Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 684

Archive 680

←

Archive 682

Archive 683

Archive 684

Archive 685

Archive 686

→

Archive 690

How do I write a biography of someone?

I would like to write a biography but I am struggling to understand how everything works and how to continue writing after I have left the site for a while. I would appreciate a brief explanation on how to make a simple biography, thank you. FredFred hendrikson (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Fred hendrikson. It looks like you've already found your sandbox, which is a good place to work on a draft for an article until it's ready to fully publish. Whatever you put in your sandbox will still be there the next time you log in. You just need to remember your username and password and then click "sandbox" in the upper right (on PC), and it will take you right back there to continue working. I have also added a banner for our Articles for Creation project at the top, and when you think you are ready, you can click the submit button and add the draft to a list for review by volunteers who can offer feedback prior to publishing.

Writing for Wikipedia can be very different from writing for other venues however, and you may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure, both of which can help orient you to how to use the software, and the kinds of standards Wikipedia has for articles, which can be very different from a newspaper or magazine article. Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia! GMG^talk 12:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Just merged a page, how to I delete the redundant page?

I've just merged the entries from Richmond Hill High School into RHHS, how do I get rid of the former article? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. I don't see reason to get rid of it. It could be redirected to RHHS but why force readers to look for the right subject on a longer list? If they click or search "Richmond Hill High School" then they are clearly not looking for the other entries at RHHS. Richmond Hill High School is a disambiguation page meant to help readers quickly find the article they are looking for. Disambiguation pages are often short and that's perfectly fine. Short articles may be merged but disambiguation pages have another purpose than articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would be unhelpful to readers of Wikipedia to get rid of the disambiguation page Richmond Hill High School. Please don't. The merge was helpful, and should be retained, of course. Dbfirs 08:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I see now, whoops. The Verified Cactus 100% 14:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Why can't I create article on Wikipedia anymore ?

I go to Wikipedia:Article Wizard and it show the path to edit sandbox/ create the new draft. Why it is showing like that. When this is over and can I create article on Wikipedia anymore ? Giangkiefer (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• As an experiment, article creation has been restricted to accounts that are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. A new account becomes autoconfirmed after 4 days and 10 edits. You should have no trouble if you use your main account rather than a new one. Andrew D. (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You can always still use Wikipedia:Article wizard to create a draft for review, Giangkiefer. Please be careful using multiple accounts, and ensure that you aren't breaking our sockpuppetry policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of other accounts, this account has over 4,000 edits and over three years' tenure: How can they not be autoconfirmed?! — fortunavelut luna 09:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi The account is autoconfirmed. This question isn't about account status; it's asking why Wikipedia:Article wizard only gives you the option to create a draft, not an articlespace article. (I've just tested it with the same result; I end up at this page with no "create the article direct in main space" option.) I suspect the answer is "someone took a decision that someone unfamiliar enough with Wikipedia that they're using the article wizard, is likely to make good-faith mistakes so it's better to force them to work in draft space so someone else can check their work before it goes live", but can't say for sure. ‑ Iridescent 09:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The whole article wizard was rewritten after discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard#Simplification Proposal and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Article Wizard Redesign. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

So I suppose the only way of avoiding getting coralled into draftspace is to ignore the AW completely! Not sure I expected ACTRIAL to encourage that- still. — fortunavelut luna 14:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Giangkiefer So how can I dreate the article ? where can I go to create the article ?

@Giangkiefer: If you're sure you know what you're doing, then type the article name into the search box and if the article doesn't exist, you'll see a You may create the page "Article name" message; if you click on the red link to the article name, you can create the article direct. Only do this if you're sure you know what you're doing; this will make the article immediately live, rather than creating it as a draft for other people to double-check, and creating articles direct into the article space that don't comply with Wikipedia's standards for formatting, sourcing and referencing will at best get you strongly warned and at worst get you blocked. (If this draft is what you're intending to create as an article; I strongly advise you to reconsider; someone who's been on Wikipedia for over a decade has no excuse for submitting something sourced to Wikia.) ‑ Iridescent 15:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

How can I create an article ?

How can I create an article ? Please tell me where can I go to create the article ? Giangkiefer (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Giangkiefer. You may want to look over our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Either will probably answer a lot of question on how to create an article, which can be one of the more difficult things to do on Wikipedia, especially compared to improving existing articles. GMG^talk 14:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Already answered above. I repeat that if you create this draft as an article you'll likely be blocked very quickly; we assume good faith of new editors, but someone with 4000 edits on this account alone and who boasts of having multiple accounts stretching back to 2005 isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt. ‑ Iridescent 15:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This user has created many articles for example Love on the Rise, Ain't Giving Up and Down in a Hole (album) so clearly knows how to do it. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Username change

I have a username in my real name. I want to change it to something more anonymous. How do I do this?Rachaelgetz (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rachaelgetz: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Teachouse index?

