Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 856

Archive 850

←

Archive 854

Archive 855

Archive 856

Archive 857

Archive 858

→

Archive 860

What does the Admins of Wikipedia have already experienced in Real life?

Hello! I have a question as how the admins are really doing outside Wikipedia of how are they experiencing things in their entire life. User:VictorTorres2002 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2018 (PST)

Hi VictorTorres2002 Editors are not required to reveal anything about their lives, we value privacy. Some do choose to give some information on their user pages, however such information must in some way be relevant to their activities as Wikipedians. You are welcome to ask anyone a question as long as it is relevant and does not amount to an WP:OUTING attempt. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@VictorTorres2002: I would just add to what Dodger67 says, by observing that we don't require Admins to have had vast real life experience. We have some amazingly competent editors here who are still 'minors' and who make massive contributions. Admins are chosen from amongst those editors (young, or old) by a discussion process often involving hundreds of editors, who either give, or decline to give, their support for that editor being given access to the administrator toolset. And a consensus is thus reached. Nobody cares about the editor's age, but judge their suitability purely by the competence and wisdom shown in the breadth of their past editing (and in the maturity of their interactions with other editors). You can see this process in action - both past and present - by visiting these links: WP:RFA and WP:ORFA. Hope this also helps answer your question. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I often go to meetings of Wikipedians, and many of the people I meet are Admins. They are like the rest of us, but more of them are in the learned professions (teachers, lawyers, librarians etc). They tend to be somewhat smarter and nicer than the rest of us. Well, especially as compared to me. Some are old. Some are young adults who started Adminning as children. And some have almost none of the above listed qualities. Of course, I've only met a small fraction; maybe the others are completely different from the ones who are my friends. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

References for SQL keywords

Hi all,

I'd like to add references to the articles in Category:SQL keywords. The List of relational database management systems is quite huge. Is there a way to find general sources of information for these keywords or do I always have to rely on the specific point of view from one of these systems?

Thanks for the help. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Hundsrose. Category talk:SQL keywords mentions several WikiProjects. I think you're more likely to get an answer if you ask on the talk page of one of those. – Pretended leer {talk} 16:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint with the talk page. It mentions two WikiProjects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Databases and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing.

As far as I can see, the last answer to a section on the talk page of the first page is already a year old. The second one is maybe a bit too general. Which one would you recommmend? I usually edit in the german wikipedia and just started to familiarize with the english wikipedia so maybe I miss rather obvious ways to solve this. Thanks for the patience. Best regards --Hundsrose (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hundsrose: You could try WikiProject Databases first and see if anybody responds. At least three of the people listed as members of that WikiProject have recent contributions, even if those aren't necessarily related to that WikiProject, so they may still have the project on their watchlists. If, after some time you haven't got a response, you could try the other WikiProject. – Pretended leer {talk} 17:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Pretended leer {talk}! I wrote the question in the WikiProject and will follow your recommendations. :) --Hundsrose (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

When citing an online archived article that originally appeared in print, what template should I use?

I'm working on an article where the news coverage has spanned the early 70s up through the early 2000s (so far). Normally I would just use cite news for some of these, but I realize they're magazines which were in different time-labeled issues of the magazines. More like journals. Should I be using the journal template? That's what I've been doing, but it's all drafting at this point so I can switch! Thanks! 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 07:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shashi Sushila Murray, yes cite the original publication and add a link to the online archive, but only if it is not a copyright violation. --Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dodger67. Thanks. :) Yes, of course, no copyright violation. An example of what I'm talking about is an article in The Nation Magazine (on their website's archive—not a web archive) from the July 19, 1993 issue. So, normally I would have picked the "web" option for an article in an online publication. However, this specifies the "July 19, 1993 issue". So, that's where the ambiguity is to me. I've been using the journal template instead, since it's giving information more like a journal. Do I need to pull up the issue field and specify it there? (I haven't been doing that). Or some other combination of fields? Also, if I were to specify this in the issue field, then it would be repeating the information after I enter the date information. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 11:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Shashi Sushila Murray, some features of the journal citation template are designed mainly for academic journals where volume and issue numbers are highly significant and date may be only a year. In your use case the date is uniquely identifying while the volume and issue fields are actually redundant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

New article help

Can you give me to do a new article in this Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOne34 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheOne34: 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 left after step 3, 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. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

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.

