Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 621

Archive 615

←

Archive 619

Archive 620

Archive 621

Archive 622

Archive 623

→

Archive 625

facts vs. stories ...

The only truly scientific subjects under the "social sciences" section of WP's contents portals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Portals

are Anthropology (Archaeology), Linguistics and Geography, but such preposterous cr@p as Psychology is also included.

Are there separate classifications of factually based subjects (all the physical sciences, technologies. Paleontology, Linguistics...) and story-telling ones (Psychology, History, ...) that you know of?

Albretch Mueller (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a clear dichotomy between fact-based social sciences and story-telling ones. Different people have different opinions. I'll refrain from expressing mine because I'll not agree with you about the point on the continuum at which each should be placed. Dbfirs 07:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether it's article content or arranging portals, Wikipedia operates on the assessment given by professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not on any individual editor's outdated lay-knowledge of the state of any given field. The distinction that you speak of (which, as if human behavior is somehow impossible to measure, doesn't seem to realize that modern Social sciences use Quantitative research instead of "story-telling") is widely referred to as Hard and soft sciences. Also, most "facts" are just the stories that appear to most plausibly describe reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I know well the difference between, say, Neurosciences and Psychology. I used the "social sciences" portal to make my point because even though you speak of "a continuum" (from facts to story telling?) and "more or less plausible" "opinions", there is such a thing as -factual reality- and easy ways to prove it: jump off a cliff or stop eating, breathing and you will see what will certainly happen regardless of how "continuous" or "opinionated" you may consider yourself to be. Also, there are certain factual, more or less measurable, less interpretative -aspects- pertaining to History and Psychology such as when and where something happened and associative memory, but those subject matters as a whole are social artifacts. In fact, such subject matters did stem off Religion. My question/suggestion is for WP to somehow split categorizing in extra lists its factual content from its story telling ones. Albretch Mueller (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Albrecht, the place to raise such issues would be at Talk:Psychology#Pseudoscience.3F. But remember Wikipedia is a tertiary source. To get the article changed you need to cite academic sources to support your assertion that Psychology is preposterous cr@p. It isn't my subject, but I'd be surprised if your view was with academic consensus on this. ϢereSpielChequers 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Albretch Mueller.

The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia. It looks like you are looking to make a suggestion on restructuring a portion of how Wikipedia is organized. Ordinarily, I might suggest that you take this up on the Portal talk:Contents/Portals page. In this case, though, you appear to be pushing a point of view that is far from neutral or mainstream. I can confidently predict that your proposal has no chance of success on Wikipedia until you first get your suggestion adopted by the wider culture so that it becomes mainstream. Wikipedia is not the place to start your revolution. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I am not talking about that particular portal, but WP content in general. About "academic consensus" on Psychology, psychologists themselves actually reached it a long time ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment Albretch Mueller (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Albretch Mueller: [not Albrecht? Interesting]

jmcgnh wrote

It looks like you are looking to make a suggestion on restructuring a portion of how Wikipedia is organized. Ordinarily, I might suggest that you take this up on the Portal talk:Contents/Portals page. In this case, though, you appear to be pushing a point of view that is far from neutral or mainstream. I can confidently predict that your proposal has no chance of success on Wikipedia until you first get your suggestion adopted by the wider culture so that it becomes mainstream. Wikipedia is not the place to start your revolution.

You responded

Once again, I am not talking about that particular portal, but WP content in general.

Do you recognize that that difference does not makes your proposal more likely to be accepted, but even less so? Such a change in all of Wikipedia would be far more massive, disruptive, unmanageable, and fringey than if it were in just one area of knowledge. (I don't expect you to change your viewpoint by having this pointed out. I'm just wondering.)

--Thnidu (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

How to challenge claim that source I am using is unreliable?

I am attempting to edit the article on Donna Brazile to include some information about an allegation made towards her, an allegation that was written about on the journalistic site WorldNetDaily. I don't personally have any reason to doubt the reliability of this source, but I understand it is not popular with some in the Wikipedia editing community. Essentially, I am unclear about who gets to decide that this source is unreliable, and why it is being portrayed that I am in an 'editing war' when from my view I am just trying to keep what I feel is a good addition to the article. I could more easily, it seems, charge that the people removing it are engaging in an 'editing war.' I am really new to this and just trying to understand who gets to form consensus about what a reliable source is - is there a vote? Who has ultimate power in deciding? I don't want to be banned, but feel my addition should stand and am perhaps naively wondering how to address this. How can I move forward in challenging this, or is it a lost cause? Proustfala (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Proustfala, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read about what are considered reliable sources here and here. It is crystal clear that WorldNetDaily is known for anything but fact-checking and accuracy. Reliability is determined by comparing the source with the policy and guidance pages I linked to. In less clear cases they can be referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for discussion.

