Hosta

Cannot log in

Hi I did an edit on the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannesburg&action=history

I am recorded as Sologalaxy. I have also created a user page.

When I try to log in now it says "There is no user by the name Sologalaxy"

What do I do?

Sologalaxy (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sologalaxy: You appear to be logged in fine! Did you have the capitalisation correct? Sologalaxy would not be the same user as SoloGalaxy, for example. Sam Walton (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Chemical Composition and data sheets on 17P4 metal

In need of suppliers / manufacturers of metal 17P4. I think it is part of the stainless steel group of metals (165.145.234.48 (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

draft reads like advertisement, help with correction please

Hi teahouse,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Save_Cambodia%E2%80%98s_Wildlife

Can you tell me, if any, which sections are ok and which ones i have to rewrite/delete in order to get the article approved? THANKS for your help! AndreaAnRoCa (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

AnRoCa: a Wikipedia article should provide facts, rather than mention hopes and aspirations. The draft Save Cambodia's Wildlife contains the phrases "aims at", "focuses on", "mission". If I were given the task of making it into an acceptable article, I would start by deleting every sentence containing any such phrase. Readers will want to know what it has actually achieved, as described by independent sources. Maproom (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

pendro

hello i am just trying to make article about my village but you already threatening to delete my article! why?(Pendro 07:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoshhat (talk • contribs) Article is Pendro --ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Khoshhat, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed the Proposed deletion, as you have now added some text and some references. Please read Referencing for beginners to see how to present references better. I think that Robert McClenon was rather precipitate in proposing deletion eight minutes after you created the article; but in future, if you use the article wizard you can create drafts in Draft space, where they will not usually be subject to such rapid reactions: please have a look at WP:your first article. And please sign your contributions to to talk pages and to project pages such as this one, with four tildes (~~~~). --ColinFine (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Autobiography of a deceased person

I was trying to create an article for a personality who served his people and area for decades.His services might not be visible on internet, but few references for his struggle and news about his services are available too.I have tried thrice to submit my initial article with few paragraphs, but unfortunately it was rejected. Thanks to advise me accordingly,

B/R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashfaqhk (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ashfaqhk. If several sources exist, then you should cite them in Draft:Shehbaz Khan - consulting Help:Referencing for beginners if necessary. This will help demonstrate that the subject of the article meets our golden rule of notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You also created Justice Shehbaz Khan, which I have nominated for deletion. I suggest concentrating your efforts on improving and sourcing the draft version. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Rating our own articles

Is it correct for an editor to rate her own article creations in the talk page and assign it as an A/B/Start Class Article with an arbitrary importance.Jupitus Smart 03:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jupitus Smart. I believe the information you're looking for can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. Personally, I think it's better for someone other than the article creator to do the assessing although there's no real harm involved because such assessments are unofficial and articles can be re-assessed by any editor who feels differently. If you have created an article and want it to be assessed, check out the WikiProject pages whose scope the article falls under since they often have instructions on what to do in such cases. WP:FA and WP:GA, on the other hand, are much more formal evaluations which need to be done according to proper procedures. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Jupitus Smart 05:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello from rmeriales

Hello and Greetings, just signee up to the wilkipedia for me to start submitting bio information for Rolando Meriales de Leon. Unfortunately I am stocked for confirming the posted page. Reciving notice for the like of deletion of the page, this make me worry of failing the process. regards, rmeriales
--Preceding note added Rmeriales (talk | contribs), 12:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC+9)(and the sig added CiaPan (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC))

The problem with the article was that it was not written with a neutral point of view, and as such it read more like an advert (please click on the links to read the policies on those topics and on help on how to adhere to them).

One other thing I need to check - are you Rolando Meriales? If so, then you should never write about yourself for reason of Conflict of Interest, and besides, having an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. If you are not Rolando, then your username is unfortunately going against the username policy and will need to be changed (see How to change your username). Stephen! ^Coming... 06:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Having Trouble Posting a New Article

Hi! Sorry, it seems like there are a lot of questions on here about posting new articles, but I can't quite seem to figure out what's going on. I wrote a new biographical article about a mathematician here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kathryn_Hess But now I cannot seem to find any way (either by editing the title, or hitting some kind of "Submit for Review" button) to actually turn it into a real article.

It's certainly not perfect, but is it not suitable to be posted? I seem to be receiving an "alert" about needing more citations, though there are a number of citations on that page already. Is the article not suitable? I plan to add to it in the future.

Thanks for any help with this! Jonathanbeardsley (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jonathanbeardsley. I fixed it up a bit and will move it into article space. It's not the total number of references that matter, it is those that are about her, not by her. So her papers don't really count. However as a fellow of a society there is no question that she is a notable mathematician. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jonathanbeardsley. Regarding academic papers, please read our notability guideline for academics. The number of papers an academic has published is not really significant on Wikipedia. What matters far more is how many times their academic papers are cited by other researchers in peer reviewed scientific journals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi cullen328, this mathematician has been cited a lot but how does one incorporate that into the article? I don't want to list all the papers that have cited her. It'd be quite a long list.Jonathanbeardsley (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, Jonathanbeardsley, it is not necessary to include the frequency of citations in the article itself, although it can certainly be mentioned on the article's talk page. Rather, the citation rate would be a strong defense if anyone nominated the article for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Another question about submitting new article for review

thanks, CordlessLarry and StarryGrandma for your input. I am working on multiple articles at once, and it was the Ida Hill article in my sandbox that I was referring to in my earlier question, although Elizabeth Pierce Blegen in my userpage sandbox is finished also.

I added the code that you recommended and now there is a big box of info that is really confusing me. It does not look like I have submitted my article.

Can you take a look and let me know if I need to do something else or has my article been submitted properly? Is there an easier way to submit articles for review than adding that code?

thanks MauraWen (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MauraWen. No, you have not submitted your sandbox draft about Ida Thallon Hill. You need to click the blue button at the very bottom of the gray information box to submit it for an Articles for Creation review. In the future, if you write your drafts using the Article Wizard, that submit button will be added automatically. Please also be aware that the Articles for Creation review process is entirely optional. Once you are confident that you can create an acceptable article yourself, you can just move your drafts to the encyclopedia main space yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Help solving potential bombardment before submission

Hello again, my admired Contributors:

It has been pointed out to me through an experienced user that a draft article I am writing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alice_Waddington) could be what the site calls bombardment. I would like to know if you could either indicate how to solve this in this particular case or if you could touch it up directly for me. I refer 65 film festivals in it and have therefore included a total of 105 different sources for different claims. The most sources a statement shows is 2.

Thank you so my dears!

Marthadaisy MarthaDaisy (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarthaDaisy. The large table is the problem as the comments have been trying to tell you. Encyclopedia articles summarize. That much detail is bombardment. Remove the table completely. Then write a paragraph about just her most important actual awards, not nominations. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MarthaDaisy. I am in complete agreement with StarryGrandma on this matter. Instead of listing every obscure film festival that has nominated one of her films, trim this content way back to include only her wins at notable film festivals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why can I not currently submit my draft for review, please?

Hi!

Beginner here. Just a second ago there was a button available to submit my draft for review but it seems to have disappeared before I had time to.

Could anybody tell me what happened?

Thank you!

Marthadaisy

MarthaDaisy (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a bug whereby whenever a reviewer adds a comment to the draft, the submission template gets removed. I've had to replace it a few times already. Also, please stop removing comments from the draft, MarthaDaisy - they're helpful to the reviewer when you submit it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

submitting new article for review

What is the wiki code I need to put in my draft so my article can be reviewed?

thanks MauraWen (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen. It got removed by mistake and the editor put it back. Its there now. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The code is {{subst:AFC draft}}, MauraWen. You seem to have several drafts on the go, so it would help to tell us which one. (StarryGrandma seems to have worked it out, but I couldn't!). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I didn't find it. I thought I was answering the question above. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Identifying Sockpuppets without the corresponding account

