Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 718

Archive 715

Archive 716

Archive 717

Archive 718

Archive 719

Archive 720

→

Archive 725

Who wrote the Wikipedia page on me? The page name is my name: Paul Mirecki

• Paul Mirecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also, how can I edit it? Can I prevent others from editing it if necessary? 24.225.99.165 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paul. You can see the full history of the article, including details of its editors, here. It is not possible to prevent other people from editing it, unless it is being vandalised, in which case it can be temporarily protected from editing. As the subject of the article, you should avoid editing it directly but can request edits by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Blimey! That was my original account, taking it off WP:AFC. No way would I have done that even a year later. Original version was - ahem - differently wonderful. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You should also be aware that the article has been proposed for deletion. Mention of this is in a box at the top of the page. You can comment at that discussion page, although probably best to identify yourself, and not actually express a KEEP or DELETE opinion. (It's not a vote process. People comment, and then an Administrator decides.) As CL wrote - once there is an article about a person, that person should not edit it and cannot 'own' it. If you believe information is wrong you can start a discussion in Talk, providing references for correct information. But again, moot if the article is heading toward deletion. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A scientific publication is not considered a reliable source

Hi everybody

I have tried to create in WIKIPEDIA a page for Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research (or Gesellschaft für Arzneipflanzen-und Naturstoff-Forschung.

This is a scientific society since 1953 and all the history was mentioned in a publication of the scientific journal Planta Medica. Thus I had as a reference this publication.

This journal is already in WIKIPEDIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planta_Medica Also in the German version of WIKIPEDIA the society exist (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesellschaft_f%C3%BCr_Arzneipflanzen-_und_Naturstoff-Forschung)

Can somebody tell me why they consider that the info I have added they are NOT from a reliable source?

What do you suggest to do?

Thanks

Nikolas

Fokialakis (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You tried to create an article Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research, and it was deleted as "not adequately supported by reliable sources." In fact multiple reliable independent sources are needed. The only source you mention above is Planta Medica, which is published by the society in question and so not an independent source.

I suggest that instead of trying to create an article in main space, where it is at risk of deletion, you create it as a draft, where you and other editors can work on it until it reaches an acceptable standard. Maproom (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I am reading a different deletion log from Maproom, but as far as I can see the article Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research was deleted not for "not adequately supported by reliable sources" but as A2 "Article in a foreign language that exists on another project". There was also an article Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research or Gesellschaft für Arzneipflanzen-und Naturstoff-Forschung deleted as A7 "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject", and a draft Draft:Society for Medicinal Plant and Natural Product Research, deleted as G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Maproom is, of course, entirely corrected in saying that an article on the society needs multiple reliable independent sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

My draft has been rejected

I am writing a wikipedia post about my friend who's a writer (Draft:Ferdiriva_Hamzah) It then got rejected because they said it looked too much of an advertisement.

I honestly don't know what to edit as I think I've put nothing but data on it (and they have been featured in his interviews) Can anyone help me? Thank you. Dwikaputra (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello and welcome, Dwikaputra! WP:AUTHOR lays-out the criteria by which authors can be included in WP. Has Ferdiriva Hamzah's writing been the subject of (1) two or more reviews in major publications like the New York Times or Koran Tempo, (2) won a major literary award like the Nobel Prize or the Pulitzer Prize, (3) are they considered major, classic literary works like Catcher in the Rye or This Earth of Mankind, (4) have they been the subject of scholarly study at multiple accredited universities, (5) are they historically important works like Les Miserables or The Three Muskateers?

If the answer to all of the preceding is "no" then Hamzah would need to meet the general notability guidelines which means he would have to have been the subject of sustained and ongoing coverage in reliable sources like newspapers, scholarly journals, or books published by major publishing houses (but excluding things like company websites, social media, blogs, etc.). You can find out more about reliable sources here: WP:RS.Chetsford (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dwikaputra. I'm afraid the tone of your draft is onlyone of your problems; but an example of that is "Ferdiriva's love for writing is seen in his productivity of generating books after books despite his study and professional work". A more neutral way of writing that would be something like "Ferdiriva is both an author and an academic". The rest is advertising puff. No Wikipedia article should use evaluative language like "love for writing", or "his productivity" unless it is directly quoting a cited independent source. Also the "despite" in that sentence is a editorializing, in that it is guiding the reader to think a certain way about what it is describing.