It's great that there is so much information available in the Teahouse. Is it indexed? Ncnefan162.253.236.101 (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, 162.253.236.101, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is an archive of Teahouse questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive Index, which is also available by clicking the "Question Archive" button at the top of this page. If you are looking for something specific, you can try searching that page, or using the Wikipedia search feature, making sure that the "Wikipedia" namespace is selected and "Teahouse" is one of the search terms. I hope this helps! CThomas³ (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful and prompt response. Only then did I notice my typo, "Teachouse index?"--an error but nonetheless applicable to the spirit of the Teahouse, since it's comprised of much teaching! I have used the archive feature to search topics, but since the archives are so exhaustive, I thought perhaps the content might be A-Z indexed for more efficient searching. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Ncnefan162.253.236.101 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome! No, I don't believe that there is any special indexing of the Teahouse (at least I am not aware of any). The Wikipedia search engine can do a pretty good job of finding stuff, though, so hopefully that will do the trick.
I didn't actually notice your typo either, until you just pointed it out! But yes, I completely agree that it was quite the fortunate one. :) CThomas³ (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

need help formatting and inserting pictures in a bio

I tried to insert an infobox to insert Dennis Blalock self portrait in the upper right , but can't move it....and having trouble both downloading pics from Wikimedia and putting them in the correct location within the bio....managed to get two loaded, but not in the right places....and some uploads I've tried say there is something wrong and a button to 'dismiss'...don't understand... truly need assistance to get on the right track with these pictures...also, the contents box moved...Elisabet Stacy-Hurley 00:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk • contribs)

The draft in question is Draft:Dennis Blalock. 01:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing pages of institutions you are a member of

If I found something that is out of date on the page for an educational institution I am part of, may I correct it, or is that a potential conflict of interest? This is probably somewhere in one of the rules pages, but if you know it off the top of your head, thanks! Myoglobin (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Myoglobin, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, that type of edit would generally be considered a conflict of interest; the policy is outlined at WP:COI. The best way to ensure the page is corrected with updated information is to create a discussion on the talk page of the article, disclose your status with the organization, state the update that you propose to the page, and provide a reliable and verifiable source. I hope this helps! CThomas³ (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Myoglobin. I have a different take than Cthomas3 above. Yes it is a technical COI. But as long as you are capable of editing neutrally, who is going to know or care? As a coordinator of WikiProject schools, I can say with some confidence that well over 50% of the editor's on any school article are students or alumni. It is one of the most common points of entry for new editors. As long as you are editing with NPOV in mind, I see no reason for you to follow the best practices as outlined at WP:COI. If your username was FooHighRules or you were consistently adding "Foo Rules, For Drools" to the article it would be a different story. As long as you don't assert your status as an alumni as the reason for your edit, there is no need to mention your status at all. And since you cannot use your status as an alumni as a basis for an edit, there should be no problem.

As an aside, the title you've chosen for this section is absolutely hilarious in idiomatic American English. Thanks for the laugh. John from Idegon (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I only just realized the mistake, I meant 'am a part of', not 'you belong in'! Ideally one would feel that they belong in the organizations they are part of.

However, I just went ahead and made an edit request on the page I was asking about: [1]

Created an article, now I want to publish it

My name is Karen Polka. I created an article named Mean Mary. Photo was approved. Finished editing. How do I publish it?KarenPolka (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello KarenPolka and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm assuming you are talking about your userspace draft about a musician with the stage name "Mean Mary", User:KarenPolka/sandbox. I've added a template at the top to mark it as a userspace draft and you can follow the instructions it gives to submit your draft for review.

Don't submit it in its current state. One of the things I added was a "References" section and you'll note that it is currently empty. An article without references will not be accepted for Wikipedia. I also removed some items that seemed to be external links purely for promotional purposes. In fact, the entire draft is in danger of being deleted as promotional. Please read the guidelines for notabilty for musicians and find suitable sources to support the notability of your subject. If you run into problems, the Teahouse is here to help. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrong age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Carter

The age under the photo at the top of the page is wrong. It should say 50. Beatles777! (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It does say 50. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Pages are cached for performance reasons and logged out users sometimes get an older cache. I saw 49 after logging out so I have purged the page to update the displayed age after her 19 October birthday. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Creating a title page to redirect to an existing one

Hi,

am trying to create a title page that shouldn't have any info sunce the topic is already existing under another title - I just want to redirect to the existing title whena user searches for the title i have created...

