Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 959

Archive 955

←

Archive 957

Archive 958

Archive 959

Archive 960

Archive 961

→

Archive 965

Most effective forum to discuss problematic BLP?

Reading the text of article Shafiat Sobhan Sanvir, most people would conclude that he is not notable. If that were all there were to it, I would take it to AfD.

But a search of English-language Bangladeshi newspapers returns ~75 hits from 2007-1016. They stem from his being the primary accused in a murder, and the subsequent US$2.5m alleged bribery of a government minister so as to evade justice. Sanvir was acquitted of the murder in 2011,[1] although as of 2016 the High Court was considering cancelling the judgement.[2] The status of the bribery investigation is unclear.

The questions of whether Sanvir is notable, and, if so, how the allegations should be covered in the article, runs into a thicket of policies and guidelines that are not my usual haunt: WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BIO1E, at a minimum.

It is unclear to me where the best place to discuss the disposition of the article would be. The only major contributor is dormant, the talk page is likely unwatched, this isn't really a content dispute between editors, and AfD doesn't feel right because I don't necessarily advocate deletion (possible alternatives include redirection to a new article about the murder, expansion to include allegations, status quo unless and until there is a conviction, and probably more I haven't thought of). Where would be the most appropriate place to raise this to get input from experts on these BLP issues? --Worldbruce (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Worldbruce: if the only thing he's notable for is the accusation of murder, then the accusation should be discussed in the article. As it stands, it cites no sources (though it does list some), and provides no evidence of notability. I have moved it to Draft:Shafiat Sobhan Sanvir, where it should remain until it's converted to an acceptable article or deleted. Maproom (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Question on notability.

I am trying to create a page for the Media Production Company Epic Age Media. I am not sure if my time building the page will be taken down because of notability. The company has been established since 2008 and has multiple different facets from Video, Fiction, Board Games, card games and role playing games. The sources available range from the company website to Facebook, LinkedIn, Wordpress, reviews, convention panels, podcasts and interviews. It is a sole proprietorship that does its own distribution and is primarily print on demand. The products and projects have won awards and have been well-received by hundreds in the local Houston area, across the nation and the world. Are these sources sufficient for a company that has been in existence for over a decade and has over 2 dozen products? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicagemedia (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I see that Epicagemedia has been blocked from for promotion, and their contribution no longer exists. Maproom (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Noob questions about getting an image for Wikimedia Commons

Hey there! I'm writing an article about one of my favorite authors who I noticed doesn't have a wikipdia page (yet :)). Anyways, I've submitted my draft for review, and feel that an image would make the info box on the page look great. Can anyone give me some tips for getting an image for that? Should I reach out to the author to see if he has an image I can upload to Wikimedia Commons, or would it be best if I asked him or whoever has the rights to the image to upload it, and then I would just use the link. If this is explained in an article, I apologize. Thanks for your help. :) Sadies Plants (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Should ask whoever has the rights to the image. This person can e-mail it to the address specified in Commons:Commons:OTRS. Ruslik_Zero 20:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ruslik_Zero, much appreciated! Take care. Sadies Plants (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Assistance on a Commons question in a GAN

I'd appreciate if someone with experience dealing with PD issues on Commons could take a look at the issue at: Talk:BMT Broadway Line/GA1. I was under the impression that we needed specific evidence of the date of publication, but Kew Gardens has provided reasonable circumstantial evidence. However, I don't know the PD rules well enough to feel comfortable signing off on this. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

deleting message about 'no source or citation' in a wikipedia page

Hi I'm only a one-time text provider to one particular page at wikipedia (henry carbine), not a regular editor, so have actually no idea what's what. Someone invited me to come here - I guess that's to ask how to delete the message in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_carbine

Info and sources are self-explanatory, so I don't know what else to ask, or what additional info to provide.

Thanks MagicRifleResearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicRifleResearch (talk • contribs) 00:10, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

Henry carbine was tagged as having no references because it contained no references. To remove the tag it would be necessary to provide reliable sources (see WP:RS) to support the material. In this case it seems moot as the article has now been redirected to Henry rifle since it was a completely untsourced article about fictional gun. There is no evidence this is notable.. Meters (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

MagicRifleResearch, your contributions were there in the history and I put them back. The references now show at the bottom. Meters, this is not just any fictional universe, this is Karl May, also known as Karl May: the best German writer you've never heard of. It has no relation beyond the name to the Henry rifle. We have an entire Category:Fictional weapons with subcategories so Wikipedia does include these things. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Fix ping