But the more serious problem is that there are no inline citations of sources, and of the three references you have, one is not independent of him, and the other two (I think) are just about the novel. Please understand that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what a subject says about themselves, or what their friends, relatives, employers, or associates say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them. What you need to do when you attempt the fairly difficult task of creating a new article, is to find several reliable published sources where people who have no connection whatever with the subject have chosen to write about them, and then forget everything you know about the subject and write an article based solely on what those sources say. Once you have a reasonable article, you can add a little uncontroversial factual information (such as places and dates) from non-independent sources such as the subject's own website or profile.

I'm sorry that you're having a frustrating time; but if you look at your first article, you'll see that it advises you not to plunge straight into creating an article as the first thing you do in Wikipedia, but to get some experience editing existing articles first. It also talks about all the special advice given to editors with a conflict of interest, such as people who try to write articles about their friends. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing for page Luke Rockhold

Hi, I am a regular editor for "Luke Rockhold" wikipedia page. Recently, I had requested for semi-protection of the page, since there were few users from different ip addresses that were making some false changes to the change and were continuing even after asking them not to make changes unless true fact. But since yesterday, I too am unable to make any changes on the page. I am an auto-confirmed user and so how can i continue making edits to this page? Is there any particular template I must follow? Please advice, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7leumas (talk • contribs) 10:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi 7leumas. Your request for semi-protection of Luke Rockhold was declined. It is not protected so everybody should be able to edit it. What happens when you try to edit it? If you only see a "View source" link then try clicking that. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am able to see the edits now. Thank you, cheers! 7leumas (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)7leumas

nba edits

Hello, i get this invite and i see my edits are being deleted. Why is that? Is there some limit of EDP or i did something very wrong?

Igoreurobasket (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You are supposed to refrain from the use of unnecessary external links in article spaces. Your edits to pages like Indiana Pacers contravene this policy. You are also likely the recipient of such messages due to your reversion of the link's removal, which was not accompanied by a reasonable rationale. In the future, please move towards the use of in-line citations, and use edit summaries to justify your edits. However, you have not done something "very wrong" - I would read this issue as an opportunity to learn, rather than a criticism. Keep up the good editing. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

who is trump

who is trumpMpierceabc123 (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Either Donald Trump or other people with the same name. In the future, please use this forum for questions about editing Wikipedia only. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Teahouse is a forum for editors to ask questions strictly related to editing on the wiki. However, out of curiosity, which rock do you reside beneath, and how have you procured an internet connection there without encountering Trump? Stormy clouds (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

|}

How to write entries in other languages

I have been trying to write an entry for Wikipedia, but presumably because I am not English, and am writing from a foreign computer in a foreign country, it seems to be problematic to write an entry in English. When I want to insert a link to English Wikipedia-pages that exist, the 'creating page' tells me the page does not exist - because it exists only in English and not in my language. As for creating a page, after I submit it I receive a message saying that entries in other languages are not allowed. Changing the settings on the left to English (both 'display' and 'imput'), does not suffice.

So, how can I write an entry in English? DeV18 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:Your first article, you can create a page here (in English, of course) after your account is autoconfirmed. If that wasn't your question, you may need to be more specific with what steps you are going through and where you are seeing what error message. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are trying to create an English article on a Wikipedia in another language. This is not allowed, of course. It doesn't matter what computer you are using, or what country you are editing from, but you need to log in to the English Wikipedia to create an article here. Your account here was created only today. Dbfirs 12:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I got the impression they wanted to create an article in a language other than English. Did I misinterpret?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the article was Draft:SHAC (ambix). Dbfirs 21:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone help me upload a picture file-.jpg; .png?

I am a newbie and need help uploading a picture of the Wabash Cannonball Express. I have tried numerous times and it won't take it. Now I am frustrated. This file was created by 'snipping' from a book online at Hathitrust. Then placing this into a Word Document and cropping, formatting, and referencing the source. Then snipping again and saving as a .png in Pictures. I have been working on this for two days and would love to share this picture.Can anyone help me? AmericanHistorysmith12601:984:200:63EB:9C1A:558D:A040:3A0A (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I assume that the copyright in the picture belongs to someone other than yourself? Unless all of the conditions for the use of non-free content are satisfied, it can't be uploaded to Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If you provide a link to the online book, someone here may be able to help you sort out the copyright issue. If it turns out to be acceptably licensed, I bet someone can help you upload it, as the process you describe sounds more complicated than necessary.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• This link suggests that the aforementioned picture may not be copyrighted after all, but it is hard to say without a link. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

