Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

(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.)

Worth it?

Having little experience with creating a page on wiki, I have encountered so many problems that I ask "Is it worth bothering with wiki?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noireallymeanit (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, your account is only about an hour old, and so it's perfectly reasonable for you to feel bewildered by all the different guidelines and policies; I think everybody is, to begin with, and it is a good idea to start slowly and cautiously. The answer to the question you ask really depends on what you mean by "worth bothering with" – if you are only interested in creating one specific article, the answer is probably "no". If, on the other hand, you are interested in contributing to the encyclopedia by improving it, many people do feel that it is worth it; one good way to get started is by forgetting all about creating new articles (it's the hardest thing to do here, and given how many other important improvements are needed, it makes little sense to start with article creation) and focus on making minor improvements, adding sourced information to articles, fixing language issues, and other things like that. --bonadea contributions talk 10:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Noireallymeanit. Only you can answer that question. If you want to contribute to one of the largest cooperative projects ever launched, and help create one of the biggest knowledge resources ever created, then yes, it's worth it: but why would anybody expect that to be easy? If you have some other purpose, (such as telling the world about you, your band, your company, or even your very worthy charity), then no, it may not be worth it, as you will find it even harder to do that here.

I would note that creating a new article - acknowledged to be one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia - is not the only way to contribute to it, and in my view often not the most valuable. Among our millions of articles we have many which are in desparate need of improvement: if new editors put one tenth the effort into that that some of them do into trying to create new articles, they would increase the value of Wikipedia far more than they do.

As I say, it's up to you whether you think it is worth contributing or not; but I hope you find a niche in Wikipedialand where you can contribute in a way that suits you, and can benefit both yourself and others by doing so. --ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. Case in point - how do I reply to comments on my comment? It seems everything related to wiki is arcane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noireallymeanit (talk • contribs) 10:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, just like you did. You edit the section and add it to the end. Posts should have a number of colons (':') in front of the text, with each new post having one more colon (starting with none). If you look at this section, for example, you can see that your question above had no colons in front, so I posted mine with one colon. The next poster should use two colons, etc. Also, on "talk pages" like this one (where the page title is Talk:Something, User talk:Something, etc.), you should sign your post by putting ~~~~ after it. For example, the next post after this in this section should look like:

 ::Blah blah blah ~~~~

The gory details of talk pages are at WP:TPG. I've posted a welcome message to your talk page at User talk:Noireallymeanit with some useful reading. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Some think you should use one more colon than the last comment. I think you should use one more colon than the comment to which you're responding. I fear this is a religious difference that will never be resolved. —Tamfang (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, one more than the comment to which you are replying. Explained, with examples, at WP:Indentation. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You have put images on your User page, one relevant to crystallography. What do you intend to do with those? Your User page is a place to provide a bit of information about yourself in context of your intentions as an editor. Your Sandbox is a place to create and park content you may want to work on, before moving it to an article. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You are a new user, and already you're talking about "creating a page". Creating a new article of Wikipedia is indeed very difficult, at least until you have extensive experience of editing Wikipedia. If you've come here with the intention of creating an article on a specific subject, I'd agree, "it's probably not worth bothering". But if you're here to help improve Wikipedia, I'd recommend starting with simple things, like correcting spelling and grammar, and gradually building up your skills. Maproom (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Bollocks to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noireallymeanit (talk • contribs) 11:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Noireallymeanit: Oh dear. It's easy to trip up here at first - but when people stick at it they tend to do OK. From the images you've uploaded to our sister project (Wikimedia Commons), it looks like you have a very technical background. I am a bit concerned that you've recently uploaded a couple of images which you claim as your own work, but at least one of which appear to come from previously published sources. Compare this image you uploaded today with [1] from 2003 to 2008. The other image on your userpage appears to come from a slideshare presentation, or the same source. Maybe you were the author of those works? But you will need to assure Wikimedia Commmons that you do indeed own the rights and are legally entitled to release it under a free-to-use Creative Commons licence, or they may well end up being deleted. If you can explain how you claim them as your own work, we might be able to guide you to ensure they are properly licenced. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been at it since 2005 and I only ever created two articles: Vampire (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and List of enclaves and exclaves, each of which collects material that was repeated in two or more related articles, thus allowing those other articles to be more concise with better focus. Mostly what I do, and enjoy doing, is polish the language and improve the organization of other writers' content. (I can even do that, to some extent, for subjects about which I know nothing!) Creating new articles is far from the only worthwhile activity here. —Tamfang (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tamfang and @DavidB: I agree. Just trying to keep the explanation here simple. Then, of course, there's the issue of whether to post last (here) or up with the comment to which I was responding. I would prefer the latter (up there), but there seems to be some opposition to that, thinking that it doesn't get seen. Of course, pings have come along now ... —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was my draft rejected?

Yes I have a question. My article about a "old white male artist" was rejected by the user QueerEcoFeminist. If I compare my article with other similar articles which where published on Wikipedia, I am getting doubts how far the judgement of QueerEcoFeminist is really objective. The user name is already a statement and program and I get the feeling too much personal dislike is the guideline here. With the judgement I can't go any further as its not more then empty hollow phrase. I can accept rejection or advise, but sorry in this case it's not deep enough nor detailed. First I thought to contact QueerEcoFeminist but when I read the personal page under which requirements my questions maybe will be answered I gave up because it comes very arrogant over. And no I have nothing against Queer, Eco, Feminist and people from India. Furthermore I am not a white old male but from Chinese decent, female and 29 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lai Shi Chao (talk • contribs) 12:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lai Shi Chao. It is frustrating to have your draft rejected. That is why I always advise new editors not to plunge straight into the difficult taks of creating a new article, but to spend a few weeks or months in the (arguably more valuable) task of improving some of our six million existing articles, and learning about Wikipedia.

In respect of the rejection of your draft, please assume good faith: just because somebody rejects a draft and has a username that implies a certain stand, please do not jump to the conclusion that they are biased against the subject. One thing you can do is to ask QueerEcoFeminist at their user talk page to explain further. But I will note that, though you have 53 references in your draft, most of them seem to be very low quality sources, irrelevant for establishing notability. I've only looked at the first dozen or so, but with the possible exception of the Carpentier book (which I do not have access to) not one of them is a place where somebody unconnected with Gerard has chosen to write at some length about Gerard. Exhibition catalogues may be useful to support the fact that the artist exhibited at such and such an exhibition, but they are primary sources, and cannot contribute to notability; nor can the artist's biography at various organisations they belong to, since these will almost certainly come from the artist themself and are again primary sources. (And I don't see anything on the landing pages of Berufskolleg Kartäuserwall or IADT that even mention Gerard, so I don't know why you think it might be appropriate to cite them: the purpose of a citation is to support a claim in the article, nothing else).

It is possible that among those citations there are some which will collectively establish that Gerard is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). But I believe that QueerEcoFeminist would not have rejected (as opposed to declined) the draft unless they had searched for references and concluded there was not enough published to establish notability. If you don't accept that, I suggest you contact them on their user talk page, and cite some sources which do establish it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine, The article count isn't quite at 6 million yet. Interstellarity (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity: most people would round "fifty thousand short of six million" to "six million"!. --ColinFine (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

By the time today's newcomer learns the ropes, it may well be over six million. —Tamfang (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixing ping to QueerEcofeminist who has been named in this discussion. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, thanks for pinging me here Nick, I will try and answer issues raised here. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Lai Shi Chao, I support what ColinFine said. If you've found some references that attest to the subject's notability (I can't tell myself as I know very little Dutch), make them easier for a reviewer to find by getting rid of all the worthless references – the ones that don't mention the subject, the ones he wrote himself, the ones that mention him without discussion. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Lai Shi Chao, One important thing, me believing or carrying some special name has nothing to do with why I rejected your draft. My userpage gave you a sense that I am arrogant enough to not approach at all, I am sorry for that. But I don't think I have ever shown arrogance anywhere. Second thing, as everyone is saying here, one needs to have reliable references and enough context which tells the reviewer that the subject of the article is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. And a mere number of references doesn't help in this regard, we need to have WP:RS, WP:NARTIST. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Super T vs. The Horned Mole

Can you make this a page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kew1122 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kew1122, and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Your post appears to be the content of a draft article, which wouldn't usually belong on this page. Do you have a question about it? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, so you've now replaced that with a question. To have the draft considered for publication, you'll need to submit it for review, Kew1122. I'll add a template to the draft shortly that lets you do that. However, I would suggest adding inline citations to the text before doing so - see Help:Referencing for beginners for how to do this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Steps an article goes through before publication

I joined today. I immediately created a page on which I have written content describing myself. I thought that the content i have written would immediately be availed to the public but my checks have proved that i could have been wrong. I have two questions;

1. What should i do to have this profile of mine published to the public? 2. I have previously written a number of articles that have been published in the press in my country - Uganda. What should i do to have them published on wikipedia and available to the public.

Thank you

Bwino Fred Kyakulaga (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bwino Fred Kyakulaga. Since you said that you made a profile about yourself, you need to read this. Having an autobiography is extremely discouraged since most people are not notable. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have "profiles", just articles. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 17:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Another thing is that your userpage doesn't comply with WP:USERPAGES. You are welcome to have limited information about yourself, but that should not be 100% of your userpage content. Please note that your userpage is not for web hosting. Finally, userpages do not show up on Google results. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 17:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Bwino Fred Kyakulaga(edit conflict)Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your use of the term "profile" suggests to me that you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia and not social media where people tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. As a member of parliament, you do meet our definition of a notable politician, but autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. We are interested in what others say about you, not in what you have to say about yourself. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources say. Most people cannot do that.