I try my best to identify Sockpuppets from among users. Looking at the contributions of some users, the way they exhibit proficiency over many Wiki policies and tools right from their initial contributions indicate that they could be sockpuppets. However I am unable to find out which account they used to use based on their contributions, and therefore cannot take the case to SPI. Is there some way I can find out their former accounts. Or can I start the SPI with just the new account as I have seen Checkuser find sockpuppets from accounts besides the ones I suggested in earlier case. Jupitus Smart 18:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can answer that question directly, but I can give you a couple of tips on finding sockpuppets. Just the fact that a newbie knows policy and tools right away doesn't necessarily indicate a sock. Some users edit off an IP address for years or months before making an account. However, one way you can tell a sock is to look at the history of an article and check users with very similar contributions. Socks tend to edit the same kind of article and they tend to also be POV pushers or copyright violators or something else against policy. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jupitus Smart. You need to be very careful about accusing people of being sockpuppets unless you have convincing evidence. Perhaps the editor has abandoned an old account for a good reason, and is making a Clean start, which is entirely legitimate. Perhaps they have a lot of experience with other wikis. Some people do a lot of preparation before starting to edit. In my case, I spent a couple of months studying Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and procedures before I began editing eight years ago. I wanted to be sure that I was doing things right, but I made my fair share of mistakes, of course. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. After they are caught once or twice, Sockpuppets understand policies and stop editing the pages they were associated with earlier, making history matching tougher. I have a perfect record with my SPI sleuth work till now (3 cases) and, even though I managed to lock in on 1-2 people who I believe are newer versions of blocked accounts, I don't have exact evidence to point towards the same. And since some of them have been made within days of their original account being blocked, clean start is also ruled out. Anyway thanks for trying to answer my doubt. Jupitus Smart 03:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jupitus Smart. While sock puppetry is surely disruptive, using multiple accounts in an of itself is not automatically disruptive and is actually allowed under some circumstances as Cullen328 points out. Also, statements like I have a perfect record with my SPI sleuth work till now (3 cases) and, even though I managed to lock in on 1-2 people who I believe are newer versions of blocked accounts, I don't have exact evidence to point towards the same may actually make others question your motivation and mistake your comments for bragging. Personally, I view WP:SPI as simply one of the ways the community uses to prevent serious disruption of the encyclopedia; I do not see it as something to be won or lost. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

My intention in mentioning my record was not for bragging but to show that I am not a trigger happy accuser, but frame my cases only after careful consideration. As for 'winning', the problem with SPI is that editors don't like to be accused of illegality and it leads to a lot of bad blood if I end up 'loosing'. I therefore personally believe that if I have any chance of 'loosing', its probably worth waiting for an even longer period so as to be absolutely sure that I have got the correct connections. Anyway I will probably wait for a little more while, before I am absolutely sure about going for the SPI. Thanks for replying Marchjuly.Jupitus Smart 05:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I request a detector of article's issues

Hello there.First time whe ni joined here on Wikipedia here show to me Edit or don't know what written there but i edited lot when was time to l'm going to sleep,next day when i enter on Wikipedia The detector how articles need edits has vanished! Please i want edit pages to bad grammar to good grammar or export page be on readers language...Etc. Please help me and tell to me how i can have it again for edit pages with Isuues Silviu (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Silviu, welcome to the Teahouse. As a new user you may have seen the feature at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. You can for example try it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanda,_Uttarakhand?gettingStartedReturn=true. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Silviu, thank you for your edits so far, some of which have been good. Please be careful, though, to make changes only when you have checked that the English is actually wrong. It is easiest to do copy-editing in a language in which you have full fluency. Dbfirs 19:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain Golden Rule?

What are these two terms: Talk namespace and Template namespace and what is the difference? SharynSharyn Finnegan (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sharyn Finnegan, welcome to the Teahouse. The Talk namespace is pages starting with "Talk:" like Talk:Tea. It's used to discuss the content of the associated article Tea. The template namespace is pages starting with "Template:". Templates contain Wiki markup intended for inclusion on multiple pages. There are many other namespaces. See more at Help:Using talk pages, Wikipedia:Template namespace, and Wikipedia:Namespace. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Talk namespaces and Wikipedia:Template namespace, to add some links. Lectonar (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Sharyn Finnegan, what is sometimes called the golden rule is something else: WP:GOLDENRULE. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

New article creation

Hello,

was trying to create an article for one of the producers of Bollywood. But the article got rejected. Was truing to create a Wikipedia article page for Kalpesh Vivek Pansare Kalpesh Vivek Pansare (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kalpesh Vivek Pansare. You seem to be trying to write an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Please read our guideline on autobiographies. In addition, your draft article is completely unreferenced, which is contrary to policy. Please read and study Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing 'Proposed for Deletion' error

Hi. I added a reference to support my page about a person. How to remove this error though?Ahmed Ali Raza (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ahmed Ali Raza. The article in question is Faisal Taj. I have removed the proposed deletion tag, since you added one reference. However, I am not sure that this cricket player meets our notability guideline for cricket. Is he playing at the highest level? If he meets the guideline, I suggest expanding the article and adding more references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if I can remove the template messages on my article. PLEASE HELP!

Hey everyone, I am posting this for the second time. I seek your help.

I created this page a few months ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurabh_Uboweja. There are multiple issues on the article - sounding like an ad, no real information etc. I picked up the references from official sources. I have corrected the language multiple times. I am not sure if I can remove the issues yet. Can someone please give me a feedback? Divyasinghrathore (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Divyasinghrathore. The article in question is Saurabh Uboweja, about a person who specializes in brand promotion. Uninvolved editors tend to be highly skeptical of such articles which tend to be promotional in nature, and often involve conflict of interest. Please read and comply with our policy regarding conflict of interest. Your best reference seems to be an interview in The Economic Times, but this is an interview with the subject, and therefore is not a fully independent source. Notability on Wikipedia requires references to significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the topic. Accordingly, I have my doubts whether this person is notable based on the references now in the article. As for the various awards, these look like run-of-the-mill industry backscratching awards to me, as opposed to truly significant awards. Accordingly, I think that the tags should stay on the article until it is improved significantly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:M. A. K. Aurangzaib Yousufzai

I posted an article that is basically profile of a person with introduction to his work. Same profile was published in other website, which was in reference. It was added in speedy deletion, whereas being profile it can be sameShoaibumar (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I want to tell you that unless you can make a valid claim that the text from another site can be freely used or is in the public domain, text from other websites cannot be copied to Wikipedia. You must use your own words. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 17:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Help with Location map

Dear community, I would like to make the maps look like the Quebec City map, just for the Tanta and Alexandria region, for the 2017 Palm Sunday church bombings article. But now I have some trouble.

A) There are two regions that should be covered B) It's like there are no maps for those regions

Anyone who can help me here? I think I might use some OpenStreetMap, where I don't know how to change the name to English street names. And I don't know how to create the templates for the maps and how to include it into the article?--Rævhuld (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rævhuld. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. You will find the tools and the resources you need there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Question to Yashovardhan re Matt Johnson Writer submission

I have to say I find Wikipedia chat the hardest website to navigate on that I've ever used.

I want to reply to Yashovardhan re the submission of Matt Johnson Writer page. I'm not sure what isn't notable - there are newspaper articles mentioned from The Sunday Times and The Telegraph - reputable UK newspapers. There is a link to the publishers Wikipedia page which mentioned him and also links to where the book has been shortlisted for awards. How much more proof that he's a published author, written two books, mentioned in newspapers and doing well is needed? I'm confused.

Thanks SianPhillips (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Rather than using chat, it is normally better to communicate using the editor's user talk page, so that the conversation is there for everyone to see. In this case, it is User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania, which is linked from his notification to you on the draft and also your own user talk page. (You could, of course, have replied there.) --David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user

Hi fellow Wikipedians! How can I know when I was granted status of being an 'autoconfirmed user?' It is because I am planning to state it on my user page. Thank you! ~PogingJuan 12:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey PogingJuan. That's...umm... a good question, since the only entry in Special:UserRights/PogingJuan seems to be an update from none to extended confirmed. TimothyJosephWood 13:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You will have been autoconfirmed when your account was 4 days old (on 26 May 2016), as by then you had already made at least 10 edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@PogingJuan: Right, autoconfirmed cannot be manually granted or removed so I think it would be a little pointless to mention the time on a user page. 'confirmed' can be granted by administrators but it's done relatively rarely because it's easy to become autoconfirmed which gives the same rights as confirmed. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Wrong language link -- but the edit page has the right link

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_of_Megalithic_Culture under Languages, you find German as one of the links. This link is wrong; it goes to "Großsteingrab im Ipeken" instead of "Straße der Megalithkultur". The German https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fe_der_Megalithkultur, on the other hand, links correctly to the English page.

Now the puzzle. If you click to edit the wrong link, you're taken to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2354267#sitelinks-wikipedia. On this site, the link to the German site is correct. There is no sign of the incorrect link to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fsteingrab_im_Ipeken. Where is that incorrect link defined, and how can it override the entry in wikidata?

Cheers, Liontooth (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Liontooth. The links are at the very end of the article. I guess if links are explicitly added to the article itself they override Wikidata. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Finding the "named reference"

Many times, I encounter a "named reference" in an article, and on numerous occasions, I can't find the original name of the reference, even by searching the entire article in edit mode. For example, in Audie Murphy, there is a reference called "sfn|Murphy|2002". Where do I look up the book that name refers to?--Quisqualis (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis and welcome to the Teahouse. It is not a named reference. See Help:Shortened footnotes. The reference generates a link to a reference with author last name Murphy and year 2002 in the list of references surrounded by refbegin and refend in the References section. StarryGrandma (talk)

That good article will take you a while to get your head around. Look at the References section, the extra 'harvn' makes it link. Then you just use the author surname and year as presented. If you have two authors, you give it two links. Always preview or play in your sandbox. CHeck and check before saving. Dave Rave (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: There actually is a named reference involved but the name is generated by a template so you don't see the name in the source. I copied the parts which work together to produce your example.^[1]

• Murphy, Audie (2002) [First published 1949]. To Hell and Back. Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 978-0-8050-7086-6. 

