Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1036

Archive 1030

←

Archive 1034

Archive 1035

Archive 1036

Archive 1037

Archive 1038

→

Archive 1040

Is this encyclopaedic?

I am working on the draft Draft:Markov constant (Diophantine approximation). However, I am not sure whether putting in some "examples" (demonstrations) is encyclopaedic. If it isn't, I am going to delete it. Thanks. 數神 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 數神. Wikipedia already has articles Markoff number and Diophantine equation. Is this a separate topic, and is there really a need for a separate article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 yes it is a quite separate topic, and in my opnion a reasonable one for an article, althoguh not a vital one. But I agree that the draft by 數神 lacks suficient context to explain the topic to anyone not already familure with number theory on a moderatly high level, at least. The Markov constant in this connectiuon is quite different from Markoff number, and Diophantine equations are a very broad topic -- perhaps a third of number theoy deals with Diophantine equations in some form. Markov had multiple noted discoveriesd and his name is attached to quite a few, much like [[Leonhard Euler|Euler}}.

Examples can be encyclopedic in such toics, in my view, as long as they are clear and not over-long compaed to the rest of the article. But I think the issue of wider context is more urgent. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, DESiegel. I have never claimed to be well-versed in any type of advanced mathematics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Well - I'll just wait and see what does the reviewer say. At least it is improved :) 數神 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Published Article

Hi,

I'm unsure if my article is under review and i would like to know if I did it correctly.

Thanks,

Brooks BArrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarr43 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bbarr43. I assume that you are talking about South Louisiana Coastal Erosion. I am not sure what you mean by "under review". You added it directly to the encylopedia. If you wanted a formal review, you could have submitted it through the optional Articles for creation process. Currently, the article lacks a lead section, so I suggest that you add one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Bbarr43, you had quite a good start to it. I did some work to get it more encyclopedic in tone and bring it in line with the formatting we do, and can try to put together a short lead for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Such a big help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarr43 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I've put together a brief introduction and added some citations that were missing. Let me know if there is anything else i can do.Bbarr43 (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Brooks BArrios

I added a satellite image from Commons, did some text revision and removed the tags. David notMD (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft moved to main space

Hello, My Draft Draft:The Voice Nigeria season 2 was moved to article space The Voice Nigeria (Season 2)
But I don't understand something because the draft page still shows that review is pending Pls I need to be enlightened Thank youTaymeedeeray (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft was not moved to mainspace. The article The Voice Nigeria (Season 2) was created there by another editor. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, it looks like the article was copy-pasted from the draft without attribution. That seems very wrong. Can we deleted the article as copyvio and let AfC decide the fate of the draft? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That would seem very wrong, but it couldn't be a copyvio exactly. Content on Wikipedia, including drafts, is free for reuse with or without modifcation. I also don't see that it's a copy-paste. The content looks quite different and there's bound to be some overlap given that both versions will be modeled on the articles for previous seaons. › Mortee _talk 20:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Mortee, both are relatively new users. The draft got to the present state over hundreds of edits, the article got there in five, duplicates content to the punctuation and cites. In the "Top 32" subsection, two citations have dropped to the beginning of the second paragraph, even that is duplicated in the article. I stopped comparing there.

And, it is a problem. There was no mention of copy-pasting and no attribution provided. Copy-pasting with attribution is ok if the content is taken to a new article. This is the same article. That means all it's done is lose hundreds of edits worth of history from a relatively new contributor. One of the ways we can retain new editors is by making sure they get recognised for their work. In the meantime, User:AndrewNatty has listed the article on their userpage as one of their successful creations. That's akin to an AfC reviewer listing all their acceptances as their creations. AndrewNatty moved the page and did it wrong by the way, and definitely did not create the article. So, unless I've missed something in my observations above, it's very wrong. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 04:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you've clearly looked at the page in much more detail than I had done. › Mortee _talk 07:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But how did this user create the page and got reviwed and accepted before my draft which I have submitted days before his. Or didn't he place the article for submission at all. Did he just created the page directly Taymeedeeray (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Created in mainspace directly; not submitted via AFC review. You can see in the article history. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please how can that be done. How can you create in mainspace directlyTaymeedeeray (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can make a new page in mainspace directly by navigating to the non-existing page, e.g. Page that doesn't exist, and clicking the link there to start the article. It's risky for a new editor to do that, though, unless they're very bold. The Articles for Creation process is intended to let new editors work on an article until it's looking OK before publishing. If you just start an article directly and it turns out there's something wrong with it, you might get dragged through Articles for Deletion or other processes that just aren't friendly. You absolutely have the option, and you can always ask for help here, but unless you're confident then I wouldn't recommend taking the direct route at first. It's a shame that this time it means someone else got there first but, now there's an article about The Voice Nigeria (Season 2), you can edit it just as much as the article's creator can, if you think it should be different. › Mortee _talk 20:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I really feel bad that someone else us taking credit for my hard work in compiling all the information about the show. I want the article deleted as copyvio Taymeedeeray (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with Mortee's assessment of what happened here. Clearly, Taymeedeeray created a draft with text, images and tables. AndrewNatty copied the content, posted it as an article, and claims to have created the article. How is that not outright plagiarism? David notMD (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thanks very much for recognizing the fact. How do I delete the page as copyvio

Can someone publish an article for me?

I have been writing an article about an Icelandic handball player but can't seem to publish it since i dont have 10 edits on my account. I'm really sorry if I'm asking in the wrong place, but could someone move the article from draft to wikipedia for me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Þráinn_Orri_Jónsson --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Arnaldurb (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Þráinn Orri Jónsson has not been submitted for review yet, you need to click the blue "submit" button. Theroadislong (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Arnaldurb, I can't even read the title. Probably should be English? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The title is Draft:Þráinn Orri Jónsson. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool the title is a proper name. Non-English names, and indeed names in non-latin scripts, are often used as article titles. If this is moved to mainspace, a redirect from a transliteration should probably be created. See Thráin for some other articles using this name in the title. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Dead Ends

There's a dead end in every mission that involves editing. How do I get through it????? -User:Prahlad Balaji — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prahlad balaji (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding the "Earth" part of the Wikipedia Adventure. Are you sure you aren't just finished with the task and can therefore click "Next"? – Thjarkur (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 19:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting article as copyvio

Pls , Someone copied and pasted ghe content of a draft Draft:The Voice Nigeria season 2 created by me and created it into an article The Voice Nigeria (Season 2) in main space. How do I delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taymeedeeray (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Where is the copyright violation? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In copying within Wikipedia without attribution, PrimalBlueWolf. See #Draft moved to main space above. --ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, two different sections. Thanks. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Please Check the content of both pages and check the page history . You will see that it was a copyright. I feel bad because I worked really hard to compile the information.How do I request for a deletion Taymeedeeray (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Taymeedeeray, thanks for your question. Everything you post to Wikipedia is released under a free content licence, which (with some restrictions) means that other people can freely use your contributions elsewhere. You'll see just above the publish changes button on the editing screen text which says By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. This means that the article you drafted can be copied and used elsewhere on Wikipedia by other users. However, one of the terms of this licence is that material copied is properly attributed (see WP:PATT) and this was not done by the user who created The Voice Nigeria (Season 2). I have added a note on the talk page of that article and your draft which attributes the copied content to you. Unfortunately, because anything posted to Wikipedia is released under this licence, you cannot request that it is deleted (and you cannot revoke the licence - see this essay). However, I will say that I find it pretty bad form on the part of the user who copied the material and I am sorry that this has happened to you and personally think you deserve an apology and explanation from the user in question. I'm sorry I can't be of more help; I hope you understand. Let me know if you have any further questions. WJ94 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

WJ94, as the only significant contributor to the article, Taymeedeeray can request G7 deletion. The only reason I haven't suggested it is that any admin unfamiliar with the issue will see someone else on the article's history and decline it. More than that though, it's about common sense prevailing over our community, one of our five pillars was made for this. Asking that the page be deleted and the draft properly moved with editing history intact is not a big ask. Personally, I wish AndrewNatty would G7 it themself, save us all trouble. I have suggested Taymeedeeray to ask just that from AndrewNatty. If not, I intend to take it WP:AN and failing that, even AfD. Anything short would be letting a new contributor down. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, G7 is possibly an option but I think it is more complicated in this case. As far as I am aware, G7 is more of a courtesy to users, allowing them to delete material which they have technically released under Wikipedia's licences but of which they are presently the only contributor. Technically, the copyright issues remain the same - the material is released under Wikipedia's licence and can be reused by anybody elsewhere on Wikipedia, provided there is correct attribution. So while Taymeedeeray certainly has the right to request G7 of their draft, AndrewNatty's copy & paste into the mainspace at least muddies the waters. WP:IAR does not work when we are dealing with matters of copyright and licencing. I guess AfD is a possibility, since I suppose the community could come to a consensus that this article should be deleted, and then Taymeedeeray vcan proceed with their getting their draft through AfC in their own time. Having said all of that, having looked through AndrewNatty's talk page and contributions, I am developing some concerns of my own around the user's understanding of copyright, and WP:CIR in general. On that note, the Teahouse is not the place forum and I would be open to either of us starting an ANI thread at some point. WJ94 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not the case in this situation. The entire article was copied from the beginning to the end. Wikipedia gives a request for deletion as copyvio if this happens. I can't just lose my weeks of compiling to another person. Wikipedia doesn't work like that Taymeedeeray (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works exactly that way. Everything created in draft and article form can be copied into other articles as long as an attribution is made (which is what was missing in this instance). The copyright violation rule applies to when content from a copyright protected article outside Wikipedia is copied into Wikipedia. Those are deleted. What happened to your draft was plagiarism. There is no recourse that will delete the article and allow you to go forward with your draft. However, a permanent note has been attached to the Talk page of the article, showing that the content originated with your draft, and a warning has been placed on the Talk page of the editor who copied your content. You are also free to improve the existing article. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

​Yes you're right, copying your work without giving attribution is a copyright violation. I've requested that the edit histories be merged which would show you as the original author. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Very well, @Taymeedeeray and V: I will do the history merge. It is not strictly required, but it is a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done The history has now been merged inot The Voice Nigeria (Season 2), and you are celarly shown as the article's creator Taymeedeeray. Feel free to edit the article further (as anyone may) if there are improvements to be made. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC).

Thanks so much everyone who contributed in helping me. I feel so happy that everything I did didn't go to waste. All my weeks of compiling information and reliable sources. I really appreciate it . Taymeedeeray (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence in the entry on Caroline Kennedy

This sentence appears in the entry about Caroline Kennedy, former ambassador to Japan:

"Kennedy's first cousin Maria Shriver “nasally voice, Mademoiselle as it were, served as the bride's matron of honor, and Ted later walked her down the aisle."

I wonder if someone who doesn't like Maria Shriver inserted the words ""nasally voice mademoiselle as it were." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.3.134 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I removed the vandalism. You could have done it as well, since the article is not protected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The phrase was introduced in this edit ( 01:30, 27 November 2019‎ (UTC-4) by an nunregistered (IP) editor. It is partly marked as a quote openign quote marks, but is neither nattribguted nor cited as a quote. I plan to remove it as unsourced and nunclear. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I checked the page history and this was part of recent vandalism. I have reverted all of it. Thanks for notifying us. Another editor had reverted part of it but missed some vandalism from previous edits. It's good to examine the page history in such cases. Cullen328 must have reverted to the same version as me but saved later so only my edit is listed in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you beat me to it, PrimeHunter. Thanks. That is a BLP violation even if those words were a quote from somewhere else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Policy question on BRD cycle

So ideal world, you make a bold edit, someone reverts it, you go to the talk page and discuss it. Consensus is reached swiftly (ideal world and all) and we move on. Less ideal world, consensus is reached slowly, we move on.

What is the process to follow where you make a bold edit, someone reverts it, you go to the talk page to discuss and that's the end of it? No discussion, the reverting editor doesn't discuss the changes?

I can see that you would want to make those changes again. You could rapidly run into 3RR doing that. Even if you don't, it's still edit warring if you just revert their revert - right? I can see a number of good processes in place for how to deal with a content dispute, and all of them depend first on there having been talk page discussion.

As you may have guessed, this is not entirely hypothetical. I'm watching the Hazbin_Hotel article fill up with fancruft from a number of editors. Some of those editors are discussing on the talk page, but many of them are not. I'd love some advice on how to deal with this type of scenario on Wikipedia, as I assume it must crop up from time to time. - PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi PrimalBlueWolf. If you're BOLD and your reverted by another editor, then you are going to be expected to follow BRD and as long as you're doing that you're going to be fine. At the same time, you cannot make someone discuss something with you on an article talk page if they don't want to. So, if someone's going to revert you and claim you should follow BRD, then they should be willing to engage in discussion with you and others on the article talk page; they can decide not to, but that doesn't mean others cannot discuss things. So, if you make a good faith effort to try and get someone to discuss (perhaps even by posting a friendly reminder on their user talk page since it's possible they aren't aware of the discussion) and they never do, you can try to get feedback from a relevant WP:PNB or a WP:WPPJ by posting a Template:Please see or move to another stage of the dispute resolution process by getting others involved. At some point, a consensus reached on the article's talk page (excluding anything per WP:CONLEVEL) is going to determine whether content should be added or removed whenever their is a content dispute, and all editors are going to be expected to honor said consensus (unless it's something which advocates a serious policy/guideline violation) regardless of whether they were involved in establishing it. They can't simply ignore it because they don't like it or don't agree with it. You're correct that simply reverting their edits are not going to likely be considered an exemption to 3RR, but their re-adding any content removed per talk page consensus is also not going to be considered an exemption since it's not WP:BRRD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, PrimalBlueWolf and welkcome to the Teahouse. Each situation is different, and i haven't yet looked at Hazbin_Hotel. But if you open a discussion on the talk page, ping mother neditors, and no one engages, you could take that to mean that no one disagrees with your position. You can try dispute reso0lutuinb, particularly Third Opnion, or ask other editors to weigh in. Eventually, if you still think your changes to be an improvement, you could reinstate them, pointing to your attempted talk page discussion. Do not, of course, let it degenerate into an edit war. Note that a consensus need not include every editor working non a given articel or page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Informer Technologies: No Wikipedia Page

More of a comment than a question, but here goes: Has anyone tried to Google the search terms "Informer Technologies" and "Wikipedia" or "Software.Informer" and "Wikipedia"? A bunch of piggyback informer sites pop up- harmless no doubt, and many relating to Wikipedia or, as one might suggest, their own version of it.