As for "edit warring", it is not about what your motivation is but about how you pursue your goal. Back-and-forth reverting of others is not allowed, regardless of whether you are right or wrong about your edits. After you are reverted, you are expected to discuss the issue on the article Talk page instead of repeatedly re-introducing your edits. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:BLP for additional advice. You'd want to source possibly controversial claims about living people only to the most reliable sources, and phrase them as carefully as possible. Especially allegations, rumors and speculative reports are problematic in that context. GermanJoe (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I add a response here? Sorry, I don't totally get how Teahouse works yet. Ok, well thank you - that gives me plenty to think over. I have one more theoretical question, though. So just theoretically say there is a source whose talk page is full of people giving examples of why they don't find that source reliable. Even though there are dozens of examples, I don't find nearly any of them compelling (not saying that is the case here, just theoretically). Sure I can say my piece, but is it ultimately a 'majority rule' situation, or is there an overseer who officially deems one source or another 'unreliable'? I am not saying that is the case here, just trying to clarify how consensus is formed around such things.

Consensus is never a majority vote because each editor is expected to base their opinion on established policies and guidelines. But if five experienced editors explain why a source is unreliable and a new editor does not yet understand the policies and guidelines, then consensus is pretty clear. The appropriate venue for in depth discussion of the reliability of a source for a specific assertion in an article is WP:RSN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

More formal discussions are closed by an uninvolved editor, or in many cases, by an uninvolved administrator. They evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments to determine consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Core

What are top 5 core policies of this Wikipedia ? Fanalysis (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Fanalysis Welcome to the teahouse. Maybe others will have their own thoughts, but this is a good start: Wikipedia:Five_pillars--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Fanalysis, a useful analogy (for me) is to think of the five pillars as Wikipedia's "constitution" - all other policies are based on them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

How to report vandalism?/Adminsitration?

Hello, I am LordVaal IV, and I am extremely new here. I have a certain question, that I'd like to know the answer of, in order to help me improve the quality of this, our website. How can I report and fight vandalism? I have already read the Wikipedia:Vandalism page, but I'd love to know if there are a set of steps to report it. Also, which is the fastest way to be an Admin, in year or two? Thank you. ~Lord Vaal —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

hello LordVaal IV, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the best ways not to become an admin is to be perceived as being focused on being an admin rather than on helping to build the project. Instead, try to gain some diverse experience. Comment at AfDs, Work on some articles, adding citations, adding content, helping with formatting. Fight vandalism. You can just use twinkle to warn vandals in the sequence of levels 1-4. if there is a persistant or very serious vandal, report at WP:AIV following the instructions on that page. DES ^(talk) 18:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I mentioned the Admin thing because being one on my point of view, is the main way to improve this great website. Thanks for telling me about Twinkle! I'll start using it right now. Thank you! ~Lord Vaal —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think most would agree that the best way to improve the site is to write, edit and improve article content, LordVaal IV - none of which require administrator rights. By the way, are you signing your posts using four tildes (~~~~)? I'm trying to work out why your signatures are undated. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not. As early stated, I am *very* new, so there are many things I don't know how to do so. You mean like this?:LordVaal IV (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Thanks, LordVaal IV. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this allowed

On the article on MissingNo. it doesn't say how to activate it in games. Do you think adding that section is okay and won't deleted by the bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happychickeman (talk • contribs) 12:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a game manual - that sort of instructional information belongs on a Pokemon-specific wiki, not on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

publsihing or reviewing my article

I have written a draft article and tagged it for review. Its been a month now and nothing has happened, have I made a mistake? MatthewWood92 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MatthewWood92. I'm sorry to say that you haven't actually submitted the page for review. To do so, edit the draft and add the following code at the top: {{subst:submit}}. This will submit it for review at Articles for creation. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you say "Its been a month now". Your draft was first created on 12 May, only 19 days ago, and you haven't yet submitted it for review. I've added a template with a submit button for you to use to submit it for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Red links

I know this should be obvious, but if I am reading an article and I come across links to pages which do not exist, should I remove the links? Hillelfrei (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't because with the right information could click the red link and make a page.

Wmpetro (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hillelfrei. Many red links should stay. See Wikipedia:Red link for the guideline. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, red links should't be created per WP:REDNOT, it further states that red links should be removed, however because REDNOT is a guideline, common sense can be applied, if it's something that should be there, that anyone would expect to be there, then it's likely ok, unless consensus says otherwise.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  13:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Create New Bio Page

Hi,

I have figure out sandbox, and in visual edit mode I have inserted a template name "biography" but I am unable to edit anything within the template without hitting save and going live. Can you guide me how to edit without going live please?

Spiderman2334 (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Spiderman2334. Everything in Wikipedia is visible to the world: articles, talk pages, drafts, discussion pages, everything. So in a sense, you cannot submit any edit without "going live". Having said that, various places are not normally indexed by search engines, so they are less visible; and because they are intended for people to use them to develop articles, they are not judged as strictly for conformity to Wikipedia's policies. There are two places in particular: user sandboxes, and Draft space. You created the article Fereidoon Izadseta in main space, not in a sandbox, and so it is immediately subject to all of Wikipedia's policies. If you had created it in one of the draft spaces, it would be called User:Spiderman2334/Fereidoon Izadseta or Draft:Fereidoon Izadseta (those links are both red, because neither of those pages actually exist). If you had asked before creating it - or if you had read Your first article beforehand - you would havebeen advised to use the Articles for creation process, which would have created the draft in one of those places. Now, you could move it to one of those places, using the move command; but I don't think there's much point in doing so unless somebody proposes the article for deletion. Read Your first article (linked above, and on your talk page) and continue to develop the article where you have created it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you insert an infobox in visual editing mode?

