Wikipedia:Teahouse

I have an article rejected Draft:Mareeg Mediaeven though it has has lot of sources from web that I have cited I have cited. The reason they are saying it needs to be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However all similar site are included in wikipedia with less references? Is acceptance depend on the editors.Why firt rejection seems fair as it only asked to Fix reference errors. can some one shed a light on this to tell me the next step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warsamedhuje (talk • contribs) 2018-12-14T00:45:56 (UTC)

Do a web search for "mareeg mediaeven" and you will see why your article was rejected. Outofmario (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Warsamedhuje: What Outofmario is trying to say is a web search for the exact phrase "Mareeg Mediaeven" doesn't create any results. When the source for your question is viewed it becomes clear that you ment "Mareeg Media", but because of a missing space it displace as if the next word was part of the link. At Draft:Mareeg Media a notice appears saying that RHaworth deleted the page for being "unambigous advertising or promotion", I can't see the article myself so I can't make a judgement but it seems that RHaworth thought that your draft was not meant to be informative, but instead entirely as a vechile of advertising or promotion. —The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 04:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This Mareeg Media has a lot more reference than cited and very old news web. As knew to this community I am still in confusion as why it was deleted. I am not sure if Mr RHaworth is aware but I had declared an interest on said media never the less was only informative when I drafted. I am not going to do it I leave it to other editors to investigate if it notable enoughWarsamedhuje (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, from what I can see Mareeg Media does look to be a very important. From your disscussion with RHaworth on his talk page it seems that he is aware that you are willing to share your close relationship with Mareeg Media. I think in the end, as you said, it is best to leave it for others to work on the page for Mareeg Media. I hope your experiences so far do not discourage you from editing in the future and that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia and other related projects.—The Editor's Apprentice (Talk•Edits) 01:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I'm very happy to work with you guys.Thanks for inviting me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshd019 (talk • contribs)

So far, every edit you have made has been reversed. Wikipedia does not accept external links embedded in the articles. Warnings are on your Talk page. If you need help understanding the problem, ask specific questions here. David notMD (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can i create my own profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveselva7 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia does not have "profiles", it has articles about subjects shown to be notable with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You do have a user page that is for introducing yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia use, but it is not a social media type profile. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings new user. Just to add to what 331dot said, if by "profile" you mean an article about yourself in the encyclopedia then you shouldn't write such an article. There are various rules about wp:conflict of interest but rule number one is that you shouldn't write about yourself, it's just taken as a given that none of us can be objective about ourselves. For an article about you to be created you need to have done things that are documented in reliable sources such as major newspapers, books, etc. Even then it's up to others who know your work to write the article. But if by profile you mean create a user page that is easy to do and if you are going to edit, it's really the first thing you should do so people can leave messages for you, can collaborate with you, etc. If you look at the top right corner of any Wikipedia page you will see a bunch of links related to your account (if you have one and are logged in) or to login or create an account if you aren't logged in. There should be a link in the upper right corner for this page that says "Create account". Click on that and just provide a user ID and an email and you are on your way. Then you can also create your user page. But note that page is not a general page like a page for you on Facebook or a blog, but rather it describes your Wikipedia interests, what kind of pages you like to edit, what wikipedia groups you belong to, etc. For example, here is my user page: User:MadScientistX11. My page is pretty basic but some people put a lot of effort into their pages, which is fine as long as the effort is about your Wikipedia editing and not your general interests or promoting yourself. Once you have an account you also get a talk page where people can leave you messages. For example, here is my talk page: User_talk:MadScientistX11. Also, once you have an account you can automatically sign all your posts so people can notify you when they reply to something you said, there is a little squigle widget in the editor (between the Italics widget and the link widget) that automatically adds your signature which I'm going to use at the end of this comment: --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. First of all, thank you so much for inviting me to the tea house. So, my question is how many days does it take to get a page actually approved? Please, tell me if there is any issue on this particular page to be verified, thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajiul_Huda_Dipto/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajiul Huda Dipto (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiul Huda Dipto, I see two serious issues. One is that it's an autobiography. Writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged here. The other, even more serious, issue is that it cites no references. If you're still determined to try to get an autobiography accepted, you'll need to read notability and Help:Referencing for beginners and then cite some reliable independent sources. Maproom (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Rajiul Huda Dipto Welcome to Tea house. The backlog for a draft page to be reviewed at the moment is 4-5 weeks. Pls visit WP:Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to write an article and provide inline citation in Wikipedia. Secondly, pls remove all the external links and only provide one or two external links - pls see WP:ELMIN. Also pls visit WP:CREATIVE for notability requirements. You could also go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk to seek assistance on AfC matter. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks. My first edit as a registered user shows as 26 January 2007, yet my Global account information page says I registered on 27 December 2008 - nearly two years later. My contribution history shows I didn't make any edits at all on that day. Can anyone shed some light please? Captainllama (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I registered on en.wiki in January 2006 but my CentralAuth record says 2011. I don't think this is an issue unique to you. General Ization ^Talk 18:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Captainllama. The discrepancy is the distinction between your local and your global account; your enwiki account was registered on 12 July 2006, as can be seen in the local enwiki user creation log. However, your global account is different. The concept of a single unified login across all Wikimedia sites was released in May 2008, and your local account was converted into a global SUL account in December. That's why the dates are different. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm even older than I thought! - thanks for your help Writ Keeper Captainllama (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Tea-House-rs,

Okay, I have read pretty much the whole feed on new contributors and I'm still kind of lost. I signed-up on Wikipedia about a week ago, and have completed all the suggested training (Wikipedia adventure), sandbox creation, Article Wizard, and even the beta Translation functionality. I still don't know how to write an article and get it published. I tried translating a simple article of a politician from my country and I get the message that I'm not authorized to do translations. Then I tried to create the article from scratch but it's on Draft mode and I don't know how to change it to talk mode or to take the next steps to make it ready for review. Is there a practical guide that instead of teaching us how to bold and italicize text would give us a step-by-step guide on how to effectively go from the account creation to the article publication? I believe I have not found this so far and I'm sure many of you were in the same situation when you were youngsters :)

I appreciate any time spent in answering one or more of my probably basic questions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcerrano (talk • contribs) 05:27, December 19, 2018 (UTC)

hi Barcerrano Welcome to Tea house. Thank you for interested in editing in Wikipedia. see below and hope it may help