Also, I have some sources gathered a possible article on my talk page, at User_talk:Ian.thomson#To-do:_red_plastic_gas_cans. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Quotation Mark Rules

Hello Guys! I have a question regarding quotation marks. What is Wikipedia's rules regarding them? Do we use the American style (e.g. He wrote the songs "Perfect," "Smile," and "Red.") or the British one (e.g. He wrote the songs "Perfect", "Smile", and "Red".)? --Robusuta (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Robusuta. I'm a relatively new editor, but I know how to navigate the documentation well enough to find answers for you. Read this entry: MOS:INOROUT as it calls it the "logical" quotation style. I expect a more experienced editor may come by and give a clearer explanation than me. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 10:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robusuta, the rule we follow is if the quote is a full sentence the end punctuation (period or question mark) is inside the quotes. A few examples:

• "The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain."
• The boss said to tell you to "just get the job done!", so you better get busy.
• The spokesperson told the press; "The situation is bad, but will improve. All available resources have been called into action."

Hope this helps. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Well thanks to the both of you! I now have a pretty solid idea of the rules. Thanks again! Robusuta (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Reporting Harassment

Hi Fellow members,

I'm new to Wikipedia and I would like to know what's the proper method to report harassment or abusive communication.

Thank you!

Kmas 77 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kmas 77, welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you are asking "just in case", in advance. You may find Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment helpful.

If you are being harassed at the moment, and the issue involves private information, please contact User:Arbitration_Committee using the "Email" link on that page.

I hope this helps. If you have been asking just out of curiosity, that's fine too, but please clarify this to avoid false alarms. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

thank you for the prompt response user: ToBeFree yes I was asking just in case. The links you provided are very useful, much appreciated!

Kmas 77 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Kmas 77: You're welcome; I'm relieved to hear that. Have a nice day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

you too User:ToBeFree thanks again! Kmas 77 (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kmas 77. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Harassment#What harassment is not as well. Wikipedia takes harassment very seriously, but defines it in a specific way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

HI Marchjuly, thank you for the additional information, will keep in mind. Have a good Sunday! Kmas 77 (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ronald Skirth Article - unit

Hello, please can you advise? I have a declared COI re the above article. I requested an edit to add Skirth's genuine (military) unit to the information already given, but it has been refused. All the information I gave to support this request is published, but appears, superficially, to conflict. Skirth claims he served with 239 Siege Battery RGA, but his actual unit was 293 Siege Battery RGA. The quote I've given from the book The Reluctant Tommy explains this. However, one of the published sources also states he served with 239 Siege Battery RGA. If his genuine unit cannot be added, then perhaps a note for the reader identifying this matter needs to be made? If not, how can people verify statements about his military service? *ptrs4all* (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You should continue the discussion where it started at Talk:Ronald Skirth. You should explain all what you're saying here to the people who are responding to you there. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Website citation

Would it be suitable to use reference from a website of the page topic as citation? Thanks, --Canti60 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

That will largely depend on context. You should ask this question at RS Noticeboard. But when doing so you should give more details like the site and the content you want cite with it; that's what will help people to give you informed opinions.. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Like Ammarpad, I'd ask the reliable sources noticeboard about specific sources, but WP:PRIMARY seems to cover this. Hopefully this gives you at least a general idea.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk page

I made an edit which was rejected and I was told to discuss it on the Talk Page how, do I do that? Kevinskogg (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Kevinskogg. Looks like you've left a comment there on the talk page a few minutes ago. I'm sure SummerPhDv2.0 who reveted the addition will reply there soon once they see it. GMG^talk 20:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

So when he says I am wrong what do I do? Kevinskogg (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kevinskogg: It looks like they have replied and have generally now agreed with your edit and citation, so consensus seems to have been reached, doesn't it? Had they actually disagreed, and you both felt you each had right (and good citations) on your side, the route to go down is to seek input from other editors on that page to reach a consensus, and then to make those edits accordingly. That's how we operate here. It is then possible to escalate discussion to resolve issues and disagreements, but normally it doesn't come to that. Hope that helps. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I jumped the gun, thanks for the instruction.Kevinskogg (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

why i cant find my page in wikipedia?

i have opened a bio page in wikipedia,but when i published it and then search it in wikipedia, i didnt find my page,How to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Shazzad Ahsan (talk • contribs) 17:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You might've accidentally clicked cancel and the changes didn't save. What is the page called?—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Prince Shazzad Ahsan: You tried to write a page about yourself at User:Prince Shazzad Ahsan/sandbox -- not at Prince Shazzad Ahsan. That's why there's not an article there.

However, you should not be writing an article about yourself anyway. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI for why.