{{sfn|Murphy|2002|pp=4–7}} and {{cite book|last=Murphy|year=2002|ref=harv}} automatically make matching anchors CITEREFMurphy2002 so a click on "Murphy 2002" at Audie Murphy#Citations links to Audie Murphy#CITEREFMurphy2002. {{cite book}} can have additional parameters without affecting the anchor. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these explanations. There is a term a couple of you used, "harv" or "harvn" which I can't deduce the origin of. Does it come from the cited source or from WP in general? And what might it mean?--Quisqualis (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Quisqualis: A name with "harv" refers to the citation style Harvard referencing. Several citation templates have such a name or parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Will swtiching to visual editor make me lose all my changes?

I went back to my article to edit some more and when I clicked the pencil icon to switch to visual, got a warning that all my changes would be discarded if i switched!! Now too scared to try anything...please advise. Article has been submitted for approval...I was assuming I could continue to edit while it awaits approval, but maybe that's the problem. CharOster (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You submitted Draft:Stratford Caldecott successfully, but it was declined with a note to provide more sources as to notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:CharOster - Also, you can continue to edit a draft that you have submitted for review. The reviewer will see and act on the most current version of the draft, so if, after submitting the draft, you think that it can be improved, you can improve it. The previous versions are available in the page history, but it is the current version that is reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The warning that all of your changes would be discarded is only a warning about all of the changes that you have made since the last time you saved, not about changes that you made that have already been saved. (You can roll back changes that you have previously saved, but you have to do that deliberately.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi CharOster. Other than through deletion by an administrator or oversighting, all edits, once saved, are permanent, are available from the page history, and can never be lost barring the compromise/destruction of Wikipedia servers and all backups or of the internet, say through the end of civilization as we know it, reversion to barbarianism, the singularity, takeover by the Lizard People, and similar likely events. I am not familiar with the specific mediawiki message you saw but I guarantee you it refers to something like non-saved edits made after clicking source editing, and then a switch to visual editor before saving, and not to prior saved edits. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

How to put a photo onto a Wikepedia page without running into copyright issues

Dear All,

I'm really worried about adding suitable photos for certain articles that I see on Google Images because I'm scared I'm going to run into copyright issues. Please tell me how to tell which photos I can put onto Wikipedia without running into any issues whatsoever.

Pianoguysfan (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: I don't really know how to put images onto Wikipedia anyway! Please tell me how!

Pianoguysfan (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pianoguysfan. The vast majority of the photos you can find with a Google Images search are restricted by copyright and not eligible for use in a Wikipedia article. A much better place to search is Wikimedia Commons since all images there are OK to use on Wikipedia. Image use policy is very complicated, so it would be best if you can mention the specific article you are working on and what type of photo you are looking for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The surest way to have a photo without running into copyright issues is by taking a photo yourself. That way you are the copyright holder and you can do whatever you want with it, including releasing it with a Wikipedia-compatible license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Pianoguysfan. Here's some of the ground rules.

1. Any image you find you must assume to be fully non-free copyrighted, and cannot be used here unless you have affirmative and verifiable evidence of copyright status that makes it usable here. This excludes a vast cross section of images you find on the Internet, and through a Google image search.
2. Usable images are those which are either in the public domain or are under a suitably-free copyright license (meaning the image is copyrighted, but is permitted to used on a very unrestricted basis, that is as free or freer than the licenses most of Wikipedia's material is released under).
3. "Public domain" is often misunderstood as meaning publicly posted or publicly used, which have little bearing. It means that the copyright of the image has been affirmatively released by its owner into the public domain (e.g., the owner so states in relation to the image), or it has passed into the public domain because of some situational status, such as that it was not subject to copyright in the first place (e.g., an image created by a U.S. federal employee during the scope of his or her duties), or because of timing, coupled with publication status—which can be summarized as the image being:

   • Created/photographed prior to 1896 (whether published or not) = PD.
   • Published before 1923 = PD.
   • Published after 1923 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
   • Published between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
   • Published from 1923 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
   • Unpublished and created/taken before 1923 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
   • Unpublished and created/taken after 1923 = too complicated to get into.

4. Suitably-free copyright licenses can be viewed here.
5. Images that meet the above standards should be uploaded to our sister site, the Wikimedia Commons, and not locally, so all Wikimedia projects have access to the image. Images at the Commons can be displayed here natively.
6. There is a strict and limited exception to the above, which is that non-free images can be used under a claim of fair use, but they must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. Such images cannot be uploaded to the Commons, but only locally. Rules of thumb for that are also complex and I don't think it would be useful to go into them unless you come back with specifics of what image you are looking to use, and it seems a fair use exception might be applicable. Just note one exclusion that covers a lot of terrain: generally we cannot use non-free photographs of anyone who is alive.
7. You can use an advanced Google search to try to locate suitably-free images. Go to Settings → Advanced → usage rights → Free to use, share or modify, even commercially.
8. You might try the "FIST", Free Image Search Tool.
9. Once you have uploaded or found an existing suitable image, the mechanics of placing it for display can be read at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, but the most basic markup is [[File:Name of image.extension|thumb|Caption to display below image]].

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I update my husband's Wikipedia entry?

Hello,

My husband has a Wikipedia entry. Whoever wrote it, wrote he was married to somebody else, which he was, a long time ago.

I'm not particularly jealous, but I thought I should get the record straight, so to rectify the inaccuracy, I added my name and deleted the ex's.

A few minutes later, a message from a bot said I "shouldn't be writing my autobiography".

Question: is updating on Wikipedia my husband's clever decision to marry me a sin in wiki terms? Am I writing my autobiography? Really? 2A00:23C5:9C03:1E00:3DC5:4FC8:870A:86DC (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. Your question here is the only edit you have made with your current IP (unless you usually edit using an account, in which case your IP is hidden and your edits would have been recorded against that account) and you haven't specified the article, so it's hard for us to give specific advice. However, in general I would suggest following the advice at Wikipedia:Edit requests to post a requested change on the talk page of the article, giving a source for any material that you want to be added. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

For a bit of background on Cordless Larry's suggestion, please see WP:AUTOPROB. --08:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Should I remove this template message?

Hello

I am wondering if I should delete the copy editing template message on the page "Sangareddi." I did edit it but I am not sure whether to delete the message or not.

If you happen to see this, could you either tell me or do it your self?

Thank you.

OA123 (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Give me a sec and I'll take a look. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if I can remove the template messages on my article. PLEASE HELP!

I created this page a few months ago - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saurabh_Uboweja. There are multiple issues on the article - sounding like an ad, no real information etc. I picked up the references from official sources. I have corrected the language multiple times. I am not sure if I can remove the issues yet. Please help! Divyasinghrathore (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome. I took a look at the entry and I don't find anything that is overly promotional, so I removed those templates from the page. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsure if meets Notability standards

Been working on this article about the Egyptian Knowledge Bank (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Egyptian_Knowledge_Bank) for a week now. It got rejected the first time because I didn't have much time to focus on it, but I'm having a hard time finding good sources. Can someone have a quick look over and give me an idea if it's acceptable? Thanks! --13:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Kygies 27 (talk)Kygies27

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kygies 27. I think you still need to put work into finding and citing sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Also, beware of including original research in the article. For instance, the draft currently includes the sentence "Access is free for all Egyptian citizens, estimated at over 92 million, by using their National ID and email for registration, however it is limited by its predominantly English language content as only 35% of the population know English as an additional language, and that only a little over a third of Egyptains have access to the internet". To make that claim, you'd need sources that state that access to the Egyptian Knowledge Bank is limited by a lack of English-language proficiency, rather than just asserting that yourself based on language statistics (which incidentally are cited to a source that appears to be using data from Wikipedia - i.e not a reliable source). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Kygies 27, Cordless Larry, I was looking at this just now. I searched for "بنك المعرفة المصرى" (bank al-maʿrifat al-maṣri), and got almost "2800 hits" (actually 460) on Google News; about the first 250 seem really to mention the topic. There seem to be several reputable papers listed there, including Al-Ahram – this article, for example, is entirely about the database. I don't believe notability is in question. I do agree that the article needs some work and some tidying, but I think nothing that couldn't be done as well in mainspace as in draft. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the replies! I have been trying to find better sources, but am somewhat limited by my inadequate arabic language skills to fully search and understand Egyptian newspapers. As for the claim about language, I remember it was questioned in a source but I cannot remember where; but I am going to try and look into some other sources to see what I can dig up. Thanx! Kygies 27 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving pages

What limited the move to autoconfirmed accounts? Abuse? 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:A1 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Most abusive edits come from unregistered editors and new accounts. The autoconfirmed status helps reduce (though not eliminate) disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

oh. How long ago was this? And i think was grawp? 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:5B (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

article submission denied

Hello, I've just received a message from Yashovardhan Dhanania, that my submission has been rejected. How do I contact this person?86.191.77.146 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can do so here: User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the only edit you have made from this IP address, so that we cannot comment on why your submission was declined. I suggest that you register an account, which will maintain your history better. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The stuff I've written on my Userpage is getting mixed up with the Userboxes.