1. Read WP:Your First Article an referencing for beginner to familiar yourself on how to write an article and provide inline citations.
2. Use Article Wizard and follow the instructions to create an article. Since you article is on the draft space, when you think the draft is ready to submit for review, just add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft.
3. To bold - pls see MOS:BOLD and to italicize - pls see MOS:ITALIC

Pop back here if you need further assistance. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 19:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I’m feeling a bit self-conscious and about the edits I posted (it’s my very first time). I’ve observed how harsh some editors can be when responding to others, and I was wondering if there were a way to request gentle criticism regarding my edits; considering I’m new, I feel rather vulnerable about receiving feedback. That might be an unreasonable request, but it took a lot of courage for me to even write this right now, so I’ve been attempting to tell myself that the fact that I am at least trying is worth something. “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sadie_Hawkins_dance&oldid=868475289” The article has been edited since then but I guess I’m wondering if I could get some perspectives on whether or not my edits were on the right track and made sense to begin with, and honestly if it’s okay that I’m asking this at all. Thank you! I hope y’all are having a lovely day/night. MsKG (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)MsKG[reply]

@MsKG:, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm glad you decided to come here. Your edits to Sadie Hawkins dance look fine to me - what you did was to add tags where you found that there were no sources or that the tone was a bit off for an encyclopedia article. But more importantly, you also opened a discussion on the article's talk page about the issues you found. I completely agree with your assessment of those expressions, by the way, and I think you could be bold and edit the phrasing yourself. If anybody should disagree and revert your edits you should then discuss further on the talk page. Hope this helps! --bonadea contributions talk 21:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(oh, and I had no idea the Sadie Hawkins dance was an actual thing - I thought it was something the Buffy the Vampire Slayer creators had invented for that one episode. :D Editing Wikipedia is always educational!) --bonadea contributions talk 21:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the article I created a proper ref for you to insert into the article where you want to. And yes, be bold. No one disagreed with you opinion that the article is not NPOV. David notMD (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am LPS and MLP Fan. I created a draft for a page, which you can find here. I have been waiting for a few months now, and so far, no one checked my draft. Why hasn’t it been checked yet? If it gets checked and approved, I would appreciate it if someone let me know on my talk page. Thanks LPS and MLP Fan (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LPS and MLP Fan:, welcome to the Teahouse. The draft you created on 4 November was never submitted for review. You do that by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the page. Before doing so, however, you should try to find some more sources that would show that the book is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. At the moment there is only one independent source, a review of the book. The other source is the author's own website, which is not independent. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help us (the alums of Shimer College) communicate that the unique Shimer Great Books curriculum & pedagogy is still available to new students. I have attempted to change some of the verbs in the Wiki entry to the present tense but my changes were rejected for lack of references to existing sources. Please note internal inconsistencies within the Wiki entry. The entry IS up-to-date in acknowledgement of the current association with North Central College in Naperville, IL. To quote the current entry: "In 2016, Shimer announced an agreement to be acquired by North Central College "with the intention of a completed acquisition on or around March 1, 2017."[16] The agreement came to fruition on June 1, 2017 when Shimer's faculty and curriculum were subsumed into North Central as a department known as the Shimer Great Books School of North Central College." copied from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimer_College

The name has changed, as has the geographical location. I do not know the proper way to edit the entry. Nor do I have any source materials. This is my personal knowledge from serving on the Board of the Shimer Alumni Committee.

This is an urgent matter because the recruitment of students has been negatively impacted by the initial impression that Shimer is no longer available. I cannot count how many college counselors have insisted that "Shimer is closed" on the basis of hasty Internet searches. The use of the past tense in the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry has a detrimental effect on the continued existence of the program.

Please help.

Thank you. Mary Warner

P.S. I appreciate the complexities of the name change to "The Shimer Great Books School at North Central College" but I would imagine there are precedents for handling this type of institutional evolution that do not create the impression of death.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Know4Free (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse Mary. First, I'm sorry this has been difficult, one of the values I think just about all Wikipedia editors share is that we value knowledge and learning. The main issue here is that any information in Wikipedia needs to be sourced. And just having someone say it's true, even when it clearly is as in this case, doesn't count as a reliable source. Do you have any press releases or even better articles in local papers that talk about the changes? That's what we need to do is to find some reference that counts as a wp:reliable source. I'll take a look at the page and do an Internet search and see if I can find anything, if you know of any sources please let me know and I can make the change for you. It might be worth your while to look at the article on wp:reliable source so you can better understand what does and doesn't count as a good Wikipedia source. Note: it can be a paper that is only in print, we don't have to have a link to something online. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, I found 3 sources that I think are all worthwhile. One is an article in the Chicago Tribune, one from the Sun Times, and one from the Reader. The first two just talk about the acquisition as something in process but the Reader article confirms that it has actually happened: Tribune Article, Sun Times Article Reader Article. If you want to make the changes go ahead but if you want me to let me know, I can do it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just went and made some changes myself. I changed the tense in the intro section and added two of the references. I see that someone else (are you Know4Free?) made some similar changes and they got reverted by another editor. I think with these references I found the matter should be settled unless there is something I'm missing. But before I change any more of the article, I'm going to put something on the talk page and give the other editor a chance to weigh in. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need help in drafting my submission. Can you assist me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljmamis27 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ljmamis27; I'll try to explain the reasoning behind your draft's decline.

So, here's the deal. The main reason why the previous decliner declined it is because there is too much material not supported by an inline citation. Especially because this article is a biography of a living person, all material must be supported by a source inline. In particular, the Early life and career section does not have a source. Did you get this information from something you found offline or online? Or is it original research? If it's original research, you should remove the information, as original research is not allowed on Wikipedia; all material must be supported by a reliable source, especially for living people.

If you found it somewhere reliable, then put a citation linking to the source after the material the source is being used to support. It is preferred to format it in a {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} template, but it's easier to just add <ref>[URL LINK HERE]</ref> as a citation instead; if you would like to use that method instead it's fine as other editors will likely come along and fill in the ref soon enough. For example, if you found an online source that supports the sentence Castro was born on October 27, 1982 in the village of Fina Sisu, Saipan to Luis Tenorio Castro (1951 - 1999) and Margarita Quitugua Deleon Guerrero (1951 - 2015) you have in the article, you would add the coding – <ref>[URL of online source]</ref> – after the sentence, of course replacing [URL of online source] with, well, the URL of the online source you found.