The site powers the forums PunBB and FluxBB, both are well developed and popular S/W. I have personally published software on Software.informer before and had zero issues, unlike this where softinfo.exe has been reported by some as unsafe. The site has been known in the past for its aggressive cookies, scripting and BHOs. With no Wikipedia article, it's not easy to ascertain the launch date of Informer.com- from memory it could be possibly as early as 2000.

May not be enough resource or impetus for a Wikipedia article at this time- but at least it's out there. Thanks. --Lmstearn (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lmstearn and welcoem to the Teahouder. The question isn'ty whetehr it is good or bad software or a good company to deal with. The question is wheter it is notable in Wikipedia terms. See our guideline for notability of a company and our guidelione for the notability of software. While there are other route, the most common and usualy the best is to find multiple independent professionally published reliable sources that ndiscuss the subject in some detail. That means not from the subject itself, or peole connected with it, not pressreleases, not fan sites, not forums or blogs, not directory entries or listings, not brief mentions. Then somone ahs to be intersted in writing an article, which is some effort, and do so [[WP:NPOV|neutrally, not promotionally. Only if al of that happens wilol there be a Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: thanks. According to Trend Micro, https://informer.com is classified as a:

Site about computers, the Internet, or related technology, including sites that sell or provide reviews of electronic devices. and it is safe.

Thinking that if ever a page were put up for them, there wouldn't be too much in it, at least as to what is found on their about page.--Lmstearn (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting User ID

Hello, please help my IP address got changed as my internet service provider was upgrading their system, how do I redirect my current user ID to the new IP address.Glittershield (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Glittershield. With rare exceptions unless you are in China or Turkey, you can log into your Wikipedia account from any IP address or device. That might be a fresh new IP at home, or an IP associated with a device at your local public library or university or workplace. You can use a desktop, a laptop, a tablet or a smartphone owned by you or anyone else, as long as you maintain your account security. In other words, your Wikipedia account is a completely separate entity from your current IP address. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Cullen for the information.Glittershield (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Help me to improve my draft! Please

I am working on the draft Draft:Markov constant (Diophantine approximation). It was declined 10 days ago, and I changed (quite a lot of) wording. However, I asked something else at the Teahouse and the people still think my article is too technical. So can anyone kindly help me to improve my draft? I prefer a user excelling in mathematics. 數神 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi 數神. If you prefer a user excelling in mathematics, you might want to try asking at WT:MATH since that's where you're likely to find other editors interested in mathematics. You might also want to try Talk:Markov number since that seems similar in content to the draft you're working on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Birth name: Candy Darling

Not sure if this is a Teahouse or Help Desk question; but - the Warhol actress Candy Darling was born James Lawrence Slattery. "He" later became a transsexual so the pronouns in her article are "she" - which is appropriate. But there is not one mention of his birth name in the lede, infobox or article. Is this proper encyclopedic entry writing? Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Maineartists! If properly sourced, a treatment similar to Chelsea Manning in the lead might be appropriate. In this discussion we decided that birth names of trans and non-binary people should only be included in their articles' lead sentences if the people were notable prior to coming out. I'm not familiar with the case of Darling specifically but hopefully this guidance is helpful. Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you: Chetsford for pointing out the WP policy. Of course, to me this is absolutely ridiculous and exclusive to "trans" and "non-binary" as opposed to anyone else who simply changes their names and becomes famous after the fact: Irving Berlin / Israel Isidore Beilin, Al Jolson / Asa Yoelson etc, etc, etc. Why on earth should trans, non-binary or anyone else exceptional to the rule be given special treatment here at WP? Maineartists (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists. The WP:RFC cited above by Chetsford seemed to be fairly well participated as RFCs go, but it was also something discussed back in 2015. There's nothing wrong with seeking further clarification or even seeking that the situation be reassessed since a consensus can change over time. The best place for you to probably further discuss this would be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography since that seems to be the relevant guideline for this type of thing; however, if you do, try to keep "Wikipedia:Assume good faith" in mind and avoid jumping to the conclusion that those who participated in that previous discussion who were in favor of the change just had to be doing so for the wrong reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You may have a valid point, though I haven't given the matter much study so can't offer an informed opinion one way or the other. I think Marchjuly offers excellent advice as to possible next-steps, however. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note also, Chetsford, that the 2015 discussion linked above dealt only with wheather to include the birth or pre-transition name in the lead sentence. It did not so much as mention the question of whether to incldue it later in the articel, yet most of the arguments for keeping nit out of the lead sentence or lead section would also apply to keeping the old name entirely out of the article. That really should be more clarly settled. Further discussion may be needed, as Marchjuly suggests boive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Maineartists: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct! Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Language translation

Is it possible to translate English Wikipedia article in another language you do not speak or understand? If yes, how do I do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgideens (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Akgideens: Welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure I fully understand the question - are you looking to translate a Wikipedia article into another language to help you read it? If so, you have two options really: The first would be to see if the page exists in another Wikipedia in your language, just visit the home page to see all the options. However, that page may not be a direct translation of the English page, as generally each Wikipedia is written by different volunteers. Option 2 is just to put the page into Google Translate, simply to help you read it. But I am a bit puzzled by why you say you want to translate a page into a language you do not speak? Why would you want to do that? If what you are asking is how to translate a page from English into another language, it will be down to the policies of the other language Wikipedia. For example, if you are translating into French, you would need to go to the French Wikipedia and find out what their rules are - for example would they accept a machine translation (i.e. through Google translate). It seems unwise to get involved in that if you don't speak the language, though. Maybe if you can explain more about why you ask the question, I can give better advice. Hug^syrup 11:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawing AfC of new content for now-moved page?

I've been wanting to improve an article originally titled Sacred Heart Preparatory (Atherton, California), and my first step was to propose a move to the more accurate title of Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton. The move request was unopposed and so, at the end of 7 days, an uninvolved editor moved it over – apparently a few hours ago.

In parallel, I've been working on improving the content, a draft of which I also submitted for AfC review about a week ago. It sounds like it can take up to six months to get these reviews completed, though, and because the new title isn't all that consistent with the more limited scope of the old content, I'd like to hasten the process. Can I just move the content over, boldly and in sections, via copy and paste (but plowing over its history, sparse and stale though it may be, in the process)? If so, what do I do with the request for review? Ottoump (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's not really plowing over the history as much as radically appending it? Ottoump (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ottoump, I have declined the submission as a duplicate. You can bring the text from there and improve the article. Take it slow when you radically alter an article. Start a talk page discussion about what you intend to do, have done, are doing. Make one or two bold expansions, and wait a few days to see if anyone objects and/or reverts. If someone does, discuss it with them. If no one does, continue. That would be my advice. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool – that's excellent. Thank you. Do you know how long I have before the draft is deleted? Can I move it back over to my sandbox, as a staging area? Ottoump (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ottoump, you have six months before it will be considered for deletion. You will be notified when that happens. Yes, you can move it back to your userspace. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Good to know.

Hello, Ottoump. To clarify, the AfC process is only for a new article about a topic not currently the subject of a Wikipedia article. It is not appropriate to submit drafts of rewrites of existing articles to AfC. The best way to improve an existing article is through a series of incremental changes to that article, explained clearly through edit summaries and talk page discussion. Massive rewrites all in one fell swoop are often controversial, and are sometimes perceived as disrespectful to the previous editors who have worked on the article over the years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. In retrospect, I see how that makes sense. I'll proceed incrementally, and use the talk page to make it clear what's going on. Ottoump (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing a Contentious page

Hi there,

I just made a small edit to a page in the field of Politics (the page not the edit!). I debated whether I should make the edit for the past day or two, even though it is a tiny edit and is really a "houskeeping/admin" type edit. I had this internal debate, not because I imagine the edit to be problematic, but because the subject matter of the page is one that provokes strongly-held views.

The specific edit is that I marked the page Militant (Trotskyist group) as being in the category "Labour Party (UK) factions", but my question goes to the general case... Is there a way to mark an edit for independent review for such very small edits? Or, should I just go ahead and make them and see what happens?

I would love to know what is the correct etiquette. I don't want to waste anybody's time with unnecessary reviews.

Any help appreciated.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Dublin (talk • contribs) 11:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul Dublin (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Dublin. No there is not exactly any facility to mark a specific edit as needing review. A few pages have a form of protection known as "pending changes", where every chnge by an editor without special rights is reviewwed before it goes live. More commonly, people may be using a personal watchlist to be notified of changes to a particualr articlewor page of interest, and may then choose to reveiw any such change.

The steps you shoulkd take are: 1) include an Edit summary with each edit, explaining what you are doing, such as "add ctegory" (or " cat") for the edit you describe. 2) If you think the edit might be at all controversial, you can also post to the article talk page, explaining at greater length what you are doing and why you think it is a good idea. Usually adding a category does not rquire that, unless the category is controversial. 3) When adding or changing factual statements, be sure to have the support of reliable sourcves, and in all but the most obvious cases cite them in the article. See referencing for Beginners for how to do citatioins in various styles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel. Thank you for the prompt response and sound advice. To be honest, part of my concern was that it is exactly those users with strongly-held views that have the pages on a personal watchlist!

I appreciate you taking the time for me and will do as you say and also post to the talk page when I feel I may be straying into controversial territory.

Paul Dublin (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Dr Rosie Knowles notable enough to have a Wikipedia page written about her yet?

She is an award winning speaker and the author of Why Babywearing Matters published by Pinter & Martin. She is in demand as a public speaker in the Babywearing world. Last week she was the main subject of a yahoo news report. She has previously been interview on BBC TV and Radio. Her Carrying Matters project focusses on the importance and benefits of carrying babies for good mental health for the parent and carrier. She is a citation in an article about "Baby Transport" on Wikipedia.

https://www.carryingmatters.co.uk/about-rosie/

https://www.pinterandmartin.com/why-babywearing-matters

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cuddling-babies-helps-them-grow-into-confident-adults-expert-says-110915366.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=ma

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

Any thoughts about whether she should be included yet would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robekn (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robekn: It's difficult to come to a general assessment about whether an individual is notable enough to have an article about them without doing substantial research of my own, but what I can say is that your sources are not sufficient to establish her notability. Carrying Matters appears to be her own website, so is not independent; Pinter and Martin is a shop stocking her book - not a reliable source; the Yahoo article quotes her in order to support reporting on another topic, but the article is not about her, so this is not significant coverage of Knowles (the same would probably go for her BBC interviews); and of course Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source - nor does the fact that her book is used as a citation elsewhere make her notable in her own right. Hug^syrup 14:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, are you by any chance Rosie Knowles, or do you know her well? If so, please just check out our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. Hug^syrup 14:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your reply. She is actually my wife and I'm aware of the conflict of interest issue. I hope in the future she'll become more notable and someone will consider creating a page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robekn (talk • contribs) 14:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Robekn I would note that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Academic profile

Hello,

I am trying to publish my academic profile as independent researcher on wikipedia. I have listed notably commissions and publications. Unfortunately, publishing the article has prompted a speedy deletion. please advise in how I might improve my article?

best...

mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPilk (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not here for promotion. Please read the advice against trying to create an autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello DrPilk. Your deleted sandbox draft User:DrPilk/sandbox read in many ways like a resume, combines with a brochure or personal profile from a personal web site. It does not cite any independent published reliable sources. Those are key to making a Wikipedia article work. Text such as The music reflects the emotion of electronic sound made with analogue and digital synthesisers its angular with strangely warm melodies, thoughtfully syncopated rhythms, noise textures to pushing beyond the conventions of techno and ambient music. do not belong in a Wikipedia articel except perhaps as a quotation attributed and cires to a named person or entity. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

is wiki going down

I heard that wiki needs money because it will soon go down is that true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txgjayjay (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Txgjayjay Unless you have a media report to the contrary, I'm not aware of any financial issues that the Wikimedia Foundation has that are as dire as putting Wikipedia at risk. As a nonprofit, it does operate on donations, but there isn't a particular or extraordinary need for them at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Txgjayjay. You are welcome to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation if you wish. However, the foundation had income of over US $100 million in 2018 and has an endowment of about US $35 million. It is not in imminent financial danger. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

References

So do references mean that the whole article we cite is about what we put the reference on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysaurasrex (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tysaurasrex, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, a cited reference does not need to about the point it is cited for and nothing else. It should contain information that supports one or more statements in an article. If it is unclear exactly what information is being cited, and if citation templates are being used, the |quote= parameter can be used to include a short quotation showing exactly what language supports the statement. If the source is a book, PDF or other paginated source, a page number (or numbers) should be specified to help locate the exact part of the source which supports the statements in the article. See citing sources and Referencing for Beginners for more on how to use citations to sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

How to report editors that censor Wikipedia- How to block governmental control of information

Hello Wiki Community,

There have been ongoing protests in Iran and over 400 killed. The Islamic Republic blocked the internet for a week so the news are not leaked outside. Some users are actively deleting pages that contain information about the protests. Is there a way to resist such governmental supported efforts to block the control of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmomen (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Esmomen. Please provide the exact names of the specific articles that have been altered or deleted. Please consider filing a detailed report at the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The most relevant article appears to be 2019 Iranian protests which has extensive information about the protests, the casualties, and the efforts of the Iranian government to suppress and conceal the facts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

Hi. How can I edit at least 6-month-old articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponge333 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sponge333: With the exception of a small number of protected articles, you should be able to edit any article in the encyclopedia. Check out WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE to learn how. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sponge333: Indeed; there isn't any age-of-article based limitations on editing. Some articles may be protected for periods of time, but that isn't based on the age of the article or when it was created. If you want to edit a protected article and cannot, you should make an edit request on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Judging grounds for reverting articles.