How can i achieve that? I have tried creating a minimal page for redirection but it seems the page was declined due to lack of content(of course it should only redirect...) (My page title was 'חרם תךת מחזות'- and it should redirect to an existing title 'הרמס טריסמגיסטוס')

Thanks.

Sharon.rosner (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sharon.rosner: Each Wikipedia language has separate pages and links. This is a help desk for the English Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org. We have no page הרמס טריסמגיסטוס. It looks like you want the Hebrew Wikipedia at https://he.wikipedia.org. I don't know the language but they do have a page he:הרמס טריסמגיסטוס. I don't know their procedures but a Hebrew redirect called 'חרם תךת מחזות' should be at he:חרם תךת מחזות. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that you get rid of Draft:חרם תלת מחזות which belongs on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Dbfirs 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

iOS 11.0.3

Please excuse me if I’m in the wrong place, and if I am, can I have a link to the relevant place; but if I’m not, could I ask a tech question? Apple, bless ‘em, seems to have fucked around with the keyboard layout on their latest update, above, and I’ve now lost the ability to conduct menial html markup tasks for things like itals, bolding, and other such stuff. Are there any other Apple users who could help me find this? Currently, if I try and markup itals on the keyboard, I’m provided with curly quotes, which don’t work and are not MOS compliant. This is a fly in the ointment as I’m currently finishing a hopeful FA and this is coming to hold me up. Cassianto^Talk 09:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Shouldn't this be asked in WP:VPT? Since you are here anyway, go to Settings > Keyboard > Smart Punctuation, and turn it off. This should solve the problem. Alex Shih^Talk 10:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'm probably in the wrong place. I've done that, much thanks. Cassianto^Talk 10:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I know, maybe I didn't phrase it well. Good luck with the FA. Alex Shih^Talk 11:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

new page

How do I start a new page?Nisawaygaaming (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nisawaygaaming. Creating acceptable new articles is difficult and it's often better to gain experience editing existing articles before you try to write one from scratch. However, there is information at Wikipedia:Your first article that explains how to do so. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I've now done some editing and adding to a pageNisawaygaaming (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about xtools.wmflabs.org

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but how do I get redirect creations to show on my "articles created" page? https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/VerifiedCactus/all#0

it says "Redirects: Exclude redirects", but I don't know how to include them.

If this is the wrong place, please redirect me (har) to the correct place The Verified Cactus 100% 18:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

There you go ‑ Iridescent 18:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 18:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Content war Re Battle of Chalgrove

Hi Cullen328 For the past 23 years after the Chalgrove Battle Group (CBG)Me and 3 others)convinced an Independent Review Panel to prefer CGB's interpretation of the Battle English Heritage and Battlefields Trust have done their utmost to suppress this important work. Oxoniensia and Victoria County History, the leading history academics, have peer reviewed and accepted our research; CBG are now the recognised authority and have been invited to give a lecture at the National Army Museum, Chelsea. The Battlefields Trust, and one person in particular, has removed my latest contribution to Wikipedia. My contribution itemized the academic reasons why Chalgrove has been termed a skirmish. It also highlights the truth of the argument which shows the Battlefields Trust and English Heritage in poor light. Would you please re-instate and confirm my contribution of 20/10/2017? Regards, Derek LesterJohn Hampdens Regiment (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@John Hampdens Regiment: Hello. While Cullen328 will likely see this eventually to be able to respond to you, the best place to discuss edits to an article are on that article's talk page. Click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article when viewing it to access it, then you can edit the page normally.

I noticed in one of your edit summaries that you use "we"; please note that per the username policy usernames cannot be shared. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Re-instating my contribution of 20/10/2017 to Battle of Chalgrove could be made with a few clicks of the mouse. My detractor could do the same, and my bit could be re-instated ad nauseum; is this how Wikipedia operates?