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything besides yourself, 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 left after step 3, 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. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

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) 17:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

can you please tell me how can i remove sandbox from my name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Shazzad Ahsan (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You can request its deletion by typing {{db-user}} and an administrator will delete it. Hope that helps.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Then again, it's also a sandbox, so you might just want to blank the page instead of requesting deletion, as sandboxes are specifically for test editing. For more, see WP:SANDBOX and Help:My sandbox.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith but I'm guessing that what he really wants is an article about himself, and seeing as his sandbox says that he is known for "Web Develop & Spamming" I don't think he is here to build an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but they haven't answered since myself and Ian commented, so they're probably taking the time to read up on the policies myself and Ian linked.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing a jpeg

I'm editing on behalf of hitchin rugby club. Our entry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchin_Rugby_Club ) has our old club logo as a jpeg. How do I change the logo to our new one. I have a jpeg available — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClubSecretaryHitchinRugby (talk • contribs)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. If you are being paid to do this, please read Our Conflict of Interest Guideline, and Our Paid Editing Disclosure. You can upload a new image to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 21:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@ClubSecretaryHitchinRugby: If the logo is copyrighted as logos usually are then it's not allowed to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. As a new user you cannot upload it directly to the English Wikipedia but we can. The official website http://www.hitchinrugby.com displays http://www.clubmgr.co.uk/images/Club/1/Scheme/TopBanner.jpg which has different text from File:Hichin Rugby Club Logo.jpg but the same image. Is it the left part of http://www.clubmgr.co.uk/images/Club/1/Scheme/TopBanner.jpg you want uploaded? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi ClubSecretaryHitchinRugy, based on your user name I assume you're the club secretary of the hitchin rugby club. Although I'm sure your edits are great and useful, if I understand things correctly around COI guidelines, you shouldn't be editing your page. Rather, you should enter requests for edit on the talk page while indicating that you have a conflict of interest. Please refer to these pages for more information (I'm a new editor, but I wanted to help give you information that would be useful—other editor's answers are likely to be much better than mine): WP:DISCLOSE WP:EDITREQ. This is important, because Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view (among other things). Consequently, unlike other wiki projects, edits that are made by people associated with the topic are quickly reverted. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 21:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

list

Why was the mailing list so much more active in the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs)

@Benjaminikuta: I'm not sure what you refer to. Wikipedia:Mailing lists shows several lists but I don't know how their activity has varied. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiEN-l, I just joined, and was told it's mostly inactive these days, but I remember reading elsewhere references to past influential discussion that happened on the list. Benjamin (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Benjaminikuta: - active areas change on Wikipedia fairly frequently, sometimes with and sometimes without reason. One possibility is that the IRC live chat has drawn individuals away. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Has it? Benjamin (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Cuba-Italy Relations

can someone please edit the article that I made of Cuba-Italy Relations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusacosta 3050 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jesusacosta 3050. Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft article (Draft:Cuba–Italy relations) contains virtually no meaningful content as yet. I notice on its talk page that you ask for it to be approved i.e. moved into mainspace. It would be a mistake to submit it until you have added some factual content yourself, supported by references. Until then, you're unlikely to get anyone to edit it, unless you leave an invitation to do so on both Wikipedia:WikiProject Cuba and Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy. My suggestion is to do some research online and demonstrate that Italy and Cuba have had significant relations and then to insert a handful of well-cited key statements before clicking the big blue 'submit' button. Does this help? I'm afraid the Teahouse isn't really a place to invite normal editing input to any given article unless you have encountered a specific problem. And don't forget to sign all future talk page posts by inserting four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~) at the end of your final sentence. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Jesusacosta 3050 as I misread your username in my reply above. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Active users on WikiProject Judaism

I am looking for active users on WikiProject Judaism. I can't find any. I can't claim to have done an extensive search, but what searching I have done so far has not netted any positive results.

I am looking for such users because I am hoping someone can collaborate with me to expand and improve articles on individual tractates in the Talmud. Many are in desperate need of attention.

Alternate Side Parking (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Alternate Side Parking. I just went to their talk page and saw some users who posted within the last three and last nine days: WT:JEW. You could reach out to them there. This would be monotonous, but you could also look through their member list and copy and paste their user names into a guide here and the menu here I'm sure there's better ways of going about that that more experienced editors can point you to, but I've noticed the turn around rate on here is pretty slow so, although I'm a new editor, I might as well help where I can. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 20:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Alternate Side Parking. I reread my answer and I realized I broke one of the links I was trying to give you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions . What I intended by sharing that was so you could see which users listed as "members" have made recent edits. Then you could create a list of them and "ping" them on the project's talk page to try to "recruit" them to get help improving neglected but noteworthy articles. Also, I just discovered their "sister project" page. You could see if there is more activity on these pages to try to recruit people as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism/Sister_projects 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What template do I use after confirming that print sources say what is claimed?