One editor has frequently criticised my writing as appropriate for academic papers but not for encyclopedia articles. He reverted my "Fact-value distinction" on the following grounds (without discussion on talk page): "22 May 2018‎ 131.111.185.45 0‎ Recent changes have turned this article into an essay. Reverted to previous version which represents a better starting point for a comprehensive re-writing." Are there any WP protocols or definitions to which I can appeal against these arbitrary definitions and actions? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

TBR-qed, I see multiple reviews about your edits on the article's talk page. The IP has a point, but the editors who left you their thoughts on the talk page opined that your edits were generally helpful and only had some issues in need of addressing. One of them even linked two pages which they said would help an editor understand what makes an article more like an essay and less like a summary of what sources say. Why not first ask them there, whether they too agree with the wholesale revert, or would they be ok with restoring your edits and letting you work on improving it further to address theirs and the reverting IP's concerns?

Back to your original question, the burden would be on the asserting editor to show that their argument is per policy and guidelines. So, it is they who need to say what exactly, per policy, do they mean when they say it has turned into an essay. Usually the most likely answer to that would be WP:NOTESSAY, and the elaboration on how your contributions might veer into the essay territory and how you can fix that would be in those two pages that were linked for you by one of the editors who reviewed your work on that article. According to WP:BRD, when your WP:BOLD edit is Reverted, you should initiate a talk page discussion as a productive alternative to rereverting and starting an edit war. Thus, the recommended course of action is to ask the IP why exactly they reverted, and what they mean when they say the article has turned into an essay. Could they provide a few specific examples and explain how they could be written better or not written at all? Etcetera. Hope this helps! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 23:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nat Turner

The talk pages for Nat Turner and Nat Turner's slave rebellion both seem to have come to a consensus that the two articles should be merged. I would like to take a stab at taking the best content from both articles and consolidating it to a single article but I'm not sure how to get started. Should I copy / paste from Nat Turner to Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion or is there a more elegant way tool to merge the articles? If there are step by step instructions for merging articles and setting up the redirect that would be especially helpful. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarylandGeoffrey: Is WP:MERGE helpful? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That is the guidance I was looking for. Apologies if everyone already knows that process, I'm a fairly new editor. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MarylandGeoffrey, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:MERGE is the right guideline, (IMO) but before proceeding you might want to consider addressing the arguments of GuzzyG opposing the merge, and consider seeking a wider consensus. Nat Turner's slave rebellion is a very significant historical event, and Nat Turner a central figure in that event, who is very widely known and has been much written about, althoguh the basic data available is quite limited. The points of those favoring a merge are not invalid, but this is a case to move with care in my veiw. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a discussion is essential because it'll fundamentally change how we treat rebellion biographies. There's tons of articles of figures like Pemulwuy that are in the same situation. I think a rule that was meant to keep reality tv show and beauty pageant contestants from all having a article is bad to apply to historical rebellions. They're highly significant events and as the central figure responsible the leaders should get a pass; even if the information is relatively similar. Britannica has it's article on Nat Turner himself. There's not much information known with Spartacus beyond the rebellion too, should we merge him for example? Where do we draw the line? GuzzyG (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Since this appears more controversial than I thought, I'm not going to take any action until a consensus is reached. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone?

Is anyone willing to adopt my Wikipedia account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumshoe97 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Gumshoe97, Try asking one of the adopters on their talk page. See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters for a list of adopters. Interstellarity (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The advice was to ask "one of the adopters", but you have already asked several. I suggest you pause for a while to find out if any of those agree. Meanwhile, you might proceed with cautious editing of existing articles that are on topics you have knowledge. Make sure you reference as you add content. David notMD (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Funding for Wikipedia

Dear Sir or Madam Why can't Google and other search engines pay for Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordnova (talk • contribs) 08:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Fordnova! See for example Google.org donates $2 million to Wikipedia’s parent org. They contribute, but being funded by volontary donations is a big part of the WP "style". Slightly off-topic, but I thought this was interesting: "Our research found that the median value that U.S. consumers place on Wikipedia is about $150 a year—but the cost is $0. That translates into roughly $42 billion in consumer surplus that isn’t reflected in the U.S. GDP." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Fordnova: you could certainly make a case for that, given the extensive use they make of Wikipedia to fulfil search queries. However, one of Wikipedia’s founding principles is that the content is available under a Creative Commons license meaning that anyone can use it for free. And from Google’s point of view, having to pay for the content they list in results is a slippery slope which would pretty quickly take them to bankruptcy, I suspect. Either way, it’s probably not really a question we can answer properly here at the Teahouse, as this is more for queries about how to edit Wikipedia. Hug^syrup 09:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

See also Facebook donates $1 million to support Wikipedia. Of course, FB may be less inclined to donate atm. A corresponding worry with large donors is "Ok, but does this mean that they are getting influence or good coverage on WP as a result?". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"That translates into roughly $42 billion in consumer surplus that isn’t reflected in the U.S. GDP." There was an article recently that discussed how due to the digitalisation, we have so much 'hidden'/'free' value in our economies now, which are not reflected in GDP, that this is one of the reasons that GDP has become so much worse a metric than it used to be. Kind of an interesting dynamic. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspect many people would stop participating in Wikipedia as editors or readers if a large corporation such as Google or Facebook were to start to "pay for Wikipedia" (as the original question phrased it), since there is an underlying assumption that when you pay for something, you own it, and Google does not own Wikipedia content (they are free to use it but that is a different thing). It is important that no commercial entity should own the free content contributed by millions of volunteers from around the world who have donated their time. A slippery slope indeed, not from Google's point of view (which I don't give a fig about), but from Wikipedia's. --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea, You could've just said you didn't want to purge the comment you already typed, that's a reasonable enough reason to unclose too. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't imagine unclosing a discussion for that reason, and it wasn't why I unclosed this one, so it wouldn't have been true if I'd said that. Maybe move the meta discussion about an edit summary somewhere else, though, if it is important. --bonadea contributions talk 10:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft References Help

Can someone look at this and tell me if I did the references correctly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mista_Roe Jonathandtaylor (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathandtaylor: Thanks for asking, but no, they appear to be mostly or all bare URLs. See the advice given to the questions above yours, and read WP:REFB RudolfRed (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Jonathandtaylor, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that the references in Draft:Mista Roe are not really properly formatted. Most are bare URLs, and thus subject to link rot, none seem to give title, author, or date information. See my detailed comments on a different draft in the section just above. But cite format, while not unimportant, is far less important in a draft than finding independent, published reliable sources to suport notability. For example, the IMDB is not generally considerd reliable for much of its content. First get high-quality sources, then learn how to format them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I think I got it. I am updating them now and I will let you know when I finish. Jonathandtaylor (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@ RudolfRed and @DESiegel Can you take another look at the references? Also do you see anything else you think I need to do?Jonathandtaylor (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I say delete the Interviews section, but curious what others say. David notMD (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Per the spirit of Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence, yes. If something in them are useful as cites, use them for that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, drop mthe intereveiws section totally, possibly using the links as refs if ther is any statement that they support which fits into the text. Drop IMDB and find a better source for that statement please. And the Discography should be text listing his works with supporting cites, not links to external sites. I made a few minor improvements in reference formstting, including combining two uses of the same source article. I could wish that there was more significant national or regional coverage of the subject. One or teo more signifdicant news storei and this is looking good. Also if there are several reviews with significant comment (good or bad) from reliable sources, a "Critical response" section can be added that quotes or summerizes teh reviews. Note that each must be cited and attributed in the text, Something like: John Jones, writing in Blah Blah Magazine about the album Great Record said "The smnoothest collection of songs I have ever heard, but the rythem just isn't quit4e sharp enough."{citation here} Given that, this is looking close to appoval in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Blatant whitewash of Wikipedia page

Someone has whitewashed Live India page. Likely paid editing. I don't know what to do in these cases. Can someone please look into it? Thank you. TryKid (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@TryKid: thanks for the heads-up. Yes, a user who was subsequently blocked for undisclosed paid editing had removed some sourced criticism from the article and added some promotional text; I have reverted to the state the article was in before that happened, and then restored a couple of good edits that were more recent than the white-washing. The article may be a bit outdated now, but at least it is sourced and not an advert for the company. Feel free to improve it! Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Россия город Клин.

  Я хочу исправить в википедии данные по городу Клин.   Могу ли я в свободной и удобной для меня форме сделать это ?
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                       Клинчанин.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Клинчанин (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 

Клинчанин Здравствуйте. Это английская википедия. Пожалуйста, задайте свой вопрос на английском языке. Спасибо. (Hello, this is the English Wikipedia, please ask your question in English. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Здравствуйте Клинчанин. Это английская википедия. Если хотете исправить что-нибудь по-русски, надо исправить в русскоӣ википедии. Пожалуйста, смотрите ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Where do I request a Title change.

So This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayton_Christian_School_System should exist, but under a different name. The Dayton Christian School “System” use to exist, but the system no longer exists, as the school, Dayton Christian School is the only school in the “System”. All the other schools are now independent schools. Where do I request a title change. Also, the article is being kept up to date as of this year, so it is being updated as “Dayton Christian School” and not the system. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You can request a page move(which is how to change a title) at Requested Moves. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The first Miss Arizona was my grandmother, Ethel Elizabeth Cole in 1927. I tried to edit the wiki article, but the addtions I typed didn't save to the page.

The first Miss Arizona was my grandmother, Ethel Elizabeth Cole in 1927. I tried to edit the wiki article, but the additions I typed didn't save to the page.

How do I save my edit?

Thank You, Polly Edgerton

How do I save my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.231.72.50 (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Make sure you click the blue Publish changes button and that will save you edits. Interstellarity (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, please consider registering an account, as by not being registered, the computer access you are using has an "IP" address 207.231.72.50 that has been involved in many past instances of vandalism to Wikipedia articles. (This sometimes happens from a computer at a school or library.) David notMD (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Acidentlly made redirects to a draft in Articles

I moved an unfinished page to draft space, however links to the article had been made, and the move created redirects to the draft. Am I supposed to remove this redirect? And If so, how? Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Helloimahumanbeing, I have tagged the redirect for speedy deletion under R2 so there is not much you have to do. Interstellarity (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

​Don't forget to notify the editor that you've draftified their page, otherwise they won't have any idea what happened to their article. There is a script that automates it: User:Evad37/MoveToDraft. I'd also recommend waiting at least an hour between an article's creation and moving it, since those brand new short articles may just be under construction. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of company logo on wiki page

Hello, I would like to use our organisation's emblem on our Wikipedia page but was notified that I may be violating copyright. I am the creator of the image in behalf of my organization and have permission to use said emblem. My question is how to I grant copyright permission without "giving away the farm"? For example, Starbucks has their logo posted and must have granted a creative commons license, but you can't just use Starbuck's logo in your commercial works without a trademark violation. How does one manage this arrangement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNewhouse (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

TNewhouse, It is strongly discouraged not to edit about your organization. This consists of a conflict of interest and you must declare this. More info has been posted on your talk page. Interstellarity (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi TNewhouse, welcome to Wikipedia. The Starbucks logo is used according to the fair use provision in US copyright law. Without going into all of the details, this means that a low resolution of the image can sparingly be used on Wikipedia in specifically for the purposes of providing encyclopedic commentary about the company (you'll notice that the Starbucks logo is used only twice, and only one one article). Starbucks did not release or licence their logo and neither did Wikipedia seek permission from them to use it; this kind of minimal usage is allowed under US law. As you'll see on the image's page, the logo is not licensed in the way most images on Wikipedia are, so it is still protected by copyright.