The truth is being suppressed by an overbearing authoritative body who insist on their interpretation of the Battle of Chalgrove being the 'received view'. The Oxoniensia article, 'The Military and Political Importance of the Battle of Chalgrove 1643 Derek and Gill Lester is found on www.johnhampdensregiment.org.uk 'Further Reading' and within its pages it destroys academically, and to the peer reviewers' satisfaction, the Battlefields Trust's argument and their insistence of the event being a minor encounter. Would an administrator, as a matter of urgency, intervene in this argument and adjudicate. Regards, Derek Lester46.208.44.103 (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Derek, there are a couple of things here. Firstly, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs about the Battle of Chalgrove Field. Whether EH or the Battlefields Trust recognise the battle with the same importance as you is neither here nor there as this article makes little reference to those bodies designation of the battle. Secondly, you have a conflict of interest here in that it is your own research which you are seeking to promote over the views of others. I am not denigrating the research and findings you have come up with, it makes very interesting reading and the conclusions seem sound enough to have been accepted by two respectable publications; but blowing your own trumpet in the manner you have is not the way to go about getting thoughtful and considered changes made to the article. I'd suggest that you confine your contributions to this article to suggestions and sources on the article talk page and leave amendments to the article content to others who have considered the suggestions and the various opinions that exist about this battle. Nthep (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, John Hampdens Regiment. First of all, there is no "content war" since you added the disputed content only once and it was reverted once by another editor PBS, which is entirely routine here on Wikipedia. The next step is for you to discuss the matter in a collaborative fashion at Talk: Battle of Chalgrove Field, where you have not yet commented. Please be aware that administrators have no special powers regarding content disputes and do not adjudicate such disputes. When it comes to content, administrators are just ordinary editors. As an American, my understanding of the English Civil War is limited to the broad outlines so I am not going to comment on the content. I will advise you to calm down a bit and realize that the article in its current form does not emphasize the "skirmish" designation that you object to. The two editors commenting above have given you excellent advice which I hope that you will consider carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up User:Cullen328. I am going to copy this section lock stock and barrel to talk:Battle of Chalgrove Field. But to round off the conversation here. @User:John Hampdens Regiment as Nthep pointed out Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.

My reason for deleting your addition to the lead was because it does not belong in the lead (see WP:LEAD) Its style seemed to be to be original research, and to an extent you were tilting at windmills as the word skirmish was removed by you from the lead and no one had inserted it. Your type of comment is a common phenomena on Wikipedia, but usually it take the from of someone adding half a dozen or more reliable sources to prove why a particular sentence or conclusion should not appear in the lead. I actually have something to say about the type of battle and the sources, but lets discuss that on the talk page of the article.

You ask "Re-instating my contribution of 20/10/2017 to Battle of Chalgrove could be made with a few clicks of the mouse. My detractor could do the same, and my bit could be re-instated ad nauseum; is this how Wikipedia operates?" Editors at wikipeia have years of dealing with this question. Please read the explanatory paper BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD), the policies Dispute resolution and WP:3RR. -- PBS (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle or Skirmish -- Why the Confusion

My contribution to the entry 'Battle of Chalgrove' with the above title may have been in the wrong place and been too explicit. Will you allow me to resubmit a reworded entry with accusations removed. This new entry would be placed in the body of the page complete with references. Being new to the ways of Wikipedia and struggling to understand its concepts may you forgive my transgressions. Resolving the issue of Battle or Skirmish and its importance to English and the American War of Independence (I will explain) is fundamental to the understanding of the early part of the English Civil War; it will fundamental to English Civil War Key Stages of the British educational curriculum. By deleting my entry Wikipedia has inadvertently acted as censor to original and researched historical facts. My amendment of skirmish to 'fight' compliments the terminology used by Prince Rupert's narrator, who was by his side at the battle. Although your 'meeting engagement' is technically correct the 17th century terminology by size of encounters is skirmish - raid - fight and battle. The difference between fight and battle is a battle is planned before the encounter while a fight is a usually a chance encounter but can be equal in size to a battle. John Hampden, who was mortally wounded at the Battle of Chalgrove, features strongly in the American War of Independence. James Otis used John Hampden's name as an alias at a rally in 1765 to quote the immortal words, 'No Taxation without Representation'. Hampden/Sydney college founded 1775 - nine towns with the name Hampden - Liberty Land. Hampden helped finance in the founding of Saybrook 1634 and Harvard 1636. One could gone on! Is your permission to re-write Battle or Skirmish forthcoming? Regards, Derek LesterJohn Hampdens Regiment (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the earlier replies? The place for discussion is not here but at Talk: Battle of Chalgrove Field. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Taking the first step. Online edit-a-thon?

Hi everyone, I'm a longtime wikipedia binge reader, and I always wanted to take that first step and start conttributing meaningful content on the topics I love. However, I still can't seem to be able to take the plunge (not enough time? too much effort? not enough of an expert on any field?). So I thought about joining an edit-a-thon. Working with other people would motivate me. However, as I live in France but much more confortable in writing in english, here comes my question: can I join an edit-a-thon online? do online editathons exist or they're by definition physical? Thanks for any help making me join this community! 176.187.69.182 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP user. I've never heard of somebody joining an editathon from the internet rather than being in a public place like a library with a group, but it may be possible. See Wikipedia:Edit-a-thon--you may be able to post on their talk page and talk to somebody with experience hosting them. Besides editathons, we do have article improvement drives where a group of editors try to improve articles on a specific topic, like women novelists or plant species. You don't have to be anywhere special to participate in those, and you can still interact with other Wikipedians. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Can a paid editor directly edit articles they created?