submitted article declined / inadequate references

Hello! My first article, a biography of a living person who fulfills several criteria of notable persons (academics) was declined because the "submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability". I have identified some of the weaknesses and will correct them. However, I am unsure whether it is allowed to cite the subject's own peer-reviewed publications in leading scientific journals (e.g. Nature, Science) to support the statements regarding his research. - His work is also widely cited (this can be supported by Scopus and/or Google Scholars). And is it possible to upload a PDF generated from a newspaper's website as a reference? (the online article is only available if one subscribes). Also, the reviewer commented that the article "reads like a CV"; I am not sure what is wrong with that as I wrote it in the same style as numerous other biographies of academics ... Your feedback would be appreciated! (Btw, is there a limit to the number of times an article can be submitted?) Thank you! Scairp4 (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Scairp4.Articles about professors need to meet WP:PROF. The content of User:Scairp4/sandbox clearly shows that Stainier meets those qualifications since he is a fellow of the AAAS so the reason for the decline was wrong. The article does read too much like a CV. Also leave out the material trying to show how wonderful he is. A statement like "Thus, by pushing the frontiers of genetic, cellular, molecular and in vivo microscopy methods, Stainier and his laboratory have contributed numerous new concepts to the field of vertebrate organogenesis." is promotional, not encyclopedic in tone. Just state the facts and that will be obvious. An article about an academic should show how their ideas developed over time, along the lines of an entry in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Rewrite to show how his ideas developed as his education and academic career developed. See my essay here for more information. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

What Language Is This?

At Articles for Creation, I have encountered a draft that isn't in English. It is in a Romance language that I do not recognize. It isn't French. I don't think that it is Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian. It appears to be a translation of an existing article, Peter Sellars. It probably should be contributed to the version of Wikipedia that is in whatever language it is in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ftt2017CN/sandbox

Can someone tell me what language it is in, and, if possible, advise the author how to contribute it to the appropriate Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Romanian. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I knew it was a Romance language, and I didn't think it was French, Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a direct translation of Peter Sellars. Are there any copyright issues? Adam9007 (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The same editor soon afterwards produced another Romanian draft at Draft:Peter Sellars, and an earlier version is on his user page at User:Ftt2017CN. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I thought it was a translation. As to the multiple copies, I know. New editors sometimes do that, typically out of enthusiasm, but occasionally to game the system. In this case, I assume it is enthusiasm. Can someone please explain to him in Romanian how to put the draft into the Romanian Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

His edit summaries are written in English, so hopefully he understands English. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

How do I edit the page Draft:List of fastest YouTube videos to reach 100 million views in Mandarin area to meet wiki's principle

I just created a page named "List of fastest YouTube videos to reach 100 million views in Mandarin area." But it didn't accept because it was said "fancruft article".

But there's a page "List of most-viewed YouTube videos" have already been released. Isn't it also a "FANCRUFT ARTICLE"??

I need to know how to revise the article so that can be released. Beneb Siny (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Beneb Siny, welcome to the Teahouse. List of most-viewed YouTube videos is World-wide and the record gets significant attention as shown by the references. The only regional list in Category:YouTube-related lists is List of most-viewed Indian videos on YouTube and that is headed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-viewed Indian videos on YouTube. I don't think we need a bunch of regional lists for videos on the same website but see Wikipedia:Notability for the kind of sourcing that may help if you want to try to convince others. None of the current sources are independent so they show no notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Misspelling

In the article about George Hamilton (actor) it says there is no page concerning Vincente Minnelli ( his name is misspelled bu f2ffff there is a page about him). I wanted to correct that but do not know how. I'm hoping that you are able to correct this. Thank you for your help with this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmoudy (talk • contribs) Welcome to Wikipedia!

Editing a page is easy. On a desktop, just click the edit button in the upper right corner. On mobile, clock the pen icon to edit a page. For more details, see Help:Editing

I’ve already fixed the link in the article on George Hamilton (actor), but if you want to get started fixing typos, just click this link and it will take you to a random page in need of a copy edit. Happy editing. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Userpage

Someone is doing a self promotion on a userpage. (i think) What do i do? their userpage name is User:Aspkom Thegooduser talk 01:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Eh, I'd say let it go. If you've a concern, I'd say it'd be in the draft article about himself that he still seems to be working on, despite it being declined at AfC three times. Ravenswing 01:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thegooduser. An administrator has deleted that promotional userpage. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

help me to publish this page

please help me to publish this page. i am a new user on wiki shave no idea how to start a new wiki page thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssreejithips (talk • contribs)

@Ssreejithips: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that this refers to your Sandbox. I also assume that you are the person the content in your Sandbox is about. Unfortunately, you seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopedia and not social media like Facebook for people to post pages about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with independent reliable sources to be notable. Also, though not forbidden, autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Please review the policy.