Remember that you should do this for all unsourced material, not just the Early life and career section; for example, much of the Politicla Career section is unsourced. This may seem quite complicated, but once you get used to it, it's actually quite easy. This page contains a lot of useful information about how to cite inline. I hope this helps and if you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask! One thing I will say; your draft seems to meet the notability guidelines, which is something that is rarely achieved for users who submit their articles via AfC, so great job on that - really, the main concern right now is the "no inline citations" thing. Cheers and good luck with your draft.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ljmamis27 - In my opinion, and I reviewed and declined your draft, Draft:Luis John Castro, the subject is clearly notable for one reason. He satisfies political notability guidelines because he was elected to a territorial legislature. However, I did not find a reliable source to that effect, and sources in biographies of living persons should be in the form of in-line citations, also known as footnotes. I declined the draft, requesting that you provide a footnote. You then submitted it again, without providing a footnote, and I declined it again. I did not find the rest of his career to be notable in itself, and did not see a case for general notability. He is politically notable, but you have to provide a footnote to say so. That is the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am puzzled, in that it seems that there were two copies of the draft on this person, and I declined one copy, but the other copy was initially accepted by User:Legacypac, but since then seems to have first been draftified and then has disappeared. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have changed the title of this thread for two reasons. First, and this is a diddle, the article was declined and not rejected. Second, the title of the thread duplicates that of an earlier thread in this forum, and that causes the software to confuse them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined up as a "helper" in this project. First let me comment on what a great addition this help room to the WP project, and I am very happy to be available to help as I can. Second, I added a photo to my "membership card" here, and I can't get rid of the parameter text in the photo box. Resizing was no problem. I copied the photo from a place where I had entered it before with no problems. Maybe something about the TeaHouse infobox I'm missing? Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamster Sandwich: I'm happy that you've joined us hosts and that you like the Teahouse. As for your second problem, I've fixed it now. Although the coding layout you used, as I'm sure you know, would be correct for putting an image in a normal article, for this particular template you should only put the bare file name without the File: prefix or metadata. This is because the template automatically puts the rest; the prefix, the alignment, and the size (even though you were able to change the size somehow); the only modifiable part left for you to fill in is the actual image name. It's certainly an understandable mistake. The only thing is I had to remove the caption from the image, as AFAIK, you can't support an image caption parameter in the Teahouse host template. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 00:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TY very much for your easy to follow explanation. I did not know for certain about editing in the template box, but somehow surmised it might be the problem. Thanks again! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad I could help. Again, it's an understandable mistake; templates can be confusing to deal with sometimes.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how i can publish an article in the wikipedia. i want instruction step by step in point form — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrgsbandaraa (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rrgsbandaraa - and welcome to the Teahouse. Usually it's a wise step to not start out creating an article, but rather contributing small edits to existing articles until you learn the ins and outs of WP. But the best source regarding your first article is WP:YFA. Good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1966 film Blow-up by director Antonioni is incorrectly referenced [as Blowup, minus the hyphen] all over the wikipedia article. I have tried to change some of these but failed miserably. Cannot figure out how to do it. I truly wish that I could spend the time required to learn how to do these edits, but I am in the middle of so many personal problems right now that I cannot spare that sort of time investment. Loge Reborn (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment here User:Loge Reborn, I'm sure I read that article in the past and never noticed what might be an error there. Here's what I just found out:

• IMDB lists the film as "Blow-Up." [1]
• WP article for the soundtrack album Blow-Up (soundtrack) conforms to IMDB entry. Here is the Allmusic link from that article. [2] The album cover shot shows the title in ALL CAPS, but the entry is recorded as "Blow-Up" there as well. It appears to be a copy of the movie's poster, but I can't be certain of that at this point.

I think you might have a good point @Loge Reborn. I'll go visit the talk page and see if there has been any discussion about this by other editors which may have already reached a consensus on the issue. That's always an important step when you want to make a big change to an article. Cheers! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See extensive discussion on this issue on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should add to @timtempleton's comment that the talk page discussion there is pretty "mouldy" at 11 years, 7 years and 4 years gone by. The greatest volume of discussion was at the 11 year old mark and a 4 year old "Request for Page Move" that was closed as "No Consensus."

I think, based on the citations I have found, and the citations provided in the single comment by the editor in 2012 (Siskel & Ebert, et. al), might support another look at the page move criteria for this article. It may be that the evidence needs to be presented in a clearer and more concise way. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to new discussion on talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to ask: As I am new to this part of the project, is this a proper forum for this kind of "extended" discussion? My talk page? Loge Reborn's? The article page? Any comments would be useful to me. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is presently called Blowup, discussion of the specifics should be at Talk:Blowup. However, for anyone not knowing how to approach the matter, the Teahouse is just fine to start with. Now, as it happens it is not at all straightforward what this article title should be. The spellings of those responsible for the movie were all over the place and the muddle has continued. Before discussing changing an article title it is important to bear in mind the general policy Wikipedia:Article titles and if you want to enquire about the policy, or want to change it, go to Wikipedia talk:Article titles. If you decide a change of title is desirable Wikipedia:Requested moves is the place to go if the matter cannot be resolved at Talk:Blowup or if the opinions of people experienced in article titles are to be sought. As he has said, Tim Templeton has already copied the preceding discussion to Talk:Blowup#Film name discussion moved from Teahouse page. Thincat (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Teahouse

I'm a bit unsure as to whether i can create a page for our community group.
1. I only want to create a page with links etc, more like a website, with timeline and so on.
2. I don't want to have to learn coding to do this, as I've got a job already.
3. Can I write it up in word and then drop it into the page/edit section?
4 HELP!!

Cheers everyone.

1. mediahub — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelaide Barmies (talk • contribs) 05:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adelaide Barmies: When written as above, the answer is generally... no. Wikipedia does not keep any pages created for anyone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it keeps articles written about people, organizations, facts, places etc. And the basic criterion for creating such article is WP:Notability. Wikipedia is not a repository of links or means of promotion. It is to publish verifiable information form reliable sources about notable subjects. See the link I gave before for a general guidelines for notability, and WP:ORG for specific notability guidelines for organizations. --CiaPan (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adelaide Barmies: Once you gather enough facts to make more than a one-liner for your subject, and you find reliable sources for reference, I suggest you visit Wikipedia:Your first article for a tutorial of creating articles. Please be warned, however, that creating a proper article from scratch is one of hardest tasks on Wikipedia, so don't be disappointed if your work is not accepted as soon as you expect. The new users are generally advised to engage in expanding and polishing existing articles first, to gather enough knowledge of writing style and technical background.

