Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 799

Archive 795

←

Archive 797

Archive 798

Archive 799

Archive 800

Archive 801

→

Archive 805

creating a new Wikipedia page .

Hello

Totally green when it comes to WIKIPEDIA. Have been contacted through social media to have a WIKIPEDIA page created for myself(I am an actor and producer listed on IMDB among other sites).

Am interested in having someone help me create a page(can't trust the person that reached out to me as I don't know them) Can you provide me with advice on who to contact in order to have someone help me design this?

Is my request even appropiate for WIKIPEDIA?

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eve austin (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Eve austin: The person who reached out to you is a scam artist. We do not reach out to people. Please give us their name so we can block them on our site. You might also want to block them on whatever social media site you met them on.

We strongly discourage any users from creating or even editing any articles about themselves. See WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Autobiography for more information.

If you would like to write an article about anyone or anything else, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Eve austin and Ian.thomson: "It's a scam" might be a little too harsh, but "it's likely a scam" is unfortunately correct. Editing Wikipedia for pay is allowed, though discouraged, but only if the editor discloses that they are editing for pay. Before forking out any money, make sure to understand what is on the table; for instance, none can guarantee you that anything they write on any Wikipedia page will be kept, since all pages are (in principle) open to editing for anyone; similarly, if someone says they can delete your Wikipedia page or prevent it from being deleted, they are lying. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Reporting suspected paid editors

Hello. I would like to help the cause by reporting some accounts I suspect of belonging to paid editors. How do I go about doing this?Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lover^t@lk 09:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Crazy Cat Person: First, you should read WP:OUTING (and, optionally, Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing) before doing anything silly with off-Wikipedia information. Then, try asking the editors if that is not already done, and if no satisfying explanation comes, head to this noticeboard to lay out whatever proof you have. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think someone needs to look at this users editing. They are a fly by tagger and don't appear to be tagging correctly. NZFC^(talk) 09:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that CCP appears to be going through newly created articles and applying tags. Dozens tagged just today! While many articles need improvement, slapping on tags (COI, autobiography, etc.) can be an affront to the creators, who are probably operating in good faith, and may well be intending to return to the new articles to make improvements. To me, looks like whacking noobies without sufficient cause. User ProprioMe OW has reverted many of the tags.

Note that CCP's User page contains this 'manifesto': "As a deletionist who hates all business, I hereby take it upon myself to patrol all new pages on Wikipedia for any trace of paid editing or conflict of interest editing. If god is my witness I will eradicate the scourge of paid editing and conflict of interest editing." A good cause, but perhaps too enthusiastic. Also, the line is "As God is my witness..." David notMD (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I left a message on their TP after reviewing the contributions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Query

How to archive a special discussion on the talk page of an article? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 12:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Harshrathod50, and welcome to the Teahouse! It's a bit easier than you may think actually. All you do is copy the discussions you're archiving into a subpage of the talk page, called "[Talk page name]/Archive X." X is the lowest number that does not yet exist as an archive. For example, if you wanted to archive the page Talk:X, you would copy the discussions you're archiving and if the page hasn't been archived yet, you would paste them into a new page called Talk:X/Archive 1, add {{Talk archive}} to the top of the archive page, and save it. Then, remove the copied material from the main talk page, mentioning the new archive in your edit summary. You would then add {{Archives}} to the main talk page. You can find a lot more information about this at Help:Archiving a talk page. Hope this helps!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks, but I also want to transclude the same discussion on another talk page as a closed debate. How to do that? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Transcluding discussions is not advisable. Instead, you could create a link to the other discussion and explain to the readers why it is relevant. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but how come talk pages have some discussions have a box surrounding them which says this discussion is saved as an archived debate. Do not modify it. I forgot which page I saw this otherwise I would have linked here. Yes, I understand that archives are not templates but how come transcluding them is possible? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 02:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Harshrathod50: The terminology might be a bit confusing. "Archiving" usually refers to how to remove threads from a talk page to put them into archive subpages. The boxes you saw are what happens when a discussion gets closed (Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closing_vs_archiving explains the confusion). Please do not close discussions in which you are involved. I am not sure you know what "transcluding" means. If you do, please clarify your question. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! You solved many of my doubts. By transcluding I mean how independent RfD pages can be transcluded in one common page as seen in many WikiProjects but I also saw that talk page discussions can be closed just like RfD pages. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello, I wanted to create an article about the website, without promoting it, just clear and informational article. But I got the message "This user page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a user page being used only for promotion or publicity, with a username that promotes or implies affiliation with the entity being promoted.