Your question sounds like you are editing on behalf of a company or organisation - is that true? Wikipedia strongly discourages contributing to articles with which you have a conflict of interest. If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose this and should read WP:PAID. If you wish to create an article about a company you own or work for, I very strongly discourage you from doing this. Wikipedia has very strict standards about neutrality, and Wikipedia may not be used for promotion - if you do this, it is likely that any articles you create will be deleted and your account could be blocked. Also, you username looks like it refers to a company you own/work for? Is this true? Promotional usernames are also disallowed and you could be blocked and required to choose a new username. If your username does refer to a company you are associated with, you can request a change of username by going to WP:CHU. Does this help? WJ94 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I do work for the company I was writing about. This was my first time posting on Wikipedia and it appears I have made a mess! The article has been deleted and the logo as well. Thank you for your information. I will know better in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNewhouse (talk • contribs) 19:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello World

I was using this in 1970 when I learnt FORTRAN back in 1970 while at Loughborough University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:BB0B:B00:31A9:D5BA:CA36:7C8B (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If you have sources to add, you can mention this at Talk:"Hello, World!" program – Thjarkur (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Page deleted

So I created a page for the technical fest of my college but after being accepted it was deleted. Reason being it's an event but the problem is that there is a category page for these events, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Technical_festivals_in_India There are 30 pages of the same kind as my page was and there are some pages with hardly any content. The page that I created has citation and was informational but it got deleted anyway. So, I wanted to ask what exactly is different in those pages and my page... Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoaib Ahmed 00 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shoaib Ahmed 00: I can't see your article now it's been deleted, so I can't comment in detail on its content, but the reason it was deleted isn't because it's just an article about an event, but because it's an article about an event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. You can do that by showing that the event has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. As to the existence of other articles, it's best to ignore that - the argument that 'other stuff exists' isn't a good argument for why your article should be kept. It's quite possible that some of those other articles should also be deleted, or maybe they meet the requirements in ways you don't appreciate, but it doesn't matter - ignore them, and focus on making your article compliant with Wikipedia policies. Hug^syrup 12:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Shoaib Ahmed 00: I have a somewhat alternative view. Examine those other articles (the "good" ones, anyway) to see how they are different from the one in question. Looking at Techfest, for example, it has references to many newspaper articles discussing it in detail. While you don't need that many, maybe three such independent sources that discuss the subject in depth should be sufficient. Also, a short paragraph that compares and contrasts with other such festivals might help both the reviewer, and ultimately the readers of the article, understand how/why the subject is relevant. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Carmen Gentile, confirm receipt

Hello, I resubmitted this article draft for author Carmen Gentile on 11/23 and am awaiting feedback. May I please have confirmation that my draft has been received and is in queue for review. I'm a novice contributor and appreciate the assistance. --Dawnpalmyra (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Dawnpalmyra, Your draft is not submitted for review. You can submit it by clicking the blue Resubmit button and then clicking the blue Publish changes button. Your draft is submitted for review when you see a banner at the bottom that indicates it's submitted for review. Interstellarity (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. The resubmission appears to have gone through this time.--Dawnpalmyra (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dawnpalmyra: I made some changes to improve the article's chances of being accepted. One thing you might do is add a section about his writing, and use the sources that you had in the external links section. Something like "Gentile has written articles for publications including Esquire, The New York Times and USA Today", and use those article links as sources, but not as inline external links. I left the links in the text but hid them. Books are good to list, but not articles. For example, imagine how long any weekly columnist's article would be if they listed every column they wrote. Good luck. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I edited the plot for Child's Play (2019), but it went back to normal. Why?

I just finished editing the plot for the 2019 horror film, "Child's Play". But, why did it go back to normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentmacefe (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vincentmacefe: Sorry you had your work reverted, but the reverting editor cited WP:FILMPLOT for limiting the plot to 400-700 words. If you think your summary is better, please discuss on the talk page to get consensus for why policy should be changed in this case. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Two existing articles for the same subject

I found that GMO Internet and GMO Internet, Inc. are virtually the same articles? Should one redirect to the other? lullabying (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well spotted. Both were apparently created by the same editor, who is no longer active. May be worth considering a merge. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - article has been redirected. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Language links

How do i connect new pages with the same pages in other languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SerVasi (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Misplaced quesation movced from top of page into new section. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@SerVasi: See Wikipedia:Wikidata#New articles. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Nay

Hi, Why my article about the big Egyptian production company Nay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nay has been deleted? I don't know why!! Please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se5kofta (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Se5kofta: As it says there, and also on your talk page, it was deleted due to being advertising or promotion. RudolfRed (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft Page improving references

An experienced editor told me that my references need to work but wasn't very specific about what needed to be done, so perhaps someone could give me some advice on improving my references.

My draft page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Colin_Grubb — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFeldspar (talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, FFeldspar, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Several things. A good citation should give:

• the title of the page or article being cited;
• the name or title of the enclsosing work (web site, magazine, newspaper or journal) except when the work cited has no enclosing work, such as a cite to a book; (This may be wiki-linked if there is an article about the work.)
• The name of the author when that is known;
• The date of publication when that is known;
• The name of the publisher when that is known, except when it is redundant to the name of the work. For example it adds nothing to say that The New York Times is published by The New York Times Co (as it is);
• For online sources, the date you accessed and retrived it and verified that it supported the statements in the article.
• For paginated sources, thre page number(s) of interst.

The cites in Draft:Colin_Grubb are missing much of this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Now let's look at the specific cites in that draft:

• The first is a Wikiipedia article. Wikipedia articles are never valid sources.
• The second does not link directly to the text and video, whoch is at https://www.abc.net.au/gardening/factsheets/behind-the-scenes/10815908 and does not indicate where in the video the cite is pointing or if it is in the text.
• The third again links to a general summary page, or it may be a slide show, not to the actual text supporting the statement.
• The fourth does not link to a page that gives the actual name(s) of the winner(s) of the award;
• The fifth links to a general home page for the show or channel, not to a page that shows specifically what shows Grubb directed and when;
• The sixth links to a general home page, not to an actual list of the members of the board of directors, nor to a page about Grubb showing that he was on the board;
• The seventh links to a page which does not show that Grubb was the director, in fact does not even mention his name;
• the eighth links to a page which is just a summary of the film, and does not give any credits or mention Grubb's name at all;

In addition two sources are just bare URLs with no name given. URLs can change, and without fuller data, can be hard to recover. See WP:LINKROT.

Does that calrify things a bit, FFeldspar? I hope it does. Do see referencing for Beginners for more details on how to do Wikipoedia citations. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

DES for this - so is it better if i just remove the citations if i cant be specific enough? Gardening Australia still exists and because he used to be a producer there I thought i could just link to their page for reference. Also I didn't think it was a problem to link to another wikipedia page when like referring to Colin's brother? Also I have fixed the seventh and eight links - can you check these are correct now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FFeldspar (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, FFeldspar a ping does not work to notify the intended target unles it is signed 'as part of the same edit with four tildes (~~~~) or the signature buttone on the editing toolbar. (in any case all talk page and discussion page posts should be signed in this way. It helspe keep tjhings straight.)

Second, the 7th and 8th cited sources do now go to better locatrions, but they still do not include any title or other publication metadata (title; name of work/website; publisher; publication date if known; author if known; access date). This really should be provided. Indeed in this edit you actully removed the metadata for one source, in the process of correcting the URL. Please don't do that.

Third, you may link to other wikipedia pages, indeed this is encouraged. But you may not cite them as sources, that is, they may not be in <ref>...</ref> tags.

Fourth, a reference source must be quite specific, and must include the actual information that it is supporting in the article (or draft). Best is to ind a source page that does include this information. But for a published movie or video, the credits of the work itself are a source, just as the title and copyright page of a published book are, and as long as enough info is given to find and vioew the actual work, including the credits , a cite can be omitted, or given as "see credits on {name of video}" in the ref tags. But that is very much a second best. It is still better than citing a page that deos not in fac contain the information being supported.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Helpful Message

Hi I Um, Saw The Donate To Wikipedia Thing, And I Want To But I'm Just A Child So I Cant. But I Hope That Wikipedia Survives And Keeps Thriving To Give Information, And I Hope The Person, And The Company That Reads This Has A Fantastic Life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.90.228 (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No worries, there is no need to donate, and the Wikimedia Foundation has plenty of money as is. Thanks for the kind message :) – Thjarkur (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There are always other ways to contribute to Wikipedia, though, such as editing articles and adding more information onto them. Perhaps you can donate your knowledge instead. Thank you for the message, and I hope you have a fantastic life as well! :)) Chlod (talk | contribs) 06:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

David Hobbs

Hello, I have created a biography for Mr David Hobbs from this page NATO Parliamentary Assembly but his name is still red. The biography is still in the sandbox. How do I link it to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idjelassi (talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your sandbox draft is not yet in a state to be published as an article, as it has no references to published reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate the subject's notability in Wikipedia's terms. You ought to read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I want to Post My COMPANY's Info

Greeting! I am really a fan of Wikipedia and the authentic, free and quality information it delivers to all across the globe. For my company, I am really keen to discover that is there any way or source, I can put a universal details of my company at Wikipedia? If so, then I am looking forward to the guidance for all people reading this. Thanks in Advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickfitautos (talk • contribs) 10:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Step One. NEVER spam questions across multiple locations. It really winds people up. I suggest no one answers in this thread and all answers are directed to the thread on the Helpdesk. - X201 (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about discussion closure

Hi! I am a Wikipedian for 2 years and a closure of a discussion is requested on October 2019. However, no uninvolved editor came forth to determine the consensus. On this situation, what should be done? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You could resolve it as C, because proponent B/C won proponent A (and others) for the C case, if proponent E, who won proponent D for the E case, and D accept this result (or are not more involved). Clearly A B D lost, and for C vs. E somebody would have to check that the arguments for E are not better than the arguments by the C-majority. If D or E object you really need an uninvolved editor willing to read the long discussion. (Teaser for others here, are you interested in SpaceX? I have no clue about the topic.) –84.46.52.57 (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability Question on YouTuber

So I think the YouTuber SSundee is notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia article. Before I begin finding sources on him, I wanted to get a few people's feedback on if he is notable or not. He currently has 12.7 million subscribers. I know not every YouTuber is notable, but to me, 12.7 million subscribers is notable. Please let me know what you think below. Thanks in advance.Elijahandskip (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Elijahandskip. It is impossible to assess the notability of a person without looking for significant coverage of the person in reliable, independent sources. The number of subscribers or followers is utterly meaningless without the required coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

He is, in fact, quite notable, but I don't think he's had much coverage on accurate sources that can accurately describe him. As Cullen said, notability isn't really something that can be assessed easily. If you think he's had enough coverage in the news, then sure, go give it a shot. Chlod (talk | contribs) 06:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a List of YouTubers, all notable (at least in theory) under the enwiki idea of notability. If you know somebody on this list, you can check their BLP, and if you have similar reliable and independent sources for your over 12M subscribers person, you can start a BLP-stub. –84.46.52.57 (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Finding articles that need proofing for grammar, punctuation and/or style.

Hi everyone,

I often stumble upon articles that really need some help with proofing. Typos etc, but also editing by people who may have difficulties with English not being their native or first language.

Is there a list anywhere of such work needing to be done, or perhaps a place where proof-reader contributors can be contacted for help? I am a retired teacher of English with Latin skills as well.

Cheerypips, Sid.

Sid the Obscure (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There is! The list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit - PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There is also a list of general community help here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal - PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And there is WP:GOCE, the Guild Of Copy Editors, you can suggest an article for copy editing, typically in preparation of a GA (good article) nomination, but some class=B almost ready for A or similar might be also okay (untested, I only tried the GA preparation twice, and got the GOCE help.) –84.46.52.57 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Mincho Panayotov, аrtist and art teacher biography - reliable sources of information

What is considered reliable source of information regarding the wikipedia standarts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GYT19701086 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GYT19701086 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read about what reliable sources are generally; in short, a reliable source is any source that has editorial control and a reputation for fact checking. This is often the media, but can also be published books(on or off line). You may also wish to read the Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GYT19701086, I see that Draft:Mincho Panayotov, аrtist and art teacher was declined for being completely unreferenced (there were other reasons for declining it, but that's the most obvious). Within twenty minutes, you had resubmitted it, without making any attempt to address its problems. It will certainly be declined again if it is reviewed while in its current state. No wonder there's a four-month wait for reviews. Maproom (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

draft review

Hello fellow wiki's!!! Can someone take a look at this article and give me some feedback? Thanks in advance! Draft:Mista Roe Jonathandtaylor (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, Jonathandtaylor. My advice hasn't changed much since my post in the section #Draft References Help above. Lose the interviews, convert the Discography from external links to prose in the article, and find and use one or teo more news storeis about Roe, if at all possible. Did you see and note the recent edits by me and by Davidnot MD? Others may have other advice, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel you are the best! I did not see the recent edits by you all. I just looked at them and that helps a lot. I will check everything out in detail and make necessary adjustments. Thanks for all your help! Jonathandtaylor (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

How you use an archive.gov pdf for a source

Is there anyway to use https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10125-10133.pdf as a source for an article? --Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Texas-Dude1914: technically, sure - it can be cited like any other document. But bear in mind that it is a primary source and therefore should be used with caution. We are more interested in what secondary sources have said about this document than what the document itself says, and you certainly should not base an entire article on a primary source. Hug^syrup 14:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Stuck in the sandbox

I created an entry for my name. I recently won some awards for a film (noted in national press) and was encouraged to create a Wikipedia entry. I deleted a personal website linked to my name, Elizabeth Coffman, as I read that could be a problem. I do not see any problems or critical comments next to my entry.