Dear Everyone,

If you look on my Userpage (User:Pianoguysfan), you will see the problem.

Pianoguysfan (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pianoguysfan, welcome to the Teahouse. {{Userboxbottom}} and many similar end templates must be placed at the start of a line because wikitext requires a table end |} to be at the start of a line. I have fixed it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter! Thank you very much.

Pianoguysfan (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Raido SOG,

vessels SOG, COG, [ BRG (Bearing) and DST (Distance) ]50.108.8.81 (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. It doesn't appear that you've actually asked an intelligible question, and I'm afraid you're going to have to go into a bit more detail for us to be of any help. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we get GamerGate added?

Can you add a GamerGate category describing the group GamerGate & it's goals for the game industry & gaming community? The only topic listed about GamerGate is 'GamerGate controversy' where the article tries to show that every member of GamerGate is a harasser. There are 77,000 people subscribed to KotakuInAction (closest thing to GamerGate home) on reddit who don't go around harassing people. In fact they're constantly condemning any form of harassment.

Do you honestly think that all 77,000 who believe in GamerGate's goals and ideals are harassers? See my point?

IMO add GamerGate as a category, describe it's goals, ideals & beliefs. Then you can link to the GamerGate controversy from there as well. All I'm asking is that you have a GamerGate category that represents the good people like me who are against self censorship, censorship & want honest journalism in the game industry.

Thank you for reading. Luzarius (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Luzarius. The answer is no. Wikipedia articles summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about a topic, and the reliable mainstream sources seem to describe "Gamergate" primarily as a harassment campaign. I have certainly observed a lot of that harassment myself. If coverage changes and the perception of Gamergate changes, then our article will change as well. By the way, Reddit is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. It is just a bunch of random people expressing their opinions. I am glad that you are not personally a harasser. Thank you for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

after reading WP {:RS :SYNTHESIS :OR} ...

I still find the Microwave_auditory_effect#Conspiracy_theories entry very "questionable" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microwave_auditory_effect#.22Conspiracy_theories.22

I think I did explain why but LuckyLouie did not address my basic questions

Albretch Mueller (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Albretch Mueller. It looks like the real problem here is that even the sources you yourself provide don't actually back up the claim that this is a thing. Some like this are pretty clearly speculation about what might one day be developed. Other's like this are flatly making fun at the idea. Other's like this and this have nothing to do with microwaves whatsoever, and are talking about acoustics.

So the synthesis is in taking a lot of speculation about what may one day developed, combined with stories not about the subject at all, and trying to reach a conclusion, i.e., that this technology exists, has existsed, and can explain current and past hallucinations and delusions, a conclusion which actually isn't contained in any of the sources provided. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

is encyclopedia britannica a viable source?

could i cite it in an article? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey The Verified Cactus. Probably almost always yes. In fact, since some versions of the EB are old enough to be in the public domain, at times nearly entire articles are based on them almost word for word. The only exception to this that I'm aware of would be things that are clearly outdated, like scientific articles with lots of recent progress, or racial/ethnic/geopolitical issues where the view of the British, being after all, a part of the British Empire, was not necessarily the most neutral (assuming you're citing an older version of EB). TimothyJosephWood 00:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

However, the public domain 1913 version of the Britannica is a reliable source as to what the opinions of literate Britons were in 1913 about subjects such as the Second British Empire. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

By 1913 the Britannica was US-owned. This doesn't necessarily negate what you say, but it does suggest caution.--ColinFine (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 03:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@VerifiedCactus: For the substance, see the policy, WP:PSTS- note, pace above, that ' articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (my emph). — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 10:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Experienced Editor to Comment on AFD

Can some other experienced editor please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pengurusan Aset Air and explain (if I am correct) to User:Alexander Iskandar that an Article for Deletion discussion looks only at the article that has been nominated for deletion, and that other stuff that exists is not considered? I first PROD'd the article when it was only one sentence that did not even state what country the company is in. (The fact that it is owned by the Ministry of Finance proves nothing, because out of approximately 200 countries, at least 100 of them probably have a Ministry of Finance, which is called something else in other countries, such as Department of the Treasury.) After the PROD was removed, which is any editor's right, and mention was made that the company is in Malaysia, I nominated it for deletion as not notable. The author is asking whether we should also review all of the other articles on companies in Malaysia; I am sure that some of them establish notability, and some do not, so that deleting them might be in order. (If I am misreading deletion policy, and we are required to look at other stuff, I would appreciate a clarification also.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Robert McClenon. I am in complete agreement that an AfD debate should focus primarily on the notability of the specific topic of the specific article. If we were to set out to debate the notability of every Malaysian company that is the subject of a Wikipedia article, my guess is that many would be indisputably notable, some would be non-notable, and that there would be some whose notability is debatable. None of that has any impact at all on whether the specific article at AfD should be kept it deleted. One article, one debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Experienced editor input appreciated

Hello again. I have started compiling a list of available procedures for dispute resolution. I'm confused myself about those, being relatively new to those procedures. It may contain obvious errors, and it's not at a stage where I would like to gather more official consensus for a guideline, just an early work in progress. Input and fixes are welcome here. Other than a reference work for myself, it may perhaps also become useful to link to other editors where relevant in the future. Thank you very much, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if I have misunderstood your purpose for the page, but doesn't Wikipedia:Dispute resolution already cover this, PaleoNeonate? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It does, up to a certain point (and is also linked in that list of course). Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How do I archive my talk page with a bot?

I want to archive my talk page automatically. I know there are bots out there, but I find them very complicated to understand.

It would be nice if it could do following:

• Looking at my talk page like every 24 hours
• Archiving every post that is older than 14 days
  • It shall be able to clean all of my talk page. I don't want to let one or two old posts be there so that the page isn't to empty. It's just nonsense.
  • It doesn't matter if it got one signed post or not. If its too old, it's too old.
• Automatically archive posts with the Requesting immediate archiving... template

Is there anybody who can help me with this? Another thing: it would be nice if there would be a link to the archive(s) at the top of my talk page.

Kind regards and thank you!--Rævhuld (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rævhuld. I think this should do it: copy and paste this to your talk page:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(14d)
| archive             = User talk:Rævhuld/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 100K
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 0
}}
{{Archives|search=yes}}

I'm not actually sure if the | minthreadsleft = 0 is needed, or if leaving it blank would default to zero, but that should allow the bot to "harvest" the page to a clean slate (if it meets the 14-day threshold). For a guide to what the parameters mean, see User:MiszaBot/config. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Last question: does this archive all posts labeled with Requesting immediate archiving...?Rævhuld (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure, but Cluebot III definitively states it implements {{Archive now}}, so you could use this instead:

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive
|age=336
|header={{aan}}
|maxarchsize=100000
|minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=1
|format= %%i
|archivebox = yes
}}

By the way, you can escape a template; make it into a link, by placing tl| at the start or a host of other template link prefixes; that is {{tl|Archive now}}, or you could also place nowiki tags. I don't think it will matter here, but displaying a template when you just want to refer to it as in this thread can cause problems at times. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Trying to get an article accepted

Hello, I am trying to create a Politician article and it has been declined. Help would be gratefully appreciated. I received the following comment: does not meet the requirements of the Politician category "there is no point resubmitting the article unless she receives significant coverage in reliable sources." I have cited multiple sources from reliable resources, for example, the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Please help!!!

We did a lot of research on the front end about other political figures, including the following: Sam Massell, Anna Peterson, Theresa Thomlinson, Ceasar Mitchell, Mary Norwood, etc and it does not appear the notability as presented per the their page is unlike what is presented in the Jannquell Peters draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jannquell_Peters 44303 atl (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 44303 atl and welcome to the Teahouse. The Atlanta Journal Constitution articles just mention her. They are not substantial articles about her (that is what is meant by "significant", not the number of sources but how well they cover the subject). She is the mayor of a small town, not a major city. To show that she is well-known beyond her town you need several in-depth articles about her that are independent of her, that is not interviews or press releases from her office. None of the current references do that. Also you have no references at all for her early life and education. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi 44303 atl. Further on to what StarryGrandma says above, some of the other pages you have compared this to may superficially resemble the draft you have worked on in their body, but it's all about the type, manner and depth of sourcing. Also, please see by way of analogy What about article x? In short, the fact that we have an article about one subject that is currently not deleted, or is in the article mainspace, is often quite irrelevant to whether another article belongs, because at any given time, we have many, many thousands of articles that should be deleted, or pared back, or rewritten, etc., and just haven't been looked at by anyone yet.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Speedily Deleted

