unlike what is presented in the Jannquell Peters draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jannquell_Peters 44303 atl (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 44303 atl and welcome to the Teahouse. The Atlanta Journal Constitution articles just mention her. They are not substantial articles about her (that is what is meant by "significant", not the number of sources but how well they cover the subject). She is the mayor of a small town, not a major city. To show that she is well-known beyond her town you need several in-depth articles about her that are independent of her, that is not interviews or press releases from her office. None of the current references do that. Also you have no references at all for her early life and education. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 44303 atl. Further on to what StarryGrandma says above, some of the other pages you have compared this to may superficially resemble the draft you have worked on in their body, but it's all about the type, manner and depth of sourcing. Also, please see by way of analogy What about article x? In short, the fact that we have an article about one subject that is currently not deleted, or is in the article mainspace, is often quite irrelevant to whether another article belongs, because at any given time, we have many, many thousands of articles that should be deleted, or pared back, or rewritten, etc., and just haven't been looked at by anyone yet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How do I archive my talk page with a bot?

I want to archive my talk page automatically. I know there are bots out there, but I find them very complicated to understand.

It would be nice if it could do following:

• Looking at my talk page like every 24 hours
• Archiving every post that is older than 14 days
  • It shall be able to clean all of my talk page. I don't want to let one or two old posts be there so that the page isn't to empty. It's just nonsense.
  • It doesn't matter if it got one signed post or not. If its too old, it's too old.
• Automatically archive posts with the  Requesting immediate archiving... template

Is there anybody who can help me with this? Another thing: it would be nice if there would be a link to the archive(s) at the top of my talk page.

Kind regards and thank you!--Rævhuld (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rævhuld. I think this should do it: copy and paste this to your talk page:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(14d)
| archive             = User talk:Rævhuld/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 100K
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 0
}}
{{Archives|search=yes}}

I'm not actually sure if the | minthreadsleft = 0 is needed, or if leaving it blank would default to zero, but that should allow the bot to "harvest" the page to a clean slate (if it meets the 14-day threshold). For a guide to what the parameters mean, see User:MiszaBot/config. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Last question: does this archive all posts labeled with  Requesting immediate archiving...?Rævhuld (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure, but Cluebot III definitively states it implements {{Archive now}}, so you could use this instead:

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive
|age=336
|header={{aan}}
|maxarchsize=100000
|minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=1
|format= %%i
|archivebox = yes
}}

By the way, you can escape a template; make it into a link, by placing tl| at the start or a host of other template link prefixes; that is {{tl|Archive now}}, or you could also place nowiki tags. I don't think it will matter here, but displaying a template when you just want to refer to it as in this thread can cause problems at times. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How to add links

How to add links 'Hi I'm here to Ask how to add links' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardaniell (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chardaniell. Linking to existing Wikipedia pages is done by placing doubled square brackets around the name of the page. Thus, [[Wikipedia]] produces Wikipedia. A useful expansion of this is done by separating what you want linked, from what you want displayed, with a pipe character ("|"), to create a "piped link". Thus: [[Wikipedia|encyclopedia]] produces encyclopedia, with the displayed text linking to the article, Wikipedia. You can link to internal sections of pages in this way: Wikipedia#name of internal section of that article. By contrast, for external links: http://www.example.org produces http://www.example.org; [http://www.example.org] produces [5]; and [http://www.example.org example] produces example. For more information, see Help:Link and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

About to be deleted article

Hello, My article on "Softcom Limited" was flagged down by you and put under "about to be deleted". I will like to take it off the "about to be deleted " tag. I don't know why it was flagged. The article is not promotional neither is it a type of advertising for the Softcom brand. I just feel they are doing a great job in spreading and developing literacy through technology in Africa and having them on Wikipedia will be a great way to encourage them to continue a good work and also inspire other people like me who are growing digital entrepreneurs.

I will like to know why it was flagged.I am still editing.And yes, they are lots of sources on Softcom Limited.

ThanksKayleby (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. It seems that your article is an advertisement for Softcom Limited and was tagged under CSD G11. Wikipedia is not for promotion and articles should be written from a neutral standpoint. Take a look at the links I have provided, as they go more in depth on new page policies. eurodyne (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Kayleby. Your previous post was also responded to above, at #Page Speedily Deleted here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)