Additionally, I'm under the impression you came here just to promote your group. Of course I may well be wrong – but if I'm not, please familiarize with (and follow) requirements of our policy of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I understand the group you mention is not a company and you're not hired by it, so the policy of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure does not apply to you – but it's worth reading, too, just to be on the safe side in the future.

I hope I didn't overwhelm you with all the notes above. I call all those rules for you to learn and consider in advance if your desired article fits rules of Wikipedia. I also hope they will help you find a 'safe' and easiest possible way to achive what you need. Best regards - and happy editing! :) --CiaPan (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to cite the art gallery spruethmagers.com but it is on the global spam blacklist. Where do I find the reason it was added to the blacklist please? Is the reason public or do I have to enquire at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Discussion? Thanks -Lopifalko (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lopifalko: You can check the history, most editors when placing a site leave an edit summary to explain their change and if they don't, you at least know who to ask. Use WikiBlame to find the revision easily without having to go through hundreds of entries. Regards SoWhy 08:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lopifalko:, additionally there is also the blacklist log once you know the approximate date of blacklisting. The log often points to related discussions (although it has significant gaps, especially in older logs). But checking both ressources - page history and logs - , you should be able to research the background for most additions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known to look at the history. But WikiBlame is new to me and very useful, and I have found the information I am looking for in the blacklist log. Thank you both. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tea House, Good Afternoon

Sir i request you kindly don't delete my edit on Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi page regarding Noorun Nisa because this added information is hundred percent fact. If you get any complain against this edit then you remove my edit. This is your right.

I hope that you will consider my request for encouragement of new guy as like me.

Thanking you in advance.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had a reply at your earlier question at #Regarding Maghfoor Ahmad Ijazi above, and at your even earlier question at #Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi further above, also on your user talk page at User talk:Masroor Chaudhary. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a sentence to the article Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi seven times and it has been deleted seven times. No one is disputing that it is probably true, but unless you can provide a published source stating this fact, it cannot become part of the article. Your persistence will result in you being blocked. David notMD (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this wiki article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Messina_(open-source_advocate)

I want to remove the "open source advocate" and replace it with "Hashtag Inventor" or "Inventor of the Hashtag" because the latter is more appropriate for Chris Messina. How do I do this? It seems to be uneditable currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editoroftheinterwebz (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Editoroftheinterwebz: You probably shouldn't, see Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation. Inventing something specific is not a defining characteristic of Mr. Messina. Calling the article "Chis Messina (Inventor of the Hashtag)" would be like having an article called "Chris Matthews (Host of Hardball with Chris Matthews)". Generally speaking, you can use the procedure described at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request a move to a different title. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can i create a own page in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveselva7 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Steveselva7: Hi there and welcome. You cannot create your own page because nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. You can edit and create articles though and if you want to know more about that, I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia adventure, a specifically designed tutorial for new users. Regards SoWhy 11:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Steveselva7: You got some answers here when you asked a similar question yesterday, and those might also be helpful. Best, --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me and guide which things should I add in my article or kept in mind or the changes etc. so it can add in the article space, I really want to publish my artist profile so my fan can know more about me

Please Help!

Thanks! Best regards Pranay S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MUNEofficial (talk • contribs) 13:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MUNEofficial and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to publish one's artist profile so that fans can know about you per this page; a good place to do this would be social media or your website. We are an encyclopedia which writes about topics which have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, sources. If I were you, I wouldn't pursue this topic but rather contribute to other articles; there's a lot that can be done on Wikipedia! With all this being said, if you still want to pursue this, you must provide reliable sources written by someone not affiliated with the subject which provide significant coverage of this rapper in the article; and all material must be supported by a source so that it can be easily verified. If no reliable, independent sources which significantly cover MUNE exist, then I'm afraid to say that the topic is not suitable for Wikipedia and that if it were to be an article it would be deleted. Don't get discouraged by this; creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Again, I would strongly suggest you try to improve Wikipedia in other ways and not try to get a page about yourself published; the general rule is that if you're notable, someone independent will end up creating an article about you some time or another. I hope this helps and let me know if you have any more questions! Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, pages like First Baptist Church, First National Bank, Washington High School, and other pages where all entries are the same type should be set index articles. I see no difference between the Washington High School page and USS Virginia, which is a set index article, and the only difference between the first two and the other two is that the first two use a mix of "of [place]" and parentheticals instead of (almost) exclusively parentheticals. Am I missing something?

I'm also wondering which disambiguation page/set index article has the most entries. First Baptist Church has 151 (unless I counted wrong), excluding red links. HotdogPi 14:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's some info about the differences on Wikipedia:Set index articles. Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why is Wikipedia bad???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhunguchuku (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us why you think Wikipedia is bad, Bhunguchuku, and we might be able to answer you. --ColinFine (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OP appears to have been a sockpuppet of a disgruntled paid editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Vintage leather jacket, sweet shades and a sick ride. GMG^talk 17:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks,

I want to put up a simple Company Information Wiki page for my company. It was declined due to lack of reliable sources. Do I need to cite some reliable sources? Would that be things like CrunchBase, AP Press Releases, etc?

-Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocchino75 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. This is an encyclopedia that is only interested in what uninvolved third parties write about an article subject. The sources you mention would not be acceptable. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use your own website or social media. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Many years ago a college student reached out and asked to create a Wikipedia page about me for a class assignment, pegged to a book I'd published in 2009. The resulting page was filled with a lot of unsourced, incorrect information and yesterday I went in and made some corrections (mostly deleting a lot of unsourced parts and adding sources where needed). I understand that this is a COI and am hoping to get some help from an existing editor so it doesn't revert back to the old version. Any help or advice is greatly appreciated, thank you! Here is the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Lyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklyon74 (talk • contribs)