How do I get my entry out of the sandbox and published?Elizabeth Coffman (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth Coffman. I think that before you try to create a Wikipedia article about yourself, that you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If after looking at those pages you still feel that a Wikipedia article can be written about you, please then take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Law of unintended consequences, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Ideally, you should not be the one trying to create an article about you; so, if you're Wikipedia notable and you really want an article written about you, then you can try asking someone to do so at Wikipedia:Requested articles or try asking at a WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women to see if you can find someone to write an article about you. Just for reference, your sandbox User:Elizabeth Coffman/sandbox is currently not really ready to be upgraded to an article, but someone might be able to build upon what you've started and create an article out of it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth Coffman. In addition to everything that Marchjuly posted above, which is spot on and should be read, there's an opportunity to add info about your film to the section Flannery O'Connor#Legacy, awards, and tributes. You could post an edit request on that article's talk page. See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for info about how to do this. Good luck! TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Elizabeth Coffman. While I believe that you likely are a notable person by Wikipedia's standards, I must caution you about using your real name for your Wikipedia username. This is permitted - however, to protect you against the possibility of impersonation, you might be asked to send verification of your identity if an article about you is accepted. Alternatively, you could opt to change your username instead. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

A page a edited was subsequently deleted, wrongly

Hello, I edited a biography of a person I know, and then someone deleted her Wiki page, which had been up for a decade without any problems. It was deleted for the reason of not having any references, but it had a lot of references to big newspapers. I feel like this is bullying and when I ask talk to them about it, they are rude in response. How can I quickly restore the page and prevent this in the future? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahWoodstock (talk • contribs) 08:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

SarahWoodstock, as the deleting admin told you, the venue to go to to request restoration of a deleted article is WP:DRV. In the meantime, please review our conflict of interest policy at WP:COI, as they also asked you to. Having been online for a long time doesn't exempt an article from deletion if any of the deletion criteria apply. It was deleted for serving no other purpose than promoting/advertising the subject. The number of references isn't as important as the quality of them, that's what was challenged, in addition to the promotional nature of the article content itself. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SarahWoodstock. I am an administrator so I could read the deleted article. The article was not deleted wrongly. It failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that this person is notable by Wikipedia's standards. None at all. The article was previously deleted in 2008, so there have been previous problems. If you want to challenge the deletion, please try Wikipedia:Deletion review. In my honest opinion, you are unlikely to be successful, but you are welcome to try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, SarahWoodstock, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Hilary Rowland was deleted, not for lack of references, but under WP:CSD#G11, as promotional by Bbb23. An earlier version was deleted back in 2008 after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilary Rowland, which did refer to notability issues and lack of sources, but also to promotionalism.

I might not have deleted this under G11, but it was far from an ideal article. The ciuted sources in the last version before deletion were:

• The subject's father's author bio; (not independent)
• An article "5 Reasons I Love Being a Vegan" in Urbanette magazeine, written by the subject (not independent)
• Beauty and the Biz". an articel in Faze Teen magazine.
• "Hilary Rowland, Reasons I Love Lyon". from This Is Lyon. Only ne paragraph, and saeems to be by the subject.
• "My International Life: From NYC to France". from Urbanette Magazine. Written by the subject.

Earlier veriosn had more sources, but not much better oine in the last coupel you edited, and i don't see any major news organs or other celalry reliable and impressibve sources.

This deletion does not prevent starting a new article, preferably as a draft, and making it more clearly neutral and supported by bettre sources, if those exist (I haven't looked). Or you could discuss with the deleting admin, or ask for a WP:REFUND. But the deletion nwas not "bullying " -- it was quite in accord with Wikipedia policy and procedure, as far as I can see. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, SarahWoodstock, you have a declared conflict of interest regarding Hilary Rowland. You should defer to the judgment of experienced, uninvolved editors on this matter. It is a well known fact that a conflict of interest can often cloud an editor's judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback and your time! I am still learning and want to do everything correctly. Can I research more, get more (big-name/credible) references, remove the references you mentioned, and re-post? BTW - what is wrong with the Faze magazine reference? It's one of Canada's largest magazines. Also, can a link like 'This is Lyon' be used for proof that she lived in Lyon? It seems to me that there are profiles of notable entrepreneurs and inventors, and that hers fits those same criteria since she created the first online magazine and the first online portfolio website. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahWoodstock (talk • contribs) 13:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, I created a draft. Can you please check it and give me feedback, then please publish it when you think it's ready? Only an administrator can publish it. Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hilary_Rowland — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahWoodstock (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

SarahWoodstock, just a couple of style notes First, lose the registered mark symbols. We do not use them. Second, magazine titles are italicized on every usage. John from Idegon (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

SarahWoodstock, you should check out WP:OVERKILL - many of your article's sentences have way too many citations. The first sentence in 'Career' has 8, where one well-placed citation would be more than enough.

Some of the wording still leans in the promotional direction. For instance, "the first online portfolio site (of any kind), the first online agency, the first time casting was done online, and also the first online community for talent".

Firstly - you've repeated "the first online portfolio site" twice when this sentence rolls around; there's no need to do this. Once is enough to establish the facts.

Secondly, these claims read contentuously. When you stick a lot of "firsts" in an article, they should be more specific. "the first online agency" - were they the first agency to be online? Or the first to be a solely internet-based enterprise, with no physical offices that models visited for their agency work?

You can improve the way these "firsts" are written, but remember, it's only an improvement if they're true. Be specific.

Since this is a WP:BLP, you have to adheer to much more exacting editorial standards, and I'd suggest you have another read through of the manual of style for BLP articles before continuing. You should probably add a date and location of birth and an early life section, though if the article's subject hasn't revealed this information publicly, I don't think it's a requirement - use discretion in regard with WP:BLPPRIVACY.

Lastly - under the 'Awards' section, is receiving a number of accolades that account to little more than 'Hottest CEO' relevant to the article? For a business entrepeneur, I'd say no. Perhaps one sentence would be enough, but it shouldn't be longer than the actual awards she's won for her work as a businesswoman. You say she's won a number of business awards - switch this section round and detail those, and leave the 'Hottest CEO' awards as small "number of" line instead at the bottom of the paragraph.

This article isn't the worst I've seen, and the prose isn't poorly-written, but it needs work to take it out of conflict-of-interest territory. Please get down to grips with that before submitting your article. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

OP has been blocked for promotion/advertising. I also suspect there was undisclosed paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Re-doing on Question of Notability of YouTuber

Scroll up for extra information, but I have found 6 sources (More probably, just a quick search found 6 reliable sources) for the YouTuber Ssundee. With 12.7 million subscribers and sources about him/his channel, would that make him notable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ssundee_(Youtuber) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: First off, you can reply under the original section rather than creating a new one. But the short answer to your question is 'no'. Social Blade and Statsheep track YouTube stats but they do nothing to establish notability because YouTube stats do not equal notability; Wikitubia is not a reliable source because it is user-generated content; the same goes for teamcrafted.fandom and UrbanDictionary. Please read our policy on reliable sources carefully. You would need to find coverage of this individual in reliable, independent sources such as newspapers, journals, or published books. Hug^syrup 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I would add that the reason subscriber numbers are not an automatic indication of notability is that they are easily gamed; it is not difficult for someone to make more than one account in order to subscribe to a certain 'YouTuber' and boost their numbers. Donald Trump Jr. just had the Republican National Committee spend money to buy his book to get it on the best seller list, for example.[1] 331dot (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having 100, 12.7 million or 1 billion subscribers does not, in itself, make someone notable. You might as well forget about using that statistic as a benchmark of notability.

Repeating what Hugsyrup said, the first three sources you list are just statistics on this person's YouTube channel. They do not discuss the person behind the channel in any meaningful way.

The last three sources you list are self-published sources, where the content is generated by the sites' users. This disqualifies them from being reliable. Blogs, wikis, social media or any site that consists of user-generated content won't count as a reliable source.

Therefore, the sources you have do not establish this person as notable. You need to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (e.g. mainstream media) to do that. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

how to prevent / reserve some pages for some time from editing by other users

Hi, I along with NGOs volunteers want to put Bangalore lakes precise details in Wikipedia. So far, we can see that very few lakes in Bangalore were having dedicated pages. Whatever exist are not in good shape and needs to be fixed with better contents and citation. We have some 30 pages to work upon and in between we wish that no other users should edit those pages.

So, my question is - whether preventing those pages from editing by other users is allowed / possible in Wikipedia or not?Bharat1 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Bharat1 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles are not protected from editing merely to prevent other editors from editing them, as this encyclopedia is editable by anyone. There must be a specific reason like intractable vandalism or edit warring in order to protect a page from editing. If you want to attempt to prevent others from editing the article while you have edits in progress, you can add {{In use|time=~~~~~}} to the top of the article(as seen when viewing this page, not in the edit window for this page). If you want to draft a new article, you can do so in your personal sandbox(User:Bharat1/sandbox) and that should reduce the chances that others will edit it. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Avoid posting as "we." Each registered account is supposed to be to an individual. If a group of people are interested in a topic(s), then each can register an account. As 331dot stated, once an article is created, anyone can edit it. If you want to work in private, then in personal sandbox. David notMD (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Bharat1 note that even in a persoinal sandbox, other users may and sometiems will edit, although they normally will not do so without good reason. But no one owns or controils any page on Wikipedia at all. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

However, one can place {{Under construction}} to request other users, on a temporary basis, not to edit a page, and such requests are usually honored if the time involved is not too long. Follow the link for more details on how to use this template. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Can a redirect direction change?

On the topic of the term makerspaces & hackerspaces. These days, though apparently there is a debate if they are differing things, the term makerspace is much more widely utilized and this can be even be seen as viewed by google trends keyword 'makerspace' compared to 'hackerspace'. Here on Wikipedia the term makerspace redirects to the page hackerspace wherein the terminology is conflated between the two.

Is it possible to have hackerspace redirect to makerspace and the content of hackerspace moved there, or to split the two and remove the redirect completely (although some of the information would then become redundant though would need to be replicated)?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TribeEng (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, TribeEng, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, either of those is possible. In general a redirect can always be changed to point to any relevant article, or be converted into an article. However, it is usually best to obtain consensus of intersted editors by posting on the existing article talk page, and inviting discussion of the proposal. People may have different ideas, or perhaps no one else will care. Requested moves describes the procedue in soem detail. To move over an existing redirect may require an Admin, the RM page tells how to list a request for such assistance, once consensus is clear. See also WP:SPLIT. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Getting an article to be semi-locked.

I have began a news article which is notable and a hot topic in American News. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_Lawsuit_2019 I would like to get it semi-locked before edits fly in. How do I request that. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, Won't happen without good reason. See WP:PP MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Elijahandskip: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so locking an article simply because you think lots of people will want to edit is rather counter to how we do things. Lots of people editing an article is usually a good thing as it often means it rapidly improves. And remember you do not own an article just because you created it. If and only if the article is subject to persistent vandalism, you can request to have protection applied. Hug^syrup 19:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I wasn’t thinking like an editor and I had the mindset of owning the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Too late! I have already edited the (very, very, vey) short article. I expect others will contribute, and the article will be improved thereby. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest you change the name to Nunes lawsuit. David notMD (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It has been moved to CNN v. Nunes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Is that in accordance with the naming convention for lawsuits in the USA? In the UK they are named as plaintiff v defendant. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The US convention is not rigid, but Plaintiff vs Defendant is the usual naming convention. This is probably backwards, and none of the sources I have read give this style of name, nor have I seen a trrascriptt of the actual suit yet. But this probably belongs on the articel talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Nunes v. CNN (plaintiff v. defendant is standard and logical, though there are likely some exceptions (IANAL)). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing a joint biography about two brothers into two independent biographies

My grandfather is in a joint biography with his brother.

Is there a way I can give my grandfather an independent biography? Obviously it would involve removing his name from the title of the existing article--can that be done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1480:89FD:110A:5D60:69CD:16D3 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would be easier to help you if you told which article you were talking about. What you ask is certainly possible, depending on the situation. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Stub vs draft article

Kia ora Wiki editors,

I am committed to improving coverage in Wikipedia in specific subject areas. I have a lot of resource to hand of legitimate sources (ie. piles of books), and some time on my hands. I am very new to editing for Wikipedia. I have been adding citations to other articles, but I am now ready to be creating new articles.

What are the advantages and disadvantage of creating an article or a stub? I have one article in my sandbox, but it is not ready to go yet - can I have more sandboxes? I think maybe I can create draft articles but this is a bit hazy about how to actually do this. I have connected with my regions Wikipedia groups and had a couple of face to face sessions which have been great, but not formed quite enough relationship to bug them with my questions.

Do people recommend new editors creating stubs or spending longer and getting articles together? The definition of a stub does seem a little hazy. When do I decide it isn't a draft anymore? Could I invite specific editors to give feedback on a draft (and how do I do that? how do I use a talk page!?) or is it just fine to throw it open like I have with a recent article.