No need to ping me. I didn't redirect it Talk to the editor who did., Meters (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello StarryGrandma (if the name doesn't turn colour I don't know how to do it) - thanks for knowing Karl May. And for putting back the 'Magic' Rifle page. I still don't know about inserting the picture, see below this thread, the next thread is also mine (which I shouldn't have opened, shouldn't have made a new post?) Anyway, I'm not putting up the image of the Henrystutzen until I know wikipedia won't slap my wrists for doing so. MagicRifleResearch (talk)

image and copyright

Hello - again, I have no idea what's what and how it is done. For the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_carbine I have an image. It is an artist's impression of the 'Henry Carbine' as described by Karl May. I own the copyright to the image, but the person who collaborated with me in creating the gun image (a firearms expert) owns the copyright to the gun design. I have the gun designer's permission to use the image as and when for all things Karl May, Karl May literature, or Karl May related things in the broadest sense. But I'm not sure how wikipedia sees this because the image contains the by-line gun design copyright (name deleted - no names here), who is the firearm designer. - Thank you - MagicRifleResearch — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicRifleResearch (talk • contribs) 00:41, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

Hello for the third time - just as I went back to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_carbine page, it redirected to the Henry Rifle - they are not the same thing. How unfortunate. One whole day's work down the drain. Thanks wikipedia.

Addition - I just read someone's reply - I have no idea what it all means, so I guess I'll take my leave from wikipedia.

One more question - how do I delete my account now? Thanks MagicRifleResearch (I best leave because I have no idea what all the tabs and squiggles mean - something about signing MagicRifleResearch (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC) ?)

Please don't create new thread with each post.

Please sign your posts with four tildes.

You cannot delete your account. Just stop using it.

You say that you own the copyright on the image. Did you draw it, or are you saying this because the other party has given you permission to use it? If the latter, the actual copyright owner would have tot release the drawing to Wikipedia, not you.. And, asd you point out, s above, this seems moot since the article has already been redirected. Meters (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I checked one last time and saw that the page was back - I do apologise for being a wikipedia greenhorn - I'm far too old to actually understand much of the technology (yes grammaw age) or how forums work - they scare me ... and I fuddle my way through things ...

The picture - I created the picture. So I own the copyright to the picture, but I must put 'design: name deleted' as the gun design is his (and I'll do it very gladly). So that's why I'm not sure what wikipedia will do to me if I put up the picture as from me (which it is), and it has the words 'gun design copyright: name deleted' on it.

Thanks MagicRifleResearch (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

MagicRifleResearch, I'm not an expert at images. You will need to license the image at Commons with a free license allowing reuse even for commercial purposes. Are you sure you want to do that? More information is at c:Commons:Licensing. Both of you will need to send email to c:Commons:OTRS (which takes some time to respond), following the procedures at c:Commons:Email templates. It's complicated so you can ask for help at c:Commons:Help desk. You also need to provide more references for the article. It is not enough to write about what you know. What the books say can be referenced to the books, but interpretation has to come from a published source. There is quite a bit written about Karl May and his works in English, as well as in German. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello StarryGrandma (I copied the brackets around above name, hopefully it'll make the name blue) - ... but 'if in doubt, leave out'. I'll link to other wikipedia pages (in German) that have modern depictions of the 'magic' rifle. I'm a one time text provider and that'll be it for me. Nice to know that there are other English speaking people who know Karl May. Cheers MagicRifleResearch (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

ADDENDUM - WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT - THE PAGE OF THE HENRYSTUTZEN/HENRY CARBINE IS AGAIN GOING TO THE HENRY RIFLE. THAT'LL DO ME. I looked at History, and found this, but haven't the foggiest what it means. v 04:53, 22 May 2019‎ Seraphimblade talk contribs‎ 25 bytes -12,188‎ Reinstatement of fictional works -requires- out of universe sources, but feel free to select a different target. Do not reinstate without substantial OOU sources. undothank Tag: New redirect .... BYEMagicRifleResearch (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW - http://karl-may-wiki.de/index.php/Henrystutzen

Is this any good for whatever is required? I won't risk fiddling with the text now - I'm not confident enough with wikipedia trickery (I don't know what 'out of universe' actually means) ........ https://centerofthewest.org/2018/06/29/karl-may-henry-carbine-myth/ ............. MagicRifleResearch (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC) (Handing it over to the universe).

This has been redirected three times now. A discussion of possible out of universe sources is at Talk:Henry carbine Meters (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Charles Shyer (infobox problems)

Hi, I am Charles Shyer's assistant and I am trying to create an infobox on his page because for some reason it was changed. When I do it, I input the code just like the template says, but the infobox with his picture doesn't show up on his page, only the code does. Please help, I'm not great with HTML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlee3835 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Tlee3835, what broke the infobox was the edit here that removed the two braces following Shyer's birth date. As you have a conflict of interest with regard to the article's subject, it would be best for you to detail on the article's talk page any changes you think need to be made. Put the template {{request edit}} at the top of the post in which you request the changes. Deor (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tlee3835: Also if your position as Charles Shyer's assistant is a paid one, please review Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure policy as it would apply to you. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

About SockPuppetry

Currently, I'm using Airtel Internet connection and now I'm getting better and faster speed so the IP will be changed, so Basically, I want to know that will I be considered as Sock of anyone who has used that IP before which I'll get in some time? I'm getting Hathway Broadband I have read at WP:SOCK Checkusers considers Sock if the same IP address is being used or ever used by two different users (not Specifically) but by reading it sounds like that only. I can share in Userpage my previous and Current(new) IP address when I'll get connection today in some time. --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 11:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• @SidPedian: OK, that's a lot of questions packed in one. In any case: you absolutely do not need to provide a list of your previous or current IP addresses, and I would even encourage you not to do it because people you know might then link you to the edits you make (cf WP:IRL).