You have edited your user page, which is not article space. Articles (which lack "User:" in the title) can be submitted using Articles for Creation, but it is best if others write about you. An article about yourself is not necessarily desirable, see this page. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Make your personal website somewhere else and submit the address to the big search engines. —Tamfang (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pictures

Every time I want to see a picture on Wikipedia, it just comes up as a grey background with a teal-ish circle with a line through it. What does that mean and how can I get rid of it so i can see the pictures? Porygon-Z (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Porygon-Z474. When I look up images of cartoon characters on Google, this happens to me. I think it is more of a search engine technical problem than a Wikipedia problem. You can still view the original image on the actual page. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Porygon-Z. Does it happen when your browser is here at https://en.wikipedia.org or an external site like google.com? What is your browser? Do you see any of these:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Example.jpg
2. /media/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Example.jpg
3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Example.png
4. /media/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Example.png
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png

PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys! Well my computer is owned by a school administrator so there's that. Also I have seen pictures on here while still being restricted. This has been going on for a while so do you think you can help? Porygon-Z (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: Since I am a middle schooler, I totally understand your situation. I get annoyed when I browse the web for pictures using my school account and they are blocked. Try using a fake account and the images will not be blocked. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 02:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, now, I looked for pictures of something I like on my tablet, and I didn’t see any blocked images. So, you can try using your tablet or phone, if you have one at home, and you don’t get anything blocked. If you have anymore questions about Wikipedia, you can ask me or make a new thread. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 02:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Well you see high schools are really weird and so they like to play games and there really tolerant about it. I don't know if it was a school problem or something else do you know how I can get rid of it? Porygon-Z (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Porygon-Z474, This sounds like it's the Lightspeed Systems filtering software. There is no known bypass for it. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 12:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Porygon-Z474: Schools in many countries have a right to limit and to monitor internet access to their students, just as many employers do. Often there are blacklists of sites to protect users from visiting inappropriate or malware-laden websites, and often they want students to focus their time on schoolwork, or not to be exposed to unpleasant images (and there are quite a lot of those on certain pages of this encyclopaedia!). In addition, did you know that users on Wikipedia can change their own account settings so as not to display images by default (See: Help:Options to hide an image). Out of interest, are you also blocked (whilst at school) from accessing social media sites or images on any other websites, and are all other students similarly blocked - or is it just you? And is it on school devices, or your own?) If everyone is blocked from viewing images on Wikipedia pages on the school network, my take on this would be to consider whether you are expected or asked to use Wikipedia as part of your school studies. If you are, then I would suggest a number of you politely approach your head of year (or school's IT administrator) with a reasoned argument as to why they should change your schools permissions so you can all now see the images on Wikipedia as part of your assignments, and as part of your education. My own children use Wikipedia a lot for various classes they've taken, and the images have been integral to many of their homework projects. I hope this might be of use. Do please come back and let us know how you get on. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I do have Light speed Systems and its my schools computer. Yet here's the thing: If In at school, Wikipedia is down; if I'm at home, Wikipedia works. I can still play games with Light speed system, yet now its saying that it a "custom block" at school. I don't know why that's happening, but it's annoying and now apparently its blocking the pictures on it. Maybe you can help me? Also, my school says Wikipedia is not reliable so we shouldn't use it. Is there a reason why? Porygon-Z (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why but my school won't allow me to do a lot of things on my computer but those pictures, i cant view. I cant view anything now but i was able to at one point. Maybe there is something wrong? Porygon-Z (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Valley Fiber

Hi I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I created a draft article about an Internet Service Provider. It was rapidly rejected by a user who on his profile page says he is biased against including things about companies and corporations in Wikipedia. I am not paid or related to the company except for that it is my primary ISP. I have at least two sources that I think are reliable and significant regional sources. These are "The Winnipeg Free Press" which would be a Manitoba News source that has a readership throughout the whole province. The other regional source is "Siemens Says" who writes mainly about farm issues and about topics related to farming. I also have several local or regional within Manitoba sources included.

This is my first attempt at an article. I think if it is still not considered notable at this moment there certainly will likely be more articles published about them in the future.

Does this article still not meet the notability guidelines? Joeseph Sparrow (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Joeseph Sparrow, and welcome to the Teahouse. By "rejecting" rather than simply "declining" Draft:Valley Fiber the reviewer, DGG (a very experienced editor) has expressed the view that the subject is not now, and not likely to become, notable in the Wikipedia sense, and that no amount of editing will make this a valid article until and unless there are real-world developments leading to greater coverage of Valley Fiber than now exists. I see that the draft has a number of cited sources, but I have not yet reviewed them to see how they might or might not contribute to the notability of Valley Fiber. Many small to moderate sized companies are simply not notable in Wikipedia terms, and no valid article can be written about such firms. It requiresd independent published coverage, that is reliable, that is not strictly local, and that covers the topic in some depth to establish notability. It may be that Valley Fiber is one of those. If it is, but should there be additional coverage published in reliable sources, then Valley Fiber might become notable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the SuggestBot not working?

Hello Teahouse! So I was here to find the best way to improve Wikipedia, and then I found SuggestBot, which is a bot that sends me articles that I can improve on. I waited for ~2 days for it to send me articles. What is going on? Thanks, Pepperstarved (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC).

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pepperstarved. SuggestBot has three frequency settings: monthly, twice monthly and weekly. So, it is not unusual to have to wait more than two days. The bot needs to analyze your editing patterns. Please read User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly for more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you know if your wikipedia draft has been accepted or not?

How do you know if your wikipedia draft has been accepted or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozzur (talk • contribs) 06:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, Lozzur. In relation to your draft (Draft:Hub71) it needs to be submitted for review before it can be accepted. Yours hasn't yet, so nothing will happen until you do submit it. I have just added {{AFC submission/draft}} to the top of your draft so that you can submit it when ready. This will still need a bit of work, especially removing PR-speak as I mentioned to you before. It needs shortening down, and your external links corrected (see External Links guidance for how to format these). Long lists of participants are trivial and pure advertising, and I would strip these out, but just keping the first sentence and references. Until you do, and keep things purely factual and non-promotional, it's probable this draft will be rejected as WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMOTION. Keep it short and sweet and it might just have enough sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). (PS You'll see I've changed your formatting to fit in with our preferred style. We need all articles in mainspace to have a uniform appearance, rather than stand out as being shoddily laid out, though this never impacts on the key criterion for acceptance - Notability. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)  

Direct Quote from a 1786 manuscript

Could anyone please tell me how I go about typing up a direct quote from a letter written in 1786, which has anomalies in terms of there being fairly wide gaps (the equivalent of.......) between phrases, since the author was writing in a hurry and was careless with punctuation. I have it typed up, ready to go, and in Word it is very easy to simply leave the gaps, but Wikipedia closes gaps, so if I tried to upload the following, for instance, (without the full stops keeping the words apart), it would all run together:

The Grand old Duke of York.......he had ten thousand men.......he marched them up to the top of the hill.......then he marched them down again.

If I uploaded that, without the full stops, the result would be:

The Grand old Duke of Yorkhe had ten thousand menhe marched them up to the top of the hillthen he marched them down again.

The only way I can think of is to do as I have, but inserting......to prevent the words joining up together, but that is absolutely not how the manuscript presents itself. The only other alternative would be to insert punctuation; full stops where there aren't any, and capitalising letters at the beginning of a new sentence, which again the author hasn't done. But if I do that it will no longer be a faithful transcription.

Please may I warn readers that I am 75 years of age, with very very limited IT capabilities, so could your explanations be like talking to an idiot child please?

Many thanks. Arbil44 (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Try non-breaking spaces     like this. Dbfirs 08:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have emailed you for clarification because, as I say, my IT skills are very weak. Arbil44 (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Testing! The Grand old Duke of York     he had ten thousand men     he marched them up to the top of the hill    then he marched them down again. Arbil44 (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've got the gist of it, but can I make the space a little bigger? Arbil44 (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Just edited the passage above to see what happens. I guess trial and error is the best way to learn. Arbil44 (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, just put as many   &nbsp as you need. Alternatively, you could lay out separate lines using <br> Dbfirs 09:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Two more alternatives: Is there an image of the letter with an appropriate license that could be uploaded?; or use the <pre>...</pre> tags, which preserves the formatting (extra spaces, line breaks) of the text and uses a non-proportional font:

The Grand old Duke of York    he had ten thousand men    he marched them up to the top of the hill    then he marched them down again.
Something   else     here
And more    here

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding a new page (re: Sahara Hotnights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Hotnights).

Hi,

I am thinking of making a page for Sahara Hotnights the eponymous /album/ (6th) of the band of that name. At the moment, the link "Sahara Hotnights - 2011 (#6)" in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Hotnights that says it is for the album just connects back to the same page (i.e. the band). There isn't currently a real page for the album - at least, I can't see one (could it be it is 'here', under a different name, and it is just the link that is wrong...?).

I've done a number of minor amendments to various pages across Wikipedia before, some just syntax, others informative to the subject. But I've never created a new page before and it's not jumping out at me, how to. Can anyone give me a few pointers please? I would basically want to copy one of the existing SH album pages and then start amending the data in the new page. When done, I'd update the above album link on the SH band page to point to the new SH album page.

Also - am I right to suppose, in this case, the band page is (and should remain) "Sahara Hotnights"; a new page for the album would be called "Sahara Hotnights (album)"? That kind of 'duplication' isn't handled by some other means (e.g. clever behind the scenes tech stuff)? I just looked at the Authority control / MusicBraiz links for example, which sounds like some form of technical disambiguation... but it's a bit beyond me! I guess I could find other similar examples of bands with albums of same name and copy but if you can confirm either way, would save me that bit of digging.

Oh - just seen comment about mobile view of visual editor. I'd prefer to /not/ get into visual editor at this stage. I'm in IT and typing and testing works well for me. I'm presuming the 'mobile view' is the term for creating/amending pages in the text box and doing formatting etc. 'myself'. That's fine - I prefer to know how the underneath works.

Thanks, Gordon Panther — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon Panther (talk • contribs) 2019-10-14T13:43:16 (UTC)

PS Note to self (!!) - the "Studio albums" section at bottom of page is also missing link to this 6th album.

Hello, Gordon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks in Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works first; I see you've been here years, but only made a few edits, so I hope you won't mind me addressing you as a new editor. The general information on how to go about it is at your first article; but the important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is only interested in what independent people have chosen to publish (in reliable places) about the subject. So your first step is finding places where people with no connection to the band have chosen to write at some length about the album (not the band). If you can find those, then you have established that the album is notable, and can write an article based on those sources. (I see you have already been inserting references to articles, so I apologise if I'm telling you what you already know).