You have also dived right in to article creation, which is one of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia. New users who successfully created articles almost always first took some time to edit existing articles in subjects that interest them, in order to learn about how Wikipedia works. If you are interested in being a Wikipedia contributor, I would suggest doing that along with using the tutorial at this link. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. If you are interested in writing an encyclopedic article, and have independent reliable sources to support the content of such an article, you should visit Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review and feedback. Please understand that such a draft can only include information in independent, third party sources, and not things written by you such as press releases, resumes, or interview transcripts. If you cannot do that, please don't take the time to submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Dubious claim in article

Hi, while I was looking through List of animals that have been cloned, and for the Dog section, there is a rather outlandish claim that Sooam Biotech had cloned 500 dogs, but has a citation to back that claim up. Can someone verify the integrity of that information? Thanks! Ｒａｎｇｅｄ Ｒａｎｇｅｒ (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ranged Ranger: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may have better luck if you visit the talk page for that article, Talk:List of animals that have been cloned, and express your concerns there. That way people directly involved with that article can do what you request or offer an explanation to you. Article talk pages are there for that purpose, to discuss the article itself among interested contributors. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

help me to connect Raffaello Giovagnoli with other languages

Hello! I have create an article about Raffaello Giovagnoli, I know 9 available in languages wiki article about this people, such as this, but I do not know how to connect with other languages. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 他删之石 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

On the left hand toolbar of the Italian article it:Raffaello Giovagnoli you will see a menu item "Elemento Wikidata" which takes you to Wikidata:Q1860923. In the "Wikipedia" secion of that page you can add a link to the enwiki page Raffaello Giovagnoli. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't figure out where this edit came from

I hope this is the right place to ask this question but please point me in the right direction if it's not.

I can't quite figure out what's going on with the (presumable) vandalism at the bottom of William Tritton and Vikramaditya V. On both articles, the changes only appear in the most recent revision (774477974 and 821308701 respectively). However, the actual changes made in those revs don't include adding the image in question (at least as far as I can tell).

Does anyone know what's going on here? Thanks, ― Jjm596 ✉ 14:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jjm596, welcome to the Teahouse. It was template vandalism to {{Delink question hyphen-minus}} which is used by other templates in those articles. The vandalism has been reverted, the template protected and the vandal blocked, but some affected articles need a purge to be updated. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

archiving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia

I tried adding an archive bot to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia, but it didn't seem to work. What did I do wrong? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

After many years of service, User:MiszaBot has retired. I setup User:ClueBot III to help with archiving at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

MiszaBot config still works quite happily with the current archive bot, so that wasn't the problem. The reason it didn't work was that you (both) had the wrong file name. It's not Talk:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia. I've corrected that in this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha, whoops. The Verified Cactus 100% 15:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Submission declined

Geler0872 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Hi, I'm unsure as to how to proceed after my submission was declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ringgold_Inc. Please advise on my best next steps to get this entry accepted. Thank you.Geler0872 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Geler0872. Welcome to our Teahouse. You have my sympathies, but oftentimes we find that editors who are paid to create an article simply can't reach the barrier of meeting our criteria for acceptance, which we call Notability. Our best advice is sometimes to hand the money back and show an employer the evidence that they have at least tried. As you know, there is already an article on the Ringgold identifier (which may itself not meet our Notability criteria), but trying to get a second article on the company itself is highly unlikely to succeeed. It doesn't matter whether it's a life-saving piece of software, a widget that without which rockets wouldn't get to Mars, or a unique identifying system without which lots of publishers would all get very confused. The fact is that, unless the product and/or the company has been noticed by others who have written about it (i.e. in depth, reliable third party sources), Wikipedia isn't interested in having an article about it. And that's the blunt reality. Treat Wikipedia like a neutral encyclopaedia, not a means of promotion. If the world hasn't taken notice of something, then we aren't going to either. So your task is to come back with evidence that others have written about Ringgold in depth, and then maybe you'd stand a chance. Meanwhile there are plenty of other things you could help out with here. Does this make sense? PS: Please declare any WP:COI and if you are WP:PAID on your userpage please, as per per requirements. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: I have flagged the Ringold company logo that I assume you (in the guise of User:RinggoldInc) uploaded to Commons as a copyright violation. This has been done to protect the company from unlawful use of their logo. If they really wish it to be available for anyone to use for any purpose whatsoever', they are welcome to submit a formal release declaration to Wikimedia commons. But somehow I doubt their CEO would be too impressed by an employee giving its rights away for free. So this is done to protect you, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Want to addd/edit content of the "tinnitus" article. I am an expert on this topic and I feel importanr points are missing

I have never done anything before on Wikipedia, but I think there is missing information on Tinnitus that is important.