On the technical aspect: some (most?) ISP rotate IP addresses between customers (see DHCP). Checkusers and admins involved in sockpuppetry investigations are well aware of this.

On the policy aspect: sockpuppetry is the use by a single person of multiple identifiers (accounts or IP addresses) with the intent to pretend to be a different person. Editing while logged out of your account is fine (as long as you do not claim to be a different person), same for having a changing IP address (you cannot control it, and we do not expect you to monitor it either).

On the enforcement aspect: admins/checkusers should never check an account's technical identifiers (IP address, user-agent) without previous evidence of sockpuppetry. Unless you know something I do not know after a quick look at your talk page, you (SidPedian) are not at risk of being investigated for sockpuppetry, even if you share your network or even your computer with someone who does sockpuppet. Most IP blocks do not prevent to log into an existing account from blocked IP addresses. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you look on my User Page, you will see the "disclosure" statement I made to solve this problem. Also, it's not a problem until someone says it's a problem. When someone says it's a problem, then you have a problem. Having a "disclosure" statement that predates the accusation will probably solve it. Mentioning your ISP & internet connection speed improvement will go a long way towards alleviating any concerns since you are providing credible details as to "why". However, if you work on highly contentious/controversial Articles, you could still have a problem. In my time here, I've noticed some Editors make "bad faith" accusations like this (as well as many others) in an effort to win content disputes. There's nothing you can do about that besides "roll with it" and do the best you can. The BEST thing you can do, IMO is remain consistently polite, and role-model good, polite, professional behavior no matter what the provocation, because should your situation come under Administrative review, how you've comported yourself in terms of online behavior carries great weight. The converse is also true. If another Editor is 1) making these types of accusations and 2) violating Wikipedia norms and standards for online conduct, frequently the initiated review, or investigation, can WP:OUCH. IMO, the best defense is to not be defensive. Keep Wikipedia foundational principles, policies and cultural norms at the top of your mind, and ignore all the interpersonal provocations. Also read the "Administrator's Notice Board" for some real-life examples of people that have crossed lines, made accusations and how Administrators have dealt with them. Sometimes, who gets the block or ban is a very dramatic SURPRISE. Very informative, and sometimes very entertaining.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "surprise". Who gets blocked or banned is the bad actor. No advantage is granted to the "first mover" in a dispute. One doesn't win a dispute with someone because one was the first to "report" them to ANI. Indeed, generally admins are smart enough to recognize that the first person to report a dispute is trying to "win" by nefarious means, such as getting their opponent blocked by "tattling" on them. That's not how we work here. --Jayron32 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

What happens when there are two (or more) "bad actors"?Tym Whittier (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Article about Uche Odoputa

guys i recently created a new article but is still in review and its said: 1. This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. 2. The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. what am i missing pls? NB: the Article is about Uche Odoputa, a nollywood actor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uche_Odoputa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonpotter01 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jonpotter01, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your article currently has two sources. One is a blog [3] (which we generally don't use, especially not in articles about living people), the other doesn't seem that good either [4] (though for all I know, it may be the Washington Post of entertainment news in Nigeria). Basically these sources would be ok if they were published in, say, The Guardian (Nigeria), or something not too far from it.

So in short, you need more and better sources. If they don't exist, WP won't have an article on him until they do. Take the time to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:PERSON. WP:NOENG may also be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

What? after an article is reviewed

I have received msg that Your draft is reviewed. now what is the next step for me to follow. How does my draft gets published and when the word draft is removed from the name of my article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadilghb (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Which draft are you referring to, Aadilghb? There is no such notification on your user talk page, and the only draft that your account has created, Draft:Muhammad Aadil, has not been reviewed - in fact, you have not submitted it for review. But maybe this refers to some other draft? --bonadea contributions talk 10:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

yes I am talking about Draft: Muhammad Aadil. How can I submit an article to be reviewed

Aadilghb: if Draft:Muhammad Aadil is submitted for review in its current state, it will certainly be rejected, as it cites no sources. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners. Maproom (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Questionable deletion and editing