Consider the infobox at right when you view Matt Damon's Wikipedia page. Is it possible to insert this structure in visual editing mode? If so, how? Aop4 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Aop4, yes you can add and edit infoboxes using the Visual Editor. Click on Insert > Template, then type infobox person and click on Add template. Fill in the name, then click on Add more information and Show 89 more fields. Fill in the values for all the parameters that you want to show, like Birth date. Mduvekot (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

How to post a picture

Please how can I post a picture on Wikipedia using html language?Uspeku (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uspeku. Basically, you don't; you need to use Wikimarkup. I wrote an essay for beginners on how to add images here, it may help explain the process for you. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

hello can i ask something?

can i get backlink from wikipedia please? ofcourse for i'll exchange with some articleFerizamia (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

That isn't how things work here, I'm afraid. We don't do affiliate marketing, and all external links are tagged nofollow. We also have a lot of restrictions on what sort of links are permitted. So, short answer - no, you can't. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Content of lead section in short articles

According to the Wikipedia style guide, the lead section should summarise the rest of the article. However, in the case of a very short article, the article may only contain a lead section. In this case, what should happen with the article? Should it be deleted or should new information be added to the lead section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Righter1000 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Righter1000, and welcome to the Teahouse. In that case we have what is known as a stub. The best course of action is to find additional reliable sources about the topic and expand the article so that it is no longer a stub. In the process a separate lead section should be created. Sometimes that can't be done, and sometimes an editor has no time to do it at the moment. In either case, there is no need to delete the article. It can be left as a stub to await future developments, if the topic is suitable for Wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 15:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

how to undo a merge made 6 yrs ago

Hello,

I wish to update information about the "Records of Early English Drama" (REED) page and found out it was merged with another page (Victoria University, Toronto) years ago. It looks like there was no discussion raised about this merger and no one noticed this change to the REED page in 2011. I would now like to un-merge the REED page or somehow make the REED page not a redirect and build on the previous version of the REED page.

History:

A merge from the "Records of Early English Drama" (REED) page into the "Victoria University, Toronto" was made on 8 Jan 2011 (at 18:38 stated on Records of EArly English Drama page; at 18:09 on the Victoria University, Toronto page). The Records of Early English Drama page remains but redirects to the Victoria University page. There has been no further edits to the REED page but many subsequent edits to the Victoria University page.

I'd like to remove the merge and revert back to a separate REED page (with reference links to Victoria University) because:

(1) it is now 2017 and REED information on the Victoria University page is out of date (for example, REED is no longer part of Victoria University)

(2) there is more information available about REED which I think merits it being a separate page (as it was prior to 2011).

(3) The merge left out former REED links and REED related links which were on the former separate REED page.

Questions:

• What is the best procedure to take to un-merge a page?
• Can I just undo the merge from within the REED view history page?
• How will that affect the Victoria University page? I assume after that I'll have to go in and revise the Victoria University page also.

Thanks for any help you can provide.Chung01 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Chung01. I'm sorry that your question hasn't received an answer yet, but I'll give it a go. To recreate the Records of Early English Drama page, you just need to revert the edit that changed it into a direct by using the "undo" function next to that edit in the page history. You then need to work to establish the notability of the project by adding citations to third-party sources, as the version of the article before it was redirected cited no sources at all. It would be nice if you could also update the summary of the project at Victoria University, Toronto#Academics and organization. It strikes me that too much space is dedicated to the project there, given that it's a single research project in the context of a university that presumably hosts many such projects. See Wikipedia:Summary style on this point. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry. Thanks so much for your prompt and helpful response. (To me, a newcomer to Wikipedia and the Teahouse, it seems prompt! :-)) I will take your advice and will certainly provide citations from third-party sources for Records of Early English Drama page and make sure it meets the guidelines and standards. I'll also update the material at Victoria University, Toronto#Academics and organization. Chung01 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

HI all just started to try and make my first Page.

Hi all This is basically just a Hello. I am just starting to try and produce my first article/page. I have only carried out a few edits before starting this attempt and am (as expect) well out of my depth and on a learning curve that looks more like making a free climb of Everest. I made a very quick start at a draft and sent it for review. I knew it was nowhere near any acceptable standard but the intention was to get feedback and see how the review thing worked.

My review submited is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brunei_Subaqua_Diving_Club_BSADC,for_REVIEW.

I was surprised that the review may take so long ( I should not have been, on reflection) but in fact within an hour or a little more I got a mai from David.moreno72 Thanks David, Great Job. Your extremely quick response was fantastic considering the workload that is reported. Though it is good to see that the new submissions are looked at and obvious NOGOs are bumped back straight away allowing reviewers to concentrate on the true review workload and the beginers like me to get some feed back straight away and continue one hopes on a better path to a more acceptable submission.