Hello all, My page " Softcom Limited" was speedily deleted on the Wikipedia website. I will like to get it up. I read all the policies and I don't know clearly why it was deleted. I will like to know why the page was deleted and I will like to fix the issuesKayleby (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kayleby. This was deleted because it was found not to indicate the importance or significance of the subject by its content. Whether I agree with that or not, it very much was written like a blatant commercial, which is the other reason for deletion. The respective speedy deletion bases it was deleted under are CSD A7 and CSD G11. However, there was a bigger problem than either of those reasons which was not caught, which was that it was a blatant copyright violation of softcom.ng/about. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted content here again. Since an article attempt like this is just about always the efforts of an insider, please comply with our mandatory disclosure requirements for paid editing before editing further. I will leave a template on your talk page about this. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

So what can I do next to make it better--to salvage the situaton? Should I write a fresh wiki article? Edit this one--it has been deleted already. Or, should I do paid writing? And how do I get about that?Kayleby (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Kayleby. If your article has already been deleted I suggest that you create a draft before fully publishing into the article namespace. This will allow you to freely work on your article without having to worry about it getting deleted. You can also check out articles for creation where you can receive assistance from more experienced editors. I wish you the best of luck! eurodyne (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it. I am not in any way been compensated for this article, though. I didn't immerse myself much in the guidelines like using the right words in conveying the subject matter e.g neutrality of point of view. Also, I was looking for a "save to continue" button but couldn't find so I had to publish, not forgetting that I didn't take time time to proper;y piece the words together.I will be grateful if I got another chance at fixing this. What do i do next? Should I rewrite the article, submit it under the "articles for creation" section? I will love to get it off the ground soon. Thanks Kayleby (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

How to add templates?

I've seen other people's user pages, and I see that they've added things like "This user is a mammal" and "This user is a Christian". I'd like to add things like that, but I don't know how! May I please have some help? Thanks so much, GermanGamer77 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, GermanGamer77, and welcome to the Teahouse again. These are called userboxes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Then how do I make a userbox? GermanGamer77 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Also, I don't know how to get the thingy to make a certain image appear on a site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanGamer77 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC) How do I make a userbox appear, and how do I put an image in it? GermanGamer77 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I really need help with userboxes. GermanGamer77 (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Finnusertop linked the userbox page above, which contains directions for creating your own, as well as entire listings of already made userboxes. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 18:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Creation for ĀR RÄ

I am trying to create a page for a notable individual. However, I am having difficulty doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%C4%80R_R%C3%84

Thanks!

66.255.30.19 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey anon. The problem is that most of your sources seem to be to an official website, which doesn't help establish that the subject meets our standards for notability, because it's not an independent source. A lot of your other sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]) don't really seem to have much content at all, and definitely don't qualify as in-depth coverage, which is the kind of coverage that actually does establish that the individual is notable.

So what you need to include are references that have in-depth coverage, are independent of the subject, and otherwise meet our standards for reliability. TimothyJosephWood 12:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, please remember to log in before posting. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

IMDb data to Wikipedia

Is there any easy way to transfer data from IMDb to a Wikipedia article ?

Noemmy22 (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't, they're not a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, don't. See here why Wikipedia:Citing IMDb – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia professional for hire?

Hello - we have been persisting with trying to have a page accepted for over seven months. Can someone recommend a person in Australia to help us at this point? The issue seems to be one of notoriety even though we have provided links to government awards (Citizen of the Year), JC's award (Outstanding Australian), winner of a Churchill Scholarship, founder of one of Australia's largest charities working with homeless youth... founder and instigator of the New Zealander of the Year awards (highest profile and largest awards program acknowledging achievement by individuals and communities in NZ). Unfortunately most of the achievements prior to 1985 are in print media and not in digital format. Perhaps this is the obstacle? We have hundreds of clippings from 1974 to 1995. We're frustrated and wondering if an external advisor or consultant can help us meet the criteria for publishing. Jeffreyjhopp (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeffreyjhopp, I would NOT suggest hiring someone to get the article in. PAID editing, altho allowed, is highly discouraged and the subject of much controversy and strife here. That being said, sources do not have to be online to be usable. Do you have a draft of the article? If you'd share a link to it, we'd be much better able to help you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that the article is Draft:Jeffrey Hopp, in which case it is either an WP:autobiography (which is strongly discouraged), or the account is impersonating, which is forbidden. My guess is that this has been done in good faith, imagining that to write an article about somebody you should use their name as an account: if that is the case, please change your username, Jeffrey Hopp (or abandon that account and create a new one). Also, please note that Wikipedia accounts may not be shared. If there are several of you, you must use individual accounts.

As John from Idegon says, sources do not have to be online. They must be reliably published, and you must give information that would allow a reader in principle to obtain them, eg from a major library. Please see WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jeffreyjhopp. Unless you misposted above, you seem to be mistaking "notoriety" for "notability", in particular Wikipedia Notability. Wikipedia defines "notability" in a manner which probably different from how many of us commonly use the word in the non-Wikipedia world. In order for your draft to be accepted you are going to need to show how it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (people). The best way to do this is provide citations which show that Hopp has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Finally, one more thing about paid editing. You probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest#Law of unintended consequences. It might be possible to find someone willing to take money from you to write the article you want, but they cannot guarantee that whatever they create will never be deleted or edited by others. Any article can be edited by anyone at anytime and any article can be nominated for deletion by anyone at anytime. The Wikipedia community hopes that edits are made in good faith and in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and will usually steps in when they are not. Likewise, the community will endeavor to keep and fix articles whose subjects are Wikipedia notable, but will not hesitate in deleting those which are not. No matter how well written or how perfectly formatted an article may be, it will likely not survive for long if the subject is not Wikipedia notable. So, basically what you'll be paying someone to do is Google for sources about the subject and anything they find you probably could have found yourself for free. If you find the significant coverage needed, you can simply write the article yourself or ask for help at Wikipedia:Requested articles. If no such sources exist, then the other person may still take your money and may still write a "pretty" article, but it probably won't be long until it's nominated for deletion. Be aware of anyone who offers you any guarantees about creating an article because either they have very little idea as to how Wikipedia works or they are not really being totally honest with you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

My page has been deleted many times, WHY?

My page has been deleted many times, WHY?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinay_maurya {help me}Seovinay (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seovinay: As was explained on your talk page (three times), Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself.

You are not supposed to write about yourself here. We are not Facebook or Linkedin. We do not do "personal pages". We are not a place to post your resume or CV. All articles require multiple reliable sources that are not affiliated with the subject but still specifically about it. Each of those sentences is a link to a page you need to read. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Seovinay. Please understand that Wikipedia has little interest in anything which a subject (whether a company, a person, a band, a charity, or anything else) says or wants to say about itself. That includes the subject's own publications, and also anything published by an independent source but based on an interview or press release from the subject. An article should be largely based on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places. In any case, every single fact or claim in an article should be derived from a published reliable source. Please see WP:V for more information.. --ColinFine (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Seovinay: Please remember there is no such thing on Wikipedia as 'your page'. There may exist a page 'about you' and there may exist pages '(co–)written by you', but no Wikipedia page is 'your' – please refer to Wikipedia:OWN page for more detailed explanation. --CiaPan (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Seovinay, in addition to the reasons outlined in the previous answers your username & occupation ensure your articles will attract extra scrutiny. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and continually struggles to fend off attempts to use it for advertising. Emphasising your work in SEO in your autobiographies and in your username guarantees your work will be scrutinised more closely. At present your only contributions appear to be attempts to promote yourself. Wikipedia is created by volunteers; we volunteer to build an encyclopedia; we don't volunteer to advertise you. Cabayi (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Will I get banned? And what in particular are mistakes?

I've already completed the tutorial adventure, but I'm worried that I'll still get banned. Is there anything one of you can do to help? And what exactly counts as a mistake?

GermanGamer77 (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Only /you/ can prevent yourself from getting banned. Continue to make constructive edits, cite your sources, and stay unbiased. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:GermanGamer77 - Why are you concerned that you will be banned? Do you have a history of making enemies in various communities, or of quarreling? If not, you probably won't in Wikipedia either. Editors who get banned quickly usually get banned because they are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, such as trolls, flamers, and vandals. Occasionally good-faith but highly combative editors get banned, but they almost always have plenty of warning and chances to shape up. Why are you concerned that you will get banned? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:GermanGamer77 - Some good-faith new editors do make common mistakes and get blocked, which is not the same as being banned. Most blocks are temporary. An indefinite block is similar to a ban, but most blocks are temporary. Some of the mistakes that result in blocks are edit-warring, personal attacks, and tendentious editing. Those are easy and common mistakes to make, and blocks for them are temporary, and you should learn from them. Avoid those mistakes, and you are unlikely to be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• @GermanGamer77: You already had useful feedback here and at your talk page, but I will take this series of edits as an example. Why did you do these changes? I can only guess, but either it is your personal analysis (you think that is the truth), you read it somewhere, or you lie to advance a political point ("it should have ended this way"). The problem is, the previous version is fairly clearly the common consensus among historians, from verifiable, reliable sources. To make a change to sourced material, you need even better references backing it up; and to make that change, you would need ironclad sourcing.