I am a paid editor working for the band Mexican Institute of Sound. My employer has asked me to add entries about their albums. My question is if I created the article I am going to edit after putting it for review, do I still have to follow the COI guidelines and request an edit or can I directly edit my own article? IMSMTS (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the article is still a draft having been denied submission a first time. IMSMTS (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@IMSMTS: Welcome to Wikipedia. You will need to still follow the COI and WP:PAID guidelines for paid editors. RudolfRed (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Alright, thank you for the help. IMSMTS (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't need more lists, it needs references to reliable sources. Without these, it it likely to be deleted. At present it has only one reference, citing a web page which appears not to exist. Maproom (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Remember, IMSMTS, that Wikipedia has almost no interest in what a subject says about themselves, and absolutely no interest in what you, or I or any other random editor, knows, thinks, or says about them. It is only interested in what people who have absolutely no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to cite articles in-line.

When I try to cite articles that have previously been cited in my article, I get an error message. For example, the particular journal article I am trying to cite has multiple authors, the first of which is Paola Veronese. The first time I cited the journal article, I had no problem. However, the second time, I included the wikicode and it said that the citation had not been defined. Help would be greatly appreciated. Dilloncoulter (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

References

You will need to define the reference you are using

• <ref name="Veronese">Paola Veronsese, ''title'', (''publisher'', ''year''), ''page number''.</ref>
  

Once you have done this, then using

• <ref name="Versonese" />
  

will work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

what company is Baicells? It is a good company to work for?

I got an offer from Baicells. But I haven't decided whether to go there. I googled Baicells, and the only thing I know is that it is a companys in telecommunication. Anyone could give any information about this? Cocoeva10101 (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cocoeva10101.

But the Teahouse is not a place where a question such as yours will be answered. I've heard that sometimes the website "Glass Door" can give you reviews from current and ex-employees of a company. Given that you have an offer in hand and, apparently, did not check out the company ahead of time, I can only suggest that you talk to the person who has offered you the job for a chance to speak to some other employees, HR, etc. Until you accept the offer, you are still in a negotiation phase, whether that's formally recognized or not. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

goofy text in article found; new at edits reverts etc

i dont know how to edit, revert, nor do i know where an article's talk page is. i found some goofy text.

found on this page-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longinus

this paragraph is from a first person opinion point of view-

" ▪ Longinus is also the name of one of the most memorable, dare I say iconic, characters from the smash TV show "Modern Family". He is friends with Mitchell and Cam. He is mentioned in all seasons up until Season 8, when he mysteriously disappeared. It shocked audiences to the core, and the show was never the same again."

while i think its maybe kinda factual, somebody had that name, it is not a representation of the historical/ literary figure but is instead a TV character. name is spelled differently too. its like equating Howard Hughes with Howard the Duck. maybe theres a relation? i dunno... whoever wrote Modern Family TV show into early christianity is goofing off on wikipedia.

i'm mostly new to editing and am not enough of an expert in christian theology/ roman history to state the hit TV series guy is certainly different from a man 2,000 years ago, but it smells funny. plus the wording is goofy.

please help me, or help somebody better able to fix the article, to tell how that weird text got into article. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.32.63.215 (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Anonymous IP user.

One thing you will encounter in many pages on WP is a section called something like X in popular culture. The Longinus article had a section like that and generally these sections must either have a reference to support the inclusion, sometimes indirectly by wikilinking to the page. Since this addition had neither, I rolled the page back to the point before it was added. You could have done this as well.

Since the sourcing issue is paramount, it doesn't immediately matter that the addition was written in a style completely different from normal WP "encyclopedic" style. If the information had been verifiable, what would have been required is a rewrite that removed the first-person, superlative language. I'm not going to bother doing that as an example in this case, but if you'd like to give it a try, as an exercise, we could review your attempt in the friendly Teahouse environment, so you could boldly go and do more rewrites elsewhere when you find odd stuff. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Further...

The Modern Family article does mention a character named Longinus, but does not include any of the information that was added to the Longinus article, nor does it make any connection with the story of Longinus. I think it may be a mistake that the character's name is spelled "Longines" on Wikia or other places. If you were to find a source that spoke of the TV character and how or why he was named Longinus, you would might have the basis for a few words in the Longinus "in popular culture" section. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

hi jmcgnh, thanks for your efforts. yeah it wasn't sourced, & the contributor could have sourced it. good to know thats important around here.

i like that concept of rolling back and will study the Longinus article to see how that looks.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.32.63.215 (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Help adding a image

Good morning all.