Thanks again David. I did try and find a/the way to reply to you quickly and directly but that, like a lot/most of what I have tried to do so far, was not obvious and on this occasion at least, defeated me. So i have done it here. I did click on your tag and got your page ok and read it with a smile but. I still could not work out how to reply.

Anyway that is it really, I have some guidance from David and know where I have to start to move on and will get to it. When I have specific problems I will return here for help.

In fact there is one item that is related but has bee rejected under another process, this someone my be able to guide me on here. I have a amature subaqua dive club LOGO, that is the LOGO for the club that is subject of my new page. The LOGO was deleted (again almost immediately) with the reason, which I basically understand. I have responded through the due process and await the out come. But here you might give me a better understanding of the problem in this specific case. The LOGO is of course a LOGO. enough said. However the LOGO was designed and drawn by me. I made it for the Club that I was a member of, the Diving Officer and Chairman of and gave it to the club to use freely as we saw fit. The Club was disbanded in January of 2016. I, myself, gave the official news to the UK BSAC HQ to whom we were affiliated and the club was recorded as disbanded. If there was a copyright (i know little about copyright) and I assume that automatically under the system there must be, then it must be my copyright as the author/artist, it is my work. No official address was ever made by me to or for the club with regard to any such copyright.

So now I uploaded a copy of my file and used it as my work for the page and club it relates to.

I have explained this in the due process to have the deleted file reinstated BUT as it IS a LOGO I have a GUT feeling that it will still be rejected. From the guidance material I have read so far, that is my feeling.

There of course must be a solution to this issue as all articles/Pages that are already approve of a similar type to the one I am doing have (MUST HAVE) the LOGO of the page subject matter in the PRIMARY OPENING DATA.

So what am I doing wrong or what due process have I not completed that is required so that I can use the LOGO like all the other pages. This may be jumping he gun as it may yet be accepted. I am still waiting to see if my request to undelete it is successful. But I have a strong feeling it is not going to be that simple.

Your comments help will be much appreciated. Please keep them simple "think Baby" then think "New Born" and you will be getting close to my current LEVEL. Actually my level is before that but we will not go there!!!

Thanks all I am looking forward to this challenge, not just to achieve the objective of recording the History of the First BSAC club in Brunei but I am also really looking forward to learning the process/s required to achieve it here. I can see that this is going to be a huge learning curve and not without its difficulties and frustrations. I do however have plenty if time to kill and am not know for giving up easily, far from it, the more difficult it gets, the more determined I become.

Thanks all Ngoring (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ngoring. I'm glad you're getting some help with your article. Logos on Wikipedia are generally used under Fair Use terms, meaning that whilst they are not free to reuse, we are legally able to show them on the site for the specific purpose of illustrating something about the logo itself or the logo's owner. One of the conditions of Fair Use is that the logo must be used on at least one live article - since your article is still a draft, that condition cannot be satisfied. My suggestion would be to iron out the issues with the draft and get it to the point of being a live article - once that happens, you can legitimately upload the logo for use on Wikipedia without having to sign away your rights to it. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

In a similar vein, we can't use text from other websites on Wikipedia - even if you wrote it yourself, we can't use it without a suitable release (see Donating copyrighted materials for details). In this case, the content of your website would not be suitable for Wikipedia anyway, so I would suggest that it isn't worth your while. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui FIRST I hope this is the correct why I should be responding????? not what I am use to in chat but see the/only way here.

Ok thanks that Informations was great I think I actually understood it ALL. The LOGO issue is much clearer now though I must say that one (or more) help articles that I saw /read, with regard to logos? (i think) or maybe more generical clearly stayed that Fair Use was not accepted!! Notwithstanding this I fully accept your advice in this case and that it will apply when I have finished and had may page accepted and published. Thanks again, Great Help. If this was not the why to reply please let me know and advise the correct way. Also how do I tag David.moreno72 to this article so he knows I have sent it. Or by mentioning him in the text above is he automatically notified?? May guess is he is not, so how? Ngoring (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ngoring: to resubmit the article for review, press the blue button that says "Resubmit". As you've been told above, don't worry about the logo: you can't have it on the draft right now (for copyright reasons), but if your article is accepted it will be a very simple procedure to add it. If we get at that point, I can do it for you since I know the exact steps and have done it many, many times. However, I don't think the article will be accepted. You need to cite a reliable source for everything that is likely to be challenged. When you are writing about a company, that basically means everything. For everything you say, you need to tell us where did you get that information from. And here's the thing, these sources need to be preferably unaffiliated with the company (newspaper articles by professional journalists, etc. are good independent sources). If you can't muster enough independent sources, the article will not be approved. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Online and print ISBNs

I'm improving a reference, and the publisher's website gives two ISBN-13s for the book: one for print and one for online. Presumably the content is the same in both, since no difference is mentioned. But {{cite book}} makes no provision for two ISBNs of this kind. Is there a way to list them both without duplicating the whole citation? Please {{ ping }} me to reply.