I wanted to know if there is something I did wrong while creating my sandbox. If so I can edit it. If there is something that I do not know but I should.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woochess (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Woochess and welcome to the Teahouse.

There are a couple of problems here. First, the sandbox draft was entirely promotional, so it qualifies for that speedy deletion nomination. Second, it is now apparent that your username is that of a website, which is not allowed. You must request a name change. You will likely be blocked if you don't.

After your name change, you are welcome to create a new draft, but I suggest that you start it by listing references that establish notability. Once you have those, it is much less likely to be deleted, as long as you also stay away from promotional language. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Account autoconfirmation

I have a question, my account is 4 days old now as of 11 am July 9 EDT and I have made 10 edits since July 6. How do you know your account has been auto confirmed? Does a notification pop up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone of Foxes (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cyclone of Foxes and welcome to the Teahouse.

No, you don't get a notification. You can check your status by clicking on the 'edit count' button at the bottom of your contributions page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Articles

Is it possible to completely redo an article? From scratch of course — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclone of Foxes (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Cyclone of Foxes. Yes, it's possible. Please consider taking up the issue on the article's talk page first, though, to see if other editors with an interest in the article agree with the general idea. If you meet with disagreements, you may be better advised to make piecemeal improvements to the existing article. If there's anything harder than creating a new article from scratch, for a new editor, it would be a complete rewrite of an existing article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Financial Benefits

Dear Sir,

Does a contributor draw any benefits from his contribution to Wikipedia?

Fred Otswong'o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.90.133.93 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fred Otswong'o. Wikipedia is a volunteer project and a large majority of productive editors are volunteers. Paid editing is not forbidden but it is unpopular and strictly regulated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Help publishing article

Can Wikipedia publish a story for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaphy (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Annaphy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore we publish encyclopedia articles, not stories. Please read Your first article to better understand what is acceptable here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The disrespect

Pls can you open the edit the shinee pages... First of all Kim jonghyun was never in ss501 pls check and the pic should be changed pls...... And the pic used to introduce us pls can it be changed... To a pic with the 5 members. Thats now what us important... It's the fact that our jjong was mistaken or mixed up with a member of the ss501 band.... Please check and correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.3.180 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Please make your request at Talk:Shinee or the talk pages of related articles. Because Jonghyun died last December, the lead photo shows the four current members of the band. This has been discussed repeatedly on that talk page over the last seven months. It is likely that the page will need to be semi-protected for some time to come, because persistent fans are often trying to edit against consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Trying to move an article from my Sandbox...

But there's no "move" button...not sure why this is the caseSmirkinNYLA (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)SmirkinNYLA

You can not move it because you are not a confirmed or autoconfirmed user. You shouldn't be moving it at all though as you are a paid contributor. You should add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article. A neutral editor will come along and assess the article. If it meets our guidelines they will move it. ~ GB fan 19:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How to delete an inappropriate redirect?

I came across https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hall_of_Shame&redirect=no
How do I delete such inappropriate redirect? -- DexterPointy (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello DexterPointy and welcome to the Teahouse.

At this point, I fail to see why that redirect is inappropriate. If you wish to see it deleted, you may nominate it for deletion via the redirects for discussion process. You need to have a solid policy-based reason for deletion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a good redirect IMHO. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The two ("Hall of Shame" and "Wall of Shame") are about as related as "Liquid" and "Water", i.e. too different to have a redirect in place.
But I'll void requesting the redirect to be removed (too little value in the removal to justify the cumbersome Wikipedia procedure). -- DexterPointy (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@DexterPointy: Your recent modifications at Wall of Shame appear to be an exercise in WP:original research, but they do better explain your concern. As can be seen on the talk page of the article, there has been some disagreement about the article and how it is named. The redirect has a talk page as well where you could try to work this out with other editors. Having some examples of things called "hall of shame" would go a long way towards improving the situation. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• The title discussion on the article's Talk page was 12 years ago, and today: There's perfect alignment of the article's content and title (i.e. no problem there).
  The redirect page does not have a Talk page, though it can very easily be created. But if the final purpose is to have the redirect removed, then a redirect's talk page actually becomes a place for discussing if there should be a discussion about taking action (meta-discussions are nearly always over the top).
  The "Wall of Shame" article contain plenty good examples, clarifying/illustrating what's meant by a "Wall of Shame".
  There is no "Hall of Shame" article, and thus no obvious coverage on Wikipedia of it (Wiktionary has a short entry https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hall_of_shame ). Finding good examples for "Hall of Shame" is probably somewhat difficult since "Hall of Shame" seem to be a bit of neology spun from "Hall of Fame", without any clear identifiable origin and usage other that what any English speaking individual can immediately and intuitively comprehend and appreciate on encountering the phrase in the wild (which is fairly common; mileage may vary).
  Original Research(?) I haven't seen any reliable source shedding light on neither the difference nor the similarity, and in fact: I haven't seen any discussion anywhere on it. Yet, both expressions are in ordinary use. If we end up in a discussion, aiming at consensus, then (ironically) that implies setting up a language lab (Talk page) doing original research on the English language (Note: Every language is defined by those who speak it, and that's especially true when no accepted dictionary has relevant entries, doing cross-comparison).
  -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Constance Savery categories