I do not see where it can be edited ObbyRAL (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi ObbyRAL, due to past problems that page has had to be protected from editing by new editors. But you are welcome to make suggestions on Talk:Tinnitus and once people realise you are an expert I'm sure you will very quickly find that you can edit the page directly. ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Do I just make my suggestions on the talk page? ObbyRAL (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea for now; however do be aware that Wikipedia favors content which has a reliable source outside of Wikipedia so we know we can trust our content. Your expertise is most welcome, especially where it comes to finding reliable, written, published information about Tinnitis. Please make suggestions to the talk page, and include where others can verify your information, and it will likely be added to the article. --Jayron32 17:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m trying to expand The ? Motorist

After I did the crash course I figured I would try editing and expanding articles that where listed as articles that needed help. I was going to add “Also Known As The Mad Motorist (inc) The ? Motorist (inc) Questionmark Motorist (inc) In the summary but I have no idea if that is a good edit! Help please Savageswag (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you cite sources for those names? If you can, then use them when you make your additions. If you can't, then don't add the names. Maproom (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Am I wasting my time with this draft?

Hi again, I have made what appears to be a classic error of starting a draft before checking the subject is notable. I find lots of Reliable coverage, but not focussed on the subject when googling. Am I wasting my time with User:GreyGreenWhy/Parliament of 1327? Thank you for being so helpful, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll bet User:Serial Number 54129 can give an informed opinion. They've done a fair bit of work in and around this time period. GMG^talk 16:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, GreenMeansGo; @GreyGreenWhy: (curiously apposite usernames you both have, when placed next to each other!). Absolutely, yes. It was one of the—what, four?—most important parliaments of the fourteenth century, and certainly the most important in the first half of the century. And you've made a good start on it too :) How are you fixed for access to sources, by the way? Incidentally, I'm not sure, but I'd guess that now your question has received an answer, substantive discussion should be moved to talk pages? Eh, GMG? >SerialNumber54129::^{...speculates} 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, User:Serial Number 54129, it sounds like you mean yes, it is notable, rather than yes, it is a waste of time. Is that correct? Thank you for the feedback. With sources access, I have mostly just been using Chris Bryant's book, I don't have anything else that is really relevant. I'll try to write the background section, add a few google books sources and then submit, then. Thanks again, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:User:GreyGreenWhy (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GreyGreenWhy: Your previous ping was OK, see WP:Notifications#Triggering events. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, just to confuse matters, they don't always come through... sorry, GreyGreenWhy, I rather thought the discussion was over here. Hope all's well? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 23:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Serial Number 54129 and sorry for the confusion. I just wanted to check that I had interpreted your original answer correctly. But yes, all's well. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It's looking good so far, I have moved it to draft space and added a reflist, perhaps others will chip in. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice for bike article under deletion warning

I submitted an article for Strider Sports, a balance bike manufacturer, that was tagged for deletion. Could someone review and provide feedback on which parts might be promotional? Before submitting it, I read several Wikipedia articles and tried to use facts and objective language. I cited several sources for the statements. Maybe I cited too many sources? Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strider_Sports_International SliePre (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)SliePreSliePre (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to hazard a wild guess here that you have some connection tot his company? Guy (Help!) 17:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: The editor has a disclosed paid relationship on the talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This was previously declared here. SliePre, you should probably have submitted your draft for review rather than publishing it yourself. Perhaps it can be moved back to draft space as an alternative to deletion? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've checked the first five sources cited in the draft. The first two give an "Element not found" message – this is probably easy to fix, but is discouraging for anyone trying to comment on the quality of the references. The third does not mention the subject at all, at least the bit you can read without payment doesn't. The fourth and fifth are based on interviews with people connected to the company, and so are not independent. I suspect that once you've removed the references that do nothing to establish the subject as notable, there won't be too many. Maproom (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast responses and helpful advice. I moved it back to Draft. I had submitted as a Draft first, and the waiting list was around 1,700 I believe.

I corrected the link on the first two sources (they were in the Infobox). I also changed the Wall Street Journal link to the video, as that is non-paid content. Strider is first mentioned at the 50-second mark. Is that an acceptable source?