I have been editing for couple of years and I have always problem in my special area - the tennis historical figures and stats. Bytheway, I am a tennis historian, I corrected ATP site, providing missing sheets to Tennis Hall of Fame museum, attending all kind of tennis event (ITF, ATP, WTA etc) running the most comprehensive Grand Slam database and MY EDITS WERE DELETED permanently without any notifications? This unexplainable deletion made me utmost upset and as I mentioned not only myself is affected. I demand explanation why wikipedia deleted my edits without any notifications especial in the expertise of tennis! I am working Hall of Fame journalists and I know personally every high-regarded media member of the tennis world. None of them work for wikipedia!!! You do not respect knowledge, preparedness, commitment and the time and energy which I ( and other people) invested to elevate the level of the wikipedia. Mrandrew16 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrew16 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mrandrew16. Have you asked the editor who reverted your edits to explain why they did so? That should be your first course of action, rather than shouting at the volunteers here, who likely had nothing to do with the reverts. By the way, very few edits are ever permanently deleted - they are usually there in the page's edit history. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry. Sorry for this 'shouting', however I am utmost disappointed and frustrated! The editors deleted even my editing history since May 12! How it happened? I know exactly which sites I made edits (Steffi Graf, Natasha Zvereva etc.) and I am not able to find any of my edits, not even my user name in view history? Furthermore, I did another edit on May 20, and the total excel (which last line I added a stat) is disappeared...There is any logical explanation? I appreciate your time and your kindness to try to solve the problem!Mrandrew16 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The last edits you made from your account before today were on 12 May (see Special:Contributions/Mrandrew16). Perhaps you accidentally edited while logged out? I'd suggest checking the individual article histories to see if you can find the edits that way. If you made them while logged out, they'll be listed against your IP address rather than username. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry. I have already checked those individual sites and that's my problem: I did not find any of my edits on that either! And I was logged in and I always checked my completed edits on the public sites! Furthermore, that referenced excel (wins vs No.1 players) which listed all of the matches of Nadal which he won against No.1 players, is disappeared! Mysterious!Mrandrew16 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, Mrandrew16 Mrandrew16's contributions begin on 20 December 2014. He did indeed make a number of edits to Steffi Graf, in early March 2015. Vexations (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles, especially those on well-known living persons, change over time. It is the nature of this project that they do so. If you want to know why a change was made, you should ask on the relevant article's talk page, and maybe try to be a little calmer when doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox I understand your standpoint of the change for well-known living persons' bio,however, please understand my frustration too when you tried to make wikipedia better, more informative and when you just realize that everything was thrown out of the window without any notification. In that event, nobody can sit and smile. Thank you!22:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Mrandrew16 (talk)

There were no edits between 12 Mar and today on Natasha Zvereva. There were no edits between 28 Apr and today on Steffi Graf. Explanations are lacking, but very unlikely to be problems with Wikipedia or its logs. Shenme (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Shenme I appreciate your assistance of checking the referenced sites, however I did edit on there definitely. I did it again, and we'll see how the things work out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrew16 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Shenme I checked again the referenced sites, and I found the edits I did, however I do not understand why these edits are displayed under IP address and not under my username. I was logged in that time. It is possible if I collect those edits in a list you would switch that IP address to my user name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrew16 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not possible to change the attribution of a past edit, Mrandrew16. If you are worried about your IP address having been revealed, it can be hidden if you want (see WP:OSPOL), but it's not possible to reassign edits to your account. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mrandrew16: The login page has a box "Keep me logged in (for up to 365 days)". You don't stay logged in if you change browser, or your browser deletes cookies. Help:Logging in has some tips. The following applies to the desktop version of the site. The top of the page shows your username when you are logged in. Contributions at the top shows your edits. The "View history" tab on a page shows the edit history. If you wonder why a change is no longer in the page then post a diff to it here. That means posting the url after you click "diff" in your contributions, or "prev" in the page history. You still haven't given us enough information to identify any of the edits you complain about so we cannot examine what happened. Maybe some of them were never saved because you only clicked "Show preview", or added external links from an IP address and overlooked a captcha step after clicking "Publish changes". Maybe they were reverted because they were unsourced, or broke the formatting of the page, or also included inappropriate changes. We have to see the edits to say. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear PrimeHunter, thank you for detailed explanation, I appreciate it! The edits were applied on the site of Steffi Graf and Natasha Zvereva regarding the duration of 1988 French Open final they played. As well as I added a line in the section of Rafael Nadal's wins vs No. 1 players, however it was a quite difficult to find this section because there are two different subpages inside Rafael Nadal: 1. Rafael Nadal career statistics and 2. List of career achievements by Rafael Nadal. However at the "See also" section there was not listed the 2nd one! Now I did a change and I added this list in this section and now it is much easier to find for anybody who would check this list.Mrandrew16 (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

While I can't tell you why your edits were undone without further details, Mrandrew16, I note that in some edits you've made since starting this thread (here and here), you copied part of a sentence directly from the source, without putting the words in quote marks. That could be one reason why your past edits have been reverted. Please see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for advice on how to avoid plagiarism. I will fix the issue with these two edits shortly. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Thank You for your instruction and I already placed the missing quotations on both sites. I did not intend having any plagiarism and I supposed it is more than enough if I indicate the references before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrandrew16 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition of quote marks to the two articles, Mrandrew16, because I had already paraphrased the text yesterday. Please also note that it is generally considered bad form to substantially change a talk page question or comment after it has been responded to, as you did here (although I appreciate your efforts to tone down your language). Cordless Larry (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Cordless Larry, having appreciated your assistance, however I am lost a little bit and I do not understand that if I cited a text from a person (Steven Pye) like I did on the page of Steffi Graf and Natasha Zvereva, and I put as a reference, this time you mentioned that I should have put the words in quotation marks to avoid plagiarism. After I did and put the citation in a quotation mark, now you reverted and currently the citation is without quotation mark. Sorry, but I do not see any difference? Using quotation mark or not? I wanna avoid the plagiarism!I would be grateful if you explain the differences!Mrandrew16 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mrandrew16: Quotation marks are only for direct quotes. Cordless Larry reworded your direct quote in [5] so quotation marks should not be used after that. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter I got it! Thank you for this information, I appreciate it!Mrandrew16 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

How do I add my website link to Wikipedia's Page about Netley Abbey?