Your first article advises you to use the articles for creation system, whereby you create a draft, and submit it for review when it is ready. One of the incidental advantages of that is that if there is doubt about the appropriate title for the article, or a question of disambiguation, the reviewer who accepts the draft will sort out the naming. But yes, I would think the appropriate title was "Sahara Hotnights (album)" - then there should be a hatnote on each article pointing to the other.

"Mobile view" is a view of Wikipedia pages optimised for mobile devices, as opposed to "desktop view". You can edit in either, but I know some people always use "desktop view" on their mobiles for editing. "Visual editor" is quite separate, and is contrasted with "source editor". (I always use the source editor, and I very rarely edit on my mobile, so I may be missing some subtleties here).

One final point: on a talk or discussion page such as this one, please sign your posts. Sometimes a bot will add a signature, but not always: it didn't in this case, and I have added a signature for you above. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Colin. I'll have a think through the above and see about how best to proceed. In this case, I'm thinking that although it's a whole new page, actually, most of it is going to be cut and paste (one of the other albums), then amend data (track names), which is why I thought it might make a good first go. I appreciate what you say though about external commentary and I'll look into that as part of the prep; reviews etc. I have made other Wikipedia amendments btw, outside of this user name (which is my real name), under a prior pseudo name, and, occasionally not signed in - so I've done other bits and bobs that wouldn't show up perhaps - though nothing major (I am more a very regular 'user' than a contributor. Well... I do chuck into the annual donation drives though because I value Wikipedia highly, and I do 'advertising' of a sort, in gently 'educating' folk who have picked up on the 'anyone can edit it' (implying, they erroneously think, it can therefore contain any old nonsense) which I count as 'input' of a sort. But yes, I would consider myself a 'noob'!

Well that all sounds grand and good fun, so I'll have a look through the links etc., do the research, and see how I get on! Thanks,

G.

Noted re: signings, I'll try to remember. Just click these 4 tildes, I think? Yes :) Gordon Panther (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Past or present tense?

I was looking at the following page last week: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Donald_Trump_presidency_(2019_Q3)

I noticed that everyone is writing in present tense - but I think this should all be written in past tense. Any rules about this?

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clint.jenkins (talk • contribs) 13:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 870#tense on timeline. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an explicit guideline on this point, but many timelines on WP and elsewhere use the present tense. See also Historical present, particularly the sentence "In English, it is used above all in historical chronicles (listing a series of events)." Deor (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Clint.jenkins, and welcome to the Teahouse. MOS:TENSE says:

By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering products or works that have been discontinued. Articles discussing works of fiction are also written in the present tense (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Tense in fiction). Generally, do not use past tense except for dead subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such.

Timelines are something of a special case, but I would generally put them in present tense.(This is known as the "historical present".) If you think this one should be in the past tense, you can raise that on the article talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That's stupid. Wikipedia doesn't have an actual rule about past vs. present-tense for timelines? Looking through the links you provided, there even appears to be disagreement among the editors/admins about this. Is there a way to raise this to someone that can make an actual rule, so that it's officially decided? I disagree about using present tense (aka Historical present) in timelines; if you're adding something to the timeline - it's almost guaranteed to be in the past, and when someone reads it - either 5 minutes or 5 years from now, it will be in the past, and should be read that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clint.jenkins (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Clint.jenkins The matter could be raised at Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards or at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The former is more specifically targeted on this subject, but the latter is much more widely read and followed. In either case, a pointer on the other page to the conversation would be a good idea. A formal RfC (Request for Comment) would be needed to nail down a guideline on this issue, but soem preliminary discussion might be a good idea before a full RfC is started. An RfC is the way to asses and perhaps form a consensus on such an issue. Note that there are many style issues on which Wikipedia does not have binding, project wide rules. In a few cases it has a rule not to have a rule, see WP:ENGVAR and WP:CITEVAR. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, please sign comments on talk and discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this into your default or custom signature, normally including a link to your user page and a timestamp. This makes things much easier for other editors, and for the software when it needs to determine what are separate contributions to a thread. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I was going to add a new section to Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards, but a brief look shows someone already asked this very question....in 2010. I get the sense that Wikipedia won't make a definitive decision on this or anything like this - just leaving it up to the consensus of the few that'll make a comment - but that's obviously not a good solution b/c here I am 9 years later asking the same question. I suppose adding adding/asking for an official request for comment, or adding a section to the manual of style is a good idea, but I'm starting to doubt it'll ever get addressed in either. I'm a little disappointing that Wikipedia doesn't have a more comprehensive style guide - I think that would solve A LOT of these questions that new ppl have. :( Clint.jenkins (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Clint.jenkins I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards#Past vs Present tense again, with a pointer from the MOS talk page. We will see how much attention it gets. As for your comment that I'm a little disappointing that Wikipedia doesn't have a more comprehensive style guide take a look though Wikipedia:Manual of Style and the more than 60 specific sub-pages of the MOS, and see if you still think it is insufficiently comprehensive. Also look at thee sometimes heated debates on WT:MOS (current and in the history) and on several of the talk pages of the sub-pages, such as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, to mention just two active pages. It is not possible for the MOS to cover every case, and it is, like all of Wikipedia, a work in progress. You can help add to it if you so choose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Page after deletion

Hello everybody! An article with references was created where the promotional style of writing the article was used. I wanted to change it and use the correct links with a more encyclopedic style, but I did not have time. it was deleted. can I have this article myself and are there any restrictions after deleting it for the first time (it was created by another user)

John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.167.121.225 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Unregistered user, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you intend to improve a deleted article, a copy can in many but not all cases be undeleted and moved to draft or user space for improvement work. You can ask for this at WP:REFUND, or ask any of the admins who have announced a willingness to restore such deleted pages. As it happens, I am one such admin. But I would need to know the exact name of the page involved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You will find communication about such issues easier if you register and use a free account here. There are a number of benefits. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Finding articles

How do I know if the page im trying to make has already been made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DF1105 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(This had been part of previous query, but obviously a different editor). David notMD (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@DF1105: the obvious answer, which is not intended to sound facetious, is simply to go and look for it! If it is a notable topic and there's a part of its name that you can look up, use the 'Advanced Search facility in the Wikipedia search box to look for that word in its title. If you're still not sure, you could do a web browser search for those same words, including Wikipedia as a domain search. (I often just put the word "wiki" after the keywords in Google as I'm lazy and it find pages in various language Wikipedias quite well). If you tell us your preferred title, I'm sure someone here could help you if you're stuck. (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.) Nick Moyes (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

DF1105, see Help:Your_first_article#Search_for_an_existing_article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A question about User Templates

I have seen some advanced/experienced users with exotic User Templates describing the user on their User pages. Is there a way, or is it permitted, to create custom User Templates for myself?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: Check out WP:USERBOX. There are instructions there on how to create a new one, but I suggest browsing through the existing ones first, as what you want may already exist. RudolfRed (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Baba Ramdev

There is difference between born date and early life column .. it is stated that he was born in 1951 . Whereas 1965 is also mentioned please correct this .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:4EAA:8CFA:1B7D:B323:8419:1B5C (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism 3 days ago. Reverted now. Thanks for letting us know. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Can I change my username?

Is it possible to change my username? I didn't realize most ppl don't use their name and I'd like to change it to something that can't be tied to me directly. Clint.jenkins (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Clint.jenkins, Certainly, please see m:Steward_requests/Username_changes MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Clint.jenkins, since you haven't made a lot of edits, you can consider just abandoning this account and make a new one, that's allowed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Clint.jenkins: I agree that this is the best approach for you. Just abandon this account, never ever use it again, and simply create a new account, and use only that one from now on. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Was helpful?

What if one of your edits are reverted, but it was helpful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumshoe97 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Gumshoe97 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't see where any of your recent edits was reverted, but if one was, you should discuss the matter with the editor that performed the reversion, either on the article talk page or the user's talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Gumshoe97 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding a person to a category list

Hi, in order to add a person to the Category: List of Canadian Artists, does the chicken come before the egg? Do I need to post a link in the Category section of the artist's page first, then go to that Category and add the person to the list? Or do I add the person to the list, then go to the person's Wiki page and add the Category link?

Cheers, Karen Pace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenpace (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Karenpace Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you add the category to the article, this will cause that article to appear in the category list; you shouldn't need to add anything to the Category page. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Karenpace (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenpace (talk • contribs) 19:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Addendum: I appreciate your help, but I tried adding it as a category (List of Canadian Artists) and it says that category doesn't exist. But it does! Then I tried to trace the origin name or Parent Category of it to see if that's what I need to post as the Category title, but had no luck. So I added her right into the Category, and assume I will have to wait to see if it is accepted or not. Which means I think I did exactly the opposite of what you suggested... I am at all loss as to why the Category exists, I can type it in to a search box and it comes up, but it won't show up as a link in a Category list at the end of an article page I'm editing. I am perplexed! =) Karenpace (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The page List of Canadian artists exists, but that is a list, not a category. Category:Lists of Canadian artists exists (containing, as its name implies, a number of lists). Category:Canadian artists exists, containing numerous subcategories, and it is perhaps into one of those that you intended to put the article which you were editing? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I know nothing about categories, but I can see you have capitalized "Artists", and the way Wikpedia works, that makes a difference. Now from what I can tell, you need to pick a subcategory, i.e. from Category:Canadian artists (it could just be Category:Canadian women artists). Fabrickator (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