I was not aware that cited sources could not include interviews with company representatives. I can go back through the citations to see which ones have quotes from the founder.

SliePre (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Cited sources can include such interviews. But they then don't help to establish that the subject is notable – which I assume is your objective. Maproom (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• 34 employees and unknown to me as a long-time cyclist (unlike, say Puky and other manufacturers of balance bikes) suggests this may fail WP:CORP - hence their desire to buy their way onto Wikipedia, which apparently coincides with paid Google placements. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

how long does it take to create a page?

okay, so i know i'm not even eligible yet but i was just wondering how long it takes till a page is live? i know there's not an exact time period but approx. how long does it take? Also, how do you get other people to contribute to a page you're working on. I really want to get started with posting pages asap. Sarah312x (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sarah312x. If you write an acceptable article, then it shows up in Wikipedia's search box almost immediately. As for Google and other search engines, any new article will need to be patrolled, or quickly reviewed for overtly bad content. It could take weeks to show up on search engines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

For a keen, new user like yourself, Sarah312x, may add to what Cullen328 has said by inviting you to take The Wikipedia Adventure? - it's a fun, interactive tour which will introduce you to working on Wikipedia PLUS it gives you a badge for each stage you complete! (They appear automatically on your User page.) You might then want to read a little about creating your first article. (But bear in mind that this is actually the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, so we recommend you do it via the a process we call "Articles for Creation" (Here's a link to it for when you're ready.) That way , you prepare a draft, submit it, and get helpful feedback if its not quite ready yet. I see you have also asked about joining various projects, which is great. Don't worry about joining - it doesn't actually mean that much, because anyone who edits articles, say on Project Television, is effectively a member anyway. But if you do want to add your name there, see this link. You'll see that at the bottom of every page there are "Categories" listed. These help other editors find related topics (trying clicking one and see what pops up!) We expect every new article to contain at least one Category - and that's the answer to your question about how other editors get involved in collaborating on a page. I hope you really enjoy your Wikipedia journey and that you find contributing here a great way to improve your English skills, which you mention on your userpage. I'm now going to pop over and add a special welcome message to your Talk page which will contain a shed load of really useful links to help you on your way around contributing to this amazing encyclopaedia! Come back and ask anything else here at any time. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I created the page Caproni-Reggiane Ca.8000 today and it was live almost immediately, and was reviewed within 30 minutes. As Cullen328 said, it might take weeks to get reviewed, but most of the time it gets reviewed within a few days. And who says you're not eligible? - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 19:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

creating a definition...

Hi, I'm John and I am reaching out to inquire about some additional help with creating a definition for a word I created several years back. Please help.

Thanks.Iamjdillard (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Step one: don't.

Why? Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Also, you might want to look at WP:COI and WP:GNG. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary is a dictionary that anyone can edit, but please don't try to add your entry there either because they don't accept neologisms until they have been used in at least three reliable sources spanning at least a year, and your invention is more like a protologism. Dbfirs 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You might try adding it to urbandictionary. – Uanfala (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone want to videocall with me?

My favorite method of learning is by talking and listening to other people. Wikipedians are interesting characters, and I would love to make some new cyberfriends here. (Some text removed by Teahouse host) Thank you. Amin (Talk) 12:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Amin and welcome to our friendly Teahouse. It's great that you are so enthusiastic, and I can see you've made over a thousand edits and many articles since joinng us in 2016, which is fantastic. Forgive me, but I felt I nedeed to redact (delete) your last sentence as neither this forum, nor Wikipedia itself should be for promoting off-site video-calls. That's why we have user talk pages, and why some (but not all) editors allow others to email them directly. We are not trying to be a social forum for strangers to meet up and chat offline; I hope you understand that. I'm as excited as Wikipedia as you are, and love boring talking about it all the time with my friends and colleagues. More to follow shortly . . . Nick Moyes (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you for your time and attention. Forgive me for crossing the line. I won't inquire about this again in the Teahouse. I was also happy to see the special page which allowed me to see my user stats, I have bookmarked it. Amin (Talk) 14:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Amin:Don't worry. Here's the more interesting bit that I said would follow shortly (but you beat me to it): Now, I'm as excited by Wikipedia as you are, and love boring talking about it all the time with my friends and colleagues, trying to get them to contribute. So, if you really want to meet with like-minded Wikipedians, I've found that taking part (or helping out) in WP:Editathons or WP:Meetups is a great way to meet and work with other editors. I'm surprised there doesn't seem to have been any in Amsterdam, where you live, but maybe that's something a few local editors could address together? We even have some guidance on that very topic: See Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon. It's always worth keeping an eye on Wikipedia:Meetup/Calendar for any events that might get added near you. Not everything gets put in there - it's up to individual organisers. For example, an admin friend and I might be running an edithon at our local University next March for International_Women's_Day. It's still to be confirmed, so won't be in the calendar for some time yet. That could be the case where you live, too. I really appreciate your post here, and hope my explanation doesn't disappoint you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you again for your time. To be fair, I try to leave my house as little as humanly possible. Due to this, I am reluctant to take part in any type of meetups or social gatherings. I do however enjoy videocalling with friends and cyberfriends, that's why I thought of connecting with a few fellow Wikipedians. Nonetheless, I clicked around on WP:Calendar and ended up on a page where a bunch of Dutch Wikipedians were listed by city, and I found a few users who should be near me. I will consider shooting them a message and see what comes out of it :). Thanks again. Amin (Talk) 00:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for sharing that. There are some absolutely amazing Wikipedians here who do stuff I could never achieve and probably feel the same way too. I hope that approach works out well for you, and I hope to see you again at the Teahouse sometime. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've forgotten my password