Hello, I have a website called "Netley Abbey Matters" - all about the history of our Village, its once Military Hospital and its Military Cemetery. I would like to add my website to the existing page about Netley Abbey. Its URL is https://www.netleyabbeymatters.co.uk It's all my own work and I cite sources etc whenever possible. It will contain (by tomorrow) a link into a Hospital Summary Listing of the folk, so far identified, who walked the corridors of the Royal Victoria Military Hospital, Netley during its history between 1863 and 1978. There are no official records and we are researching and receiving new names and bios all the time. We were interviewed about our Project on BBC South Today last Thursday evening, 23 May 2019. I have an account and I'm a subscriber. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda0101 (talk • contribs)

@Brenda0101: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Policy in this area is governed by the External Links policy. Wikipedia articles are not meant to have collections of links on the subject; it is also a conflict of interest for you to add a link to your own website, and it could be seen as promotional. I would suggest that if you truly feel it merits inclusion in the article, that you start a discussion on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability of topic new Wikipedia page

Hello, for a class project we are creating a new Wikipedia page. We would like to contribute to the page on Water Supply in Lebanon by writing about the Bisri dam. We would just like to check whether this would be considered a notable topic? Any ideas? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaSophie96 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your interest in helping! From a quick search, the Bisri Dam seems notable enough to have an article in its own right. It would be great if you made an article about it. You might want to start at Wikipedia:Your first article for information about the process. If you need any help, you can ask a question here or reach out to me at my talk page. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Wanting to donate BAT because I use the Brave browser

Since I started using the Brave browser I've been earning BAT (Basic Attention Tokens). These are meant to be donated to content creators and publishers to support their work. I would love to donate my BAT to the Wikimedia Project but it isn't registered with the donation program. Is there a plan to include BAT donations as a means of supporting Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.14.130 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

HellO, IP user. I can't find any evidence that this has been discussed, though we have an article on Brave (web browser), which contains a section on Basic Attention Tokens. The best place to discuss the possibility would be WP:VPP, I think. --ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Drafts deletion

Some random criticism pushed for deletion of my wikipedia profile which is not fair because people like jeff bezos sebastian kulczyk they have their own profiles moreover beyond. Pl superserver is worth 20 milion pound where i have only 2 pc tommorrow i plan spread my possesions and computers contiune winning attidute

Draft:Michael Bezos is up for speedy deletion because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on what people write about a topic, not what you write about yourself. Not social media. David notMD (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

New Stub page

Hello, I've just visited the new page The Voice (U.S. season 17) only to find it being short, with a messed-up infobox, and with improper grammar usage. I looked at the edit history afterwards and it turns out IP users have attempted to edit the page, but instead caused the grammar and formatting errors. Fortunately, I've attempted to fix the errors. Unfortunately, I'm unable to tell if the IP users are here to vandalize or if they're just confused - can someone please advise me on what to do in this situation? Thissecretperson (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Thissecretperson: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I just looked into the page history and it seems that most of the edits in question are tests or by users writing broken English - they don't seem to be vandalism or made in bad faith. However, there are several I'm a little less sure about (specifically those made by 5.65 and 2a02:c7f), but even those look more like confused tests than malice. In general, when you come across edits that break formatting or appear to be gibberish, the first thing to do is restore the last clean version (which you did), and always assume good faith. This means that unless there are obvious signs of vandalism (see WP:VANDTYPES for examples of vandalism and WP:NOTVAND for examples of non-vandalism), remember that most Wikipedia editors intend to make constructive contributions and even the best editors were perhaps confused newbies at some point. That said, after reverting an edit looks like a test or vandalism, leave a warning message on their talk page (WP:Twinkle can do this for you), and perhaps monitor for future changes, as many vandals are persistent while innocent test edits will most likely not be repeated. Happy editing! ComplexRational (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Awesome, I'll keep that in mind! Thissecretperson (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Should editors change information as well as add it on a Wikipedia page?