How to publish from my sandbox to wikipedia

I do not see the "more" and "move" near the search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poruja111 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Poruja111 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you get that far, I noticed that your draft has no independent reliable sources to support its content. I would also ask if you have reviewed the notability criteria for biographies and more specifically the criteria for politicians. Generally, merely seeking public office does not merit someone a Wikipedia article, meaning that Mr. Jones would need to meet the more general criteria of a notable person. I also noticed that your draft reads much like campaign literature; do you work for his campaign? If you do, you will need to declare this in order to comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. If you can resolve these issues, you can submit your draft for review using Articles for Creation. I would recommend this instead of just moving your draft into the encyclopedia, so you can get feedback before it is moved, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. You are correct. Mr Jones is a personal friend who is running for office, but I do not work or volunteer for his campaign. Mr. Jones's opponent is a only candidate and already has a wiki page published. I am simply experimenting with my sandbox so that I can talk Mr. Jones through the process of moving his page from his sandbox to the published area when the time comes. Mr. Jones has already prepared his article in his own sandbox and needs me to talk him through the publication process. He already has citations in the work he has prepared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poruja111 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr Jones needs to read the advice against autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Poruja111 Wikipedia has articles, not just "pages". It's an important distinction. Without knowing who the opponent is, it could be that they meet the necessary notability criteria for a reason unrelated to their seeking office. As I indicated, generally merely seeking office does not merit someone an article. If that's the case for the opponent, that article can be proposed for deletion (more likely it would be made a redirect to the election article). Wikipedia is not a voter guide and does not necessarily provide equal time to everyone in an election; it depends on what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Poruja111 The page User:Cecil Burton Jones, Jr./sandbox was deleted today under CSD G11 as being promotional. It seems to have contained content very similar to that in your sandbox -- similar enough to raise copyright issues. Who is the original author of the text in your sandbox, Poruja111? It is not OK to insert into Wikipedia, even in a sandbox, extensive text by someone else with out proper attribution, and without any indication of permission. If this was written by Mr Jones or his campaign, you need to attribute it to the source. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I am accustomed to sandbox being a place for development prior to publication. Where am I able to collaborate with my personal friend, Mr. Jones, on this joint effort, and when ready, have it evaluated for publication?--Poruja111 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Poruja111 I'm going to chime in here to agree with the comments above and to let you know that I don't think Mr. Jones has enough media coverage to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Simply running for a congressional district office isn't enough, since all you need to run as a major party candidate in Texas is file an application and pay a filing fee. These guidelines are more applicable. Indeed, the current leading candidate for Texas' 23rd district, Gina Ortiz Jones, was the previous Democratic nominee who closely lost by 1,000 votes, yet her article was still nominated for deletion twice. It was kept both times because of the large amount of media coverage of her and her campaign, so it's not a fair comparison. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Poruja111 As Tim states very well, Gina Jones merits an article due to the massive amount of media coverage she got. If you can show that Cecil Jones is getting equally massive coverage in the media, he would merit an article- but it would be strongly advised that you or Mr. Jones not write it yourself. Mr. Jones might also want to be aware that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one; any information about him, good or bad, can be in an article about him as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. He cannot lock it to the text he might prefer or prevent others from editing it. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If Mr. Jones just wants to tell his potential voters about himself, he should use social media or his own campaign website, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent sources say about him, not in what he wants to say about himself. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Poruja111, while a sandbox is indeed a place to develop work prior to publication, all pages on Wikipedia, including sandbox pages, are public even if not indexed by search engines, and some policies, such as the policy against promotional content, the policy on biographical pages, and the copyright policy apply to all pages on Wikipedia without exception. The most common venue for shared work on a draft followed by a review of the draft by an experienced editor would be the Draft namespace -- a page with a title such as Draft:Joe Example could be used to work on the text of a potential article about Mr. Example, either alone or with other editors. However, a user sandbox can also be used in this way. It is usually a poor idea to have multiple copies of essentially the same text on different page -- it can cause confusion. If there is a need to do this, there should be attribution of the source, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details. If you have further questions, feel free to ask them here or if you want to ask me individually, you can post to User talk:DESiegel I am happy to offer any help that I can. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I must agree with the comments by 331dot above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

did I make the right decision?

I reverted edits here, since an anonymous editor made some major changes, including removing references, that caused the article to appear on Category:Pages with missing references list, a maintenance category I try to clean-up from time-to-time. Did I make the right decision? I did leave a note on User talk:2600:1014:B107:6956:8914:C5B0:CDA1:4624. I just wanted to get some feedback; the edits seemed to maybe be in good faith? = paul2520 (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Paul2520: I'd discuss on the article talk page. It seems that someone replaced a formatted table showing the characters appearances by season, with a section of prose describing them. I don't know why you couldn't have both, since they each took a lot of time to create, and from my season 1 knowledge appear to be correct, but you'll want consensus with people more closely following the article. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Timtempleton! Will do. = paul2520 (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are all of the admins so unfriendly?

Why are all of the wikipedia admins so unfriendly? I was wondering because I had a discussion with several about my request for rollback privileges and they were all very grouchy itd. Dino245 (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dino245: Well, to be eligible for the rollback tool, you usually need more than 200 mainspace edits and demonstrate a need for the right. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 00:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Dino245, it might help you to remember that everyone involved with the actual production of the product that is English Wikipedia gets paid exactly the same amount as you - nothing. When someone requests a right they are not qualified for, that request is a waste of the time the administrator freely volunteered. I don't know about you, but to me, my free time is my most valued possession and it irritates more than someone wasting my money. This is a collegial cooperative endeavor. It is your responsibility to determine if you qualify for something prior to asking for it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon your response above epitomizes his/her complaint WP:BITE. It was unneccessarily snarky and rude . Indeed there are patient and thoughtful admins and editors,and exceedingly short tempered and rude ones. The latter is somewhat understandable considering how much "crap" one has to contend with (including mine). However if it is too much for you, you can always resign and find more peaceful endeavors. For speaking out I can expect WP:HOUND, if not from you then others.Oldperson (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

John's reply might have been a little terse/snarky/rude, but your response seems just as terse/snarky/rude. You could've simply made the same point without suggesting that he or anyone else "resign from Wikipedia" or speculating on how you now expect to be "hounded" by either John or others for "speaking your mind". WP:HOUND and WP:HARASS are serious accusations to make against other editor(s), even indirectly; so, if that's happening to you, you should seek assistance at WP:ANI because such behavior is not appropriate at all per WP:CONDUCT. At the same time, you need to be careful when throwing around words like "hound", etc. per WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AOHA and often only serve to further exacerbate an existing situation or create a completely new problem altogether. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dino245, I saw your edit counter, and you have more than 200 mainspace edits. Also, the admin who declined your request, Juliancolton, had his reason for declining per this. I am pinging him so that maybe you both can discuss this. Also, please don't generalize all admins as "unfriendly". Finally, if your request gets declined, you must wait. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 00:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have a limited experience with the admins, but they were quite patient and forgiving (for all but one, there are always exceptions ). However, they can appear as grouchy, as they have to deal with a lot of conflictual situations and not necessarily appropriate/warranted requests all day long, so they appear to reply in a terse fashion and expect users to know the rules (including the implicit ones, such as writing concisely). This can be confusing when the users don't know how to appropriately behave, but I was pleasantly surprised that the admins were accepting to clarify my misunderstandings when I asked them So I would say that you should not take these terse responses too personally, it's more likely due to a lack of time and over-accumulation of tasks than anything about you --Signimu (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Dino245. Just want to add to what LPS and MLP Fan posted in that it's the "demonstrate a need for the right" part that might be why your request was denied by Juliancolton. Simply surpassing the required number of mainspace edits is not really a good indicator of the edit quality. Special privileges are only granted to those who have demonstrated to the WP:COMMUNITY that they will use said privileges in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines; so, what you might perceive as an admin being unfriendly, the admin probably sees as their looking out for the best interests of Wikipedia.Personally, sometimes the editors who want to be granted special privileges the most are the editors who probably need to be scrutinized a bit harder because they often seem to want them for the wrong reasons. Many editors have made thousands and thousands of positive edits to Wikipedia without having been granted any special privileges; so, it's not like you or anyone else needs them to be WP:HERE. Having you're request declined doesn't mean you can never ever be granted rollback privileges; it just means that someone feels, at least at this moment, that it might not be the right thing to do for a Wikipedia standpoint. Perhaps the thing for you to do is to continue to work on improving the encyclopedia, establish a better track record of positive contributions and prove these others wrong so that your next request will be approved. It might also help if you didn't "label" all admins as being unfriendly just you feel some admins didn't give you what you wanted (i.e. were unfriendly"). -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dino245: Some very sensible points have already been made here. In particular, I agree with those who have alluded to the fact that permissions like rollback are pure utilities and do not reflect on the personal attributes of editors to whom they've been granted. When you request the rollback right, you're volunteering to help the project in a slightly different capacity, and for that offer of service, admins are always grateful. However, there are prerequisites which must be met before advanced permissions can be assigned. Objectively speaking, your editing history shows that you need more experience before we're comfortable assigning you these tools. Just yesterday you reverted numerous apparently good-faith edits without explaining why. Here you inappropriately removed talk page comments by another editor. You've violated 3RR here, forcing an article to be edit-protected. On your rollback request, you vastly overstated your mainspace contribution count, though I'm willing to accept that as a misunderstanding rather than an attempt at deception. Here you attempted to review your own GA nomination. This comment was blatantly threatening. And, most worryingly of all, here you confessed (or claimed) that your account has been compromised after it vandalized a high-visibility article. Any of these incidents would be enough of a reason to decline a rollback request, and together they form a long string of problematic editing. Again, none of this is personal, although it's important you understand that there is accountability on Wikipedia. Regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Help me! Photo removals that I own the copyright of and want on my wiki page.

Hello- Some user by the name of Ahmad had my photos posts taken down twice now using my own website as the reason for the "violation". Identifying sources should be done so accurately by confirming if they are the same copyright holder before removing revisions/profile additions. I would like my photo additions to be reinstated please. If you don't have the authority or capability, I'd like Wikimedia to intervene on my behalf, so Ahmad and whoever else will stop unfairly flagging my photos that I own the copyrights of that I'd like to be featured on my Wiki page. Thank you, Anchorandwings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchorandwings (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think an admin - or an experienced editor - might need to have a talk with the contributing editor at Cris Gunther and explain what WP:COI means and the possibility of being banned from editing on WP. Thanks. Maineartists (talk)

Anchorandwings, the file c:File:Cris Gunther- Hollywood Music In Media Award Winner.jpg was uploaded to, and deleted from, wikimedia commons, not to the English-language Wikipedia. An admin on commons deleted it, as a violation of copyright. (Apparently riley did the deletion.)_ You would have to raise the issue on Commons. Please understand that while you may indeed be the copyright owner of that image, we have no way to know that you are, unless you follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you follow that procedure, any files you upload should not be deleted because of copyright issues. All uploaded images must indicate their source, and if they have been published on a website, must include an appropriate copyright release clearly identified as being from the proper person. A post to Wikipedia will not do -- anyone can make such a post, and many do.