Such one-off mistakes are not a problem and you will likely not get blocked for it. However, if you stubbornly try to reinstall your version, or keep doing the same mistake again and again without learning, then you will get blocked. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You see, I keep accidentally making these biased things, but I don't really do that anymore, so that's not the problem. What is is that I'm fine now, and I made some correct edits on Hannibal's crossing of the Alps. So, I'll be OK now, so there is no need to help anymore. Also, I'm gonna need an article to expand. :) GermanGamer77 (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Feedback about my draft welcome!

Hello, fellow editors!

I would love it if you reviewed my current and ATM only (need to learn the basics first) draft (not sandbox! :)). I plan on submitting it tomorrow for review so I am nervous!

Please ignore the external links that link to non-wikipedia pages-- working on that this afternoon. Also would love suggestions to prove the statement that the director I am writing about would be the youngest, female Spanish one to ever direct a feature film.

Thank you so much, everyone,

Martha

MarthaDaisy (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Try the Wikipedia tutorial for basics, and submitting sandboxes are usually rejected. Hope that helps! GermanGamer77 (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarthaDaisy. Just for the record, there's nothing really wrong with submitting a sandbox as a draft, and I don't think doing so means that there's a greater chance of it getting rejected. Drafts for articles are usually better off being in the draft namespace, but userspace drafts are acceptable. The most important thing is whether you are able to establish the Wikipedia notability of whatever you're writing about. If you can do that, then all of the other formatting fixes, etc. can be cleaned up afterwards. If, however, you are unable to clearly do that, then the draft is unlikely to be accepted no matter how well written/formatted it is as explained in WP:ARTN. Sometimes a new editor makes the mistake of assuming that "more must be better" when it comes to getting a draft accepted. More content, more citations, more pictures, etc. mean that the draft's chances of getting accepted just have to be better. However, the opposite is often the case since "more" can be seen as "unnecessary clutter" which might make it difficult for the reviewer to assess the subject's notability. Reviewers are volunteers and may be unable to spend tons of time weeding through a long content-dense draft with lots of sources to be verified. I briefly touched upon this in my post on your user talk page about a week ago, and still feel that the draft might actually be made better by removing some of the extraneous detail you've added and focusing more on the parts that you believe Draft:Alice Waddington clearly shows that WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO are met. That is why I also suggested you ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers since the editors in that WikiProject probably can offer more specific pointers based upon their experience with similar articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

In particular, you have about 50 citations in support of one uncontroversial claim, many of them duplicates like this: [55][55][55][55][55][55][55][55][55][55][55]. That just looks crazy, as well as making the table unnecessarily wide. It certainly doesn't impress anyone. I suggest that you remove all but one of those references. Maproom (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

... and I see it's not even for an award, just for a nomination for an award that she didn't win. The draft would look better if you removed all the nominations. Maproom (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi MarthaDaisy. I don't think is likely to be a direct reason for rejection of the draft, but I started a copyedit and was mostly fixing citations. You might look at those edits to see what I'm suggesting. It would be great if you worked on them a bit, to provide better attribution to the source. Retain the original title for non-English sources, and use |trans-title= for the translated title. You can tell the reader the source is in Spanish using |language=en (whoops) |language=es. This is minor but it's really good when using named citations to use something unique from the source as the reference name, such as the author's last name, and not ":0", ":1", ":2", etc., which make it difficult for you or anyone to locate a previous citation for re-use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I think the draft was created using the Visual Editor(?) rather than "Edit source" which most old-timer Wikipedia editors use, and I think that inserted the current numbering of citations. Maybe it handles them well, I dunno. I am unfamiliar with the syntax but in this edit i just segregated the egregious "[55]" duplicates on the Madrid Fashion Film Festival row, and in this edit I removed the duplicates. That fixed a display problem which made the "Category" column too wide, at least for me using Chrome browser. --doncram 04:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I presume that Fuhghettaboutit meant to write "You can tell the reader the source is in Spanish using |language=es", MarthaDaisy. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Thank Larry. I actually stared at your post and mine for a while thinking they were identical before seeing the "en". Too close to what you have yourself written.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

WOW! This community is so great. Thank you everyone for your ideas, just saw them as I cannot be on the site everyday. Checked but could not see the crazy consecutive annotations, could have been a glitch? Anyway I will try and use all these ideas. Excited. Thank you again!!MarthaDaisy (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Still in Queue

I have attempted to get an article published and it was rejected twice. Both times, it was reviewed within two days. I edited the article again in an attempt to better meet Wikipedia's standards and again submitted it. This was over two weeks ago and it is still waiting review.

Could there be any reason it is taking so long other than a long queue of articles? As in, maybe because this is the third time it takes a backseat to first-time attempts? Or is it just that the editors are backed up?

JRose1317 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JRose1317, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's just the backlog, I believe. You've submitted Draft:Moonstone Arts correctly, so all you need to do is wait. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, JRose1317. I agree with the comment above that the backlog is the reason you have not received feedback on the article. As far as I know, the number of resubmissions should not be a factor. As I write this note, the New Pages Feed shows "18,544 total unreviewed pages", so many other users are waiting for reviews, also. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Though note that draft reviews and new pages patrol are different things, Teblick. The queue for the former is currently 752. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Cordless Larry. I failed to notice that difference. Eddie Blick (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are there two drafts? Draft:Moonstone Arts and Draft:Moonstone Arts Inc.. Pick one, stick with it, and get the other one deleted (add {{db-author}} to the top of the article). Chopping and changing looks like you're trying to ignore the first assessment (even if you aren't). Cabayi (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a U.S. pedia or a global pedia?

Can you point me to policies or guidelines on this? thx Humanengr (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Humanengr. This is the English Wikipedia and language is the only qualifier that applies there. We attempt to cover as many topics as possible which meet our notability guidelines, and we attempt, although we sometimes fail to achieve a product that is free of bias in this regard. However, we do allow for a regional focus on topics that are of a regional importance, and this applies right down to the variety of English we use.

So, for example, you would expect an article on Leeds to have a heavy UK focus, and an article on Apartheid to have a heavy South African focus, but you would also expect an article on Bridge or Racial segregation to represent a global perspective, and not concentrate unduly on Western countries, including the US. TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thx. Follow-on qqs: Should an article about a dispute between another nation and the U.S. be treated from a global perspective? Should it present accusations by one nation against the other as 'fact' (as opposed to, e.g., A has accused B of … )? Humanengr (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the devil is in the details, and it if were clear cut enough that I could give you a definitive answer, then there probably wouldn't be an open RfC on the matter. In general, we should avoid stating opinions as facts, but it's not entirely clear here whether saying X concluded Y is definitively the same thing as saying Y is true, rather than another way of restating X's opinion is that Y is true.

Now, the real question seems to be, either way, would one way of stating the claim strongly imply that it was unquestionable fact, even if it doesn't come right out and say it. For the answer to that we may just have to sit tight and wait for the end of the RfC. But if I wanted to argue against it, I would probably go the route of trying to argue "from implication" as it were.TimothyJosephWood 19:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I guess I should ping @Humanengr:. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Details: A's investigations concluded 'with high certainty' that B did x to y. Given that, should the title of the article say 'B x'ed y' or something else like 'A's investigation of x'? Humanengr (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, I know this probably isn't the answer you want to hear, but honestly I wouldn't stress over it too much. The article is almost certain to very drastically change over the next six months to a year, as the final reports from two congressional committees as well as the FBI start to come out (assuming they'll be unclassified, which seems likely at least in part). But overall, I can't say that I really know which way the article should go, and I don't at all envy the person who has to close that RfC, because it's gonna be a tough one. TimothyJosephWood 19:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: To clarify: Assume the U.S. completes its 'investigations' and concludes with 100% confidence that 'B x'ed y'. That is still not a global perspective; no international trial, not even an U.N. resolution, or anything of that sort. For an article to say that 'B x'ed y' without such is a U.S. perspective. Such a narrow view 'stresses' WP to the point of making it a mouthpiece for a particular nation's (in this case, the U.S.) perspective. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of WP? WW Jimmy Do? Humanengr (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs). Should I be pursuing this issue (in particular or in general) in another WP forum? Thx again for the feedback. Humanengr (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, In a lot of ways you're absolutely right, and we should be conscious that information coming from a particular government likely comes with some kind of an agenda behind it. For example, I guarantee there's someone right now working on an article somewhere about an event that happened 50 years ago, and correcting errors that have been there for a long time because the relevant documents have been declassified by the US government and we now understand the full story.

But at the same time, often we have to go with the best sources that are available, and it's difficult to find better sources because so much of the information is, and will for a long time be classified. Obviously if the UN or a respected NGO puts out an independent report, we should probably prefer those results over the US investigation. But for now, for example, a report of a bipartisan congressional panel, half of which have a very big interest in keeping the current president in power and blameless, is not terribly bad as far as a source goes, and it should probably be in our hands soon.