I'm working on an article that has a few print sources referenced. I plan on interlibrary loaning the books and confirming that they say what they say (or just driving to a library) and clarifying the information as well as writing out notes for myself. However, is there a template that I can put on the talk page after doing this? Are there details I can add to the citation template? How do I make sure that future editors can refer to my work? Wow I've been asking a lot of questions. Sorry, but I'm on a roll. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 21:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Within either of our editing tools we have a 'cite' button which offers you a range of template into which you add your reference. I'm assuming your reference will be either a book or a journal {{cite journal}}, and we have a template for both of these ({{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}. So long as it has been published, and not just a one-off archival document, that will be fine, even if it's a rare book. We assume readers will then be likely to be able to locate a copy to verify your stated fact(s) drawn from it. Don't forget to add page number(s), as well as all the usual elements such as title, author, publisher, publication date etc. You can use one reference multiple times by allocating a 'refname' to it, then just adding a different page number to each one using the {{rp}} template. Like this and this For more information on references, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi Nick Moyes, thank you for your time. I probably was being vague. I already have figured out how to use both the plain wikitext templates and the visual editor's tools to use different templates. What I'm talking about is when I'm improving an article that had already relied on a print source, but the prior editor has used vague, imprecise, dubious, or contentious language. Or even if they've written things that are contradicting what other authoritative sources are saying. How do I document, whether on the talk page, in wikitext comments, or with some special fields that I'm overlooking in the citation templates, that I've confirmed the information in the sources and added notes for future editors? Have a great day, 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 22:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Sorry I misunderstood your question. It's an interesting and very valid one. In general, what I would do is ensure any re-wording actually follows the stated source, and then simply add an explanation within the 'edit summary', explaining that I had checked and verified the reference and had updated previously misleading content based upon that reference. Should I feel that might not be sufficient, I might consider explaining the changes I have made (or propose to make) on the talk page of the relevant article. There is a little extra advice here on adding additional annotations if you still don't think your work on clarifying content based on a reference is clear. Hoping this helps a bit more! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick Moyes. Based on all of this this seems like the best process to make my work easy to follow and to rebuff future misrepresentations (if I find any):

1. Create a talk page section showing the prose in question, clearly articulating the issues, then explaining that I will confirm the information in the print sources.
2. Read the sources and make any modifications necessary on the page and provide an inline link to the talk page section in the edit summary. I will add explanatory annotations or the "Quote" field if it seems necessary to rebuff future deliberate (or good-faith) misrepresentations. If I find that the sources back up the prose in question, I will make the prose stronger.
3. Update the talk page summarizing my edits with links to the diff pages and enclosing the section within a "closed discussion" template.
4. Provide wikitext comments with a permanent link to the section I created and have faith that future editors will remove these when necessary.

Thank you for your time, 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 23:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Sounds good. Obviously, this is quite long-winded, and only necessary if you do anticipate challenges over articles. Oh, the one thing I did forget to mention was that you could notify whoever made past edits over which you have concerns and seek their input. All you need to do is just mention their username (in this format: {{u|John Smith}} ) to alert them to any relevant thread. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick Moyes. It may be long-winded, but if we're writing an encyclopedia, I'm going to take it all quite seriously. Also, with what I've seen with how absurd edit wars can get, I don't really have much confidence in the community here. I get the impression that there's a lot of agenda-pushing via familiarity with the guidelines and clever, albeit inadequate, argumentation (not to mention wars of attrition and this strange ever-shifting concept of "consensus"—seems like a sacred mystery). I think of myself as a reader-turned-editor who finally got fed up with what I was seeing in neglected articles and in article talk pages and edit histories. So, my motivation is to improve Wikipedia by following all of the guidelines very closely and providing profuse documentation. Sorry if this sounds rude, but I'm sure many editors start editing out of frustration. 🙅🙅🙅ShAsHi SuShIlA mUrRaY😣😣😣 00:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Shashi Sushila Murray: Doesn't sound rude at all, though I do sense your frustrations. It's great to hear someone so committed to ensuring accuracy and fair play. You have my full support for that!Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME: I still got no feedback from anyone whether the page I submitted was approved or not or if there's something I need to work on it.