I'm writing the article Transparente (album) practically from the ground up and now I would like to add an image to it. The image in question already exists in the [portuguese version] of the article but I'm unsure of how to transfer it to the English wiki. Regards, RetiredDuke (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey RetiredDuke.  Done See File:Mariza Transparente album cover 2005.jpg. For future reference, you can request files be uploaded for use at WP:FFU. GMG^talk 10:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could ping the original uploader (in this case User:Edviges, who is fairly active in Portuguese Wikipedia) and ask them to upload the image to the Wikimedia Commons so that the image can be shared globally across all projects. Alex Shih^Talk 10:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No offense Alex Shih, but the image in question is a copyrighted album cover from 2005, and wouldn't be accepted at commons. For use, it would need to be uploaded individually to each language Wikipedia, assuming the project accepts fair use images, as en.wiki and pt.wiki do. GMG^talk 10:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Aw, clearly I did not look carefully, I stand corrected, thanks! I usually only deal with public domains. Alex Shih^Talk 10:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much @GreenMeansGo:. I appreciate the link provided RetiredDuke (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I created a new article: Can someone help me with formatting?

Hi everyone, I have created an article largely translated from one or two articles in Spanish wiki with a lot of information which is largely missing in English wikipedia. It is very well sourced I think but I struggle with formatting. May also have messed up some English. Any support appreciated: Catalan supremacism. If you guys can keep it on your watch list and help me out as I improve it would be great. Best, Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Template "versalita" should be removed and in reference templates Spanish language parameters should be replaced by English equivalents. Ruslik_Zero 20:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've made some copyedits. More work is needed, such as adding interlanguage links for the people with articles in es:WP but not en:WP. I've put the article on my watchlist, and may come back to it. I find the subject matter seriously distateful, and have no intention of becoming involved in the content – any changes I've made to the meaning are accidental. Maproom (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Maproom Thanks. It is indeed a distasteful topic and distasteful historical reality. However, its absence on English wiki was a glaring omission. Sadly, there is still a significant language barrier which prevents full coverage of the hispanophone world on English wiki. I think it is partly due to lack of bilingual editors.Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm replacing the redlinks in the article by interlanguage links to es:WP. I notice that in some cases the spelling you have used differs from the spelling of the title of the es:WP article, e.g. Domingo/Domènec, Juan/Joan. I fear I may be stepping into a disagreement about whether to use the Castilian or the Catalan spelling for those names, something I'd much prefer to avoid. Maproom (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

MaproomNot at all. Names should be those in source, or as however the person in question refers to himself. It is not typical in Spain to Castilianize a Catalan name since the 1970s. It is a historical article - nothing more, no need to be concerned with current political sensitivities or debates. Sonrisas1 (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to create our city page, please help Dinu Alam 11:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ishwardi_City Dinu Alam 11:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinu Alam (talk • contribs)

Dinu Alam: what is the place called? "Ishwardi", as in the text of your draft, or "Ishwardi City", as in the title Draft:Ishwardi City? Google Earth shows it as "Ishwardi". Maproom (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Look at this link : https://wiki.city/en/bangladesh_rajshahi-division_pabna-district_ishwardi Dinu Alam 11:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinu Alam (talk • contribs)

Ok. I've move the draft to Draft:Ishwardi. Maproom (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to throw in WP:GEOLAND Bobherry Talk Edits 13:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you Please help me and explain to me what else I need to do so I can create this significant article?

I tried to create an article named "Paul D. Berk, Sr." regarding an experimental test pilot named Paul D. Berk, Sr. who was a member of the secret and elite early American flying club called the "Quiet Birdman" and the article was declined... Paul D. Berk, Sr. was required to keep the nature of his test pilot work a secret by the U.S. Government. Can you Please help me and explain to me what else I need to do so I can create this significant article?... thanks! Williamjberk (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Williamjberk. Looking at the messages left on your talk page, it looks like the draft was eventually deleted because it was copied and pasted from elsewhere online. Nearly everything you find elsewhere online is cover under copyright, and cannot be rehosted on Wikipedia. Instead, Wikipedia articles need to summarize these sources in our own words.

Other than that, for a draft on the subject to be accepted, you need to demonstrate that the subject meets our standards for notability, which usually meaning having received sustained in-depth coverage in published reliable sources, usually things like newspapers, magazines and books. You may want to review our tutorial on writing your first article or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. Both of these can help orient you to Wikipedia's standards and policies and probably help avoid these kinds of mix ups in the future. GMG^talk 14:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Need help creating Lagos Angel Network

I am about creating page: Lagos Angel Network. name was mentioned in passing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_investor#Nigeria. Subject has adequate information to be regarded as an article. Need help! Shokoyokoto NG (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Shokoyokoto NG. Writing a brand new article can be one of the harder things to do on Wikipedia, especially compared with improving existing articles. You may want to consider reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article or taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure before you get started. These can help answer a lot of questions you probably haven't even thought to ask yet, and can orient you to the way writing for Wikipedia works, which can be very different from writing for other types of venues like newspapers or magazines. GMG^talk 14:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Account confirmation

How do I know when my account has been auto-confirmed? It's been 10 days since I created my account and I have made 15-20 article edits.NB7123 (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello NB7123. It is already autoconfirmed. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 07:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NB7123.