I have been a major contributor to a page devoted to English author Constance Savery. After I identified categories applicable to her, I went to those category pages and discovered that she is listed there alphabetically under the letter C rather than the letter S. What do I do to correct this? Anobium625 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Anobium625 and welcome to the Teahouse.

You fix this by adding a {{DEFAULTSORT}} template to the article. Conventionally, it goes at the top of the list of categories at the bottom of the article. It would look like:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Savery, Constance}}

This records the preferred sorting string with the page so that, when listed on category pages, the sort is based on last name first. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about Editing -👍

hello how can i be a wikipedia article fixer and stop other persons to add in the article.

Thanks good day— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyjamelcangri7873215640 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Nickyjamelcangri7873215640: - Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which people are free to edit provided that they do not violate policy and editing decorum. You can fix vandalism through reversion and editing, removing malicious content where you see it (ensure that your removal is justified). However, it is antithetical to the spirit of the project to stop other persons to add in the article, and so this should not be done unless absolutely necessary, in which case page protection or administrator intervention may be needed. However, to edit successfully on Wikipedia, collaboration is required, so you should not aim to stop other people from editing. This may constitute an edit war, is unconstructive, and not what we aim to do here. I would suggest reading WP:AGF and WP:OWN, and taking an open-minded approach to the work of other editors. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC).

The question is, why wouldn't you want anyone to improve the article for you?Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lover^t@lk 08:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

All Added Text Gone The Next Day

Hello, yesterday I added text below the article already written in English by someone else on Gerlac Peterson. Below that existing text I typed a dotted line and below that my text. Today I returned to it to see if I could add some PDFs to it and saw all I had written yesterday had disappeared. Even though in my message box there is a message congratulating me for my tenth edit, encouraging me to keep at it.

This is not a biggie for me, as I might give Gerlac Peterson a space on a website on the subject he wrote about: meditation and contemplation. But I was just wondering... as after every edit I did tap the Publish changes button and the text appeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodewijk Langeweg (talk • contribs) 06:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: Just after typing the above I saw something written higher up about texts being reviewed before being published. Might that be the reason I don't see my text at this moment of writing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodewijk Langeweg (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lodewijk Langeweg. Your additions were reverted by another editor with the edit summary: "Removing large, non-biographical additions, which are not written in NPOV, read like an essay, and lack sources. Please add back with appropriate style, content, and sources."

I agree with the editor who reverted your additions. You started out by saying "If I may add a bit more information, grateful to the above author for his work". We never include this type of personal commentary in encyclopedia articles. The prose is collaborative but should read as if written by one person, and should never address various editors in the body of the article. That belongs on the article's talk page, not in the article itself. Later, you stated "God would indeed not want anyone to suffer in hell for Him, let alone forever." We never state religious doctrine in Wikipedia's voice. Instead, you should say something like, "According to theologian X, God would . . .", and then you need to provide a reference to a reliable source that verifies that the theologian said that. The biggest of several problems with your additions is that they are unreferenced so they are not verifiable. Please read Referencing for beginners and only add content that summarizes the references that you add. We do not allow original research, and your additions must comply with the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about WikipediA logo

I've been searching for information about the typography/casing of Wikipedia's written logo (rather than the puzzle globe), particularly with respect to the design choice to capitalize the last letter, A. In other words, why "WikipediA" and not "Wikipedia"? Is this practice used elsewhere or does it have a history? Any info on the design philosophy as explained by the logo designer?