Hello, I submitted a page last month and still got no feedback from anyone whether the page was approved or not or if there's something I need to work on it. Please let me know how could I proceed. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohjesabee (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ohjesabee: are we talking about the draft about Matt Artisan at User:Ohjesabee/sandbox? It doesn't look like it has been submitted for review yet. To submit it to Articles for Creation, copy and paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft. Or, let us know that is what you want and someone here can do it. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What's the best way to approach an article?

I was recently blocked for a week for disruptive editing and uploading a non-free photo despite having permission from the creator to use it. but now it has expired. I was suggested to go ask for the best way to approach an article. What is the best way to approach an article? Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

A good look at some of our policies and guidelines should help you understand how to best approach articles. They offer many pointers on how to behave and to understand what is proper content for Wikipedia.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

In looking at your Contributions, it at times looks like you have copied an existing article into Draft and then worked on the Draft (sometimes also working on the original article), with the intent of later replacing the existing article with your draft. I suggest you either work on the existing article directly, or copy sections into your Sandbox, edit there, then paste back into the existing article. David notMD (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick question

Does the extended confirmed right by itself also have the features of (auto)confirmed (when a user doesn’t have (Auto)confirmed but has extended confirmed)? PorkchopGMX (Sign your posts with four tildes!) 23:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@PorkchopGMX: You automatically are given autoconfirmed status after four days and ten edits. It cannot be removed, so when you reach extended confirmed status, you will be both an extended confirmed user and an autoconfirmed user. — MRD2014 ^Talk 01:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Can Archived Tea House Sections Be Reinstated?

I deliberately held-off posting in the Section, trying a tactic I've used in forums, of not "flooding" the OP and the whole thread by my posts, thereby driving off participation. In this case it's backfired. I didn't know a Tea House thread would be "archived" after a "few days" (which is meaningless and really should be corrected). I assume the answer is "No", but I need to hear it. Please quote Wikipedia Policy, Guidelines, etc... if this information is actually recorded here somewhere.Tym Whittier (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Tym Whittier. This is a fairly high volume page and in most cases a question is answered within a few minutes or a few hours of posting. If there is ongoing discussion, the archiving is delayed until nothing new has been added for a few days. The helpful message on your talk page contains a link to the archived discussion; archive is not a euphemism for "thrown out" or "hidden away". But the archived threads are moved off the active page and if you want to follow up with additional questions later, you're expected to create a new section on this main Teahouse page (it's the one that people are actively watching). And if someone sees you making a change to an archive, they will most likely revert your edit.

While Help:Archiving a talk page#Continuing discussions mentions that Given that archived discussions are immutable, archiving a discussion effectively ends that particular discussion. When reopening a discussion is desired, links to archived discussions can be provided in the new discussion thread. there is also an advisory notice at the top of the page that says the page is not necessarily "policy".

But as several of us have tried to explain, Wikipedia is not a host for "forum" communication in the sense that you seem to be familiar with. The intent is to build an encyclopedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tym Whittier, there is no place here on Wikipedia where it is appropriate for you to comment at length about your personal opinions about any topic. This is a project to build and improve an encyclopedia. Accordingly, all discussion here should be oriented to how to improve specific articles in specific ways, or how to improve the encyclopedia in general. Other types of discussion should take place on social media sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or countless other such websites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Username Change

How do I change my username?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaz1411 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jaz1411. I found information about it for you here and here. I hope that helps. Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 04:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Jaz Martin article you should really take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners. And per your username, perhaps Wikipedia:Autobiography. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Communicating with editors

How to post my answer to the editor's talk page?

Thank you, Alx mikh (Inverse Sets) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alx mikh (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

To communicate with an editor on their talk page, click on the "New section" tab at the top.

A comment on your sandboxed draft: it's about a transitive relation between pairs of sets of sets. It would help if you

1. said so near the start of the draft
2. gave the name of this relation at the start of the draft (and told it to Legacypac, as the "topic name"). Maproom (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Alx mikh. If you go to a page where you can view the editor's username, then there should be a link to their talk page next to it. Otherwise if you click on their username, then you can click the "talk" button at the top next to the Wikipedia logo. This page will take you to a guide to talk pages: WP:TALKPAGE. 🤠 Let me know if my explanation makes sense or if you need more help. Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 08:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Advertising on Wikipedia