I wouldn't escalate any further at this point. There is an open RfC, and that is the mainstay tool of Wikipedia for resolving these kinds of issues. Maybe more importantly for you, if you try to cause a stink at a place like WP:ANI or WP:NPOVN, they're going to tell you fairly quickly to come back after the RfC is completed, because there's already a dispute resolution tool in place to deal with the issue. TimothyJosephWood 21:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Valid point. There are several dozen articles that I'd like to 'correct', but due to lack of sources (*classified documents / NDA*), I just sit here at look at them disapprovingly, until such a day comes that they are released for public consumption. ;) - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 21:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

NsTaGaTr (talk · contribs) The US is actually better at this than many countries, since there is an official time table for declassification, where in many cases, classified material simply stays classified forever. TimothyJosephWood 22:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@NsTaGaTr: Declassification of U.S. government docs is not the issue. Humanengr (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thx for acknowledging “a lot of ways". Re "a bipartisan congressional panel, half of which have a very big interest in keeping the current president in power and blameless”, the issue here is deeper and broader than that. The title of the article in question begins "Russian interference …” as a statement of fact. That fact has not been adjudicated (by anyone, much less an international court). (It has been investigated by an agency of the accusing party.) My question here is whether it is appropriate to present that as fact, which the title clearly does — when in fact it is an accusation by one nation (the U.S.) against another (Russia). As for the content of the article, of the 222 cites, only 3 are from Russia -- and those are to support one point in the entire article. To repeat, my question is whether this is a U.S. or global pedia?

And I do thank you for your other suggestions. But re waiting until "documents have been declassified by the US government" to "understand the full story”: on what grounds would deference be given to U.S. docs (now or later) rather than say docs from nation ‘B’? The UN? That is not a viable path given US veto authority. NGOs? That would be nice, but note that comments not toeing the party line by -past- intel officials or -current Senators on the Intel Committee- have been disallowed on various grounds. In any case, these are subordinate issues. The title statement sets the tone and context for all of this.

Finally, this issue is broader and deeper than an RfC or whether an article satisfies 'NPOV' or what constitutes RS when all those toe the party line re the issue above. It is about what it means to be NPOV re an international dispute. Twiddling with application of the current NPOV or RS guideline is inadequate. Else bye-bye integrity. Humanengr (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr: As attractive as they can be, broad statements about the nature of the project are rarely going to do any good in resolving a particular content dispute, and are probably not going to go anywhere in bringing people on the talk page over to your side. Whatever the extent of the systemic bias on Wikipedia is, it got that way by individual changes on individual articles backed up with particular sources and argument. So that's the level you have to address it on.

The way forward here is to find reliable sources that back up your arguments, and then continue to make them in as specific a way as possible on the article's talk page. Editors are rarely going to buy into an argument along the lines of the only source we have is baised, but can often be convinced by Sources A and B contradict source C. TimothyJosephWood 12:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx Timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs) -- This has been most productive; and apologies for not picking up earlier on your link to the systemic bias essay re American or European perspective. I note that the linked WikiProject Countering systemic bias has a section on "Significant Regional Disputes" but no section on “Significant Global Disputes”; and the former lists only "Arab-Israeli conflict”. While of course the language issue is recognized, the bias towards those nations with a “Special Relationship” with the United State and United Kingdom is not. Would this be appropriate for a WikiProject? The systemic bias in RS selection towards US (and UK, …) could presumably be addressed as part of this. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr, looks like that WikiProject is pretty dead. No new discussions since January 2015 on their talk page. But there's nothing saying you couldn't be the one to work toward getting it up and active again. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Would the most appropriate course to draw attention to this be to first or along with that raise this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or ?? Also, while there have been a few mentions of systemic bias on the article’s talk page and one brief mention that "We already have to live with the bias inherent our reliance on the Anglo-American corporate press”, this has not been addressed there as a specific topic or RfC. Given that this hasn’t been addressed there or elsewhere (AFAICS) on WP, but fits to a T the NPOV:Impartial tone policy that "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone”, would placement of an NPOV tag on the article be de rigueur given the 219-to-3 ratio of sources in a dispute between US and nation B (Russia)? Humanengr (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Humanengr: You don't really seem to have a proposition for a place like the Village Pump other than make Wikipedia less biased, and that's not really a proposition in any practical sense. If you're really into it, and you have about a half hour to spare, you may want to read through the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#WP:RS as a means of POV-pushing. It's not exactly on the topic you raise, but it is potentially related. TimothyJosephWood 00:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood: Thx for the pointer; will peruse further -- but one point in the first response indicates the scope and nature of the problem: "And this is not to say that your rule would declare reliable Russian and Chinese govt newspapers." So, re practical proposition: my current thinking is, given the difficulty of achieving 'global balanced POV’, the best that might be done for now (and quite possibly in perpetuity), is to apply -- by default -- an 'NPOV:global neutrality disputed’ to all such un-adjudicated, un-resolved (e.g., by Hague court, dispute settlement) US-UK-…-vs-x dispute articles. There is such an overwhelming, unrecognized, un-admitted bias by the editors of such articles and the cites they use, that there might very well be no other practical solution. (I see no possibility of acceptance of an NPOV tag by editors of such articles.) Else WP increasingly becomes a verbatim mouthpiece for US-UK-… media. I would think that would be a matter of concern at the highest levels here. Humanengr (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood: Given the difficulties there within the narrower scope of left-right w/i US politics (with some of the same editors there as in the article in question), that would seem to support my take above. How would one go about introducing such a tag? And again, I very much appreciate your efforts and guidance here. Humanengr (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Humanengr: Probably the closest thing to what you are saying is Template:Globalize. But I would add that the purpose of these tags is to add them to cleanup categories. They're usually used on articles that have very little community attention, and if they are used on highly visible articles, where conversation is active and ongoing, or if they're used en masse, it's very likely going to be seen as disruptive. Clean up tags don't actually fix anything, and aren't to be used as a "badge of shame". TimothyJosephWood 12:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

How to add a certain format of "patents filed" to a biography

Hello, I'm working on the insertion of a biography, this one contains a section of "Patents filed" and it was delivered to me in the following order of information : 2014 Patent Application xx/xxxxxx ; "Name of the patent" ; co-inventors xxxx, xxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxx Can anyone tell me how to insert it and with which Patent/Cite Patent style ? Or do i have to change the order of information or add any other information to it ? Thank you very much. Samy Ghannouchi (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Samy Ghannouchi. There is a template you can use, Template:Patent. But before worrying about the format, I suggest you step back and ask whether this information should be in the article at all. Do you have a reliable published source, independent of Tej Tadi, which discusses his patents? If you have, then how they are treated in the article should reflect how they are treated in the source. If not, then probably they should not be in the article at all. If the information you have is simply from the patent authority, then be very cautious about using it: see WP:PATENTS.

One more point - you say that the information was "delivered to you". Was this by Tadi, or an agent or associate of his? If so, then you may have a conflict of interest in writing about him, and need to be aware of the recommended best practice in this case. --ColinFine (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I used {{Ref patent}} when I added the Patents to William Helmore. Now, nearly 9 years later, looking at all the patents, it looks like way too much. My best advice, Be selective. Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

article rejected

Can you help us to establish why out article has been rejected? I have reviewed all of the information that they have supplied but I am unsure what else we can do, can you help? Nedcoten (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello Nedcoten. I assume this is about Draft:Ned_Coten. If you read and understood what was posted at your user talk page (admittedly a lot of links), what the reviewer Winged Blades of Godric said is that the subject of the article is not "notable" enough (at least yet) to have an article on Wikipedia. If you disagree, you need to provide references to show notability (how to do that is covered in the links of your talk page, but do come back if something is unclear); if you agree, the best thing to do is to drop the article entirely, because no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! If it was a sandbox draft, it'll usually be rejected. I learned that the hard way. Happy to help, GermanGamer77 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

GermanGamer77, article drafts can be placed either in the Draft: namespace or in a user sandbox or other user subpage, but the differences are very minor. It should definitely not impact whether (once submitted) the draft is accepted or not. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, Tigraan. I submitted a ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) article, but it was rejected. Many thanks, GermanGamer77 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How to move from Draft to Publish?

Hi,

I read about the move function and a few other requirements about being an authorized editor, but it does not answer my question. How can I publish my draft?

Thanks, HH Huma.hamid (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huma.hamid: you can add {{Userspace draft|date=April 2017}} at the top of your page, which should supply a submit button. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 04:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added this line at the top of my article in visual editing settings, but I don't see any submit button. What am I missing here?

Huma.hamid (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong template to use, Huma.hamid (because the draft isn't on a user page). Try {{AFC submission}} instead. That should give you a button to press when you're ready to submit the article for review. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

David Biddulph has done this for you. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Small correction for the benefit of others, {{AFC submission}} (without any further parameters) would not have given a submit button, but would have submitted the draft there and then. It's {{AFC submission|T}} or {{subst:AFC draft| username}} that gives a submit button. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops - my mistake! Thanks for the correction, David Biddulph. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your draft wasn't in user space, so I've changed the tag from {{userspace draft}} to {{AFC draft}}, and you now have the submit button. I was surprised to see that the {{userspace draft}} tag apparently didn't display anything at all in draft space; User:PaleoNeonate may be able to explain why? --David Biddulph (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out!