Thanks in advance for any info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academc (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's WIKIPEDIA, rather than WikipediA. The final A wraps the globe. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Academc. I suggest that you ask this question at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Our founder knows the early days of this project better than almost anyone else, and if he does not have an answer, he can probably point you in the right direction. Pinging Jimbo Wales in case he wants to comment here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I designed it as WIKIPEDIA for visual balance. --The Cunctator (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How to create a quick box?

I want to create an article about a Disney's song, just like the song "#REDIRECT Let It Go", I want to make a little box like that detailing the information about the song. Thank you!!! --Mitochondrions (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Mitochondrions Hi, you could check out Template:Infobox song and its associated explanation of the parameters. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirect Help

Hello, Can someone redirect this Rog Phone into ROG Phone thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.166.172 (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Reference Language

Hi, I know this is probably going to sound like a really dumb question. If you write a page for the English Wikipedia do all the references have to be in English?Fluorinated tears burn my eyes (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fluorinated tears burn my eyes: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That is not a dumb question at all. References do not need to be in English, as long as they are independent reliable sources that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want the details, they are at WP:NOTENG. English-speaking sources are preferable if they have the same quality, and it is better to add a translation of the relevant passage in the reference. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Astonomy

I would like to update astononmy page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Von Tyszka (talk • contribs) 12:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Prof. Von Tyszka, and welcome to the Teahouse. Based on the edits your account has made on Astronomy, this one in particular [1], you misunderstand Wikipedia. You are not supposed to insert your name, point of view or personal thought in Wikipedia-articles. WP-articles are meant to summarize what reliably published sources has written on the subject, in proportion to their importance. To make changes to articles that "stick", Help:Editing may be good start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

My additions are being deleted because the include a link by a previous editor of the page that has been on there some time.

I received an explanation for the deletion of my additions to a bibliogrpahy of a living writer, Fred Harrison who has a page on Wikipedia. The reason given was the presence of a link to a Youtube channel. However I did not introduce this link. It had already been on the page for some time. My additions must be alerting the bot to the link's existence. How do I get round this? I feel uncertain about deleting someone else's contribution to enable mine to be included. But it is described as an improper external link. It would achieve the same to simply write, "Harrison's Youtube page can be viewed under the term Geophilos" and create no link. Would that do it?

     Also I saw a comment that the bibliography was criticised by another real (I think) person for being too comprehensive. But I can find no description of the rules about writing the bibliographic details. I use bibliographies in my own work and throughness is essential if they are to be tool of any useful academic quality. The bibliography compiler ought not predetermine the scope of the user's interest in a subject or writer, as the effect is to limit their access. Comprehensiveness is therefore essential in bibliography.
    Please advise.

Good Pharisee (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You have two answers on your talk page at User talk:Good Pharisee. I hope that these help.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about Content Removed/Missing from Pages

I have a question about content removed/missing from pages. Where/who do I ask about this? I don’t know if this is the proper place to ask about content on specific pages/subjects so I won’t get to my actual question here, I would just like to be directed to the proper area to ask specific questions. .... Somehow I can't respond but I am looking at WWE wrestler pages & there use to be an “In Wrestling” section that listed “Fishing Holds”, “Signature Holds” & “Theme Music” but all of that is nowhere to be found anymore. Why has it been removed? I am trying to look up some wrestler theme songs & that was my go-to for looking it up but that is impossible to do when they have been removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:81DD:D18E:1485:114A (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It could be a number of places. Tell us what happened and then we'll be able to direct you to the best place. - X201 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

OP added info to original message - You need Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_the_"In_wrestling"_section_be_removed_from_professional_wrestling_articles? Where there is a discussion going on about that very thing. - X201 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Need Help!

Hello there! I am Asad Rehman from Pakistan, I am new here so i need some help about posting articles and especially i figured that Wikipedia guidelines are too strict. Is there someone who can help me out....? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asadrehma (talk • contribs) 17:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Asadrehma: If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.

5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

WHY? Speedy deletion nomination of User:Thetomiwale/sandbox

I created a biography for Tomi Wale (African Millennial) and I got saw a notification for "speedy deletion" because it was said to be a "Promotional material" NO IT WAS NOT. NO, THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION IF I NEED TO ADVERTISE SOMETHING, I WILL PAY GOOGLE ADS OR FACEBOOK ADS FOR THAT.