Many thanks, Pakoire (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Pakoire and welcome to the Teahouse. You may create as many user space drafts, or pages in draft space, as you please. For example, a draft about "NewTopic" could be at User:Pakoire/NewTopic or at Draft:NewTopic. You can create such pages by searchign for the exact page name, and when the Wikipedi search engine does not find the page, it will provide a link which you may use to create the page. Personally I would advise agaisnt creating stubs if the sourced information at hand permits crearting a full article. I would also advise agaiusnt creating new articles directly in article space even stubs. Use a user page or a draft page to get the basics doen and sourced first, then move the draft into mainspace. You can use the Articles for creation procss to get an experinced editor's review first, but that does involve a wait. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pakoire: I'll add that, in addition to searching for the exact title you think should be used, please take some time to search for other articles that may already exist about your subject. Often, people will go through the trouble of creating a whole new article when the subject is already covered in an article with a different title. This happens a lot with articles about people, especially when their names are not originally "English" (i.e., because of different transliterations) or they are known by "stage names" or other pseudonyms. Thanks! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Donations

I used wikipedia on on my phone earlier today and was asked to donate. I made a donation and even set up a monthly donation but now using wikipedia on my laptop and being hassled about donations again. I know it's probably because I don't have an account with wikipedia but that's my choice not to have an account. Anyway you can help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.238.181 (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia - and thanks for donating. I don't believe there's anything you can do to stop those banners when you log in as an IP. Once you create an account, the donation banner doesn't come up, and you can opt out of other banners. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Hello. While I don't have a suggestion for you (other than registering an account, which is usually quick and simple), while waiting for someone to offer another solution, I just wanted to thank you for your donations. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly your choice to have an account or not- but if you decide to not have one, you will need to accept what comes with that decision. If you have an account, you can turn off the banners- along with other advantages. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to join others in thanking you for your donation. Wikipedia is a wonderful thing and it relies on generous people like you to exist. If the requests keep showing up, take it as an opportunity to bask in the glow of thinking "I already have done; you're welcome." You certainly don't have to make an account here if you don't want to. If you do, we'll be delighted to have you, and if you don't we're grateful anyway. › Mortee _talk 23:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

IP block page error

The content of the IP block page for an organization I'm a part of is incorrect. It renders the article title name instead of the viewer's IP address. I don't want to publicly disclose what this organization is, nor can I find a channel to report this kind of issue. Is there a way I can privately go in depth about the issue?

Thanks, Violet VioletWTF (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi VioletWTF. Please refer to Wikipedia:Oversight since this seems like something that an Oversighter should be able to help you with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@VioletWTF:

Dear Violet,

Our "Oversight team" received your ticket, however you used an invalid reply address so we could not reply. 

To request an unblock privately you may use the UTRS system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System

Go to that page and click on "Submit an unblock request".  UTRS uses PGP on SSL encrypted pages, and requires ticket responders to authenticate.

Sincerely,
Xaosflux
The English Wikipedia Oversight team

Direct link: Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Hey. Sorry if I was unclear, my intent is to **change the text of a block page**, as in the page that shows up when my organization attempts to edit a wiki. The block is correct. The page itself has an error. I can be securely reached at vi [at] violet.wtf using PGP key DE07E177FF03BBA9E54749E6D808BF76BCD9221A. My PGP key is also available in whole at https://keybase.io/violet_wtf. Cheers, VioletWTF (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@VioletWTF: I will email you. My PGP information is here at: User:Xaosflux/PHP. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi

how do you become a template editor? Gumshoe97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gumshoe97. You can find out some more information about this at Wikipedia:Template editor, but I think that this might be one of the harder user rights to get because templates which are protected, in general, tend to be used in lots of ways on Wikipedia so that editing them needs to be done with great care because even a minor change might impact many pages in some unforeseen ways. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi again

I was also wondering, how do you change the "(talk)" button near your username after your posts, to something fun, or creative? Gumshoe97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature for more information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gumshoe97: Please do read the whole thing, especially the Wikipedia:Signatures#Guidelines and policies. Thanks! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi again

Another quick question, how can I change my username?--Gumshoe97 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gumshoe97: See WP:UNC, there is a link there to request a change. RudolfRed (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Dylan Wruck

Hi Zamekrizeni I don't understand why you keep putting your own opinionated comments about injury to Dylan Wruck's profile. No other professioal hockey player has has an anything about their injuries or an injury report in their profile. So I keep changing the profile fit with the other profile of Professional player I read on this sight. I would appreciate if you would delete the comments that you put on his profile about his injury and the part about him going to Canada to rehab this has no bearing on his accomplishment as a athlete.

It seems as you have a personal issue here in which you need to overcome and instead of looking up articles that verify what was written by people that know the above person and his background of accomplishment. Something the non administrator can not do and it is not easy to leave notes on this sight. I have tried to leave you notes to verify the edits and looks like some of the other administrators has found the stats , from the 2009 U17 tournaments and other edits. I will leave it up you to remove what I have ask you to do. You know it is the right thing to do as again no other hockey professional has anything about injury his his profile this is not a injury report and a place to put personal edits from a journalist who has been taken out of context -with the return to Canada thing not sure what is so important to you to have that in there. Again Please remove Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.6.50 (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@198.169.6.50: I think you may be posting in the wrong place. If this is aimed at Zamekrizeni you are better off posting on their talk page, or else on the talk page of Dylan Wruck, which I assume is the article in Question. The Teahouse is for general questions about how to edit Wikipedia. Hug^syrup 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hugsyrup Please remembver that pings don't work for unregistered (IP) editors. One can use a Tehouse talkback instead (as I have now done).

IP Editor, I endorse Hugsyrup's advice, but would suggest posting to the article talk page, perhaps with a ping to the user in question. Remember, pings must be signed to work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any "opinionated comments" and I don't have any "personal issue". It is about facts which are "based on reliable, third-party, published sources" in accordance with Wikipedia rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources This is the case for the mentioned information in this article, in my opinion. It is untrue that "No other professioal hockey player has has an anything about their injuries or an injury report in their profile". It is easy to find several articles of pro hockey players which include information about injuries, which I think is relevant, because injuries are as much part of professional sports as accomplishments as an athlete. Zamekrizeni (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Inaccessible Sources

Dear all, I am facing a situation that I'm not sure what to do about. The article I've been working on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kevork_Yeramian) has recently been declined due to insufficient sources. My situation is: 1. The article's biggest source is the content person's family (Mr. Kevork Yeramian's family): his wife and children. 2. Some sources are from the 80s and are not digitized, and don't exist in the internet. 3. Those sources in point 2 are inaccessible since they are located in war-torn Aleppo, Syria.

My questions: 1. How can I handle a situation like this? 2. Are personal testimonies acceptable as sources? 3. I could include a written/signed statement from Mr. Yeramian's wife that the information included in the article are valid, since she's the source to many of them (I have her permission to use the photos and more, since I am a family member as well). Would this be acceptable?

Mr. Yeramian's significant architectural contribution to the city of Aleppo mainly, and some other cities, are archived and verified through analog source which are inaccessible due to war in Aleppo-Syria. All help, advice, and guidence is much appreciated. Thank you for your time, consideration, and support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex662607004 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Alex6626070: I think you slightly misunderstand the type of sources we are after. It’s not so much about proving the information is true (although of course yes that is part of it) but establishing that the individual is notable, and has been given substantial coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. That is why personal accounts, photos, family documents, and of course personal knowledge are simply not usable as sources. They may verify the information but they do not tell us why it is notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. Now, some good quality reliable sources are also not available online - old newspapers being a good example (although most major newspapers are increasingly making archives available digitally) and it is absolutely fine to use them as long as you know the publication, and article title and date. But the source must still be reliable by our definition. Hug^syrup 09:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree slightly with Hugsyrup, Alex662607004, though I agree with their overall answer. It is not just a matter of notability: unpublished information is never acceptable in a Wikipedia article, because there is no way that a reader next week or next year can verify it. Even if the information that you put in is 100% accurate, what happens if somebody comes along tomorrow and alters it, whether because they are mistaken, or they have an agenda to push, or they are simply vandalising it? Nobody has any reliable way of telling which is the correct information' (And notice that providing a signed statement from somebody doesn't really help - how is a random reader going to be able to read such? and how can Wikipedia verify the identify of the person signing it?) So the decision that was taken early on was to disallow any such unsourced information. I know this can be frustrating, but that is how the consensus has been to manage information in Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability, not truth.

On the other point, of non-digitised information, Hugsyrup is absolutely right: there has never been any question that sources have to be online, as long as they are published so that a random reader can in principle obtain them (eg through a major library). I'm not sure what the answer would be to your point 3: are they not in libraries elsewhere? --ColinFine (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Citations

Hello, I was wondering if anyone can help me, I am currently trying to add to a page about Ruth Dodd, and I have added a little bit of information about her to the page. I am struggling to understand the way to cite a website (the tyne and wear archives service) can anybody help me? (If you are looking at the page it is citation 2 that I am trying to fix. Thank you Slikitty (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slikitty: I assume it's Ruth Dodds we're looking at? I've formatted the web citation for you, and for future reference you can use this template: Template:Cite web for that. Hope this helps. Hug^syrup 12:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Hugsyrup Thank you for the informationSlikitty (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Need help changing an article that was written as a resume

Hello,

I have been editing the Wikipedia page of Andrew Zerzan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Zerzan in the last few days, updating the content and adding new references. At the top of the page there is a note saying: "This biographical article is written like a résumé. Please help improve it by revising it to be neutral and encyclopedic".

I hope someone can give me some precise instructions what needs to be changed in the article to remove that notification. I am editing the page using the Visual Editor.

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbernardos (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Bbernardos Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know if I have any specific recommendations, but the article reads as simply a list of what Mr. Zernan has done- it should read as a summary of what independent reliable sources that have given him significant coverage say about him. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @331dot

Thanks for the info. Is there a way to find out who posted the notification so that I can contact that admin and ask for more information and instructions? Any other contact person you can suggest I talk to?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbernardos (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Bbernardos You can examine the edit history of the article to see when the maintenance tag was posted and by whom. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bbernardos: Of course you can contact the editor who posted the notification, although I don't think you really need to. It's MUCH more productive for you to go where the note points to, namely our guidelines about neutrality and appropriate style. Additionally, I'd recommend to see our gudeline on biographies and especially the policy on biographies of living persons. Pages that do not follow rules defined there may get removed from the articles' space or even deleted from Wikipedia. --CiaPan (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

/* Paid COI */ I am unable to contact the editor who admitted to Paid editing. Please help me to remove the paid template.

Hi All, please help me to delete the maintenance template on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZS_Associates article as it's hard to track the user who had admitted the paid editing. Thanks in advance Jayjha89 (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You are the editor (one of them, at least) who appears to be editing the article as part of their job. You need to make the required disclosures, or you are likely to be blocked from editing. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, Yes I did edit the page but I'm not associated with ZS at all. The maintenance template was added on 29th June 2019 and I joined Wikipedia on November.Jayjha89 (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Jayjha89 Please don't post the same question in multiple forums, as I see you did at Wikipedia:Cleanup. Doing so is called forum shopping and it fragments the discussion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

How to get an article from the sandbox into public?

Hello!

I prepared an article about the German-based software company Ashampoo. Currently the article is in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArsLongaVita/sandbox

Please advice how to get the article into review and later on alive. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsLongaVita (talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@ArsLongaVita: the answer to your question is to paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of your article. However, there is no point doing this as your article will not be accepted. Firstly, it has no sources (the company's own website is not a reliable source), secondly it makes no indication of why this company is notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry about it, and thirdly it is clearly written in a highly promotional manner. It seems very clear that you own or work for this company, and yet you have not made the disclosure required at WP:PAID. I very much doubt that Ashampoo is suitable for an article no matter how much you edit it, so I would suggest you abandon this and work on articles where you do not have a conflict of interest. Hug^syrup 09:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

On your Talk page you stated "I am not employed by the company." Are you IN ANY WAY connected to the company? Consultant? Family member or friend of the people who own/operate the company? Invested in? Consultant would equal paid. Other connections would be considered conflict-of-interest. David notMD (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

ADDING PAGES

Hello, I have been trying to create a new page for wikipedia, but I don't know where to start. I was wondering is someone could give me the basics for page creation, along with how to publish a page and create a title for it.

Thanks, RAWRSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAWRSON (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

RAWRSON Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for wanting to contribute and being willing to create a new article(not just "page", a subtle but important distinction). I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. Users new to the process are more successful when they first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. Users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work that they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I tell you this not to scare you, but only because I want you to have a good experience here. I would as such suggest that you edit some existing articles first and use the new user tutorial to learn more about how Wikipedia works.

If you still want to start with creating a new article, you should review Your First Article, and then you can use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for a review before its formal placement in the encyclopedia. This way you get feedback first, instead later, when your work will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sabotaged Articles

Back in October 2019, I noticed that the article for the "Canadian Who's Who", a Canadian resource publication that lists the biographies of notable Canadians, was filled with wildly false, inaccurate and downright vicious statements. This is a legitimate publication by a professional company. It has been in print for over a hundred years. It did not take the tone of a factual article written by a third party. Instead, it seemed to be written with a passionate hate for the publication. Many of the sources used are either decades old, or have nothing to do with the actual publication.

According to the history, many changes were made in February 2019 by one user. On November 1st, I made revisions, removing the false information and pulling up-to-date information from the publisher's official website. On November 2nd, the article was reverted back to the previous version by none other than the same user.

What can I do to stop this back-and-forth? Can anyone provide insight on how to proceed to ensure purely factual information is being published?