Ther are also some problems with the Cris Gunther to which you attempted to add these images, but i will address those elsewhere, as they were not asked about here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC) @Anchorandwings: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would add that it is not really helpful to ask the exact same question in three different places at the same time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would further add that there is no such thing as your Wiki page. There may be an article about you, but that article belongs to Wikipedia and the whole community of editors. You, assuming that you are in fact the subject, have no particular right to control what does and does not get included in the article, nor to insist on its creation or on its deletion if you don't like the content. No more than you could control a newspaper story about yourself -- if anything, even less. See WP:OWN DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

IP Address

Hello, I edited a page without it logged in. For some reason I thought I was and I found out I wasnt and my IP address was made into an account. Because of that I heard I was blocked from editing under this account because some people tried to edit under my username. I need the IP address page removed and I am trying to reach an administrator to stop people from trying to use it on this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tropetroop29 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tropetroop29 and welcome to the Teahouse. You are not blocked -- that is, your account (Tropetroop29) is not blocked. It may be that the IP you were using was blocked when another person was using it, but that will not affect you as long as you are signed in. Users who do not log in are identified by their current IP addresses, but they are not really accounts. That is just the best identifier we have for those who do not log in. I am an admin, and i checked your block log -- there is nothing on it. There is no need to worry about blocks on any IP address that you may have been temporarily using. There is no need to remove the "IP address page". DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, for a while i had a problem where I was often logged out wthout warning. To avoid saving pages while not logged in, I added code that displays the "publish changes" (aka save) button in a green color if and only if am logged in. If i see the button in the standard color, i don't save, instead I log back in fist. If you want I can copy the code for this for you to your user talk page. Ask me if you want that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a helpful trick and you can even change to color to something else if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Tropetroop29. Please see WP:LOGGEDOUT for more details, but I'm not sure what you mean by Because of that I heard I was blocked from editing under this account because some people tried to edit under my username. because you wouldn't have been able to post at the Teahouse if your account was currently blocked; moreover, there's no record of your account ever being blocked. For reference, accounts (even IP accounts) cannot be deleted as explained at WP:UN#Deleting and merging accounts, but the records of any edits they make can sometimes be hidden from public view (sometimes even from administrators) depending upon the circumstances. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sending a page to draft from editing page

I have a page I'm editing, but it's not ready to made public. If I just make it pubilc it will be deleted because it's very much a work-in-progress. How can I save the page I'm editing as a draft so my work is saved?

Seamus M. Slack (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Publish changes" does not mean publish, it means save. If this was created as your Sandbox or a Draft, it shows up there. Hope this helped. David notMD (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello, Seamus M. Slack. If you have not yet clicked publish, and the page is new, you can copy your test out of the edit box and save it on your computer locally. The n create a new page in the draft namespace, and past the text in. If the page has already been created, you can move it to the draft namespace, that is to a name that starts with "Draft:". I hope that was clear enough? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That answered my question. Seamus M. Slack (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

HOWEVER, appears you just created Taos operating system as an article - not a draft - and given lack of referencing and other flaws, it is at high risk for being nominated at Articles for Deletion. David notMD (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

AND, the article scores 99%+ as copyright violation of https://sites.google.com/site/dicknewsite/home/computing/byte-articles/the-taos-operating-system-1991 David notMD (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement WP:CSD#G12. Seamus M. Slack It is never accedptable to paste large quantities of text from anotehr website (or any outside source) into Wikipedia without attribution, and rarely with attribution. Even as a starting point in a draft, that will lead to speedy deletion. You must write in original words for Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

When I reword I start with the old text and then change it. I wanted to save the Copyinfinging draft and mutate it into acceptable form. I tried moving it to a draft after saving it and it was speedy deleted. I don't know why you are talking to me this way? I wanted help putting this unsuitable page in storage until it was ready. I also did use ref and citetaiton in that page you deleted. Maybe there should be a save as draft button on the editing page. So what do you want to do with this page? Seamus M. Slack (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Even in draft form, not acceptable to contain copyright material. You could work privately, on your own computer, and only move to a draft at Wikipedia after you have paraphrased content in your own words. David notMD (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Seamus M. Slack The page was not speedy deleted, it was just tagged for deletion and awaiting a 2nd admin to do the deletion. You moved it to Draft and then blanked the page, removing both the deletion tag and the copyright-infringing text. However, that text remained in the page history. i have now done a revision deletion on all the versions of the page prior to the blanking, so that the infringing text cannot be seen except by editors with special rights. The problem is that Wikipedia cannot have such an infringing text present, not even for a short time as it is being revised. Not even for 5 minutes. It is not OK for that text to even stay in the publicly available page history.

I understand and accept that you were acting in good faith to create an article about a significant topic. But some policies here have very little give, and copyright infringement is one of them. You will have to create a new version without saving the copied text on Wikipedia. I would offer to mail you a copy, but since it is easily available on the site listed above in this thread, there doesn't seem to be any need to do that. You could, if you wish, work with that site open in one tab and your new draft in another, but please avoid direct copying or close paraphrasing. Also, you will need multiple reliable sources before this topic is ready for the main article space, of which the Byte article could be only one. Taht is al assuming you intend to go ahead with creating a fresh version in draft space. That is your choice to do or not do. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Article creation here at Wikipedia is one of the harder tasks an editor can undertake. Below are a series of steps that often work for this process.

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle vs rollback

I know this question must have been asked a thousand times earlier, but still I want to ask it. I recently started using Twinkle. What is difference between a twinkle rollback vs a ROLLBACK rollback? (Except for advanced features, like Huggle)— Vaibhavafro ^💬 04:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Vaibhavafro, and welcome to the Teahouse. Below is the best information I could find regarding Twinkle rollback versus standard rollback. If anyone else has additional information, I would be most grateful if they would add or correct it.

• Twinkle is an open-source javascript tool. It performs rollbacks by running on the user's computer, and performing multiple transactions between the local browser and Wikipedia. Using its internal script, it locates and downloads the appropriate old version of the article, then re-uploads it and saves it as the current version. The user is given the option to add a custom edit summary for the rollback (unless the VANDAL option is selected, in which case the user is automatically taken to the rolled-back user’s talk page). Twinkle rollback may be used by any autoconfirmed user.
• The built-in rollback tool performs a single transaction: the user clicks the "rollback" link and the rest happens on the server. This method is faster and more efficient for both the client and the server, with less processing/bandwidth burden on both ends (especially for people with slow connections); this is seen as one of its major benefits over Twinkle. There is no option for a customized edit summary, and there are therefore some restrictions on its use when an edit summary is expected (see WP:ROLLBACK#When to use rollback for a list of valid uses). Standard rollback may only be used by those with the rollbacker right.

I hope this helps! CThomas³ (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Lao (Wine)

I want to create an article on Lao (Wine) . A traditional wine used by Tai people of south east Asia. I have enough content and references but why it send me to Sandbox ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinkCobras (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

PinkCobras Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. New accounts cannot directly create articles until they are autoconfirmed, which means that the account must be four days old and have 10 edits or more. You only have three edits and just created the account today. If you want to create an article, you will need to use Articles for Creation. I would recommend doing so anyway as a new user, as successfully creating an article is harder than most people think it is, it is actually the hardest task on Wikipedia. You may want to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial in the interim. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User page looks clapped

How do I make my user page align properly? Seemplez | Chat 09:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming you want all your userboxes above each other, on the left? The problem is that userboxes are kinda floaty and sometimes do weird things. A possible solution is to add {{-}} after each UBX. I've taken the liberty of trying it out in my sandbox, is that what you want? Feel free to copy that code back to your own user page. rchard2scout (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rchard2scout: Thank you so much! I'll use that tip in future, hope you enjoy your barnstar!

Article about IMAG GmbH

Hi, I would like to translate the article about IMAG GmbH in the German Wikipedia into English. However, my draft has been declined, saying that it didn't have enough content for an own article. Do you have any tipps what to do? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muc user 2 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The general answer is to discuss it with the declining reviewer (in this case Robert McClenon) on their user talk page. But I would have declined it for a different reason: the failure to establish that the subject is notable. Specifically, there is not one single substantial independent reference: five of them appear to be published by IMAG, and no. 5 doesn't mention IMAG.

People sometimes assume that an article which is in one Wikipedia will automatically be accepted (in translation) in another; but this is not the case. First, different Wikipedias are independent programmes, which have different rules and criteria. Secondly, there are many articles in Enwiki which would not be accepted if they were submitted now, as our standards have risen over the years; and I presume that the same may be true of other Wikipedias.