For the "how do I know?" part of your question, you can view the user rights of your or any account. One way to get there is to look at the bottom of your contributions page, Special:Contributions/NB7123 and click on either the "User rights" button or the "Edit count" button. The "user rights" report is shorter, but the longer report at "Edit count" has many features you may be interested in. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that the "user rights" button actually tells whether or not an account has been autoconfirmed. Similarly the "edit count" button doesn't say whether an account is autoconfirmed, but it should show the time and edit count information to allow calculation as to whether or not the two criteria have been met. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's rather odd because the default (all) doesn't show the categories for the user, but if you click on "Confirmed", and SHOW, then it does. Dbfirs 10:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As the option name suggests, that shows "confirmed" users, but not "autoconfirmed". --David Biddulph (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Point taken on "user rights". I sometimes used that to check on other users' status but it doesn't seem to do "autoconfirmed". But for "edit count", I see a field named: User groups up near the top which does show "autoconfirmed". I'm officially giving up on that "user rights" button and will only recommend what is shown in "edit count" (even if it is sometimes out-of-date because of replication lag). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

After 30 days and 500 edits, you will gain extended confirmed status which enables you to edit the (relatively few) pages that are semi-protected because of vandalism or edit-warring. Dbfirs 07:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected pages, actually. Autoconfirmed users are able to edit semi-protected pages. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 09:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. I probably needn't have mentioned that protection because there are very few such pages. Dbfirs 10:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Help restoring deleted sandbox

Hello all!

Help! I am looking to get in contact with an admin to help me restore a page I created in my sandbox. Upon requesting the page move from my sandbox to a live wikipedia article, it was flagged with copyright issues. Unfortunately, I was unable to act on the issue in time and the page was deleted by an admin. I engaged with the admin that deleted my page however, he expressed no further interest to engage in dialogue. I believe I have a solid case to have the page restored so that I may perfect it to follow Wikipedia's script guidelines. Please, admins! Help me! I do not want to lose hours of work. Many thanks Nick Boariu 06:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboariu (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nickboariu.

When a page is deleted because of copyright violations, it follows that the content on that page may not be present anywhere on Wikipedia, including in your user space. This is why the admin will not restore the page for you. Detecting copyright violations is not always easy, so it's just happenstance that the discovery coincided with your request to move the page. I realize this may be a frustrating result for you, but copyright violations on Wikipedia are taken very seriously - the whole existence of the project could be jeopardized if they were not treated this way.

I heard a "Fresh Air" podcast the other day (an old one) in which a writer described his disastrous loss of a draft of a novel due to a combination of disk failure and failing to keep his credit card details up-to-date at his online backup service. Maybe it's some small consolation that he believed the work he (re)created was even better than the pages he had lost. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Nickboariu, there appears to be something wrong with your signature. Presuming that you are already signing your discussion page posts with four tildes (~~~~), can I suggest that you go to Special:Preferences and make sure that the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box in your signature setting isn't ticked? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry, you're right. I'll give it another shot. Thanks for the insight. Also, I've gone in and changed the preference. Many thanks --Nick (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

how can I get my concept which is being used by and large in my country get the approval of wiki under encyclopedic content?

Hi, how can I get the correct point of view to be able to write about an emerging concept which my startup company has conceptualised?

Can I post the article here for a review?

with regards,Juliusgough (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Julius A Gough

Juliusgough: you cannot leave it here for a review, but you can provide a link and ask us to help you with it. Normal AfC procedures then apply (unless one of us decides to accept it based on the combined work we do). –Sb2001 18:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have tagged it for speedy deletion as it is blatant unreferenced advertising and totally inappropriate for an encyclopdeia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Juliusgough, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Your first article, and in particular the section Wikipedia:Your first article#Gathering references. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Juliusgough I would add that the terms "emerging concept" and "startup" both suggest that it is too soon for an article about your company. See WP:TOOSOON. Your company must already be notable to have an article, you cannot use Wikipedia to promote your company or generate attention. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why ranked medal tables are not collapsible anymore?