I am wondering what constitutes the difference between advertising and trying to create an informative edit. On the Sun Country Airlines page my edit regarding their new rewards program keeps getting reverted. I do not see how my additions are anything but information on the rewards program of an airline. If you look at the SkyMiles Wikipedia page you will see that my edit is very similar to the edits on that page but those are not considered advertising?? Raine004 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As a Reader, my impression is the Article is already to spammy with information with what may be very temporary promotional programs. There's a guideline somewhere I read about how Wikipedia is "Not for Promotion", or words to that effect. Sorry no explicit link. If I were interested in reading an Encyclopedic Article on Sun Country, I'd want interesting information about the Airlines itself (however you define it, which admittedly could be difficult to pin down) vs. "Current Prices" information. Second, you can easily see who reverts your several edits, and they give some reason why. If that's not enough, you could just ask them. Finally I'm curious why you care to do these kinds of edits to this specific Wikipedia Article. Do you have some connection to the business that you may need to disclose? I just checked your Talk Page, and it looks a bit like a duck.Tym Whittier (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree the article is absolutely spammy with some information and over the last year I have been editing it on and off to try and make it more current, and informative. Yes I have been discussing that with someone on my talk page. What does "looks a bit like a duck" mean? Raine004 (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A) Raine004 declared no present nor former affiliation, paid or otherwise, with any airline. B) Pointing out that a not-accepted or deleted article or new content to an article is like another article that exists is not a valid argument (and sometimes results in deletion of the example, too). C) The SkyMiles article is about a rewards program; what you added was a description of an awards program in an article about an airline. The latter is promotional, the former not. David notMD (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @David notMD:, this makes sense. So it does not matter if the rewards program is part of the airline itself? It is considered promotional because of the inclusion of prices? Raine004 (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

In looking at the history of the article, there has been back and forth on content that some editors thought information and others promotional. I shortened the Frequent flyers section to what I thought was sufficient. Prices are subject to change, and thus not useful for an encyclopedia. As an extreme example, there would be no point in providing prices of airfares. David notMD (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it, Raine004: Wikipedia is interested in what independent sources say about things, not about what the subject says about itself. If somebody wholly unconnected with the airline chose to write an article about the rewards programme (not just a passing mention, not an article based on a press release, and not just a general article about different rewards programme, but for some reason decided that this particular airline's rewards programme was worthy of discussion) then there might well be a case for the article on the airline talking about it. But if there is nothing published about it beyond what the airline says, then no. (This is essentially the definition of notable: that policy applies to articles, not to information mentioned in articles; but I think it is a useful guide here). --ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding photos to infobox

Hi friends! I'm totally new to Wikipedia. Thank you for inviting me to join this! Excited to learn more!

How do I add a photo to a infobox? I wrote a new page about a public figure whose talk I recently attended and who I admire. There are lots of photos of him on Google, but I'm not sure how to properly use it in Wikipedia :)

This is the full URL of the page I'm asking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harald_Link

Thank you!

ChulaUniversitySoph2020 (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello ChulaUniversitySoph2020, and welcome to the Teahouse! WP:s basic assumption is that any random pic you find on google is copyrighted and so we can't use it. There are exceptions, but it's likely to be true about anything you find on google of a living person. More at Wikipedia:Image use policy. If you or someone you know have taken a photo of this person, that can be used, the photographer should then upload it via the process started here: [1]. Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Awesome and thank you very much!! Will see if I can find anyone who knows him better or has a photo. Might be tough...lol ChulaUniversitySoph2020 (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Citing a patent using visual editor

Hello, I am writing an article(draft) about Mikko S. Niemelä and want to cite a patent he holds in the article. Can someone please guide me, how i can do that using visual editor. Tasneem.tech (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Tasneem.tech

You may find this guide useful Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing references, though I see it's not been updated recently. You can follow the mediawiki link for more thorough explanation. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tasneem.tech. I have been using Visual Editor for most of my edits but I do not know any feature that allows you to reference patents. If you haven't found information that could help you in this area, you can use its Basic citation option. Find a Wikipedia article that references a patent and cite the details in the Basic form using that format. As an alternative, you can check the markup template for patent citation here. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

How much can be written based off one or two sources?

I was reading an article where there was a section with about ~500 words and only two sources that are just cited throughout. I was thinking that seems a lot for not many sources and that it should be condensed (and it can be). Would it be fair if I condensed it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.0.120 (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say without having seen the article, but you can always try WP:BOLD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Creation of a new page: bibliography

I just read that in order to write a bibliography of a notable person, I need to have at least three high-level references, but 'company's websites and press releases' cannot be accepted. Could you please explain what you precisely mean? For example, I was wondering whether newspaper articles could be included or not.

Best regards.