76.178.148.137 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding Organization Logo

Hi,

I think I just got hit by something a lot of first-time writers have experienced here. My first logo image got deleted.

I am writing about an organization and their logo needs to go on the article. How can I do that without violating the copyright? The organization is aware of the article and have no objections for using their logo.

Please help!

Thank you, HH Huma.hamid (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Huma.hamid. Non-free images like that logo can only be used under a proper claim of fair use, for display in an article only when in the article mainspace. Where that is possible, the image must be uploaded locally, to Wikipedia—not to the Wikimedia Commons where the deleted file was placed. So: 1) if and only if the draft article is moved to the article mainspace would a non-free image uploaded in relation to a fair use be possible (and right now it is not ready for a move there, because the draft does not demonstrate the tpic is a notable one by citation to reliable, secondary and entirely independent sources); 2) if the article draft can and does reach that threshold, upload it here, not to the Commons; 3) make sure the upload is of relatively low resolution; 4) make sure to place a filled-out fair use rationale and a copyright license when you perform the upload. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for making it easy to understand.

About article's notability, is your feedback be considered as a review feedback or there will be an official feedback provided to me?

Huma.hamid (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your draft will get a review when you submit it by following the instructions in the section above this one, Huma.hamid, but it's worth taking Fuhghettaboutit's comments on notability into account before you submit it for review, to maximise the chance of the draft being accepted. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This is very helpful feedback!

Huma.hamid (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please also note, Huma.hamid, that the organisation's wishes are of zero relevance to Wikipedia. if the organisation is Notable (in Wikipedia's special sense) then we may have an article about it, and if it is not, then we cannot: the organisation's wishes do not enter into the matter. Nor does anything the organisation has said, or wants to say, about itself: an article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have published about the subject: see WP:42.

However, your reference to the organisation's willingness about the logo suggests that you may have some connection with it. If that is so, please be aware that you are discouraged from working on any article about it. Please see conflict of interest for how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@ColinFine: It is a very valid and a very important point. Thank you for bringing this up and sharing the COI link.

76.178.148.137 (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability of Non English Persons

I was scrolling through random article and found one (A Turkish Footballer) that was a one sentence stub with an infobox. It had one reference that was just the Turkish Football Federation's page with some barebones info about him. I found no articles on the first five pages of google that were in English regarding this person except wikipedia and one athlete database. It seems to me that while he may be notable in Turkey, he is not notable in English speaking countries. Is this grounds for deletion? Alex the Nerd (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alex the Nerd. No, this is not a valid reason to delete an article, assuming that this person meets our notability guideline for association football players. It is likely that a Turkish speaking editor could easily expand this stub. Notability is a universal concept and is not limited geographically. Notability can be established by coverage in reliable independent sources in any language. Think of it this way: the English Wikipedia is the free English language encyclopedia of the entire world. It is not an encyclopedia limited to the English speaking world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 is right as usual, but I have a comment to add. Since this player is from Turkey, most sources will be in their language. Searching for English sources will therefore not bring up anything, but it doesn't mean sources don't exist. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alex the Nerd, if you are unable to read Turkish you could post a request for help at WT:WikiProject Turkey, many of the regulars there are proficient in the language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I need help

How can I edit wikipedia during school? --Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It should work. I do daily, and it works fine. If my comment doesn't work, then please contact a more experienced editor. :) GermanGamer77 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Welcome, Not-a-parted-haired-libertarian. Well, you probably shouldn't edit Wikipedia during school hours, but that is not my business. Anyways, you should be able to edit it just fine.

It is possible, however, that if you are using a school computer to edit Wikipedia, its IP address is blocked (i.e. forbidden from editing), because previous users vandalized Wikipedia, for instance. You should nonetheless be able to edit after you log into your account. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyrillic t displays as m?

I have encountered this twice, and realize that, most of the time, t is t. Any explanation? (most recently, in the name "Poteev", rendered in Cyrillic, in the article Illegals Program.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quisqualis. The string "Poteev" only occurs in this reference:

Полковник Потеев вместо полковника Щербакова [Colonel Poteev instead of Colonel Scherbakov] (in Russian). Interfax. November 15, 2010. Retrieved November 16, 2010. 

The Cyrillic letter т in Потеев looks similar to a Latin T to me in Firefox and not a Latin m. Maybe you meant "Poteyev" in this quote:

"Poteyev (reportedly, his full name is Александр Николаевич Потеев, Alexander Nikolayevich Poteyev)"

The letter is italicised there so it changes form from т to т. Te (Cyrillic)#Form says: "In italic type and cursive, the lowercase form ⟨т⟩ looks like the italic form of the lowercase Latin M ⟨m⟩". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I completely overlooked the italicization. Mystery solved; it's a Russian orthographic convention. Mysterious to me, but...Thanks!--Quisqualis (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have an article that needs expanding?

I'd like something to expand. Thanks in advance, GermanGamer77 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, GermanGamer77, and welcome to the Teahouse. Stubs are very short articles that need expansion. You can find all stubs here in a tree format that lets you find one in a topic that interests you: Category:Top-level stub categories – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Great! GermanGamer77 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I have successfully edited Soviet partisans by expanding it. :) GermanGamer77 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

About to be deleted article

Hello, My article on "Softcom Limited" was flagged down by you and put under "about to be deleted". I will like to take it off the "about to be deleted " tag. I don't know why it was flagged. The article is not promotional neither is it a type of advertising for the Softcom brand. I just feel they are doing a great job in spreading and developing literacy through technology in Africa and having them on Wikipedia will be a great way to encourage them to continue a good work and also inspire other people like me who are growing digital entrepreneurs.

I will like to know why it was flagged.I am still editing.And yes, they are lots of sources on Softcom Limited.

ThanksKayleby (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. It seems that your article is an advertisement for Softcom Limited and was tagged under CSD G11. Wikipedia is not for promotion and articles should be written from a neutral standpoint. Take a look at the links I have provided, as they go more in depth on new page policies. eurodyne (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Kayleby. Your previous post was also responded to above, at #Page Speedily Deleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

How to add links

How to add links 'Hi I'm here to Ask how to add links' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardaniell (talk • contribs) 22:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chardaniell. Linking to existing Wikipedia pages is done by placing doubled square brackets around the name of the page. Thus, [[Wikipedia]] produces Wikipedia. A useful expansion of this is done by separating what you want linked, from what you want displayed, with a pipe character ("|"), to create a "piped link". Thus: [[Wikipedia|encyclopedia]] produces encyclopedia, with the displayed text linking to the article, Wikipedia. You can link to internal sections of pages in this way: Wikipedia#name of internal section of that article. By contrast, for external links: http://www.example.org produces http://www.example.org; [http://www.example.org] produces [5]; and [http://www.example.org example] produces example. For more information, see Help:Link and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating a biography

Hi There

I am keen to understand how a biography can be created - please could you give me some information?

Thanks in advance

Chrid  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian McBride (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 

Hello, Christian McBride, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest having a read of Wikipedia:Your first article and, to gauge whether the person you want to write about is notable according to Wikipedia's criteria, Wikipedia:Notability (people). If you tell us who the person is, we will be able to provide advice on the latter. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Modifying output formatting of cite template?

The default output ordering of the cite template produces references that are kind of infelicitous for my purposes. For example, if I'm citing a volume, chapter, and page number, the chapter will be displayed prior to the book title, the volume after the book title, and the page number following publication information. Here's a real example from yesterday:

• Luo Guanzhong (2003) [1522]. "9". 三國演義 [Three Kingdoms]. 1. Translated by Moss Roberts. Beijing: Foreign Language Press. p. 155.  4 vols.

Here's what I'd rather have it look like:

• Luo Guanzhong (2003) [1522]. 三國演義 [Three Kingdoms]. Translated by Moss Roberts. Beijing: Foreign Language Press.  4 vols. 1:9:155

My question is if there is any way to ask the template to group the volume, chapter, and page number (or at least chapter and page; chapters seem consistently numbered without respecting volume breaks) into one place in the produced output. If there is no way to do this, what is the most acceptable practice to achieve the desired effect? I've been doing a lot of manual formatting of references which would be difficult to change if the MOS changes. Thanks in advance for any advice. Snuge purveyor (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Snuge purveyor: you need to raise an issue like this at Help talk:Citation Style 1 as it involves changing the layout of {{cite book}} which may have far reaching consequences as it is very, very widely used. Nthep (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok thank you. That sounds ominous. Sorry about the wrong venue. Snuge purveyor (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean it to sound ominous, - there is no one-off way of doing what you are after, so you are looking at a significant change to a widely used template which need to be discussed at the centralised discussion page for cite templates. Nthep (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

How can I modify my user name?

I would like to make a change in my user name. Is there a way to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtej (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. See WP:Changing username. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)