• Let me have a look. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Jklyon74, your edits so far seem fine to me, though even the current content is poorly sourced, esp. the biographical part of course. Question is, what do you want--an "update" and improvement (we can work on that if you have some reliable secondary sources), or deletion? Because I'll be honest with you, notability per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR may be a stretch already: I see very little secondary coverage, outside of the book, and even the book doesn't have that much coverage. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for getting back to me so quickly Drmies Honestly I'd be happy to have the page deleted if that's an option. This all happened so long ago Jklyon74 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)jklyon74[reply]
    • Well, I can't just go ahead and delete it, but I can nominate it for deletion. Hold on; you'll get a ping in a moment. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "report" feature where you can notify mods about false information and bad edits and so on? Cause my librarian told me that it happens a lot on Wikipedia. The Giants 0 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once you get more experienced on the site and have an understanding of what is appropriate in terms of content, tone and sourcing, you can go to the history section and revert edits that are clearly vandalism or otherwise inappropriate. Hope this helps. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi, The Giants 0, welcome to the Teahouse. I presume this is the librarian at Ridge High School who told you that? They were correct. We have a shortcut abbreviation for it, known as WP:AIV. One more bad edit from you, and I'm afraid you're going to find yourself named there. If that happens, one of our administrators will pop by and block you from any future editing. So now's your chance to consider whether you're going to actually contribute constructively to the world's greatest encyclopaedia, or are simply going to fool around and get barred from ever editing anything again. You choose. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User now blocked from editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that went south pretty quick. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you upload a page on Wikipedia? please help me Sibulele Jr sonkosi Talk== ==19 December 18:56— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibulele_Jr_sonkosi (talk • contribs)

Hi Sibulele_Jr_sonkosi, and welcome to the Teahouse. If this is about Draft:Sibulele sonkosi then you don't upload it until you have established WP:Notability. You need to find independent WP:Reliable sources in which the subject has been written about in detail, then you need to summarise, in your own words, what these sources say. Sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia does not have an article on everyone. Perhaps in the future your subject will be written about in newspapers, then can Wikipedia have an article. Dbfirs 17:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had to change my location on VPN about 20 times to create an account why most of the ip's are blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatcha (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're using one of the VPNs used by one of the long-term abuse cases we have to deal with. That's not to say you're neceessarily one of them, popular VPNs would by the definition of "popular" be used by lots of different people. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can you suggest a VPN that is not blocked on Wikipedia. Eatcha (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I did, they'd start using that one next. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can the keywiki https://www.keywiki.org/Luci_Murphy be united with the wikipedia page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luci_Murphy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.200.239.179 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can't, they are completely unrelated to us. "Wiki" is just a software. KeyWiki's goals appear to be completely unrelated to Wikipedia's as well: KeyWiki is a political site, we're an encyclopedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to remove the request for expert attention here, since I've given it my attention. How do I do that? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: If you're satisfied that the article has received all the expert attention that it needs, you can simply delete the {{expert needed}} template at the top of the article. Deor (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wiki! I am writing an article about a non profit support organization and would like to use their logo in the info box. I can't seem to find information to do that correctly. I have verbal permission to use the logo, she sent me the photo...but I assume I need more. I found a template here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale_logo, so do I just add this to the info box template? How then, do I upload the photo of the logo? Do you have wiki tutors? I would even consider paying a bit. I am in the US. thank you for any suggestions!! MaryBB2009 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia MaryBB2009. If the logo is in a file on your hard drive, you can use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. In step 3 select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" and "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc" —teb728 t c 21:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MaryBB2009. That's how you upload it. To use it, copy the filename you uploaded to (not including the File: prefix) into the logo parameter of your infobox. —teb728 t c 21:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MaryBB2009, just note please that you cannot add the image to the article until it is actually published. If you're working on it in draft or userspace, you'll need to wait until it is actually an article in mainspace to add a fair use image. Also note that you'll need to upload it to English wikipedia, not commons, as they don't host free use images. Further, any free use image on wikipedia will be deleted after about 10 days if it isn't being used on an article, so don't upload it until your article is ready to publish. John from Idegon (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I sign a paragraph that I have added to a page? Cyrusep

This question was answered, but the answer has been removed, possibly by accident? The ~~~~ can be typed using SHIFT# on my keyboard. Dbfirs 22:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious: Cyrusep asked a question, 26... hijacked the question, Ian answered, Nick answered, 26... then deleted all that and returned the entry to the original question. So, to recap Ian and Nick - no one signs contributions to articles. The View history shows a chronological list of editors' changes, with their names. Everyone is supposed to sign comments here at Teahouse (as you did), at articles' Talk pages and on the Talk pages of other editors. David notMD (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd assumed that Cyrusep and 26... were the same person. Neither of them used tildes. Dbfirs 10:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I served as the Editor of The Lasting Bible, published this year (2018). You can learn more about it here, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20181017005728/en/LASTING-BIBLE-CR-Ministries. This is my first article I am trying to draft for Wikipedia, and I seem to have failed. Wiki has an article for “Weymouth New Testament”, “World English Bible”, etc.—why not for this new one? I think maybe Wiki thought the title was, “User:Paul G. Humber/sandbox.” Well, of course that should be rejected. I did not even intend it. Could someone write to me and be willing to serve as a reference person to help me get through my first “article.” I am 76 and may not be as computer “savvy” as I wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul G. Humber (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so I can't see the content which has been deleted from your sandbox, and therefore can't answer your question. But I had a look at the link you provided. You should be aware that "I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever" is likely to be interpreted by an ordinary sinful English-speaker in a way different from what I assume is intended. Maproom (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on published content about topics, not written by the people involved. It appears that "The Lasting Bible" has only recently been published, and the link you provided was a press release probably written by you. Thus considered promotional and speedy deletion. (You can send to the person who did the SD to get your draft back.) As an article topic, this may or may not ever achieve Wikipedia's definition of notability, but right now it is definitely too soon. Note that the "Weymouth New Testament" was published in 1903 and got a Wikipedia article in 2007. And even that is at risk, at the article has only one reference, and the last paragraph is unreferenced/promotional. David notMD (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My little brother used to run projects for a major bank. He is smart. He says that stock markets are artificial gambling rings run by bookies. He says if you invest in a company listed on the stock market, that company will never get your money. Rather, you will be betting on the company which only gets your endorsement and not your money. Does that make sense? Thanks! John Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.33.159.81 (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is not the place to ask that question. You might try the Reference Desks, but the question is really asking for an opinion, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The Reference Desks might be able to tell you what articles give the opinions of reliable sources on the stock market. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Day trading describes a practice that some banking gamblers engage in. In my opinion, your little brother is right about that sort of trading. For original share issues, the money goes to the company, so your claim does not make sense. Subsequent purchases have an element of gambling, but long-term investment, at least in theory, is investing in the growth of the company and a share in the profits (see Dividend). Apologies for the opinion, but do read the links. Dbfirs 09:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, While working on Articles needing additional categories from December 2017 for the first time I found these two articles that look like duplicates. Wondering how to get one of these deleted?