If you haven't already read Translation, I recommend it; but my personal advice is to treat it as creating a new article, but drawing on the original for some of the content. Another point (which you can also find mentioned on that page) is that while Wikipedia's licensing arrangements allow material to be freely copied and reused for any purpose, the one required step is to attribute the source. Copying within Wikipedia, or translating from one to another, is an example of just such reuse, and must be attributed. --ColinFine (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to ping you, Muc user 2, or indeed to welcome you to the Teahouse. Sorry! --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything that ColinFine wrote just above, Muc user 2. Creating a new article, even one based on a translation of an article from a different Wikipedia project, is one of the harder tasks an editor can face. Below are some steps which, when followed, often lead to sucess. They are aimed more at creation from nothing, but most of them will still apply. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of businesses. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
• Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
• Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
• Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
• Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
• Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
• Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 11:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the subject company is a subsidiary of Messe München, and we already have an article on Messe München. If you have additional information about the subsidiary, you can add it to the article on the parent company. When to create separate spinout articles about subsidiaries of companies, or branches, or colleges within a university, or offices within a government agency, is usually a matter of common sense rather than following a well-defined set of guidelines. As mentioned above, your draft has seven references, but 5 of them are IMAG's own, and corporate notability is based on what third parties say about a company, not what the company says about itself. Also, are you working for either IMAG or Messe? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Article about OnBuy

HI There - I'm very new to Wiki and only used it to update a couple of pages that I had knowledge in. I have lost a lot of faith in Wikipedia because I believe that some rouge editors are taking commercial incentives to close business pages. I previously was involved in updating the page OnBuy which was deleted because it was deemend not notable. How can I get this page restored? OnBuy is one of the fastest growing marketplaces in the UK and is very notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UKBizMan (talk • contribs) 08:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the invasion of Wikipedia by Rouge administrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

UKBizMan, You probably can't get that page restored. I just looked at some of the deleted versions of that page, and they seemed quite promotional in tone to me. I didn't verify the references used to check notability. If you seriously want to create a new page on this topic, I would advise that you follow the steps listed in the section just above. Do please note that "Notability" is used in a special way on Wikipedia. It does not mean "well known". Instead it means that a topic has been written about by multiple, Independent, published reliable sources, each of which covered the topic in some depth. There can be debates about what sources are reliable, and what is enough depth. But major newspapers and magazines are usualy reliable for this purpose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 12:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I realise that I was mostly copying things from press releases and not really detaching the promotional tone. It was may first go and I tried a few times. Seems my attempts to do my first page have backfired as now I have just been accused of being paid by said company. I think I'll give up! Some things are just not as easy as they seem. Now I feel bad that the company has no page at all and yet I feel they have done such a great job. I'm going to close my Wikipedia account - thank you for your message.

A) You can't "close" your Wikipedia account, but you can tag it as WP:RETIRED. B) you currently have two drafts submitted for review Draft:Tenzing and Draft:OnBuy. In my opinion, both likely to be declined, but if you don't stay, you will never know. David notMD (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I sit, corrected. An admin took notice of your request and deleted your User name/account. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: You were right the first time. It isn't possible to delete an account. All the admin did was to delete the user's user page. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would also suggest that starting your discussion with an unlikely accusatory conspiracy theory is no way to get help from your fellow volunteer editors. If you feel your subject is notable, make your case the way the various policies you've been show say you should, and tens of thousands of users have done millions of times. Find appropriate sources and cite them. Remove the promotional tone (that you acknowledge). That's really all there is to it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking for specifics

Hi and thanks in advance for your help, I'm looking for specifics on the problems with this submission so I can correct it asap:

User:Ajobryan/sandbox

As you can see I'm new at this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajobryan (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In the feedback message on your draft, and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to more detailed advice on the points raised in the review. I have also put a welcome message on your user talk page with further links for advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ajobryan and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the draft about Sally Helgesen in User:Ajobryan/sandbox, I note that the cited sources are:

1. Her personal web site's home page;
2. Her linkedin page;
3. A page from her publisher about one of her books;
4. A page from her personal web site;
5. Another page from her personal web site;
6. Yet Another page from her personal web site;
7. A page with bios from a conference where she spoke. Such bios are usually provided by the speaker;
8. A page which shows that she is a member of a large organization, but says nothign else about her; and
9. A page with a bio from a professional speaker's provider, in effect advertising her services

None of these are independent, published, reliable sources that discuss her in depth. Indeed none are independent. All are from her eor bisniss affiliates, or are just reproducing content from her. Several independent reliable sources that discuss her in some depth are needed for a valid article. Without such sources, nothing can be done. That is a very specific issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hey I'm fairly new here, I was wondering how I can change the items in my Watchlist I haven't watched yet to be in bold? This is possible in the Dutch Wikipedia, but I can't seem to figure it out here. Help would be appreciated. Cheers! Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Gadgets tab in Preferences: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, finally found it. Thanks Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Article for deletion oops

I made an oopsie doing an article for deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Akintayo Is this something that'll be caught and fixed by people who patrol AfD? Sorry, and thank you in advance for your help. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DiamondRemley39, and welcome to the Teahouse. What were you trying to do on that page, please? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DES, I was trying to follow the instructions for listing an article for deletion. I think I copied and pasted the wrong thing on the wrong page. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed by Ymblanter. shoy (reactions) 17:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Question on Notability

There was an Earthquake in Lilbourn, Missouri a few weeks ago. About 8% of the town reported feeling this earthquake. (National Earthquake Center) I feel as if that is notable enough to be added into the history of the town. Anyone agree? I added the earthquake and it was removed 2 weeks later by Cristiano Tomás with the reason being: "not notable". Please give me feedback and advice on this. -Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking notability is relavant to the question of whether a topic should have its own articel, not to what should go in an existing article about a notable topic. That said, not every event that happens in a place belongs in a Wikipedia article about the place. If the quyake wqas felt but did not damagfe, that might not be relevant enough to include. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Earthquakes are very common. There are about 100,000 earthquakes every year that can be felt without instrumentation, so if only 8% of the population felt something and no damage was caused it sounds as though it would not be worthy of inclusion in the article unless the event was covered by multiple reliable news sources, in which case you should cite those sources.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I posted an article over an earthquake in California. 65,000+ people have reported it and the national Earthquake Center issues a tsunami warning. It was deleted for not being notable enough. HOW is an earthquake effecting Thousands near San Francisco not notable??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Elijahandskip Your draft was not deleted; it was declined. It still exists. Please review the notability criteria to learn more about what makes a subject notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought I put declined not deleted. My next question is since it cannot have its own page, should the earthquake since the origin of the earthquake was in Pleasant Hill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Elijahandskip If you have a source for the earthquake, you might be able to include it at List of earthquakes in 2019. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are so many earthquakes in California, felt by so many people, we seem to only create articles for the serious (~ mag 6+) damage-causing event clusters, like the 2019 Ridgecrest earthquakes. All the others go in the list articles, since there is rarely much to say about them other than they happened. We have a baseball farm team called the Quakes. There have been six mag 2.5+, including one 4.5, in the last 24 hours in CA/NV.[2] —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hacker help

My name is Scottie Charlton and for the past 6 months I have had someone on my emails, phones, Facebook, google hangouts, etc... I can’t get rid of this person, they have destroyed over 16 cell phones, numerous google accounts, 2facebook accounts, several social media accounts. It seems like every time I join something they follow right behind me and destroy it. My cell phones have overlays, plugins, root pa app, and several other apps I can not delete. The person rewrites every cell phone I get so when I go to a page it’s not the page I thought it would be.ive tried switching cell providers, phone numbers, and google accounts, nothing works. They are still on my phone. Like I said over 16 cell phones destroyed. Can I please get some help from someone, I’ve contacted local police, google, yahoo, etc.. no one has a answer. Lost.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott charlton2171 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This isn't really something Wikipedia can provide assistance with. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Scott charlton2171 This isn't really what this page or Wikipedia is for, but I would say it seems extremely unlikely that someone would continually hack and reprogram your cell phones and continually "destroy" your social media accounts. All cell phones have apps that cannot be removed, this is not a defect or hacking of your phone. It sounds to me that you might need to sit down with a representative of your cell phone provider and have them educate you on the use of your phone. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to add a fact that bears relation to an already mentioned fact in the established article (see subject line above). I am a witness to this fact and would like to include it in the Wikipedia article about CIRCUS MAXIMUS (The Wind, etc. etc.)

“In contrast to the two “Christmas Concerts” performed by CIRCUS MAXIMUS during December of 1967 the performance by CM in the same month at New York’s CAFÉ WHA? was outstanding. They were the featured band that night. Opening bands on that bill were THE HELLO PEOPLE (Phillips International recording artists) and DREAMLAND CHOO CHOO who were making their NYC debut that night. Circus Maximus were well received and performed at least one encore."

Hello I am trying to add this historical fact to the existing copy on the band, CIRCUS MAXIMUS (with Bob Bruno and Jerry Jeff Walker, et al), as it bears relation to prior existing comments. I was there as an avid NYC music club goer of that era. I was witness to that gig and what happened there that night. I am both a musician and a retired professor of philosophy and ethics at Central Connecticut State University in New Britain, CT. It seems someone deleted my short but salient comment requesting "citation". This brings me to my question: How does one verify something that happened over 50 years ago and may not be a matter of public record or no longer is able to be a matter of documentation but none the less did occur? If we deem to discourage events that for all intent and purpose are likely and feasible just because they may not be a matter of public record we also discourage little known but informative facts that may "breathe life" into these historical documents. In my blurb above I give acceptance to the previous copy regarding Circus Maximus' "less than well received" "Christmas Concerts" but I offer a contrasting report of a juxtaposed gig at the Cafe Wha?. Is this so incredulous?

thank you, Rocktoids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocktoids (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rocktoids, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am afraid that Wikipedia does not accept unpublished first-person accounts as reliable sources, from anyone. If an event is not a matter of public record, Wikipedia cannot report on it. If newspapers at the tiem, or reliable books or articles at some later time reported this event, we might include it if it seemed relevant to our article -- not every event in the hispoty of the world, or even of a particular band, is relevant. If you wrote up your first-person account of the event, and managed to get it published by a reliable source -- not on a personal web page or in a blog or on a fansite -- then that write up could be cited as a source. Otherwise, it simply is not a usable source for Wikipedia, and without a source, the fact may be challanged and removed from the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

See our verifibility policy for details. See also the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

oh, and please sign your posts on discussion pages (not in articles) with four tildes(~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature, with a timestamp. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Changing the title of a wikipedia article page.