I did not re-post my edits to avoid wasting time, so here is the article as it currently appears: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Who's_Who — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artist2020 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Artist2020: Wikipedia aims to avoid bias by reporting what has been written about a subject in reliable independent sources, rather than in sources connected with the subject. When you edited Canadian Who's Who, you removed six reliable independent sources and the content that was based on them, and replaced it by information from the publisher's own web site, thus presenting a strongly biased view. Your edits were, quite properly, reverted. If you want the article to remain unbiased, you should leave it alone in future. Maproom (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

deletion

why is someone deleting the pages i recently made.?

i recently created some pages for a couple of articles for some football teams club in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. While waiting for more information on the teams i got this message

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on K&R Strikers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. XXX8906 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemani16 (talk • contribs)

@Kemani16: it sounds as if the message you received explains that the reason for deletion is that the articles were very short and lacked enough context for the reader to understand the topic of the article. Although we don't mind articles being short or incomplete, they do need to have enough information for the reader to at least understand what they are about. If you are still waiting for information to fill out the article, I would recommend creating these as drafts first, and submitting via the articles for creation process. Hug^syrup 14:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

[[User:Hugsyrup i understand the article were to short. i was creating the basic information for each teams then add the other important info later. i recently created some teams from st vincent in the caribbean names and kits the easy stuff and once i finish i was just about to fill in the other information like player and where each team a plays manages and where they are based when i got a message saying my work has been deleted. the person who remove my work could at least send a warning and give me time before deleting everything i worked on creating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemani16 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kemani16: the trick is to make your article first (like you're doing in your sandboxes) then post it. That will give you time to improve it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

COI Editing

Hello, I recently made a coi edit request on a page. Because I am requesting to replace all the text on the page, I was told "To that end, the COI editor is asked to continue the conversation about these changes here, with local editors on the talk page. The use of the -request edit- template is not necessary for that discussion.

Does this mean that all I need to do is post in the relevant wiki projects and receive approval? Not that I think that is easy, just that I mean if I can find that, do I need to make another edit request? Or do I just ask someone in the project to do it? What is my next step after reaching consensus?

Theintern007 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Theintern007 You have been asked to discuss your changes on the article talk page, but not as a formal edit request just yet, so that other editors can discuss them with you and a consensus reached. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

331dot Yes, I am just wondering what I do after, if they can reach a consensus. Do I ask the people I discuss with to make the edits or do I end up making another edit request? Theintern007 (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Either would work. If a clear consensus is reached, the former would likely occur; if it's not so clear, an edit request might be more helpful as it would bring another set of eyes to the discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Good day, I am a new user and as I am certain most users start out, I saw a page that needed some work and tried to "fix it".

My edits were changed back and the erroneous info was added, this time with a single book reference from 1903.

I would like to make the necessary changes and get on with the rest of my life. Is there a way of contributing updated research without getting involved in a debate about the authenticity of a "fact" written in a hundred-year-old encyclopaedia etc.?

Thank-you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης (talk • contribs) 15:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As there are no edits in your account edit history other than your above comment, I assume you made that edit while logged out. Without knowing which article you edited, it's hard to give a specific answer, but I can say that this is a collaborative project, and you must work with other editors to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say. There is no way to by fiat post one's version of what they think the article should say- this is because if there were, everyone would use it and fight with each other anyway. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης I must agree with 331dot just above. I will add thsat any time there is a disagreement about the correctness of a fact or statement in a Wikipedia article, or the reliability or appropriateness of a source, discussion on the article talk page should be the first step in solving the matter. I note that you said that another editor had provided a single book reference from 1903. Did yoiu provided a newer source, or indeed any source, for your fixes? I reapat that, as 331dot said, without knowing what article this is in regard to, we can only answer in theoretical terms. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I was signed in at the time, or so I thought. My edit history states that I have made 10 edits.

I have been a volunteer curator at Geni.com for many years and am well versed in fact checking. My edits were accompanied with updated sources, compared to the 1903 reference provided by the Greek-speaking admin who refused to give timeous feedback. Hardly collaborative.

The page I am referring to is an info-page on the surname Armenis.

Αρμένης (επώνυμο)

User:Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure that you're not confused between edits here on the English Wikipedia and those which you have made on the Greek Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης, was this page on the Greek-language Wikipedia? Please understand that each language is a separate project, and may have different rules, procedures, and standards. This page is for help with the English-language edition of Wikipedia, and cannot provide any assistance with projects for other languages. I would hope that some similar help page is available on that project, but I do not know what it is called. Your edit history is separate on each project also. For this project it is at Special:Contributions/Αλέξανδρος_Αρμένης. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης Your edit history on the English Wikipedia shows that you only have four edits, so I think David Biddulph is correct in that you are discussing something on another version of Wikipedia, which as noted is a separate project. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct, I did not realise that the different language projects are governed by their own rules and admins. I was hoping that the better established English Wikipedia project would provide some oversight and transparency. Thank-you for your assistance.

User: Αλέξανδρος Αρμένης —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

SuggestBot

How do I get User:SuggestBot to give me a list of articles to fix up on my talk page? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

See the bullet list at the top of User:SuggestBot. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

First time editor here; is there a proper etiquette to suggest changes?

I am a first time editor here.

I noticed some discrepancies on the wikipedia page "List of Equipment of Republic of Singapore Air Force".

Is it okay if I just make a comment on the "Talk" page?RonaldYeo (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

RonaldYeo, On Wikipedia, we mainly operate on the WP:BRD policy. Users see a problem, they make the changes they feel are needed, and then if another user takes issue with the changes, they revert your edit and enter discussion with you to reach consensus on the edits. If you see an issue on the page, change it! Jeb³_{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article appears to be Equipment of the Republic of Singapore Air Force. David notMD (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Question re edit of "John Rennie Short" from a total novice

Hello, and thank you for having this neutral and polite space for questioning. I submitted a Wiki page a bit before Thanksgiving (John Rennie Short), and it was responded to within 1 day by DGG with lots of good guidance. I am ready to upload the new version, but I'm not quite sure where/how I should do this. Also, in the course of incorporating your suggestions especially re the bibliographical entries, some vertical red lines have appeared outside the left margins of the bibliography. I've tried and tried to get rid of them, but have been unsuccessful. Please help.17:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Ahjazzer (talk)

The way to produce your new version is to edit the existing draft Draft:John Rennie Short. Remember to include inline citations for your references, as well as addressing the points which the reviewer made. I don't know where your vertical red lines might be coming from, but if you edit the page other editors will be able to see what has gone wrong. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Series overview

On the series overview of Ackley Bridge, I've tried tweaking around with the fourth series, but it won't seem to display itself on the table correctly. Would someone be able to fix it? Thanks – DarkGlow (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You had left the old end-of-table marker in place before your addition. Fixed in this edit. Your addition might be reverted as it was unsourced. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thanks! I'll add a ref now, just wanted to sort that out first. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Accused of being a sock

An editor accused me of being a sock here. It is not true! How should I proceed? What are my options to move forward? This is incredible!UberVegan🌾 00:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@UberVegan:The same thing happened to me once, because some bum decided it would be funny to vandalize wikipedia, and unfortunately the person was within my IP range, so when I got blocked, I requested help from an admin, (ST47), and explained the whole thing to him, and then he contacted the blocking admin, who understood, and unblocked me, also in the future in case your account is compromised you should use the committed identity template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Committed_identity, so they would know it is truly know, and lower your risk factor, and if you have 2 accounts you should really get both of them confirmed, by filling out a request here. I hope you find this info useful! --Gumshoe97 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@UberVegan: Given that the editor that is making the accusation appears to be doing so in response to you commenting on an AN/I discussion about them, my feeling is it would be entirely reasonable to take it straight back to AN/I as harassment. On the other hand, given that the accusation is coming from someone that has been repeatedly pulled up for edit-warring amongst other infractions it probably isn't going to get much attention so you could also just ignore it. Physdragon (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

He really has accused me of being a sock because I had some edits on a few similar pages, but considering that we seem to be Jewish and have the same interests, what are the chances? Using his logic, I looked into him and one other editor and I found that they edited 262 of the same pages, him making 4,954 edits and the other 3,080. And the amount of time between some of their edits were astonishing: 36 seconds, 50 seconds, 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes.

Following are only the first 25 mutual pages of 262. Is there any policy against this? I could use direction. Should I speak to the administrator who recently sanctioned him? Thank you.

General questions are fine for the Teahouse, but this is not WP:SPI or WP:ANI

Page Min time between edits Snooganssnoogans - 4,954 edits Grayfell - 3,080 edits User talk:184.153.38.168 36 seconds 1 1 Dave Rubin 50 seconds 74 39 Talk:South African farm attacks 1 minutes 36 26 Talk:Center for Immigration Studies 2 minutes 96 11 Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard 2 minutes 49 2 Gatestone Institute 4 minutes 142 14 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 4 minutes 139 31 Talk:Jack Posobiec 4 minutes 3 13 Ben Shapiro 8 minutes 69 19 Tim Pool 8 minutes 13 57 Jack Posobiec 10 minutes 27 14 Talk:Ben Shapiro 12 minutes 33 21 Talk:Douglas Murray (author) 13 minutes 10 3 Jordan Peterson 19 minutes 38 27 John Solomon (political commentator) 23 minutes 87 4 Steve Bannon 24 minutes 10 18 The Daily Wire 24 minutes 35 13 Talk:Tim Pool 25 minutes 13 57 Sean Hannity 27 minutes 114 1 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 32 minutes 113 97 Talk:Gatestone Institute 35 minutes 57 11 Charles C. Johnson 59 minutes 18 59 South African farm attacks 1 hours 34 45 Stefan Molyneux 1 hours 24 87 Larry Elder 1 hours 7 3

UberVegan🌾 05:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi UberVegan. It's OK for you to ask for some general advice here at the Teahouse, but the Teahouse isn't really the place for you to post diffs or other "evidence" about another editor's behavior. There are various other noticeboards, such as WP:SPI and WP:ANI, which are more suited for such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

UberVegan has just been confirmed as being a sockpuppet.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a place to store research in progress for the next guy?

I did a bunch of research trying to track down a fact and found no support for it in a bunch of places. However, there are print journals that I can't get to that may support the statement. Is there a place/way to put the list of what I already checked somewhere so the next person doesn't have to start from zero? Thanks. Gwen the Cat (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gwen the Cat: You can put some notes onto the article's talk page. Also, check out WP:RX. There is where you can find Wikipedians with access to journals and other resources that you may not have access to. RudolfRed (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Gwen the Cat (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

editing an addition to Biography on Wikipedia Page "Edward Francis Anhalt"

A new publication (2018) has been authored by Dr. Edward Francis Anhalt entitled "Mandatory Reading: Open Your Mind to 18 of Life's Most Important Questions". A portion of sales of books has/and is being given to the Susan G. Komen Foundation (Wisconsin Chapter). The ISBN # is 978-0-692-05865-7, and the book can be found at https://books.google.com/books?id=L3tptAEACAAJ&dq=mandatory reading&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz17KGip_mAhVMJKwKHVntAgMQ6AEwAHoECAIQAg.

I am looking for someone who can assist in adding this publication to the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.1.150.25 (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Your addition was removed by another editor. It's best to raise the issue with them on the article talk page and attract their attention with the {{ping}} template.

FYI, whatever financial arrangements are behind sales of the book are of no interest here. What is of interest is knowing if you have any personal involvement with the promotion of this book, particularly if you are being paid to do so. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Linking Old Revisions

How to I link an old revision for my talk page? MegaGoat talk 18:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@MegaGoat: first you need to know the old revision ID, then you can simply use a wikilink like Special:Permalink/929421268#Linking Old Revisions. Or you can use a Template from the {{Oldid}} family. --CiaPan (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, now i'm going to put these links in my sandbox so I can look back to see what I need to do. 𝘔𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘎𝘰𝘢𝘵 (talk)

editing references

I need to edit a reference, but editing is not allowed under Visual Editing. I can't open a window under Source Editing to make edits in references. I'd be grateful if someone could tell me how to do this. Thanks!Kjysoi4 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

References are placed not in the "References" section but in the text with the facts being referenced, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

help

how do i make uploads — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zokatone (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Zokatone, Using the File Upload Wizard. Interstellarity (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Cost to Run Wikipedia per month?

What is the total cost to run to Run Wikipedia per month? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.140.56 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Howdy hello! You can see the fundraising and expense stats at Wikipedia:Fundraising statistics. In 2017/18, the WikiMedia foundation spent 81 million USD, averaging almost 7 million a month. You can look at this to see the WMF's official audited expenditure reports. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Citing scientific journal articles?

Hi! Hope y'all are doing well. I was wondering what the rules are about citing scientific journal articles that are copyrighted. Are they allowed to be cited, but all findings must be paraphrased properly so that the content is not copied? Or can you not even cite them? Thanks for the help! Brsmith19 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Brsmith19 and welcome to the Teahouse. Any published reliable source may be cited if it supports statements in a Wikipedia article. This includes scientific journals, newspapers, magazines, news sites on the web, books, and other such sources. (The rules of copyright are the same for all kinds of publications.) It is never a violation of copyright to cite a source. In addition, short quotatiosn from a source may be included in an article. The text must clearly state the source of the quote, must mark off the quote with quote marks or using <blockquote>...</blockquote>, and must also cite the source in a footnote or other inline citation. Additional information from the source can and should be used, but rewritten in original phrasing. See Wikipedia:Quotations for more detailed advise on how much quoteed t4ext is advisable, and how to format quotes. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for advice on rewriting source content. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV and the subject of bias

I've been reading over the debate about neutrality within the 2019 Hong Kong protests article. So far a common argument I've seen that neutrality can be curved if the reliable sources themselves have decided that something is right or wrong. An example from a user is "If reliable sources declared Hitler is evil, then Hitler is evil, despite it not being neutral towards Hitler." Essentially, reliable sources can overrule the neutrality rule despite it being biased? Do a certain number of reliable sources overwhelmingly supporting one side dictate what overrules neutrality? What is the line between saying what reliable sources say and neutrality on a certain article?