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I've noticed some misquotations, slightly incorrect information, typos, grammatical errors, etc. here and there. Should I change errors like these when I come across them, or should I just focus on making sure my own content is correct? Thank you!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎DTHanna3602 (talk • contribs)

@DTHanna3602: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for wanting to improve Wikipedia. We would welcome any help you are willing to provide; you are welcome to do whatever you feel comfortable and/or willing to do. If you would prefer to focus on your own edits, that is fine. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@DTHanna3602: Hi, just to state in the clearest terms yes, you are absolutely welcome and encouraged to fix other people's mistakes in articles. I think it's better to think of articles as collectively owned by the community, once you submit your changes you're allowing anyone to fix them. --Habst (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DTHanna3602. As the others have said, you are welcome to improve articles. Just be aware that others might not agree with your changes, and may revert them - perhaps even things that you regard as obvious or incontrovertible. If that happens, please don't get upset, and don't assume that you must be right and them wrong (or vice versa!). Politely open a discussion with them on the article's talk page, or their user talk page, and try to reach consensus with them (and anybody else who joins in) about how the article should read. See WP:BRD for more on how this works. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

DTHanna3602: you might also be interested in WP:GCE. --ColinFine (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi DTHanna3602. What the others above are posting about is summed up in Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, so yes be Wikipedia:Be bold. However, if you do make any changes, try and leave an Wikipedia:Edit summary explaining why so that others can better understand why an edit was made. A simple correction like a typo can probably be explained by an edit summary simply saying "typo" (though be aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Manual of style#Retaining the existing variety), but anything where you "correct" incorrect information (particularly content supported by a citation) probably requires a more thorough edit summary and even a link to a relevant Wikipedia policy or guideline on which your edit is based upon. Try and not assume that others editors will automatically see the information as being "incorrect". Moreover, if anyone undoes a change you make, then try to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and find out why; don't just automatically assume they are wrong. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@DTHanna3602: Wow, a simple question, yet so many replies! All that information is good, and I would just like to add my two cents quickly - if you are changing factual claims, please be careful to check what the sources actually say. Don't just rely on your own knowledge of the subject. Wikipedia articles should be driven by what is published in the best available sources, not by individual editors' knowledge. Indeed, sometimes one of the most valuable improvements to an article is to add a good, reliable source.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What is the proper procedure when the information about two different people, with the same name, are merged into an article about one person?

When I was reading about the mayoral elections for Los Angeles in the years 1981, 1985, and 1989, I noted that one of the listed candidates was Eileen Anderson. The name links to a Eileen Anderson who was mayor of Honolulu and held many offices in Hawaii. This Eileen Anderson is still alive. The Eileen Anderson who ran for mayor of LA died at the age of 65 in 1993, <https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-09-14-me-35148-story.html>. I don't know if there is enough info to create an article about this other Eileen Anderson; is it better to put a footnote in the LA mayor articles that the Eileen Anderson who ran for mayor of LA is different than the Hawaiian Eileen Anderson? Samsonthesailorman (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing the link, with an edit summary explaining that it's a different person - perhaps add an explanatory note, with the ref, on the talk page. If you find enough to create an article on the other Eileen Anderson, you can use a {{Distinguish|example}} tag at the top of the page to add a 'not to be confused with...' note at the top of the article. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Samsonthesailorman, welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for spotting this. The perennial Los Angeles candidate has no article and appears non-notable. Her best result was 0.85%. I have removed her link from the elections of 1969, 1973, 1981, 1985, 1989. I added a source comment to prevent future wrong links.[6] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

created Article was declined for the below reson

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. The page I am currently editing is Tolu' A. Akinyemi.

I will be looking forward to your response. Many Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyinbabe (talk • contribs) 10:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

What the reviewer meant is that you weren't correctly using inline citations. To learn how to do so, you might want to read: Wikipedia:Inline citation. However, the article you are trying to write already exists at Tolu Akinyemi. If you have information you want to add, you can do so directly there. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Charles Curtis

being half-English, a quarter Scottish and half-Welsh. impossible— Preceding unsigned comment added by REBOOTED12 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed that information from Charles Curtis as it is impossible for his father to be 125% anything. ~ GB fan 10:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with adding death date

Hello,

Can someone please help me fix the death date up on my pages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Burns Jean Burns passed away yesterday 25/05/2019 in Sydney Australia. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviator66 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done a source would be good though. Theroadislong (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Undo edits

I didnt read the part about my IP address being shown on edits before doign one.. Is there any way to undo this?? I undid the edit and everything but its sitll showing. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akademagikern (talk • contribs) 01:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Akademagikern, welcome to the Teahouse. IP edits cannot be reassigned to your account but the IP address can be hidden on request for privacy reasons. See Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

How long

I just wanted to know how long should I write an article??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaden1837 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thaden1837, I think what you're asking is how long an article should be? Every subject is different. The article should be as long as is required to cover the topic fully without getting into minutiae. But an article doesn't have to be complete in order to be ready to be published; one of the best things about Wikipedia is that you can do your best, and another editor who may have access to other sources will come along and help expand on your work. --valereee (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Getting my first page approved

I have created and edited a page in my sandbox at User:Davidmichaelrich/sandbox. I wish to get it approved and published ASAP as it is about a recently deceased, highly published photojournalist with many verifiable credentials. What is the best way of getting this reviewed and published?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmichaelrich (talk • contribs)