I had created a page on "Sealdah-Muzaffarpur Fast Passenger". Now, I want to change the page title to "Sealdah-Sitamarhi Express", keeping its original contents intact. How can i do so??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.15.242.63 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I moved the page to the new title for you. If you register, and gain autoconfirmed status, you'll be able to use the move tool to move pages. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Info I post and edit is true and interesting on wiki

Info I make or edit is true , and not false like uk Christmas number ones is pre Christmas actually as there announced on radio before Christmas Day mainly and never count the first day sales of Christmas the 25th December even broadcast on Christmas Day on radio which has only happen just a few and rare is up to Christmas Eve only and physical singles in uk I edit and that one keep removed is true from official chart pages like Louisa forever young got #1 on physical in uk for a few weeks and not registered which is misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Town3bay (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Town3bay and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to be engaged in an edit war at List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones. Please read WP:BRD, and discuss your changes on the talk page of the article. Dbfirs 18:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources under subscription

Hello Teahouse! I'm writing an article about the painter Ursula McCannell and I found a great reference - The Times UK but the text is under subscription only. Can I still use it and if so how? (i don't have a subscription) Thank you in advance --Less Unless (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:PAYWALL; there is no requirement that a source be easy or free to obtain, or that it be online at all. It needs to only be publicly accessible. However, you will need to read the source to make sure it says what you think it says. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: You can go to WP:RX and ask for someone with access to look it up for you. RudolfRed (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

331dot,RudolfRed Thank you for the information, I'll read the policy and will definitely use the exchange/request project!Less Unless (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Less Unless. You could, of course, pay the Times to gain access. You could go to a library that has a subscription and read a physical copy. Source in Wikipedia do not need a url or to be available online. Or you might be able mto find another edsitor who has access and would be willing to provide you with a copy. As it happens, i have a digital subscription to the Times of London, specifically for Wikipedia editing, and am willing to provide such article to other editors, within reason, by email. See my user page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that if you use citation templates, there is a parameter to indicate that an online source is behind a paywall. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} Thank you! I've read your user page, but I haven't found the guidelines on how to ask you for help. I'm sorry, I'm new here and sometimes I don't quite understand what to do. If you can help me with this one article, I'll be grateful. Please tell me what should I do. Thank you. Less Unless (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to help you. i will access the times site and download the article text if I can. If I can do so, i will email it to you -- I see you have 'email this user active. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Less Unless It may take a little time, i will let you know when i have sent it or been unable to find it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} Thank you very much! No rush at all, when you have time.

PS - got it! Thank you! so fast! Less Unless (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Two usernames

Hello

Guess I have created two usernames with two devices. Seems I have created second username with a typo error of the first.

Is that concern?

Thanks

Abandon one and only use the other, and you will be fine. RudolfRed (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Nomintr. Pick one username to use in the future, and abandon use of the other account. You may wish to leave a note on the other account's user page explaining the error and referring people to your current account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

My article got declined

Is there anywhere I can find a draft of my article that got declined so that I can edit out the issues and resubmit? I cannot find this?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuszczo (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Shuszczo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry, but since the draft was deleted as a copyright infringement, it cannot be restored. I would note that it appears to me that you are attempting to write about yourself; this is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the more specific definition of a notable person). Because of this, Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent sources. In my experience, most people cannot do that. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How should I easily access a user's contributions page?

When I warn someone who vandalized a page using Twinkle, I often want to go from the talk page to the user's contributions page to see if they have done any other vandalism. How can I do this without having to edit the URL? Is there a button that I can click that I'm missing? Merlin04 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Merlin04, Bienvenido a la casa de te. On the left pane, on a user talk page, there is a link called User contributions that you can click on that will take you directly to that page. Interstellarity (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How to improve declined draft to help get it approved?

Our page Draft:Talent Africa has been declined. Although the reviewer was kind enough to direct me to this page to ask experienced editors to please lend me a hand in improving my draft to get it republished for review and hopefully approved. We do believe the page is worthy of an article as it's about existing content with adequate proof like any other television show on Wikipedia. Could someone kindly advise how we can improve our draft to make it better and more likely to be approved. It would be highly appreciated. Creatorsforum (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Creatorsforum, Bienvenido a la casa de te. Although I can't quite help you with your question, I would like to point out that accounts are only to be used by a single individual. The reason why I'm pointing this out is because you use the first person plural when referring to yourselves. Please make sure that you read this for more info on this. Interstellarity (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Creatorsforum Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy, as you have some mandatory declarations to make, one of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I've also posted information about your username on your user talk page. You will also need to select a single individual to exclusively operate this account(you use "we").

As noted by those who looked at your draft, it is very poorly sourced and promotional in nature. Wikipedia is interested only in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Independent reliable sources does not include press releases, routine announcements, staff interviews, the production's website, or any other primary source. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself, only in what others say. In order for you to be successful in writing about your program, you need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on independent sources that have chosen on their own to give significant coverage about your program. This is usually difficult for people in your position to do.

Please understand that not every television program merits an article on Wikipedia; it depends on the sources- and most of those other articles were written by independent editors who took note of a subject and chose to write about it. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Creatorsforum. Of the 5 cited sources currently in the draft, three are from the TalantAfric production itself, and one seems to be based on a press release, leaving exactly one independent source. This is not nearly enough to support an article or establish notability.

Beyond that, the draft is written in a rather promotional manner. Such phrases as on this amazing platform called TALENT AFRICA, massive 6 Day Event, comes to a star-struck conclusion, take home the big prizes, and take home the big prizes are not the language of an encyclopedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A good, citable source.

Are informational YouTube videos (or video media in general) sources that I am able to cite? If so, what must I include? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J4keFr0mStatef (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, J4keFr0mStatef and welcome to the teahouse. For YouTube in particular, that depends. YouTube isn't really a single source it is more like a publisher, or even a library. It includes videos created by many different people and entities. Most are not reliable sources. Some are, for example, some are officially released by various news organizations, and are just as reliable as if they were on those organizations' own web sites. The question is really, who created any given Youtube video? Is that person or entity reliable? A subsidiary question is, was the video posted by, or with the permission of, the creator or copyright holder. Wikipedia does not normally link to copyright infringing pages, so videos posted without proper permission should not be used as sources.

As to video in general, this is like asking if sources in print can be cited. Yes if they are published and reliable. The template {{Cite AV media}} can be used to cite such sources. The time when the relevant content occures more or less corresponds to the pag eor page range for a book citation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@J4keFr0mStatef: It is more of a burden on readers and editors to verify video/audio sources because they are not searchable, and have to be consumed in real time, so take longer to review. The text version of a video that takes twenty minutes to watch can be searched in seconds and read/skimmed in just a few minutes. That can have various undesirable effects, since many are concerned with getting the most value out of the amount of time they contribute to the project. If there is an online, text source for what you are citing, please do try to use that. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Making my own Wikipedia page

How can I make my own Wikipedia page guys please tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilburger20 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lilburger20 and welcome to the Teahouse. That depends on what you mean by my own Wikipedia page. If you mean a user page to identify you asa a wikipedia editor, see WP:USER for a list of dos and don'ts, but you can put any of a wide variety of things on such a page. (look at some pages of experienced editors for suggestions.) If you mean creating an article abiut some topic, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule, Notability, and Your First Article creating a new article is one of the harder tasks here, and it is best to start by working on existing articles for a while first.

However, if you mean an article about yourself, I advise that you drop the idea. See our guideline on autobiography and Our guideline on conflict of interest for some of the reasons why. Autobiographical writing is strongly discouraged. See also all the links above about new articles in general.

Again welcome, and I hope you find some editing task which is both enjoyable and productive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia Page

Hello there I am a new user and I was wondering how hard it would be to create a Wikipedia page. How long would this take, would I have to be a registered scholar with proof of having a degree in a particular area — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetlejuice Porter (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Beetlejuice Porter: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to contribute. You can read WP:YFA about how to create an article and create a draft for review. No proof of credentials required, because you will be citing reliable, published sources. Creating a new article is not an easy task for new users. I suggest you start by working to improve existing articles instead, to gain some Wikipedia experience first. RudolfRed (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Submitting for artist

I am a branding consultant for a media agency and am trying to create a wiki page for an artist. She has a very strong digital footprint to warrant a wiki entry and it will also allow us to build the base towards social media verification platforms. She has over a million authentic followers and recognized on youtube as well.How do I submit a draft for consideration? I am unsure of the parameters around Wiki membership and the level of information I can submit for consideration, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all,GiaKay81 as a "branding consultant" you must promptly disclose your affiliations in accordance with WP:PAID. This is absolutely required, failure to do so can lead to your begin blocked from editing permenantly.

Secondly, a 'digital footprint" does not equate to a Wikipedia article for an articel to exist, the subject must be notable. This means that there must be multiple independant published reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. The number of followers, fans, or views an artist may have is irrelevant. Nor is Wikipedia in the least intersted in allowing you to build the base towards social media verification platforms. Any article must be able to demonstrate notability, as Wikipedia uses that term, or it will be promptly deleted. See earlier questions here at the Teahouse for ways in which articles may be created and what articles must at a minimum include. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC) @GiaKay81: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I am an intern- hence the lack of knowledge so not paid yet but in the future! I would like to be able to understand how this is done so to contribute info accurately as well. My first project is this undertaking so I am a student if you will but long term goals is to understand the framework of how things are done here. I have done research and gathered all the content around this person; I just am not familiar with the step by step process so that was the guidance I was hoping for. Thank you for all the details. Definitely doing this on the up and up and appreciate the educative opportunity you're giving me with adding more details to this process and experience. Ultimately the submission will be reviewed for the purposes of all wikipedia guidelines but I was being transparent as a newcomer of how the nature of what brought me to the forum. I will review the earlier questions per your suggestion as well. Apologies for the background information. I was being transparent but have no intentions of misrepresenting anyone or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi GiaKay81. Two things: (1) please sign your talk page posts as explained in Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts, and (2) "paid editing" doesn't always mean receiving monetary payment, it could mean other things as explained WP:PAID#Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation". I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for some information on conflict of interest editing as well as Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for some more things about Wikipedia that you or the artist you want to create an article about may not know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the links! I'm learning! Will review and have already seen some previus posts now for help in understanding the guidelines even more. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiaKay81 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GiaKay81. Basically, trying to use Wikipedia to promote anybody or anything is a fundamental mismatch with Wikipedia's aims and purposes, and you are likely to have a difficult and frustrating time doing it. And if you succeed in creating an article, it could still backfire on your client. I urge you to put your promotional efforts somewhere else - and, if you are inspired by helping us create a neutral repository of knowledge, contribute to Wikipedia on other topics. --ColinFine (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You are still not signing. Type four of ~ at the end of your comments. I agree WP:PAID still applies to your situation. What the artist says about herself (website, social media, interviews, Youtube, etc.) does not count as Wikipedia's idea of reliable sources for referencing. Same for press releases by the media agency. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What do we do

What do you do here at Teahouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TextTitan (talk • contribs) 04:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

TextTitan Hello and welcome. The Teahouse is a place for new users to ask questions about using Wikipedia. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How to edit a template?