Hello Claudio.delnobletto, did you perhaps mean biography? In short, reliable newspaper/magazine articles/books that are independent of the subject but talk about it in some detail is what you are after. More guidance at Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Declined Article: Borgia Infami: An Opera in Two Acts

I am very new to this, so I appreciate your patience. I am hoping to get some understanding on why I was denied the publishing of Borgia Infami: An Opera in Two Acts . The rejection cited lack of verifiable sources, so I've added a few more and added in-text citations, but I am hoping to get some direction on if what I have added is enough. I don't want the content to get deleted if I try to publish it again. The topic was produced by the company I work for in collaboration with a local university, Washington University, St. Louis (Wash U). Wash U asked us to create a Wikipedia page for the opera in honor of their former longtime professor and composer of the opera Harold Blumenfeld. It was only produced once, aside for the partial production in New York in 2003 (which I cited in the initial submission), so there isn't a lot of literature on the opera or is productions. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winteroperastl (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Winteroperast1 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, both you and Wash U misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not their business, or yours, to create or edit an article about an opera they and you produced: you are not forbidden from doing so, but you are discouraged because of your conflict of interest (and if you are doing this in connection with a paid position, as it sounds like you are, you must comply with WP:PAID). An article is not created (or, for that matter, deleted) just because the subject, or somebody associated with the subject, wants that. It can be created if the consensus is that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - essentially, that several people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish at some length about it, in reliable places.

Note also that creating an article "in honor of" somebody is both inconsistent with the purposes of Wikipedia, and not necessarily a good idea: see WP:PRIDE and WP:OWN for why not.

So, to answer your question directly: after reading about COI and PAID and made declarations as appropriate, you will need to find places where people wholly unconnected with the opera, the company, and the university, have written at length about the opera. I'm not sure that any of your current citations are satisfactory: the Wash U one isn't independent, the Opera America one is anonymous, and I would expect that the material came from the company; and blogs are hardly ever regarded as reliable sources. It is possible the STL Jewish Light piece is satisfactory (I can't view it in Europe), but not if it is based on a press release or interview. Actually the Steve Callahan review (linked from the Blog, but not referenced in your draft) looks promising. But you really need at least one more source of comparable quality. --ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Winteroperastl - First, please sign any comments you make on talk pages with four tildes, (~~~~). Second, since you work for the company attempting to create this article, please see WP:PAID, and follow the steps there to declare yourself. Also be aware of WP:COI. The fact that it had a very limited run, and there isn't much reference to it out there, might indicate that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and pages created as memorials are simply not allowed. Finally, articles which consist almost entirely of plot summaries are not a good thing. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, ColinFine and Onel5969 for clearing this up for me! I will take this information back to the university and the company. I also appreciate your posting the links for reference, I will use them to explain the guidelines to both. Best, Winteroperastl (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Winbolt article

Someone deleted a picture of the subject included though it was wellout of copywright - a newspaper drawing from the South wales Daily News 18 January 1895. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane Coffey (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Diane Coffey: Welcome to the Teahouse, and may I just prod you in future to not only sign every one of your talk page messages with four tildes (like this: ~~~~), but also to remember to include a link to the page you are actually asking about? These two things make the work for Teahouse hosts so much easier. Luckily you have only really made edits to one article, so I can see what happened to the image at Hannah Winbolt which was deleted. If you go to this link you'll see that it was deleted because it was attributed to a modern newspaper. There is a detailed explanation of the deletion rationale on that page. So presumably you didn't make it clear when you uploaded it that the image was no longer in copyright? Once again, not everyone can be a mind-reader, so maybe they just assumed it was copyright. My advice would be too politely reach out to the deleting editor at Wikimedia Commons, explaining (and linking to) the source and asking them to reinstate the image and ask what you need to do in future to ensure old images aren't deleted. I probably can't offer much more help than this as I'm unable to see the deleted image, and Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are completely separate. But I hope this reply is nevertheless of some use. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) commons:File:Hannah Winbolt (1).jpg was deleted by Ronhjones. The old file page can only be seen by Commons administrators but the picture may have been undated. Ronhjones will be notified of my mention. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Diane Coffey: Replying at your commons talk page c:User talk:Diane Coffey Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Need assistance

Hi friends, I hope you all are good. As i am new to wikipedia, after learning and reading all the general things about wikipedia's policy and rules, i've started to edit on wikipedia smoothly. So, i want to contribute more on wikipedia. so, where can i find the pages which are not completed well or (error). And i also want to know about new pending changes reviewer and rollback and to fight against vandalism. So, Who can help and assist me on these things. Please let me know. TheRedBox (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, TheRedBox, and welcome to the Teahouse. Goodness, that's a whole load of questions. Let's see:

• With over 5 million articles in mainspace, there are innumerable ways that pages are incomplete. A really great way to find the type of work that interests you can be found at Wikipedia:Task Center.
• Many WikiProjects exist to work on topic-related articles. These projects often have a table of relevant articles tabulated by importance and quality assessment. Finding articles that have been deemed important, but are still stubs or start-class articles could be another way of finding articles to improve.
• For Rollback, take a look at Wikipedia:Rollback. Whilst it is a 'right' which has to be specially requested, if you have Twinkle enabled in your Preferences, you do have a rollback function there, which should suit in many circumstances.
• Patrolling (checking) newly created pages is done by experienced volunteers - and we need more! See Wikipedia:New pages patrol for more information.
• Fighting vandalism is an ongoing task, and eyes are always needed. See Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools for some useful tools to assist you, or consider joining Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit.

This is, perforce, a brief reply, but unless there are specific questions I think it best to let you visit these links and read more for yourself. From a personal perspective, I found that live correcting of spelling errors (with Lupin's anti-vandal tool) and monitoring recent changes (my favourite settings for this) both provided a range of articles with issues which I sometimes found myself randomly wanting to fix, whether it be improving the style of English, correcting layout and formatting errors, or removing promotional content and checking other contributions that some mischievous editor has made. But we're all different, and there's never a lack of tasks for keen Wikipedians like you to do. Does this answer you adequately? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thankyou Nick Moyes. I hope this all will help me for now. if i need any more assistance i'll definitely ping you. TheRedBox (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
• How to use this tool [[2]] can you help me out? TheRedBox (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing, TheRedBox. See Help:Recent changes which explains that this is a live feed of all edits. The link I supplied is a set of settings I use to filter and show only those edits that are quite likely to be vandalism/bad faith edits, or have some other problem. (But that's not to say that they are all bad!!) As I write this, I see that we are at Level 1 vandalism alert (the highest level - I put a little widget on my userpage to flag up what level it's at.) If you click 'live update' you don't need to refresh the page. Those edits which are automatically sensed as 'most likely bad faith edits' are in highlighted with colours ( see explanation at top of that page).

Each row is one edit made to one page, linking to a 'diff', page history, the article name, the editor's username, and their edit summary (if given), and a figure to show by how much an article has increased or decreased in byte size by that edit. By right-clicking the word 'diff' you open a new window showing the difference between that and the previous edit (changes are shown in bold type). You then need to assess whether it was legitimate, good faith unhelpful or vandalism/disruptive, and act accordingly. (Subtle example here; blatant example here; genuine edit here) I use Twinkle to leave warnings and welcome messages to users whose edits have been problematic, but it's up to you to determine whether the edit was reasonable (many are!), so always assume good faith and don't revert/rollback an editor unnecessarily, and always leave an edit summary if you're reverting but it isn't pure vandalism. It cause offence when someone reverts an edit, so it's essential to explain why you've taken the action you have. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that every IP editor is a vandal - huge numbers make great contribution. I often word search on edit summary terms like "typo" or "I fixed", or look for articles on schools. It's surprising how many bad editors like to announce their stupidity by writing words like 'I fixed it' - so these are helpful clues to look for. I also look for size changes of "(0)", as many silly people think it's clever just to change one letter or make no net change in the belief we won't notice. But we do - and you can help with this. Just to repeat - go careful at first, and if you're on a mobile do be aware it's very easy to hit 'rollback' in error, so be prepared to undo your own edits if you think you've made a mistake. An apology never goes amiss if you do make an error of judgement. Does this make any sense? Give it a try and let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help nick i did some changes according to your suggestions and previous link you provided which were likely very bad faith and found that like they edit on 0 and 1 single letter and make it other spam words too. I reverted some unusual edits. I think i likely did well and i'll look after what you have taught me here. TheRedBox (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

All this is fine in theory but the fact is that the encyclopaedia has now been taken over by vandals and trolls and administrators are ensuring that there's no chance for the rest of us to edit. The entire reference desk and the Helpdesk are all protected. See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_855#R/D help. The vandalism is juvenile. It's not the stuff that should hang around in the revision history but it's not "outing" which requires immediate revision deletion. Administrators' claims that they have to protect because the cleanup is a full time job are untrue. Revision delete at leisure - the stuff will disappear from the visible page within minutes without their assistance. 2A00:23C4:5D03:E100:305F:D789:20A:9B8 (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)