Hello Wikipedia, I've forgotten my password, but I'm still logged in. Is there any way I can change it? TwentyOnePilotsLover? 00:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justtryingtobreakthetension48 (talk • contribs)

@Justtryingtobreakthetension48: Try Special:PasswordReset. GAB^gab 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an email assigned to this account. TwentyOnePilotsLover? 00:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justtryingtobreakthetension48 (talk • contribs)

Go to Special:Preferences and add an email address. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a tool remind me to sign posts

I have a bad habbit of forgetting to sign my talk page comments. Is there a tool I can use to remind me to add the ~~~~ BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: Hello and welcome. I do not know if there is or is not such a tool, but I do know that you can change your Preferences(link in the top right corner of the screen on a computer) to prompt you for an edit summary, which might remind you to sign your posts. The option to do that is under the Editing tab when you get to the Preferences page. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Prompting for an edit summary doesn't prompt for a signature, but putting {{YesAutosign}} on your user page or user talk page will allow SineBot to sign for you if you forget. (I notice, however that SineBot hasn't been running for almost a week, so asked its operator why not.) --David Biddulph (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The operator has now nudged SineBot back to life again. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I just thought it might help as a pause to remember to sign. But I was not aware of what you described well above. Thanks 331dot (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: Hello! There is a user script at meta:User talk:Perhelion/signing.js that will autosign your posts. I used it for a while, but eventually stopped. You may find it helpful. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: Yes! I just found it earlier: User:SineBot Rᴀɴɢᴇᴅ Rᴀɴɢᴇʀ 📧 01:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Ian Erix

I would like to request the comments of other experienced editors on Draft: Ian Erix. The current draft is being written by User:Bruinsects and is being advocated by them at great length. They are clearly passionate about the issue of acceptance of the draft, although I would advise them that more length isn’t always more effective. I am not the only editor who has declined the draft and has raised questions about it.

The problem is that there was a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Erix, several years ago, and the article was deleted. I requested that I be able to compare the draft with the deleted version. The deleting administrator has restored the deleted version in a sandbox. I have looked over the deleted version and the current draft, and the current draft does not appear to be an improvement over the deleted version. I don’t want to just decide, as the author is asking me, that the community made a mistake, or that I should ignore the AFD. Will other editors please comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Chetsford and User:MadeYourReadThis declined earlier versions of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In particular, I would prefer not to accept a draft and promptly have it taken to AFD, which would indicate that I might have made a mistake. (I know that we all make mistakes, but we should avoid the ones that we can easily avoid.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

My major issue is that the claims the author uses to justify inclusion under MUSICBIO are sourced to non-RS or have to be taken on faith. For instance, being featured on 90210 would certainly meet criteria 5 of MUSICBIO, however, it's sourced to tunefind.com which, per that site, consists partially of user-generated content ([1] "The song listings on Tunefind come from Music Supervisors - the professionals responsible for selecting music for TV shows and movies - or may be submitted by our users: people passionate about music or TV. After a Tunefind user submits a song, the entire Tunefind community votes on the accuracy of the song submissions."). His source for being signed by Warner is the copyright notice on the iTunes listing. He claims substantial mainstream coverage for his national/int'l tours but the article is almost entirely sourced to sites like smashparty.net and euro200.net. I'm not saying that he doesn't merit inclusion, however, it's just not demonstrated in the draft. Unlike AfD which requires a BEFORE review prior to deletion, the AfC criteria specifically excludes reviewers from acting on information other than that which is contained in the draft: "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason." [2]. Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ::@Robert McClenon: for creating this discussion. I appreciate you making the effort to get a fair consensus here. At ::@Chetsford: I actually understand why you