• Zata in title, but spelled Zatta
• Zatta (kebele in Ethiopia)

If an expert could do this correctly instead of me muddling it up that would be great. Thanks. JoeHebda (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoeHebda. Both articles were created by the same editor ("Zata" in December 2017 and "Zatta" in April 2018) and are basically identical content wise. My guess is that the title of the older article was incorrect; so, the creator just did a copy-paste move to create the new one because he/she didn't know how to change the page's title. An article about another town Zatta already exists; but it's not clear (at least to me) which of the two Zatta's should be the WP:PTOPIC. Since the content of the two you found appears to be identical, there doesn't appear to be the need for a WP:HISTMERGE; so perhaps the easiest thing to do with be to redirect "Zatta (kebele in Ethiopia)" to "Zata" as explained in WP:A10 and then figure out if the "Zata" article needs to be moved to correct the spelling of the town's name and disambiguate it if necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Wikipedia use Ads? i wouldnt mind having 1 or 2 ads on a page while tryninga to do some research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.173.234.200 (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anonymous user, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can read the main arguments against having ads on Wikipedia here. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 04:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most popular webshell ever made. check out it's image at https://i.imgur.com/nJcg2pjl.jpg

And it's source is available at the following repositories/archives.

https://code.google.com/archive/p/b374k-shell/

https://github.com/b374k/b374k

It's also in the news check them out at https://www.google.com/search?q=b374k&source=lnms&tbm=nws

And yeah its open source. (MIT License) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatcha (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eatcha. The question, as always, is whether the subject is notable, in the special Wikipedia sense of the word. That comes down to the question, have several people unconnected with the subject chosen to write at some length about in reliable sources? - because those are the only sources which should be used for the content of the article. An article should be entirely based on reliably published sources, but very little of it should be based on anything by people closely associated with the subject - which means in this case, anybody involved in writing or maintaining it, I would say. The Google link you mention seems to give four results, one of which is a blog (blogs are hardly every regarded as reliable sources), the second and fourth (the German one) just mention the shell in passing; I don't read Korean, so I don't know about the third one. But I would say that these come nowhere near establishing it as notable. Please read your first article.

I have a mathematical article (with just a few special symbols, about 1,500 words) that I would like to contribute to Wikipedia. It would be my first contribution so formatting the references, fonts, citations to Wikipedia standards presents a challenge and I am pressed for time. I would like to engage an experienced editor/contributor to help me with this task.

What is the correct way to engage somebody for this service? (I would leave my email address, like in a teahouse, for one-to-one follow-up discussion but I read somewhere that I should not, and I want to be a good citizen).

Miro Benda, Seattle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirobenda (talk • contribs) 07:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mirobenda. If this question is about the article you have started in your sandbox, it sounds interesting, but Wikipedia is not the correct place to publish WP:Original research. If you can find WP:Reliable sources in which the subject is discussed, then please add them to your draft before submitting it for review. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners for the formatting, but if you add the references in any format then we can help you to include them in the appropriate way as in-line citations. Ask again here when you need more help. Many editors read this page, but if you need specialist help then Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics might have some specialists who would help. Dbfirs 09:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mirobenda. Please have look at MATHS for how to embed symbols and formulas in an article. As for whether your sandbox is appropriate or not: it matters crucially whether you are writing an article about a term which has been widely discussed in the literature, or introducing a new term. If the first, then the article is probably very welcome (but note that your sources are where you should start, not something you add at the end: the article should not contain one single definition, argument, or conclusion, that is not already wholly contained in at least one existing publication). If you are introducing a new term (or you have previously done so, but it has not so far been picked up and discussed by several other writers) then this is original research, and not acceptable in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tea House Good Morning

Excuse me. Now i am not interested in wikipedia because you deleted my edit every time though my information was not wrong. This is my family history. God bless you.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 08:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masroor Chaudhary. You need to understand that Wikipedia includes only what is reported in WP:Reliable sources. Your own family tree would be regarded as a reliable source if it is published in an independent reliable source. Your edit was reverted not because we believe it to be wrong, but because you didn't include a reference. Readers need to be able to check the facts claimed in Wikipedia articles. Dbfirs 08:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masroor Chaudhary Please understand that your word is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. It must be possible for readers to verify the information given in Wikipedia articles. It is not possible to do that with your word- and even if it were, such a source is not independent, which is also required. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See earlier section of same title (#regarding edit) above, & previous sections referred to therein. There is no point in asking questions if you don't read the answers. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Husnain Chaudhary - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Husnain347 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(removed entire article) Don't post the entire article on this page. Could you please expand on the specifics of your question as there are a number of things wrong with the article. - X201 (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Husnain347: You have submitted the draft today. Just wait. Someone will sure review your draft anytime soon. Anatoliatheo (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A list of videos, and external links to the subject's own websites can never replace WP:Reliable sources. If you want the article to be approved, then you need to find independent writing about the subject, and summarise what these sources say, using in-line referencing. See WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 12:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tea House Good Day

Once again your friend is with you. I told my relatives for reliable sources regarding noorun nisa on maghfoor ahmad ajazi page. He will send us references with in two days.Then I will provide you citation. Good Luck.

Best Regards

Masroor Chaudhary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many, many, many other statements of fact that are lacking citations, so if you have reliable published sources to support other parts of the article, those would be welcome. Do not have to be in English. P.S. Please remember to sign your User name to comments by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refers to two earlier sections of same title (#regarding edit) above, & previous sections referred to therein. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category%3AAmerican_Civil_War_statues

If I am able to delete it myself I'd appreciate knowing how. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: You may just request deletion by putting {{db-catempty}} in the category page.
See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. Unpopulated categories for more explanation. --CiaPan (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am working on my first submission, and would like to do whatever it takes for it to be published. So far, it has not been accepted, by Robert McClenon.

Please help me correct my errors so that this can eventually be published. I have read and understand much of the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia, and would like some feedback to improve this article.

Specific questions I have are:

• When attempting to put a title in italics, I used what the guide instructed (' before and after), but in the preview, it merely shows as BOLD.
• How do I enter a photograph that I have filed for use?
• When listing demographic information, I have listed in rows. But the preview shows it all together in a paragraph. The same occurred with References.
• At what point can I move it into Draft Space for review? Robert McClenon said that I could not have it there at this point.

I truly appreciate any help and feed back that you can offer! My ultimate goal, again, is to have this article published.