--Thnidu (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Thnidu. Here is my recommendation: If the book is available online in full for free, then use the ISBN for the online version. Otherwise, use the print ISBN, since clicking that allows readers to find local libraries holding the book. Personally, I see no benefit to including both ISBNs, but other editors may have other opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu. If you were doing a bibliography, the inclusion of separate entries for ebook edition and print edition might have value. Since you are providing a source citation I think you should say where you got it and provide the ISBN of whichever version you actually consulted. While they are probably identical in content, this is not always true -- sometimes corrections or updates are made in one format but not the other. In any case, for most recent books our Boo0k Sources page will enable the reader to find print copies in libraries and at booksellers even when an ebook ISBN is provided, so it won't matter much. If you didn't consult the book at all, but are just adding metadata, flip a coin, or choose the one you think the original editor who added the source probably used. DES ^(talk) 01:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC) @Thnidu: DES ^(talk) 01:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328 & DESiegel. Both your suggestions are quite helpful and apt. (Heya, Cullen328, I'm glad to be back here.)--Thnidu (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really in response to this thread but as a general warning. I recently used a fairly substantial Google/Amazon preview for referencing and used the page numbers "printed" on the pages. I then got the book from the library and, although it had the same ISBN and publication date, its layout was quite different. The preview's pages were shorter and the images and "infoboxes" positioned differently wrt the text. It still looked just like a real book. I therefore decided to re-do the previous page numbers. Anyone using the ISBN to access the online preview will think the page numbers I gave are wrong. (I've now decided to note this in my citations). Thincat (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk page signing

On talk pages, signing is one of the most important aspects. Other editors have to know who left what message, else the project falls apart. It's done with a four tilde signature.

With that said, is the three tilde sig, which excludes time and date, acceptable for talk pages?

Is it frowned upon; if so, why?

When is it applicable?

How important is including time and date if messages are already in a chronological order?

When is the five tilde sig (just time / date) acceptable?

Some assistance with these questions would be highly appreciated.

Best, Alt. Eno

17:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alt. Eno. Posts are often not in chronological order. Users may insert their post directly below an old post they are replying to, but indented one more level. There are also new users who don't know where they are supposed to post. Always sign talk page posts with four tildes. Three and five tildes have a few possible uses mentioned at Wikipedia:Signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

COI Rule Clarification for Summit School of Ahwatukee

I was working on the Summit School of Ahwatukee page and all revisions were rolled back. The reasoning was | Rm promotional twaddle; WP:COI editors are STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from editing the article directly; please use {{request edit}} on the talk-page. (TW))

This particular issue has already been discussed with Wikipedia.

I understand that it is discouraged. I also know that it is also not banned or not allowed. I believe all my revisions for entry (20:52, 31 May 2017) were factual, cited, and did not contain ambiguous or biased language. Could another editor please look over this version and let me know whether or not it meets criteria. Thank you.Carriejohnston2 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Carriejohnston2: So, here's the thing. I've dealt with COI a decent bit. And "strongly discouraged" really means that in most cases where we see an editor with a COI trying to edit directly, it ends badly. It's really hard to edit neutrally about something you're close to or have an interest in promoting. That's a collective "you" by the way, it'd be hard for me to do or for anyone to do. In most cases, bias ends up creeping in, even if it's unconscious and unintentional, which is why we really, really discourage people from doing that. In this case, you added a long list of relatively non-notable awards, and a full list of accreditations under its own section. That's excessive detail for an encyclopedia article, and even if presented in neutral language, is putting highly undue weight on those aspects. You also added an explicit "__INDEX__" tag. That's also inappropriate; the function of Wikipedia is not to provide SEO juice. It's possible there's some salvageable material out of it, but that's exactly why we recommend going over it on the talk page. Otherwise, it will just wind up getting reverted wholesale, as you saw here, and that doesn't do anyone any good. It's just really hard to stay neutral on something you're that close to. So I will endorse the recommendation that aside from doing things like reverting blatant vandalism, you do stick to the talk page (you can use {{request edit}} as above to call attention to the fact that you've made a request) and let other editors review your proposed edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Carriejohnston2: the first source you cited does not even mention Summit School of Ahwatukee. The second one says nothing to support of the statement for which you cited it. The third one says that the school was nominated for an award, not that it won it as you have claimed. This degree of bias is, unfortunately, not unusual for an editor with a conflict of interest. That is why CoI editing is strongly discouraged. Maproom (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Finding Articles

I have trouble finding articles. I use the random article button, but I only like stubs. so how do I do it? please help, GrecoRomanNut (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi GrecoRomanNut. Welcome to the Teahouse. Have a look at Category:Stub categories and see if that helps. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rivertorch, I will check it out GrecoRomanNut (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Review

Hi guys,

I have written a draft article for wikipedia. I was wondering how I go about getting it published or reviewed? MatthewWood92 (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Click on the big blue button at the top of the draft that says "Submit your draft for review"... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

can i ask something?

i recently wrote a "book" here but can't find it again or its' contentTorakula (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If you click on the "Contributions" link at the top right of any page it will take you to Special:Contributions/Torakula which lists all your contributions, including Book:Human Wavelengths. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

?!?!?!!?!? Jetdeck

I've tried to create 2 wiki pages and so far both deleted.

The first one i now understand technically had promotions for our company, but i made another one which was just about us and our history. not promoting anything. This still gets taken down and both of my OWN pictures have a copyright violation!?!?!?!?