declined the earlier draft and I respect the fact that you don't want to approve something that will quickly be thrown back into AFD. I certainly don't want that either. I appreciate your feedback on this and understand all you have pointed out. The draft has been significantly rewritten since your denial on January 23rd. As a matter of fact, another well meaning editor had been in the middle of modifying my draft at the time you declined it so the version you declined was not actually finalized or event meant to be up for review yet. It was only put under review at that time as an error, and you reviewed it prematurely through no fault of your own.

That said, the current draft has a good deal more meat to it with numerous sources that I believe meet notability guidelines. I understand your point that a site like TuneFind may have some user-generated element to it but there content is mainly submitted by professional music supervisors from what I understand. However, since you pointed this out, I just added direct sourcing to the episode on Netflix as per the guidelines from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Videos_as_references using their {{cite episode}} template. In regard to meeting other notability guidelines, as you will see in the most current draft there are links to sources showing the subject had a gold record in Finland with his song "Shangri-la/Rannalle". There are also several links showing that several of his songs have been added to national playlists in various countries. There are also links to show two of his singles were on national music charts in several countries. I outlined most of this already in the comment section of the draft. Also, another guideline for notability according to WP MUSCIBIO is simply releasing two or more albums on a major label which Erix clearly has done. I realize I only submitted the iTunes release links for this, which contain the name of the record labels who put out the records. I would argue though that this should be enough to support an encyclopedic truth. If I am wrong about that, I can accept that but I still believe there is more than enough alternate content provided in the current draft to prove notability as several of the key factors listed in the WP MUSICBIO have clearly been met. Thank you for your consideration of this. Best, Stefan Bruinsects (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bruinsects - I had to reformat your post above because you indented the beginning of each line. This made it hard to read in Wiki markup. Please reread how Wiki markup works, because drafts that are badly formatted and difficult to read are likely not to be accepted. (I won't decline a draft because it is badly formatted, but I won't accept a draft that is badly formatted either.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

My Article Was Rejected For Citations

Hi! My page of Blair Aldridge Ruble was rejected recently for "please add full citations" I am assuming that they mean the References section and not other copy. Is that correct? My sandbox seems to have been replaced with source coding. Is it possible to do these edits in the original sandbox format? Thanks, Noreen BanksNoreen Banks (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Noreen Banks. Your draft is now located at Draft:Blair Aldridge Ruble. I'm guessing what you are seeing in your sandbox is the redirect markup. If you need to use your sandbox for something else, you're free to remove it. John from Idegon (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Question re a source for citing

Hi all, If I remember correctly in the past, there were a few issues regarding the Daily Mail and its suitability as a source of information. Can I ask for clarification - is there any known reasons not to use it as sourcing, or shall I consider it as a reliable source? Thanks Nightfury 14:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not accepted as a reliable source, see WP:DAILYMAIL. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Brill. Thankyou David Biddulph. Nightfury 14:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to Know What if Information is missing

HI

I am jaimorice1, I want to know what if the information is missing and available On a blog which is not saying anything wrong about that Info. What is Harm In Using that Blog As a reference site? If Information is COrrect that will increase Wiki user exp. I Updated That InfoAshish Sharma Founder www.Govtjobstyari.com 12:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Because I couldn't Find On That Page, If a user is coming to that page and not finding that info there will it be useful to ask him to search more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimorice1 (talk • contribs)

Hey Jaimorice1. Blogs aren't considered reliable because pretty much anyone can start their own blog and write whatever they want, even if it's totally made up. It may be correct, but Wikipedia is based on content that can be verified by readers by using sources that meet our standards for reliability. Unfortunately, sometimes that means the information in articles lags behind the facts, because we sometimes need to wait for the information to be available in reliable sources before we update it. GMG^talk 14:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I added a reference and it was removed

I added a link to an online exhibition from the Canadian Museum of History to the French version of the Maurice Richard article, and it was removed. I am wondering, why? I did not change any content, only linked out to an existing freely available resource. I am a new editor, and I am also not sure what my options are as a next step. Can I put the resource back in? How? With advance thanks! The Raven's Librarian (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. If you have questions about the French Wikipedia you need to ask them there. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I found the French help forum and will ask there. Thanks The Raven's Librarian (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)