Again, all answers and opinions are helpful. YouGottaChill (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@YouGottaChill: It’s a tricky topic, but NPOV doesn’t mean everything has to be straight down the middle, “nothing is good, nothing is bad, everything is neutral”. Rather, it means articles have to reflect the available sources in a balanced way and without allowing the editor’s own point of view to come in to play. If a majority of sources say something is bad, Wikipedia can absolutely say so, and that doesn’t breach NPOV rules. If a small number of reliable sources disagree, we can include a section to that effect as well. What would breach NPOV would be if I only used sources that were negative, or only picked the negative elements of sources, or drafted the article using language that emphasised the negative and threw doubt on positive elements. Hug^syrup 21:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ronald Kruszewski draft

Hi, my name is Meredith and I work for Stifel, which is disclosed on my profile and at Draft talk:Ronald Kruszewski. I submitted an article about Ronald Kruszewski at Draft:Ronald Kruszewski back in August, but I'm still waiting for a review. I thought I'd post a message here in case editors familiar with Articles for Creation wanted to take a look. I'm confident he is notable based on the amount of coverage received, and I believe editors will find the draft to be accurate, neutral, and well-sourced. I don't plan to edit live pages related to Stifel directly because of my conflict of interest. Is someone here willing to take the page live?

Thanks for any help! Meredith at Stifel (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Editors here are not necessarily article reviewers. And given that this is the first time you have created an article, advice is to wait for the AfC review. If declined, you will get advice on what needs improvement. Taking an article directly to Main space runs risk of it being nominated for Articles for Deletion (AfD), a worse place to be. P.S. Your declarations as PAID on your User page and the Talk page of the article are appreciated. Many new editors neglect this requirement. David notMD (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Requesting for information about a mainspace article

Hello ,greetings from Zimbabwe .i came across this article Tony_Ganiosand i have noticed it has 2 references which includes Youtube which cannot be used as a reference ,the second reference mentions almost nothing about him .Is there an exception of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources given to subjects like him that i'm not aware of? .Also what should i do when i find similar articles?,I'm here to learn ,thank you Georgiamarlins (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Georgiamarlins and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has many articles which are not fully up to current standards. Some are old from a time of different standards, some slipped past, some are just borderline. Do note that for an actor in films or television, the credits of each released (published) work he or she has appeared in are an implicitly cited source confirming that actor's appearance in that production. Also it is not at all the case that Youtube cannot ever be used as a reference. Many of the videos on YouTube are self-created, or are copyright infringements, and so are not reliable or not usable here. But quite a number are posted officially by reliable broadcast organizations or journalists, or by recognized experts in the relevant field. These can be cited, just as if the same organization or person had published them separately on the web. I am not sure if the particular video in Tony_Ganios is from a reliable source or not.

You could 1) look for sources, and add any useful ones to the article; 2) tag the article with {{BLP sources}} or some simiaolr tag to call attention to the issue, or 3) Nominate the article for deletion at articles for Discussion if you ahve done a sufficiently though search to be confident that needed sources do not exist. See WP:BEFORE on the scope of a needed search. Or you could do none of these, and jsut leave the article as it stands. Any of these would be acceptable, it is your choice which action you take. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you DESiegel i have added external links to the article since i din't find sources for inline citations ,thank you for the information ,next time i will know what to do.Cheers!Georgiamarlins (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

I was under the impression I submitted an article for review, but apparently, I didn't do that. It has since been marked for deletion. I'd be happy to start the process over again, if that's easier. I am just not sure what to do, as I had provided numerous links and tried to create the page in accordance with the rules. I checked out multiple pages to get an idea of what things look like like, in addition to reviewing the rules.

How to handle?

Wpearce1983 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC).)

Wpearce1983 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears to me that most of the references in your draft are press release-type articles or routine announcements. These types of references are not what is being looked for. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable person). Significant coverage is more than just a routine announcement or press release, but something extensive that the reference has chosen on their own to write. The nature of your references causes the draft to read like a resume and not an encyclopedia article. Have you read Your First Article? 331dot (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I find this reaction confusing. My post was published articles from reputable sources.

Is it best just to delete the page myself and start over, given that I missed the standard process (despite, as I indicated above, operating under the impression I was following the regular process)?

Wpearce1983 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC).

You haven't necessarily done any wrong in terms of the process. The sources are 'reputable' but that isn't the issue. The issue is the references themselves. They largely consist of routine announcements which mention Mr. Olesky little if at all. At least one other had a quote from him- but that is not an independent source. What is needed are references that largely discuss him and are independent of the subject. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Successfully writing a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia, and it's easy to get discouraged, but my intention isn't to discourage you. Have you used the new user tutorial? That may help you understand the process more as well. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Since you have reached out for help, I have removed the speedy deletion tag for now. I would suggest that you use the tutorial before working on the draft further; feel free to continue to ask questions here as well. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification (and apologize if I came across as testy). I've acquainted myself with the process but will do so again, then try to create the page for the subject using the article for creation link provided elsewhere so it will be given proper review.

Wpearce1983 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC).

Hello, Wpearce1983. You can and should work on the existing Draft:Lee Olesky, which several other editors have now made minor improvements to. When you think the draft is ready, just click the blue "Submit your draft for review" button at the bottom of the grey "Draft article not currently submitted for review." box at the top of the draft. Do not leave the draft unchanged for a period of 6 months, as it may be deleted as abandoned. You should be warned a month before that could happen.

Please try to be sure that the draft contains several Independent published reliable sources that discuss Olesky in some detail. That means not interviews or press releases, not fan sigtes, forums, or blogs, and not routine announcements. There should be at least three or four sources, each of which has at least several paragraphs about Olesky or his specific creative work.

However, try to avoid over-sourcing. I note that one sentence has seven different sources cited. It is a little unusual for that many separate sources to be needed at the same point. If some of those support only a single fact in that sentence, they can be moved to just after that fact, so they are not all bunched up. If soem of them essentially duplicate others, keep only the best 1 or 2. -- and perhaps note the alternates on the talk page. But the key is to get those detailed, reliable, independent sources.

Note that once you submit, there may well be a delay of several weeks or even months, because there is a large backlog of draafts awaiting review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Francis Drake article

Hello Teahouse hosts. When reading the Francis Drake article, I see significant sections that are not adequately cited. I believe they are egregiously lacking citations and should have an appropriate message on the talk page to indicate such. However, I am unfamiliar with the proper process to do this.

I have found what I believe is the correct template. You can see the template to which I refer HERE. I am glad to post it myself it that is acceptable. I would like others' thoughts, those much more experienced than I, regarding the matter. Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

On your user page I inserted a template for when a section is lacking citations. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello David notMD and thank you for your kind attention and response. I am having trouble with the template. Each time I insert it into the Francis Drake article, the template reads THIS ARTICLE and not THIS SECTION. Might you try it to inquire as to what results you have? Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I tested, and was able to add the THIS SECTION tag by editing a section and making the tag the first line in the section. I then removed it, because the top of the article as a THIS ARTICLE tag, and because so many sections are lacking citations, I don't see a need to tag each section. David notMD (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Want to write about a comapny named Nandog

It is a pet gear company that supplies pert products like pet beds, pet poo bags, etc. I have tried writing about that but every time it says promotional content and falls under speedy deletion. But Again I want to give a fair trial.https://www.nandog.com/.https://www.linkedin.com/in/nando-vergara-6631078/

Please help me with it. This is my first task on the wiki pages. And I have to do it. https://www.agreatertown.com/mission_hills_ca/nandog_pet_gear_0004298852

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanka8971 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC) 

@Priyanka8971: Welcome to The Teahouse. There are three things you need to be aware of to help you with this.

The first is that from saying this is your 'task' and you 'have to' complete it, I assume you are doing this as part of your job? If so, you must make a disclosure on your userpage as required by our policy on paid editing, and you should also read the guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest. In particular, if you have a COI, you should not create articles direct in the mainspace but only via a draft following the AFC process.

The second is that the company will only be included in Wikipedia if it is notable - which means it must have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources (such as newspapers, journals, published books, etc.). Most small companies cannot meet this standard and so attempts to create an article about them simply will not succeed.

The third thing is that if Nandog can prove its notability, it must still be written in a balanced and non-promotional way. In general that means only including information that is from reliable sources, not dwelling unduly on products, benefits, marketing information, etc, and above all writing the article in a way that sounds like an encyclopedia and not a company website or a press release.

If you can deal with those, then your draft is less likely to be deleted, but I should warn you that step 2 is a difficult barrier to get over for most businesses. Hug^syrup 09:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Priyanka8971: - when I wrote the above response, I hadn't seen the full history of this article and the warnings/notifications on your talk page. Now that I have, I'm afraid my advice is going to be a bit blunter: you need to stop attempting to publish this article. You have been advised that the company is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and no amount of editing will change that. Your continuous attempts to get it published under different names will not succeed and are becoming disruptive, and you risk being blocked. I suggest you explain to your employers that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory, and that the company is not yet notable enough to be covered in an encyclopedia. Hug^syrup 09:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Block me

Dear all, As you will see on my user page, I am a doppelganger account for testing. But the test failed, and this account lost its purpose. So can someone block this account indefinitely for me? Thanks, and goodbye to Wikipedia! Calc Guru (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Calc Guru: Are you sure it failed? {{Ping}}s from your own user page probably don't do anything, nor does it work if you don't sign it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I did something that made my Wiki Application worse but...

I hace absolutely no idea what I accidentally pressed or click for it yo happen.

For instance Vladimir Lenin's entry paragraph was just a súper quick-couple sentence long overview rather than the common two to three paragraphs popular articles usually have.

I was reading the article in English and directly noticed the differences by moving back to my PC to confirm I wasn't going crazy, alongside having my app, until now, set to prefer offline articles to save data consumption.

Apologies for the grammar and formar, autocorrect is a huge pain when writing in a second language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.160.103.167 (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, IP user, I don't understand what you are saying. I think you are saying that the Wikipedia App (on which platform?) has changed the way it is displaying an article. (I have no idea how to help you, I'm just trying to clarify what your question is; but if that is the case, I suggest looking at WP:SMARTPHONE, and if that doesn't help, asking at WP:VPT. --ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Igwilo

I got a message on the above subject that reads "A tag has been placed on User:Igwilo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia", after creating an account with my name, Igwilo. Please what does it mean and what do I do. Igw!lo 07:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igwilo (talk • contribs)

@Igwilo: Your userpage (the personal page you see when you click on your username) was tagged, and subsequently deleted, for misusing Wikipedia as a web host, because it contained content not closely related to the purpose of Wikipedia. You have since recreated the page, which now looks fine to me. So all you really need to do now is not repeat the same mistake, and ensure you keep your user page to content related to your activities as an editor, and a small amount of personal information if you wish. I suggest you read WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO for a useful overview of what you may, and may not, have on your page. If an admin comes by this question they will also be able to look at the deleted page and tell us in more detail exactly what the problem was with the content you had there. Hug^syrup 08:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: Thank you. Am just new here. Please how do I create my name Igwilo Kingsley Chinwuba on Wikipedia without violating any rule. I noticed that it appears red anywhere is typed but several other names are blue with hyperlinks.Igw!lo 09:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Igwilo: Your userpage exists, and so if you type [[User:Igwilo]] that will display as User:Igwilo which is, as you see, a blue link going to your userpage. You can also format it in other ways such as [[User:Igwilo|Igwilo]] which means just your name appears, without the 'user:' - i.e. Igwilo. A link such as [[Igwilo Kingsley Chinwuba]] will be red (Igwilo Kingsley Chinwuba) because it is looking for an article with that name, and no such article exists. Unless you are notable, and have sources to demonstrate that you are notable, you should not attempt to create an article in the mainspace with that name. Can I just remind you that Wikipedia is not a social media site where people create personal pages - it is an encyclopedia full of articles about notable topics, and editors sometimes put a bit of basic information about themselves on their userpage just to help get to know each other. Hug^syrup 09:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: This is just getting interesting and I honestly appreciate your help, Thank you so much. Please can you kindly give me a little brief on how I can format my username to remove 'User:'. Again, can i put basic information about myself on my userpage also, things like age, place of origin, education etc. without violating any rule.Igw!lo 10:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Igwilo: You can't permanently remove User: from your userpage, that is an essential identifier to differentiate it from other types of page. And, honestly, there is no good reason to want to remove it unless you are trying to make your userpage look like an article, in which case you are misusing Wikipedia. However, when you write a link to your userpage, you simply use the pipe symbol |. Everything before the pipe is the actual page name, and everything after the pipe is what shows up as the blue text. For example, [[User:Hugsyrup|This is a link to my userpage]] shows up as This is a link to my userpage. In answer to your second question, can I direct you again to WP:UPYES and WP:UPNO for the policies on what you can include on your userpage. A small amount of biographical information is fine as long as it does not look as if you are using the page for personal promotion, as a CV, as a blog, etc. Once again, your primary purpose for being here should be to edit the encyclopedia, not to create a personal profile. Hug^syrup 10:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: I now understand. I will continue to learn more on articles and editing. Thank you very much and Best regards.Igw!lo 11:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)