Please can someone help me, this is ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmcallen (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Michaelmcallen: Hello. I'm sorry you are having difficulty. I'm not sure if this has been pointed out to you before, but you have what is called a conflict of interest, since you speak of "our company". Ideally, you should not directly write about your company. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves and their companies, even if unintentionally, and as such it is difficult for articles written by those with a COI to have a neutral point of view.

Please note that Wikipedia articles must do more than state that your company exists; they must indicate with independent reliable sources how your company is notable as a company, typically with in depth coverage in those sources(not just passing mentions or press releases). Not every company gets a page here. Please understand that Wikipedia is not social media like LinkedIn or Facebook; Wikipedia is more selective about its content. If you can show notability, I would visit Requested Articles and suggest that others write about your company instead.

I'm not sure what your pictures were, but even if they are yours you still need to actually donate the copyrighted materials to Wikipedia before they can be used here; you can visit this page for information on how to do that, and for what doing that actually means. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The second version was very much advertising for the company also. If anyone is interested, they can just look at https://www.jetdeck-aviation.com/ The first paragraph of the draft was copied and pasted from there. That brings up another problem, All articles must be written in our own words, we can not copy and paste from other sources. ~ GB fan 12:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there GB fan, Thank you very very much! This explained everything. I may have tried again so i will definitely assume it will be taken down. Is there someone within Wikipeadia we can ask to scourer the web and write an article on us? With regards to the words must be your own, If i copy and paste from the companies website (which i built) adn used my own words to describe us on there, can i still copy and paste? But seriously, this is the best advice yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmcallen (talk • contribs) 12:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated, you can visit Requested Articles to ask that others write about your company(assuming it has notability, as I describe above). Please understand, though, that since everyone here is a volunteer, it may not be done quickly. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand you probably wrote all the text on the website, but the website says "Copyright © Jetdeck Ltd. All rights reserved." That means no one else can use the text. All text in Wikipedia articles other than limited direct quotes must be available for anyone to use for any purpose. To use that text, if it wasn't so promotional, you would need to change the copyright from all rights reserved to a compatible license. ~ GB fan 13:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Michaelmcallen. 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) 20:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Request: World Cafe

In the World Cafe article I’ve made some changes to the content to address concerns raised that it reads like a press release or news article. I’m not sure if this has gone far enough.

I’ve gone back to the editor DGG, who placed the alert on the article, but it looks like he’s slightly busy at the moment.

I wondered whether an editor might take a look at the current version of the article to see whether it needs additional work.Fbell74 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what you changed was very much for the better; I condensed it just a little, and added links, and removed the tags for pressrelease and additional links. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to mention your paid editor status in relation to that article, Fbell74. Declaration is obligatory, not optional. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at this, and indeed I don't think you had gone far enough, Fbell74. The source of the problem was this edit of yours in 2015, so I've reverted to the version immediately before that. It may be that some of the references you had used could be useful to volunteer editors who want to expand the article – thank you for those. I'm not a sociologist, but it looks as if the page should probably be merged to Participatory action research, which is I think our general page on this topic. Please take care not to copy stuff from elsewhere on the internet or in copyright printed works into Wikipedia – the various precepts such as "Gather and share collective discoveries" had been published in several places long before you added them to the article; everything you write in Wikipedia must be in your own words, or must be properly quoted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DGG and Justlettersandnumbers taking a look at the article. DGG, I think you may have seen the version that Justlettersandnumbers reverted. I'm glad that this addressed the issues. I think the edits have gone a little far though. The current version doesn't really explain how World Café events work or what the objective is. It's all about using pre-defined questions and focusing on themes rather than problem solving and the intention is to foster creative thinking rather than to solve problems or come to a predetermined solution. A key element is allowing individuals to have their opinion heard, particularly more junior or quieter people, which isn’t always possible in group events where the loudest person may get all the attention. Without some explanation of how World Café events work it's hard to distinguish these from any other form of group activity.

Separately, the revised version doesn’t include examples of the organisations that have used World Cafe events. These are diverse and reasonably extensive, comprising Saudi Arabian oil companies, Israeli community organisations, and Canadian development agencies, among others. This underlines the geographic spread of the concept and also goes to notability. Fbell74 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see was talking about the version Justlettersandnumbers has already worked on, not realizing it was their major modification of your version. That's why I said the version was a great improvement. The version you had immediately before that [1], was still blatantly promotional, to the extent that the COI was clear whether or not declared. A list of miscellaneous places that have adopted the method, divided by multiple sections: companies: 2 examples; NGOs 1 example; governments, 3 examples,etc. is a list of miscellaneous testimonials that have no place in an encyclopedia. What would have place in an encyclopedia is evidence that the methods was very generally used and had become a standard--any number of isolated instances does not prove that. The intent of listing them is to induce the reader to think, my, look at them all! without stopping to question, what about all the hundreds of thousands of others? This method is widespread in WP promotional articles for a special reason--besides being a routine PR technique--it enables the writer to get in a large number of references to satisfy GNG. A fair way of using the examples is to say something like: Has been used by a variety of organizations, ref1, ref2, ref3,,,, DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