Can someone explain - why ranked medal tables are not collapsible since this day? Why function of autocollapse don't work? Alex Hyperion82 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Hyperion82 (Alex), and welcome to the Teahouse! Could you point us in the direction of where you are seeing this problem? I do see that there was an edit at {{RankedMedalTable}} yesterday, so that may be the cause of what you are seeing, but I wanted to make sure that I am looking in the correct spot before diving in and figuring out what is going on. What exactly changed with the behavior (i.e., what did it do before that it doesn't do now)? CThomas³ (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Patience young grasshopper" (obscure reference to 1970s TV show). Posting twice within three hours does not get you an answer any faster. David notMD (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, David notMD, I did not see the above post. I'll check it out. CThomas³ (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see your original question for the answer (posting it up there). In short: the edit to the template I mentioned earlier is what is causing the behavior you mention. CThomas³ (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

How do I get it out of the sandbox and into prime time?

I think I am ready. Would you mind doing a quick review as well? Thanks. FaithCooley (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@FaithCooley: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I must regretfully tell you that your draft is a long way from prime time. It is unambiguous advertising, which is not permitted per WP:PROMO. I would also inform you that if you represent the organization you are writing about, you need to review the conflict of interest policy (WP:COI) and the paid editing policy (WP:PAID) before you edit further. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I now see that you have declared your employment status; you should still review the policies I linked to. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not an advertising platform. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy link: User:FaithCooley/sandbox John from Idegon (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Faith, that is not an encyclopedia article. It's an unsourced essay. Please read WP:My first article, and review our pillar policies. After you've done that, please come back here with your questions. The discussion on your first article will explain my initial statement. We're glad to help, but you've given us nothing to help you with. John from Idegon (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hello, Teahouse host or whoever is reading this, I'm just curious: can you please give me a list of various source citing templates and how can use them on Wikipedia (like using the web citing template and the book citing template)? Thanks for your time. —24.5.45.46 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, 24.5.45.46, and welcome to the Teahouse! You might try checking out Wikipedia:Citation templates as a starting point, as well as Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Those two references have quite a bit of useful information; rather than bombard you with additional links, I recommend starting with these two and then coming back to the Teahouse if you have any additional questions. I hope this helps! CThomas³ (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

As a retired computer programmer, I often find "cloning" helpful: check out a well established, longish article and see how other editors have filled in the templates (edit the article or section and be sure to Cancel!) and what the visible result in the article is. Some of the fields are obvious; some are not, especially the Extra Fields; and there are tricky formatting pitfalls, such as if an author only has one name it has to go in Last Name (last1=) not First (first1=). If it's anything other than a routine cite I use the Preview button in the Template Entry box to see how it will look. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Discover deleted article history

Is there an easy way to discover if an article once existed but has now been deleted (presumably for good reason)? I often come across broken Wikilinks, which could mean the editor thought there should be an article, intended to add one but didn't -- or most likely the article once existed and now has been renamed or deleted. I've tracked down a few renamed ones and fixed the links; it's the possibly deleted ones that concern me.

For example, the article on Philip Jose Farmer has a red wikilink to The Lovers (novella)|The Lovers, his first novel. I consider this short novel significant and notable. How can I find out if there was once an article, now deleted, in which case I should think twice about re-adding it? D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @D A Patriarche: Yes, if you click the red link you will see a pink/red information box if it has been deleted before - Test page is an example of that, as it has been deleted multiple times. The article about the Farmer novella has never existed. Hope that makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 05:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, D A Patriarche.

Red links are sometimes broken links caused by misspellings, etc, and by deletions, but much of the time they are created intentionally when an editor believes that the target of the link should exist as an article or semi-unintentionally when an editor neglects to notice that the link is red. Unless there's a suitable comment in the edit summary, it's hard to determine the degree of intent.

When you click on the red link, you may be offered an opportunity to create a new page with that name. If a page by that name was previously deleted, there should be a notice about the deletion giving a reason or a pointer to a deletion discussion. This is often important guidance when you consider whether to create the page again. (A few page names are blocked from being created based on past abuse.) — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, D A Patriarche. This is your chance to step up to the bat, as us Americans say. If you believe that this novella is notable, then please write an article about it. I recommend reading Your first article for advice. This is not an easy task. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Unknown parameter | Media= ignored error in reference section

I am tried to place relevant reference links in my article but all of them return with the same error "Unknown parameter | Media= ignored error in reference section". How do I solve this issue?Avinash.nair (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The error messages in Draft:BlueStone (Company) say "Unknown parameter |Media= ignored (help)", in which the word "help" is in blue, indicating that it is a wikilink, in this case to Help:CS1 errors#parameter ignored. You have included "|Media = ..." in your reference, but the reference template you are using does not have a parameter named "Media". You can use only those parameters defined in the relevant template. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Avinadh.nair if you change Media= to publisher= it will fix the error. NZFC^(talk) 07:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)