Many Thanks, Carole Basinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carole Basinger (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, please remember to sign your comments here by typing four of ~ at the end. Frankly, your draft is an unacceptable mess. It lacks a neutral point of view, the majority of content appears to be your opinion rather than sourced from references. I recommend you look at articles about the other members of Guster (the band he is in) and model on that. You can probably copy content from the band's and the members' articles, but then in your Edit summary you will need to attribut your sources. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical: If you want items on separate lines, type a * at start of each line. It will show up as a bullet. References are inserted in the text - this automatically creates a reference list at the end. See the examples and tutorial to learn how. David notMD (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Basinger. To get italics: Type 2 apostrophes (not 4) before and after. The page that Robert McClenon said not to move to draft said only "I am looking for articles to edit!" —teb728 t c 20:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a question about the priorities of metric vs. imperial units.

Should the metric unit come first, for example "4 meters (13 feet)"? Or should the imperial unit come first, as with "13 feet (4 meters)"?

In addition, which form of spelling is preferred? (I'm asking because I know that meter can also be spelled as metre) Firey828 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Firey828; good question. Wikipedia does not mandate any answer to either of these questions: it just says that the convention should be consistent within an article. See UNITS and ENGVAR for more details on the two points. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I am attempting to publish a page. I have discovered that a page with the same title was deleted in 2015 by a User. I would like to contact the user to determine more information as to why she deleted the page, but cannot find a way to contact her through the links! Any suggestions are appreciated, thank you! The User's name is "Liz". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carole Basinger (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Liz. She'll now be notified of this discussion. But you'll have to tell her the name of the article. Maproom (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Carole Basinger:. You can check the status of an article's creations, protections, and deletions using Special:Log, and typing the article name in the "Target" field. There, you will might find the user who deleted the article. Good luck on your article. –eggofreason^talk 17:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carole Basinger. I see from your user page and your sandbox that you are interested in Brian Rosenworcel. —teb728 t c 19:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Basinger, the deletion log for that article shows that it was deleted because it didn't show that he was notable by the standards of WP:MUSIC. For future reference, right after Liz's name in the deletion log is a link to her user talk page; you could have contacted her there. —teb728 t c 20:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone call me? I heard a ping. The Brian Rosenworcel article was only a few sentences long and didn't indicate why he was a notable drummer and should have an article on Wikipedia. Because it was PROD'd, I can recover the page information and put it on a user page for you to work with, Carole Basinger. The article would have to be substantially improved to before it is moved back into the mainspace. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i am new on Wikipedia and i want to publish an article on Wikipedia as soon as possible.Mbasit718 (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mbasit718 and welcome to the Teahouse! Read through this page before you begin; it's super helpful, containing the key information you need to know before creating an article. Once you're read that, to actually create the article, go to the Article Wizard. After all the screens of the Wizard have been clicked through, you'll be able to create a draft and submit it for review; once a draft has been submitted for review, a reviewer will come along and if it's suitable for Wikipedia in its current state, accept it, and if it's not, decline it. I hope this helps!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone have a look and see if you can figure out why the image I swapped into the infobox isn't showing up? I'm having glitchy issues so maybe I added a character somewhere but I can't fogure it out. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FloridaArmy. You seem to have used the file name FileResaca Confederate cemetery gate.jpg, when it should be Resaca Confederate cemetery gate.jpg. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cordless Larry I've tried removing the "File:" portion several times and something glitchy is going on. Maybe another editor can give it a try and see if they have better luck. I  think I've cluttered the edit history enough trying to fix it.FloridaArmy (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I identified the further error by using the edit preview button, FloridaArmy. It seems that there were some strange, invisible characters following the image and caption parameters. I fixed this by replacing them with spaces here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for the friendly help. How do I upload a photo into the draft I am creating? Thank you! Zuzuroo (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carole Basinger. Since your subject is a living person, the photo must be uploaded to Commons. If you took the photo yourself, you can upload it using Commons:Special:UploadWizard. If it was taken by someone else, have the photographer upload it there. —teb728 t c 19:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was just wondering how to:

1. Create categories - that appear like the others - with the title

 and then a line dividing the title and text below.

2. How to input that sidebar with the photo and some personal descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeblucreative (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeblucreative: Some more pressing issues you need to take care of first:

• You must disclose your employment on your user page. I'll be leaving you instructions on that.
• Drafts should not use copyrighted text. When in doubt, don't copy text from other sites.
• The draft should just be a summary of professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of the subject but still specifically about it. I'll also post some instructions on how to write articles on your user talk page as well.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up making a mistake in creating a page for myself on Wikipedia, as I wanted to provide a proper information page to accompany the info panel Google had already created in my name. What I failed to realize was how the WP pages worked and accidentally created a page titled "Wikipedia:Raener Lewington" and do not know how to remove it. Worse yet, the page I had intended on making for my account was rejected because it "did not seem noteworthy" of inclusion. I made sure to only include information on the books I have published or contributed to and cited all three of them in the article. Nothing more was said and no attempts to make myself look more appealing outside of making a simple information page were made. My own audience has asked for one to be made for a while, but no one knew how to create one. I ended up taking it upon myself to make a simple and (hopefully) unbiased page for people to find my works under on Wikipedia but failed to realize the scope of what needed to be done.

What can be done to remove the pointless "Wikipedia:Raener Lewington" page and what can be done to help get my actual page approved?

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. --Raener Lewington (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Raener Lewington: and welcome to the Teahouse. I have posted a request to have Wikipedia:Raener lewington deleted, so that will probably be sorted very soon. As for the draft that was rejected, the thing is that an author needs to meet these criteria to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and unfortunately the draft doesn't show that you do meet them, or the more general criteria for biographies. It's not that you were writing a lot of promotional text - you weren't - but Wikipedia's notability criteria can be rather strict. Merely existing and having been published is unfortunately not enough. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to publish my first article. It is about Dave Darlington, who is kind of a legend in the music business. I love his work and believe that he deserves to be represented on Wikipedia, but when my article is reviewed, the sources that are available online as references to the work that he's done for some reason don't qualify. I'm trying to reference IMDB, Discogs, All Music, and a couple of interviews that are done with him through reputable sources. If I can't use these sources, then I'd have to take pictures of albums that he's worked on to prove that he has the credits that I want to include in the article! I've seen other articles on Wikipedia with much worse referencing, like this one that someone wrote about my old band- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little-T_and_One_Track_Mike#cite_note-2

Obviously, whoever wrote this article knew someone in the band because they included information that only one of our friends could have known, and there is no way for them to have referenced it.