How to publish my page

I created my page a few days ago and I want it to go live on Wikipedia. How do I do that? Where can I submit my page? Marieokoro (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You have got confused between an article and a user page. If you wish to create an article you need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and in particular you need to include references to published independent reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marieokoro. Most editors presume military general officers to be notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Please read WP:SOLDIER. Therefore, I encourage you to continue. But you need to provide references to reliable sources that verify all of the claims in your draft article. I am in complete agreement with David Biddulph. Please read the links he provided, and follow that advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marieokoro: You also need to read Wikipedia's guideline on Plagiarism, as you appeared to have copied an existing internet page verbatim without converting to your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Article created but seemingly not yet available

I have created an article a few days ago (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pedro_Scuro), but cannot trace it in the InternetPeiris Fox (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Peiris Fox, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article is here Pedro Scuro. Articles are not indexed until either 30 days have elapsed or the article has been patrolled. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that the 30 day criterion will shortly change to 90 days, see this change. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Note also that the backlog at new page patrol has now stretched to more than 5 months. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

sir i want to make biography of bhumbhla subcaste of gujjar.how can i do this please help me?

bhumbhla gujjarzeeshan ali (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ch Zeeshan Gujjar. Please be aware that either men or women or anyone are welcome to answer Teahouse questions so please do not address the hosts as "Sir". Please read and follow all of the advice at Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Timezone

Hello,

May i know what the default timezone used in the edit history is? i and some friends had thought that it would reflect the local timezone but it doesnt and seems to be UTC. Can you please confirm this?

TIA Troydeleon (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Troydeleon. You can probably find the information you need in Help:Preferences#Time offset. I believe the default time used in UTC, but you can change to something else if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Apart from fund raising projects,assignments,donations from donors,users and other organizations,what are the other ways by which Wikimedia receieve money for charitable purposes?

In 2016,Wikimedia Foundation has gained a surplus of about US$16 million as it is a non profit organization.But I also feel sorry to ask this type of a question,because I am presently studying about "Not-for-profit organizations" for my Advanced Learning.If you can give instructions ,it will be a kind of assistance that I could get for my studies. Abishe (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Abishe. The Teahouse is generally a place for asking questions about editing. Your question is probably more suited for Wikipedia:Reference desk, so you should try there. You might also try taking a look at Wikipedia:About for some general information as well. Good luck with your studies. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the terrible mistake.I already knew that we can ask questions related to editing only,Thaks for wishing me for my studies.You are welcome Abishe (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not a terrible mistake, Abishe  ;-) You could also try asking at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the random article game

Many WP pages mention the random article game what is it?FORCE RADICAL (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Without the context it's impossible to say for sure, but it's most likely a reference to Wikipedia:Wiki Game. ‑ Iridescent 07:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps the Wikipedia:Wiki-Link Game? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

enough sources

Hi, my article on a musical group was labelled as maybe not meeting wikipedia's notability guidelines. I added secondary sources, such that there are now a number of reliably edited newspapers such as Huffington Post or Billboard magazine. Moreover there are print newspapers from international countries such as Germany and Cayman. There are also the usual metal online sources, but they have also been used for wikipedia articles on Metallica and no one complained about them there. So, can I remove the "notability label" and just see, if it is accepted, or who do I discuss this with? I read on this forum, that it is hard to draw a line on what exactly are enough sources or good enough source Usernamemm Usernamemm (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link: Oni (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Usernamemm: the notice in that article isn't about "enough sources", it's about "good enough sources". When an article's sources are questionable, e.g. articles about an interview with a member of the band and therefore not independent, then adding further questionable sources doesn't help at all. Maproom (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I never Published my article but it got deleted

Hi, I wrote a page on and saved the page in draft to make changes into it, but it got deleted from their. I never published the article still it was deleted. Please let me know where I went wrong and also if this is not the draft page where I wrote then how to find the draft page where we can write? Apekcha Rai (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Apekcha Rai: Hello and welcome. While I can't see your page to be able to tell you what specifically was wrong, it seems that the administrator who deleted it did so because it didn't appear to be closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Note that once you saved the content to your user page, it was "published", as in visible to everyone. I will ping the deleting administrator (@RHaworth:) in case they wish to offer a better explanation. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• It was a bio in your user page. If it was autobio then it was speedily deletable as a user page masquerading as an article. If you are not Upendra Rana then it was a draft in the wrong place. (And starting with an <h1> heading marked it as coming from someone who is not interested in learning house style.) I will willingly send you the text - read this. If, and only if, you have no CoI, feel free to start again via AfC. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello, Apekcha Rai. The page as it existed was also rather promotional. Wikipedia is not the place to post an advertisement or a resume/CV, or to promote yourself or anyone else in any way. DES ^(talk) 14:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

NUMBEROFARTICLES on another wiki

How can i display 6,917,269 of english wikipedia on another wiki Serjatt4 (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Serjatt4. {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, just like that, in English, should work on other language Wikipedias as well as places like Wikinews. I just checked it on the Serbian Wikipedia, where it worked. For other wikis not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, I have no idea, sorry. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