The intention of creating that biography is to talk about an individual Tomi Wale who runs a company called GetUpInc and is taking up projects on generating insight on the behavioral patterns of African Millennials on the internet. There is nothing strong on the internet on this topic, hence it's importance to draw the attention of the world to a very interesting topic worth discussions. A couple of approved wikipedia pages were referenced in creating the content for it to stick to guidelines and principles of wikipedia.

Links to projects and insights were included in the text to avoid plagiarism or falsehood before sent in for approval. I expected to see areas to correct and work on as a reply NOT DELETION!

Please look into this. All that was typed seems lost right now and even if wikipedia has no interest in discusiions about African Millennials, can I please get my text and move it somewhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetomiwale (talk • contribs) 13:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thetomiwale: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Having viewed the deleted text, I would agree with the deletion. Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about someone or their work- and you indicate your goal here is to "draw the attention of the world to a very interesting topic". That's promotional. You also state that there is "nothing strong on the internet on this topic"; if that's the case, it cannot have an article on Wikipedia at this time. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with in depth coverage have chosen to write about a topic, indicating how it meets the relevant notability guidelines, in this case WP:BIO.

I would also ask you if you are or represent Mr. Wale; if you do not, you should change your username. If you do, please read WP:AUTO, the Wikipedia policy on autobiographies(which are strongly discouraged). 331dot (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

According to this reply, Wikipedia is not a place to learn or study something NEW because what you just called "promotional" contradicts many things I see and read on it. You can also explain how topics and individual profiles here are off being "promotional" when their names are typed in and texts are up about their works, projects, awards won, and personal achievements. The intent of writing about Tomi Wale is not to advertise him in a vain manner but to talk about an individual who is one of the few leading the discussions of African Millennials in Africa through initiatives, publications and organisational consulting in the continent. All links and references included are reliable sources. None is fake, you can look up the references and contact the owners to see if you find anything wrong. He is not for advertising his name, he contributes to the discussions of millennial-centric topics which he has been doing extensive studies and publications in newspapers, editorials and organisational trainings on. The username used was created for easier reconciliation of details.

Anyways, thank you for your answer and your time, really appreciated. I thought the platform was one open to knowledge of new things.

Mr Tomi Wale would explore other channels.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetomiwale (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thetomiwale: it sounds like you're making a good choice to seek another platform. There are many things Wikipedia is good for and quite a few things that Wikipedia is NOT. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thetomiwale: You are quite correct that Wikipedia is not for learning about "new" things; Wikipedia is for learning about things that have already been extensively written about by independent parties. It is not a place for posting cutting edge information that hasn't yet been written about by uninvolved parties. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Obviously. Perhaps the links included were all wrong too. Do have a good week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetomiwale (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I need to retrieve my content created here. I'm not asking it to be published. Is there a way I can put an email address for it to be mailed to or a page I can request it on? I've tried every option given via the notifications. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetomiwale (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thetomiwale: enable the email address on your account at Special:Preferences, do not post your email publicly. An administrator can pull up the deleted draft and email it to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You can get the whole lead to the article from any of the pages in this google search. ~ GB fan 17:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Done that. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetomiwale (talk • contribs) 17:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

changing a new editor's name

A family member decided to register in order to support one of the Wikiprojects I am involved with. She created a user name that is basically her name. I need to assist her in changing that to something different. She just became a new user this morning. I have read it is very difficult to change a user name once its established. Please advise MauraWen (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• @MauraWen: - provided your family member has associated an email address with her user name, Special:GlobalRenameRequest is the place to request a username change across all Wikimedia projects. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Be aware though. There will always be a record of the change from the old name to the new. The absolute safest route is to create a new account - X201 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, MauraWen. The easiest is for her to simply stop using that account (it will sit there for ever, but if it has done little or nothing in Wikipedia, that's not a problem) and create a new one with a pseudonym of her choice. --ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, but with her email address attached to the initial user name, wouldn't that cause a problem? MauraWen (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, MauraWen. Nobody can see that email address, and I don't think there is any check that stops two accounts being associated with the same email address. --ColinFine (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine!

The antifa article seems to be disparaging.

Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is a term that Nazis use to disparage people that protest them. It has existed for a long time, but became popularized after the charlottsville protests.

The antifa article here, chooses to pretend that "antifa" only refers to violent groups that oppose fascism.