There is a discussion over at [talk:Australia] regarding the Transclude random excerpt template. This template will make updating and maintaining portals much easier, but currently the only way to figure out which articles have been transcluded is to edit the page, and there needs to be a way to view all of the articles that have been transcluded without needing to edit the source. The best way to do this? Edit the template. I know Lua is needed, but I'm not sure where to go to make this improvement to the template, and so even though I consider myself an experienced editor, I figured this would be the best place to ask for help. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

IWG plc updating page for accuracy and completeness

Hello!

I am updating the IWG plc Wikipedia page as part of my ongoing work with the company. I'm suggesting edits through the IWG:Talk to remove dead links, add recent information and improve the overall structure of the page.

A template message has appeared at the top of the page, which is indeed accurate and says: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (October 2019)

The reason why I've dropped by the Teahouse for support is that it is unclear to me what a "cleanup" means. I would need some clear examples where the IWG plc Wikipedia page appears to not have a neutral point of view. Would anyone be able to support by taking a look at the page and offering some guidance? I will then remove or revise any content that does not appear to be from a neutral PoV.

Thank you in advance. --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi KatherineBusby2019. Since you've also asked about this at Talk:IWG_plc, I leave it up to someone who has perhaps been working on cleaning up the article to clarify, but here's some general comments on some other COI related stuff.

1. Please make sure you properly follow WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. There are various ways to do so, but pay particular attention to the part of that section which states :

   You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions. If you advertise paid editing through any external website, you must provide links on your user-page to all such accounts.

2. When you make an edit request, it's best to use Template:Request edit as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests. This will add the article to category of other pending edit requests and make it easier for others to first know you requesting an edit and next to try and help you.
3. Please don't try and request a complete re-write of an article all at once. It's best to keep requests simple and to the point. All Wikipedians are WP:VOLUNTEERs and this includes those answering edit requests. If your request is too dense or attempts to change too much at once, the chance of it being passed over and left for someone else to deal with greatly increases. Expecting someone to read through a wall of text to find out what has been changed is really expecting a lot. It's much better to simply say "Change A to B" or "Add this to Section A", etc. See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for a little more on this.
4. Please don't format your requests as if you were directly adding the content to the article yourself. The Wikipedia software has no idea that you're posting a request so it will format on the article's talk page as if it were different sections on the page. This is another reason why it's better to requests bits and pieces at a time because your request will be disjointed and might be mistaken for different unsigned random posts made by others when it's really all part of your same request. If you want to add a new section to the article, then simply say how you think the section should be named and then what content should go in it; you don't really need to format it as it will look in the article. As long as you explain things in your request, the person answering the request can format things accordingly if they approve the request and add the content to the article. For citations, on the other hand, it can make things easier when they are properly formatted, but it's not necessary to do so. As long as you provide the relevant link or other information per WP:CITEHOW, things should be OK. If you're going to format your citations, however, make sure you follow WP:CITEVAR in doing so. It also helps to add Template:Reflist-talk to your request so that any formatted citations don't get displayed at the bottom of the talk page by default.

Regarding dead links, they are simply removed because they are dead as explained in WP:DEADREF or WP:ELDEAD. In many cases, archived versions of a dead link can be found and the citation maintained. Simply put, dead links still may have value as a source and only are gotten rid when they are inappropriate for some other reason.

Finally, just so you don't think I'm a sour puss, I do commend you on trying to adhere to relevant COI/Paid editing policies and guidelines. There are many COI/PAID editors who don't make the effort that you're making, and it's so much easier to try and help those who do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Dormskirk, who has shown recent interest in the article. Maproom (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I am comfortable that the article currently does present a neutral view, but given that it has been edited by an editor with a close connection to the company, other editors may take a different view. One editor previously labelled it with an "advert" tag. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

/* Vipula Wanigasekera */

Dear Teahouse

Editing has been done for the page. Please assist by stating any further action needed

Pasan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipula wanigasekara (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Before you put any more work into improving the article, have you evidence that Vipula Wanigasekera is notable, in the sense in Wikipedia uses that word? I've checked the first few references, and found nothing there to establish his notability. If you believe that there are references there to independent sources that discuss him (rather than based on statements by him, or mere mentions of him), which are they? Maproom (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vipula Wanigasekera has been declined twice. David notMD (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Nigerian Chieftaincy

Hello.

I just wrote my first Wikipedia article and I've uploaded it, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to alter the title to read "Nigerian Chieftaincy" and not "User: O.ominirabluejack/@Nigerian Chieftaincy". I would very much appreciate it if you could tell me how to do that or if you could do it for me. Thanks in advance.

Also, my article still needs to be worked on quite a bit outside of that. I've added a reference, and I will add more momentarily, but I'd very much like it if somebody out there was interested in co-editing with me. Shared credit for the final product is on the table. Any takers?

Yours sincerely,

O.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)O.ominirabluejack.

O.ominirabluejack Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You've edited a subpage of your userpage, which is why the title appears that way. It needs to be moved into the main encyclopedia to formally be a part of it, but it is not ready yet, as it only has one source. It's fine to work on it where it is and doesn't need to be moved until it is ready. Articles need multiple independent reliable sources to support their content. When you have made improvements, you can submit the draft for review using Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no "credit" for creating articles, and very definitely, there is never a "final product". With few exceptions, all articles can be edited by all editors.

An edit to the wiki page: 27 ClUB

Hello, I recently discovered someone who should be included in the 27 CLUB. They will be an extremely integral member! The page seems to be locked or I can't find the edit button?

Please let me know how to proceed.

Best,

Berzorker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzorker (talk • contribs) 06:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Berzorker Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you note, the page is protected from editing by new and unregistered users, due to continuous violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Any edits to that page need to be well sourced to independent reliable sources. If you have a source for your proposed change, you should make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Want to ask why my page was deleted from Wikipedia Louis Whyte Jonah (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Louis Whyte Jonah

Your user page was deleted because, as it says on your talk page, "the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals". A user page is intended for you to write about your activities on Wikipedia –what you have done here, what you intend to do here, your views on what editing needs to be done and how it should be done, etc. Maproom (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Louis Whyte Jonah (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As noted on your user talk page, you edited your user page, which is not article space. It is a place for you to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is not a place to write an article about yourself. For that matter, writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources say about article subjects, not in what the subject wants to say about itself. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources have chosen to say about you. The vast majority of people cannot do that.

If you just want to do something like post your resume or tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

writing an artical

Hey, I am new here as a Wikipedia editor I just sign up so how should I start or write my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsaraswat (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Samsaraswat Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for wanting to contribute. I would caution you that successfully creating a new article is the hardest task on Wikipedia. New users who dive right in without a good understanding of the process often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as work they spent hours on is mercilessly edited and deleted by others. I want you to have a good experience here and not have bad feelings. Because of this, I would strongly advise you to first build up some experience and Wikipedia knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is being looked for in articles. Many users start small by making edits to correct spelling at first, then gradually move up to more substantive edits and finally article creation. New users that do that are much more successful. It's also good to use the new user tutorial.

However, if you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should definitely read Your First Article, in addition to using the tutorial. You can then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. In this way, you will get feedback before it is in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to Sita page

Recently, multiple IPs and users (including a reentry blocked sock) have been removing sourced content, to push a certain WP :POV on Sita page. The recently blocked sock seems to reappear and edit again using IP address and also new users making their first edit and so on. The blocked sock had also used uncivilized language in edit summary. What should I do? Can anyone please help. Thanks. —Jakichandan (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You could request page protection, which can be done at WP:RFPP. However, this is much simpler in the case of unambiguous vandalism. If all of the IP addresses and/or new users are unambiguously block-evading socks then it should be straightforward to have them blocked and it may be that an admin will also be willing to apply protection if it is frequent and ongoing. Otherwise, given that it appears to be essentially a content dispute, you may first need to get a clear consensus that the POV being added on the page should not be added, and you can then point to this consensus when requesting page protection. Regarding the uncivilised language, this can be reported at WP:ANI but unless it is especially egregious or frequent, it may not result in any immediate action other than a warning. Hug^syrup 08:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Help regarding a music-related article

Hello guys, can someone help me make this page verifiable and let me know if it's good enough? > URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TNO_(DJs) Reneeshdonga (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Biographic article was declined for insufficient references.

Hello everyone! An article I've written was recently declined and the message I got referred me to here, if I have any questions about how to fix things. For some context: I'm to write an article here on wikipedia about my professor of roman law. (I'm her assistant.) I've already successfully done so in german, my native language. I translated the article to english myself, as I'm bilingual, not really changing anything. The article was pending for a while and I just saw now that it was declined for the reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I take this to mean that the article lacks independet sources on the subjectmatter. I admit, the only reference in the article is a reference to a book she co-published. However I don't believe there are any other references I could add, since she doesn't have a biography written about her. I linked her info-pages from the universities she works in under "Weblinks". Perhaps I should move those to "References"? I'm not sure how I could change the article so it fits the criteria better. The exact same version in german was accepted rather quickly, which surprises me even more. I also worked on a chinese version with some colleagues from China and I know they had some issues at first as well but those seme to have been cleared. Any help or suggestion is very welcome. I don't know if anyone here can read the articles, but just in case you can: Her name is Iole Fargnoli. You should find at least the chinese and german articles about her. Thank you for your time. VonWerdt (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)VonWerdt — Preceding unsigned comment added by VonWerdt (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC) VonWerdt (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)VonWerdt

Courtesy: draft is at Draft:Iole Fargnoli. And to VonWerdt, please 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

submission

Hi, I created an article on the musician Danny Briottet a long time ago, but it doesn't appear to have been published. I made some changes as suggested but still not published. I based the format of my subbmission on those on comparable musicians such as Alex Patterson and Andrew Weatherall, so I don't really see why there should be a problem. I am disappointed as I would like to contribute more to wikipedia. Could someone please let me know if and when my work will be published? Thank you, Gene