[ec] @Fuhghettaboutit: Did it? Did it actually show at Serbian Wikipedia the number of English Wikipedia articles...? --CiaPan (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Serjatt4: If you mean you want another Wikimedia wiki to display an automatically updated count of articles in the English Wikipedia then I don't think it's possible. List of Wikipedias#Detailed list relies on a bot updating Template:NUMBEROF/data. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey CiaPan. It is true that that is what the question actually parses to ask. But the question reads to me as that of a non-native speaker, and when I answered it, I made the assumption that the intended meaning was whether the same facility was possible at another wiki – an article count there, rather than the number of articles here, displayed there. And I do think that is what was actually intended. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

An error on my created page "contest this speedy deletion"

Sir, I have created a wikipedia page on a company. But now on the page am getting a message saying "contest this speedy deletion".

Please guide me how can i remove this error.

regards, krishna kumar Krishna24.7 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Krishna24.7, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's not an error - someone has nominated Gujarat Foils Ltd for deletion as they don't believe that the article credibly indicates the importance or significance of the subject. If you wish to contest this, then you need to click on the "Contest this speedy deletion" button, which will take you to the article's talk page, where you can explain why you think the article should be kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But I suggest you read WP:Golden rule before you do that, Krishna24.7, because if you present arguments which are not relevant to Wikipedia's criteria, then you will be wasting your time and everybody else's. 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) 15:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

speedy deleltion

Why is wikipedia trying to delete the page for my company? Radentravel (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

For the reason explained on your user talk page. You also need to read WP:COI and WP:CORPNAME. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hello, Radentravel. As you can see on your talk page, that page (Raden (Smart Luggage)) was deleted "because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company..." Wikipedia is not the place to promote your company.

With that in mind, your choice of username is also contrary to policy, which prohibits "Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product". If you are here to help create an encyclopedia, then welcome. If you are here to promote your company, then this is not the place - there are plenty of other web sites for that.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Article Notability Tag

What warrants the removal of the notability tag from an article about a DJ on wikipedia? Kojo Wilson (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Kojo Wilson, and welcome to the Teahouse. The removal of the notability tag is generally warranted when the article has enough reliable, secondary sources establishing it as a notable topic. The notability guidelines for people state that to be notable enough to merit an article, a person must have a sufficient level of detail in said sources. For instance, a DJ who works in my local pub would not generally be notable enough to merit their own article, but if they had pioneered some new DJing technique they would have sufficient coverage to merit an article. Bear in mind, however, that a person does not have to be famous: they just have to have made a notable contribution to their field. I am happy to take a look at the article in question if you feel this has not answered your question. Keira1996 12:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that adding the notability tag to an article does not mean that the editor who does so thinks the subject is not notable. It is simply a warning that notability has not been established within the article and that it risks being deleted if notability is not added - an invitation to others to find the sources really. Emeraude (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to give a Chinese page for the following WIKI

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinikum_der_Universit%C3%A4t_M%C3%BCnchenRobinxu2017 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ronxu2017. Each language wikipedia is a separate project, with its own policies and procedures, so we can not reliably tell you anything about either de.wiki or zh.wiki. It is likely that much of the advice on TRANSLATION will be relevant, but I cannot guarantee it. Your best bet is to ask at the Help desk on zh Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ronxu2017, you can find the Chinese Wikipedia instructions for translation here: zh:维基百科:翻譯指引 – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan

Hi friend I live in Pakistan you are invite to me To Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidra Memon memon (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sidra Memon memon: You're in the wrong place for this. I don't mean that Pakistan is the wrong place, I mean that Wikipedia is the wrong place. Wikipedia is not a social media site. Wikipedia is not a place to make friends as such. See Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. --Thnidu (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi friend Come To tea House and talk with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidra Memon memon (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Again: @Sidra Memon memon: You're in the wrong place for this. I don't mean that Pakistan is the wrong place, I mean that Wikipedia is the wrong place. Wikipedia is not a social media site. Wikipedia is not a place to make friends as such. SeeWikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. --Thnidu (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Expanding on Thnidu's comment, the Teahouse is a forum for asking questions about Wikipedia and editing. If you have any questions about what to put on this website, you should ask them here. You can put some personal information on your user page, but this must follow regulation as well. Finally, Thnidu is right: Wikipedia isn't for "chatting", texting, or "hanging out"—although you can certainly have fun editing here! Also, remember to sign your comments. Best, Alt. Eno 20:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I submitted an article last year and it still has not been reviewed

I submitted an article from my sandbox last year November, and the draft has still not been reviewed even though it says it has been submitted for review. I am new at Wikipedia and have tried to follow instructions. Have I done something wrong? The sandbox is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tonyrath/sandbox

Thanks.Tonyrath (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The reason that it hasn't been reviewed is that the submission was malformatted. I have corrected the malformatting so kit is now in the queue for review. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The edit in which you garbled the submission template was this one. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks David. I am trying to see what I did wrong. Why is a 10 instead of an 8 malformatted?Tonyrath (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do with 10 versus 8. The problem was the missing curley bracket '}' in the submission line. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)