I think this just plays into Nazi propaganda. It gives right wing nutcases an "out", allowing them to disparage anyone that protests white supremacist views as "antifa" by making the term only refer to the most outrageous and violent opponents of white supremacist viewpoints.

In short, the article should de-emphasize the violent aspects of "antifa" and consider it a blanket term for everyone that opposes white supremacist viewpoints. Wikipedia should not help the Nazis along in their propaganda goals.

Its like if we defined the Black Lives Matter movement to only refer to the most ignorant members of the movement, focusing on reparations.

Its as if we defined conservatism to only refer to Nazis, or liberalism to only refer to communists.

We should not help them marginalize those that oppose white supremacy by defining that term to only refer to the most violent and troublesome minority of the antifa movement.

I also suspect that the article does that because someone intended for it to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses the red (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Moses the red. It would help if you detailed which article you are talking about: our article Antifa is a disambiguation page, which has links to quite a few different articles. I'm guessing that you are talking about Antifa (United States). Whichever article it is, the article's talk page (eg Talk:Antifa (United States)) is the place to bring up your concerns. The article should reflect what mainstream reliable media say about the subject, not any particular person's opinion - if you feel that that is not what it is doing, feel free to open a discussion on the Talk page. Wikipedia does not take a stand on any political issue (including how organisations are characterised): it just summarises what the sources say. --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you guys help me edit pages properly?

Can you guys help me edit pages properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfaan (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Arfaan. Yes, we probably can, but it's hard without knowing what you're having problems with. You might have a look at Help:Editing, and you might find The Wikipedia Adventure useful. --ColinFine (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Article creation

Hey.

I have edited the page and moved it to the article page.. but it doesn't seem to be published or even under review.. I am confused. Can you pls help?

Link for the page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umesh_Kumar

Shahhirral (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Shahhirral. The article Umesh Kumar is indeed published - you published it by moving it to mainspace yourself. (The move automatically left a redirect in your sandbox, but the article is there. If your issue is that Google doesn't find it, new articles are normally marked for Google not to index them until they have been patrolled or 90 days have passed). It hasn't been reviewed since you didn't request a review. However, Chrissymad has marked it for Speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion. The Speedy deletion notice tells you how to proceed if you disagree. --ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Need to work in wikipedia

Hi i just saw the like in wikipedia. I want to incorporate with wikipedia for my earning... is there any options for that.. I have good knowledge in kannada film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manju1566 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Manju1566. Welcome to our Teahouse. Wikipedia welcomes contributions from people with interests in many subjects. However we are all volunteers here, giving our time freely to help create this great encyclopaedia. As well as expecting all editors to have a good command of the English language, we do require anyone who is being paid to edit an article (e.g. they work for an organisation they are writing about) to make a clear declaration, usually on their user page, and/or on the article talk page, of their Conflict of Interest. These requirements are clearly laid out on this page: WP:PAID. good luck with your editing and to come back and ask any other questions if you have difficulties. Oh, and do please sign every talk page post with four tildes (like this: ~~~~) which adds a date and time stamp, and your signature. Regards in the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Manju1566. I agree with Nick Moyes' answer to you, but I think there is something he did not make clear: Wikipedia does not pay anybody to write or edit articles, ever. There is no earning to be had that way. The "paid editing" that Nick refers to is where somebody has arranged outside Wikipedia to pay somebody else to edit. --ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

footnotes

I am using a collection of essays and have referenced three of them out of the same book. I want to include the chapter names of each one. Do I need to do a separate reference for each of those? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777. If the essays have different authors then Template:Cite book supports using the author and chapter fields for the chapter author, the editor and title field for the book editor. With different authors make separate references. But I assume the essays in question are by the same author. I have not found a good way cite chapters in that case. I would suggest just citing the book and pages, and in the text saying Smith says in "Essay on Things" ...... If you don't mind very tiny font you could use {{rp}} like this. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

References

well hello! I am using the cite book template. I think the problem may be the reference name, but I'm unsure. It doesn't seem to matter if I use the author's name and author's article down in the reference windows there, or if I just put it in chapter, it keeps coming up error--reference defined twice--which of course it is! Here's an example: <ref name="Handbook16">{{cite book|editor-last =McKim (ed.)|editor-first=Donald K. |chapter=Biblical interpretation of the 16th and 17th centuries|title=Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters| year=1998| publisher=InterVarsity Press|location=Downer's Grove|isbn=978 0 83081 452 7}}</ref>{{rp|140,404}}