@Davidmichaelrich: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added the appropriate template to allow you to submit the draft for review. Unfortunately, the chance that it will be reviewed quickly is small, as drafts are reviewed by volunteers in no particular order; it could take ten minutes, or three months. There are thousands of drafts awaiting review, so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I can work on your article a bit since I have a small amount time I can put into it right now. Please watch the changes and you can get a good sense of what to do next. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 16:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes please and thank you! I had an earlier version of this document with links to all the references when I first drafted this outside of the platform. I'm not sure why those links didn't transfer but I can reinsert them. Davidmichaelrich (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability of a Topic

Hello, as part of a class project on the Civil Rights Movement I'm looking to create an article on the 1963 Freedom Vote. I just wanted confirmation that this was significant enough to warrant its own article or if I should update the section under Freedom Summer. Thank You https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer#1963_Freedom_Vote — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalachiReschke (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, MalachiReschke, and welcome to Wikipedia! There are currently two sources in the section on the 1963 Freedom Vote. In order to prove notability, which is discussed at WP:Notability you'd ideally want to find at least three reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. So you'd probably want to start with the two sources that are already listed and see if they discuss the subject at length, and then find at least one more reliable source (books, magazines, newspapers) that also give significant coverage. If you can find three, all reliable, all providing significant coverage, you have good reason to think the subject is notable enough for its own article. --valereee (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's one [7], you can probably find more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

page has not been fully reviewed

hi, so I posted an article a few weeks ago Brand safety and got a message that my article has been reviewed. it seems that I still can't search for that in google search. what can cause the problem? Netanelshlomi (talk)

If you're talking about the Google knowledge panel, it's up to Google, not Wikipedia. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything about the Google knowledge graph, Thegooduser; but it is true, Netanelshlomi that we have no control over how long Google takes to index articles. --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Error on Main Page?

The précis text for Today's Featured Picture (Field of Mars) has changed the order of sentences compared to the corresponding article. As a result, it looks as though whoever wrote it thinks that the 18th century corresponds to the 1800s. Quote from Main Page:

"It became the Field of Mars during the reign of Paul I, becoming officially named such in 1805. Towards the end of the 18th century, the park became a military drill ground..."

It's a relatively trivial matter and the précis will have vanished within a few hours from now, but maybe someone needs reminding to get their centuries right!

Vic joseph (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please direct this to Talk:Main Page. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 20:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Vic joseph, or Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors S Philbrick(Talk) 21:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Page I nominated for good article review isn't appearing in the list

So I just nominated Iowa for good article review but it hasn't appeared on the list. It should be under places but it's not there Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Never mind it's there now Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Live page

Hello, I have created a page. How long it takes to become live? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator151853 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-26T22:07:09 (UTC)

Hello, Creator151853. The draft is in your sandbox, User:Creator151853/sandbox, but you have not submitted it for review. You can do so by adding {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top. It looks quite good, but will be easier to review if you format the citations better: see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Melucci

Hello, My team and I will be adding articles on each Melucci family member that has gained in history. Our goal is to document the famed members of the family. I am running into others deleting my edits due to this family being spiteful to each others achievements. How do I get help with this matter? I'm deeply worried that the respective family members will not get to be logged on Wikipedia. They're an interesting family that has ties to Hollywood, the CIA and politics. Thank you so much for your help.

Sincerely, Jackie Melucci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Melucci (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is each Melucci family member removed that I add? Alberto Melucci is the most widely known member. He has his own Wikipedia page. Michele Melucci is a self made millionaire working for LVMH. I feel as if I'm being bullied by senior editorial members.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Melucci (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jack Melucci. The first thing you probably take a look at before trying to make any further edits is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Just going by your choice of username and what you've posted above, it seems almost for certain that you would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about any members of the Melucci family on Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, it does highly discourage it and expects those who have conflicts of interest to edti according to relevant guidelines like Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, etc. Moreover, neither editors with a conflict of interest nor any members of their "team" have any special privileges or editorial control over Wikipedia articles written about subjects they are connected to; in other words, neither the Melucci family nor anyone connected to the family has any final say over what is added to articles and what is removed from articles as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. This means that any editor can edit the article and try to improve it as long as their edits are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which sometimes includes even removing content added by others which isn't in accordance with these policies and guidelines. This is not "bullying" (at least not how the term is defined by Wikipedia), but rather a normal part of the collaborative editing process that Wikipedia encourages. If you're not sure why the edits you made were undone, check the article's history for edit summaries explaining why. If you still don't understand why, then you can post a message on the article's talk page asking for further clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably because you Jackie Melucci User:Jack_Melucci, and whoever else is trying to add the 5, 10, 20+ apparently famous Melucci's to the melucci disambiguation article, haven't created any articles for those people themselves yet. There's also the fact that you seem to have a conflict of interest as you both have the same surnames as the apparently famous people you're trying to add, therefore if you're friends or family with those people, it could be a problem as it goes against Wikipedias rules.