<ref name="Handbookhistory">{{cite book|editor-last =McKim (ed.)|editor-first=Donald K. |chapter=History of Religions school|title=Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters| year=1998| publisher=InterVarsity Press|location=Downer's Grove|isbn=978 0 83081 452 7}}</ref>{{rp|88}}

If I don't change the reference name it sends me an error. If I don't have a reference name I can't reuse it. It's tedious and frustrating. It's no wonder so few make FA the first try. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I do see a problem with your references to McKim's Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters for example. Citing that without the title of the entry is like citing an article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica without giving the name of the article. And each of these entries has its own author who needs to be included. So they need to be separate references. I can help you with that. I'll follow up on your talk page. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Trying to Access my old account, and it isnt letting me email myself

Hi,

I am trying to get my old account activated, and when I try to log in it doesn't say the account exists, but then when i try to create it it says it exists, and in the English language. I made 4 edits with it and nothing else, but would like to be able to now. How can I get the best assistance?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.125.197 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the account's username? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Jolth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.125.197 (talk)

User:Jolth was created at the English Wikipedia in 2008 and renamed to User:Jolth~enwiki in 2015. The account has never edited. Another account es:User:Jolth was created at the Spanish Wikipedia in 2006 and made four edits there in 2006. The English account was renamed because a unified login system was introduced in 2015, and different languages could no longer have different accounts with the same name. If you are the English user then log in as Jolth~enwiki. If you are the Spanish user then log in as Jolth. The account also works here at the English Wikipedia. Both accounts have an email address stored so you can request a new password at Special:PasswordReset or es:Special:PasswordReset. If you have forgotten the password and no nonger have access to mails at the stored email address then the account is lost. We cannot see which address is stored. Since you either have no edits or only four unimportant edits in 2006, you can just create a new account with another name. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Help with Article to be accepted

Hi, OK so we have failed at Wikipedia for way too long and we have to get an informational article accepted. Do you help people like us that can't seem to do it right? LOL. Ugh! We need help. There is a method that heals PTSD symptoms (seriously)and people are searching it now more than ever and we need the info out there. Can you help? I can show you are failed article and I am happy to pay someone to help. I am at my wits end with it at this point. Thank You Mary Carlson— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjcrown12 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

looks like you are high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.166.172 (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

49: Not being helpful there. To MC: if you have failed, it is because the proposed article "Instinctual Trauma Response Model" did not meet Wikipedia standards. Look at some of the preceding Teahouse Q&As and you will see general advice on how to create an article. From a hasty Google look at the topic, it may be Wikipedia-worthy, so it is not the topic, per se. There are people who promise to get an article published for pay. While not prohibited, this is not a good path to pursue. Any such editor would have to declare their PAID status, and the credibility of the article would be forever suspect. David notMD (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mary Carlson. I'm sorry, but judging from what you have said above, you may be trying to use Wikipedia for a purpose that is not allowed. "We need info out there" as a motive for creating a Wikipedia article nearly always fails. Wikipedia is only interested in topics for which there is already info out there - topics which are notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). Writing to "get info out there" is called PROMOTION in Wikipedia, and is not allowed, however virtuous the cause. You would need to find several places where people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to write in some depth about it in, and been published in reliable places, and base the article almost entirely on what those people have said. Please see Your first article.--ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all very helpful and makes total sense. There are chapters/articles/papers written about the ITR method and I have collected that and can add it to the original article. I am not a writer though I am a fan of the method and I guess that is my enthusiasm about it. I would think anyone writing about something has some enthusiasm about it or they would not waste their time LOL It is very out there and therapists and individuals alike are very interested in more information. The method developed by a psychiatrist and art therapist in Morgantown, WV used for over 40 years in hospitals and clinics. It's noteworthy as are Wikipedias articles and I love it for that! Thanks for you great wisdom! Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjcrown12 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You created a draft article here which was deleted a couple of years ago because it had not been edited in over 6 months. You can attempt to retrieve it by following these instructions. There are also versions of what is probably the same text here (a rejected article draft - you might want to look at the comments there to see what is required) and here. It looks like several different users have been pasting the same text into their sandboxes. Are all these accounts yours, or are you working together with other people on the article? --bonadea contributions talk 10:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For examples of what psychotherapy articles look like, see List of psychotherapies. And please sign your comments here by typing four of ~ at the end. This inserts your sign-in. David notMD (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok cool. Yes another fan- Shelly Beach, who actually is a writer editing a bit and resubmitted WITHOUT the references I sent her that I found.ugh- you see Dr. lou Tinnin and Linda Gantt were very humble so they weren't pushy about their work AT ALL -so people had to find them through word of mouth but now full agencies and places like Fort Belvoir are using the method and finding superb results, client and clinician. Greatly reducing or COMPLETELY eliminating trauma symptoms fast and efficient. It rocks. and it works. Just sayin...I'm a filmamker by trade. I knew NOTHING about the mental health field and now I see it as a crime against humanity! It needs massive change and people need massive healing. No prob!

Ok so what? I dont get this?

sign your comments here by typing four of ~ at the end. ~ at the end — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjcrown12 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Mjcrown12. Yes, since we are all volunteers, we choose what we work on, and it makes sense for people to write about subjects they are passionate about. The problem comes when their passion overrides Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Something which beginners often don't realise is that an article begins with the references (and that means references in reliable published sources which are entirely independent of the subject - not written by the subject, their relatives, friends, employers, employees, associates, publicists, or advocates - and not based on interviews or press releases from any of those people. In the case of a treatment, this would also rule out anything by the people who developed, documented, or pioneered the treatment). As I say, an article starts with these references - if you can't find any, then there cannot be an article, no matter how worthy the subject. If you can, then you can write the article entirely based on what these independent sources say. If that gives you an article with substance, you may then add some uncontroversial factual data from non-independent sources - places, dates, that sort of thing. But on the whole, Wikipedia is simply not interested in what the subject and people closely associated with the subject have said or want to say about it.

As for signing - all contributions on a discussion page like this (not in an article!) should be signed, so that readers can easily see who has made the contribution, and can look at their user page and send them messages. Your contributions have been signed afterwards by a bot, but it is preferable to sign your own contributions. I am about to type four tildes (~~~~) and the software will automatically replace them by my signature (including links to my user page and user talk page) and the time and date. --ColinFine (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Mjcrown12: I forgot to mention that there are special considerations for evaluating the reliability of sources on medical subjects. Please see WP:MEDRS. --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok cool. Thanks for the time and energy you have given me. Yes I think I may have enough to do this with. I will learn how to do it better. What about people? Writing about other people and their life? Mjcrown12 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Mary. The same applies, except that if the person is living (or recently deceased) the standard for citing is higher: see BLP. Have you read your first article? That has a wealth of useful information. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

See the answer to the Needs Help question (below) for a set of guidelines. As already noted, medical related and biography related articles have additional guidelines. David notMD (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sections, Subjects, headlines (like this one)

Hello, my name is Oblow14 and I edit football articles, and I would like to know how to add a new section to an article, since I edit on my mobile device I don't know if this feature is available on mobile devices or only computers, since I'm still kinda new. Oblow14 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Oblow14. As far as I know, there is not a button to add a new section to an article (as opposed to a talk or discussion page). You create a header of level n by putting the text on a line by itself between n equals signs before, and n equals signs after; like this:

===Sample heading===

appears as

Sample heading

(I made it level 3 so that it would appear within the section you created, which is level 2. Never use level 1). Hope that makes sense. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, I've always used level 3 but I never knew about level 1 and 2. 👍🏽 Oblow14 00:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How to discuss a change (with specifics!)

Hello all,

I’m working on a dissertation that has me digging into some pretty obscure things. One of those things is the term “hard science,” which the page on Hard and soft science attributes to a 1964 article that, it turns out, doesn’t actually use the term (the source that points to this source also doesn’t claim that the 1964 author used the term, just that he re/started a fight over the relative hierarchy in the sciences). The earliest instance I’ve found (through the full OED) is from 1858 (stable link to a free JSTOR copy of the source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41323682.pdf).

It has been a long time since I tried to edit Wikipedia with any seriousness, but I seem to recall a “talk” page or something where you could discuss changes before/without making them on the live page. Is that still a thing? Should I just make the change I think is right and put my reasoning in the notes (or is that considered rude)?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatifeye (talk • contribs) 23:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Whatifeye. If you believe that your change is non-controversial, go ahead and make it. Yes, every Wikipedia article has a talk page, which can be reached by clicking a tab at the top of the article in desktop view. In this case, Talk: Hard and soft science is the the proper place to make your argument. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In mobile view, the Talk tab at the top is replaced by a Talk button below the article.Egmonster (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)