I'm surprised Giulia Melucci has lasted as long as it has, as even though it looks to have reliable citations, that's all the article consists of, along with promotions to her social media pages.

Once you've created articles for those people, and they've been checked by the admins at Wikipedia to determine their notability, then you'll be able to add them to the melucci list.

There's loads of people, places and things I want to add to Wikipedia, but I haven't attempted to add them yet, as I'm experienced enough as an editor. I stick to editing articles which are already created.

But if you think you're experienced enough to create articles about those apparently famous melucci family members:

• Michelle Lee (businesswoman/broadcaster) who if it is the "designer" I think it is, then Jack keeps spelling her name incorrectly as "Michelle" has two "l's" not one.
• Piero (engineer).
• Tony (bridge player).
• Alberto (socialist/author).

And whoever else, make sure they have citations from independent reliable sources, and are written like articles on other people in the same fields.

Danstarr69 (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Page deleted

Why I received this message?

"This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 21:37, 26 May 2019 Fastily talk contribs deleted page User:Creator151853 (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host) (thank)"

There are many academic profiles on wikipedia and im trying to create of more. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator151853 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)‎

Hi Creator151853. You might be misunderstanding something about Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place for posting academic profiles, but rather a place where a encyclopedic article may be written about an academic if that person is deemed to meet satisfy the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Notability. For academic, in particular, there is a more specific guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (academics); so, if you want to create an article about a specific academic, you're going to have to establish that they are sufficiently Wikipedia notable for such an article to be written. If you are unable to do that, then it's unlikely that any Wikipedia article written about such an academic will not end up eventually being deleted.

As for the particular reason(s) why User:Creator151853 was deleted, you can ask either Theroadislong, the editor who tagged the page for deletion, or Fastily, the administrator who actually deleted the page, for more specific details. The page was deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#U5. Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host, and this usually happens when someone is trying to use their user page in a manner that is not allowed per Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?. Maybe you were working on a draft for a possible future article on your user page and it was mistaken as a WP:FAKEARTICLE; if that was the case, explain this to Fastily and ask if he would consider restoring the content as either a userspace draft or a draft where you can continue to work on it. However, Fastily will unlikely restore the content if he believes that there's no chance of it ever becoming a Wikipedia article; so, you will have to explain to him why you believe subject of your draft meet relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. However, this person's research has a significant impact in scholarly discipline and he is wikipedia notable, there are links from his papers that wikipedia is using. In fact, he is also quoted from wikipedia. This full time academic has also received a highly prestigious academic awards or honours and he has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (fellow of the institution of civil engineers and the royal academy of engineering).

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Creator151853 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Creator151853: Two things first: (1) please try to remember to sign your talk page posts as explained in Wikipedia:Signatures and (2) you don't need to start a new thread for each new post you make.

If you believe that Konstantinos Daniel Tsavdaridis (the person you're trying to create a Wikipedia article about at User:Creator151853/sandbox is Wikipedia notable), then continue working on your draft and then submit it for review to Wikipedia:Articles for creation (AfC) when you're think it's ready. You're not obligated to do this, but drafts submitted to AfC for review seem to have a better chance of surviving as articles because AfC reviewer will generally not approve a draft which doesn't meet the basic requirements for Wikipedia notability. There's no 100% guarantee that anything approved via AfC will never end up being deleted, but I think it will have a better chance avoiding deletion. Moreover, an AfC reviewer who declines a draft will offer suggestions on ways to improve it so that it is more in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. As long as your work remains a draft, other editors will most likely leave you alone to continue to make improvements at your own pace as long as none of the content you add is a serious policy or guideline violation; however, once your work is added to the mainspace, it will be there for anyone to edit at anytime and you will not have a special editorial control over it. The AfC review process will slowly move your draft towards article status and you can keep submitting your draft as many times as it takes as long as you continue to make improvements. If you want some editors experienced in writing biographies about academic to talk a look at your draft, try asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. There are some formatting errors (see MOS:SECTIONCAPS, WP:CS#Avoid embedded links, WP:EL#cite_note-7 and WP:ASL) that I noticed, but others might be able to provide more specifc advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Beginner

How to get access to writing Wikipedia articles?

Hi Pavankrnm89 and welcome to the Teahouse. Everyone has access to edit and create Wikipedia articles. We usually advise that you get some practice by making small edits to existing articles before you start writing new articles. See WP:My first article for some advice. You might also like to try WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Please do not change the spelling of words just to satisfy your preferred variety of English. See WP:Engvar for guidance. Dbfirs 07:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Publishing an Article

Good Morning,

I've created a draft version of an article and I set it to be published a few months ago. My question is, how do I go about getting it published? Is there anybody out there willing to help me publish my article?

It can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thames_British_School_Warsaw

It's fairly straightforward and I think it contains the relevant links, but I would appreciate any guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praevalebit (talk • contribs)

@Praevalebit: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. To submit the article for review, place {{subst:submit}} in the top of the draft. Also please add some secondary independent sources to the draft as it depends too much on primary sources. Masum Reza^📞 07:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)