Why is my article being rejected even though I'm making every effort to reference correctly a person who is more notable than other people who have Wikipedia articles on them? I want to contribute to Wikipedia, but this is very discouraging! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dave_Darlington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelsflannery (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelsflannery: The problem is that you need professionally-published sources that are specifically about Darlington but not dependent upon nor affiliated with him. IMDB and Discogs are written by site visitors, pictures of his albums only prove that he exists (which is not the same as being notable).

The state of other articles doesn't matter, two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to nominate that other article for deletion on the grounds that it lacks sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability, the process is explained at Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You'd have a good case: many of the sources aren't actually about the subject (only mentioning in passing), it looks like there's only one verifiable source that is professionally published, and of the two other sources that might count one appears to be a (now deleted) campus newspaper and the other is a personal site hosting a copyrighted newspaper article that doesn't seem to exist outside of that personal site. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources listed are both him basically talking about himself, hardly a reliable source. The other source in the other article, while a badly made website, is a third party source and therefor better than him talking about himself. also sign your post with four ~ in a row WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked by my boss to create a page for the museum where I work. In reading the guidelines, this seems like it COULD be a conflict. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreggMuseumNCState (talk • contribs) 21:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreggMuseumNCState: Being asked by an employer to write an article about your workplace is pretty much the archetypal example of a conflict of interest. Even if you are not being directly paid for it, the paid editing policies still apply to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I received a message that I should connect all the articles with the sources of Draft:Benjamin Schnau . I did that already on my last change.

What are you still asking for?

User Whispering is saying it would be OBVIOUS I don't do anything to make the article better which is an assumption he is doing which is offensive and rude and completely not the case.

I did what was asked for before already and now get that as a reply. Very unsatisfying.

Pls review the page its all connected.

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklin187: The article is probably not going to be approved right now because:

• Many of the sources you cited are not reliable.
• I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent.
• It's unclear what sources support what article material.

I've left instructions on your user talk page that explains the simple way to write articles that will not be rejected or deleted. You just need to summarize at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of Schnau but still specifically about him. That's it. Writing unsourced material and slapping on dozens of questionable sources is a waste of your time and ours.

Also, why does it need to be approved immediately? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say immediately I said as soon as possible which is different.

I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent What do you mean by that statement 'independent'. All these articles are independent created based on the work he did.

• It's unclear what sources support what article material.

If you check the articles and sources you see the titles and the movies he was working on which is what the article is talking about??

https://www.stern.de/panorama/gesellschaft/benjamin-schnau--ein-deutscher-und-sein-harter-weg-nach-hollywood-7860132.html http://www.manilaupmagazine.com/issues/vol3-8/mobile/index.html#p=80 https://christoph-ulrich-mayer.com/unkategorisiert/von-den-besten-lernen-speaker-made-in-hollywood-2-2/ https://www.astrid-arens.com/the-german-oscars-2018/?lang=en

All these sources for example above are independent journalistic resources. I clearly don't understand what the problem is with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Franklin187: What you need to do is provide in-line citations. There are two in the article, which are insufficient. Also, both of those sources are IMDB, which is not a reliable source. IMBD is written by its users, not professionals.

As I've already explained here and on your user talk page, all you need to do is summarize three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are independent of and unaffiliated with Schau. These should be in-line citations.

If you get on that as soon as possible, the article can be approved as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling we are talking about different things here.

I'm talking about the external links you look at the reference field.

I added the journalistic sources to the reference field. Is that better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft still doesn't cite any sources. Until it does, it certainly won't be approved. Maybe you need to read Help: Referencing for beginners? Maproom (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Franklin187: My first post says I'm having trouble finding which sources are independent because you dumped the majority of references in the external links. It's unclear what sources support what article material points to the fact that you're not using enough in-line citations. Many of the sources you cited are not reliable addresses both sections.

It isn't an either/or problem, both are problems.

The work you have done so far has been a waste of your time because you did not do it right. If you just follow the instructions I left at User_talk:Franklin187#How_to_write_articles, you will have this over with as soon as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Franklin187. It might seem strange to you, but the only thing you should put under the heading References is {{Reflist}}. Each actual references goes immediately after the statement that it supports, and the system inserts a reference number and lists the references where you put {{Reflist}}. I hope this helps you to understand how Wikipedia does references. Dbfirs 22:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfirs: thanks for the info. That means I just put

right under the word 'References' and thats it? Thanks in advance.

@Dfirs: Hi, Could you pls check again now, I connected everything between sources and text of the article. Pls let me know. Thanks for the effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Franklin187 Do you work for or represent Benjamin Schnau? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Franklin187: You've just replaced the text with external links instead of adding in-line citations to the end of the supported material. If you would just read the 8 simple steps I left on your user talk page, you'd get this over with sooner instead of wasting your time (and ours). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin187 I converted the first of your references to a ref as an example of what should be done with the rest. —teb728 t c 23:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@teb728 Thanks for this example, that helped a lot. I did what everyone told me. Pls let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did what everyone told me. Except you didn't, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.Thomson: I'm assuming you are talking about point 4, 5 and 6 in the link you sent me? What do these 3 points mean. Even reading them doesnt fully makes me understand what to do? If I'm assuming wrongly, I would appreciate if you would let me know what exactly you are talking about. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Franklin187 I will ask again; do you work for or represent Benjamin Schnau? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot: Yes I do! Why are you asking?

You will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest policy as well as the paid editing policy and formally declare that on your user page or user talk page. The latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement for paid editors. Thanks 331dot (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No this is a misunderstanding I don't get paid for that. What are you talking about? I do this in my free time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs)

If you are employed or hired by him to be his agent/representative/public relations person, you are a paid editor and must declare it. We have no way of knowing if you are on your free time or not. If you are just editing at his request and are not paid or employed by him, it is still a conflict of interest that you must declare. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys can someone pls do me a favor and just tell me know what is still missing on this article beside that. I got this link to this article explaining the steps of how to create an article but have no idea what that means? I added in-line citations, what else is missing. I don't get it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin187 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no deadlines here; feel free to take all the time you need to learn about what you have been told and make the needed declarations. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for Schnau you must create a User page and declare that. Even if you are not being paid to create a Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin187, after you have posted the required declarations, there are still points outlined in the post on your talk page that you have not addressed. The most important ones are a) citing sources properly, b) showing the person is notable, and c) removing promotional phrasing. You have gone some way towards a) by placing some of the URLs to your sources within <ref></ref> tags, in the relevant places, but there is still a list of unidentified URLs (not connected to any part of the article) in the "References" section, and you do have to cite the sources, that is, clearly identify them so that a reader can understand what the source is, and potentially find the information even if the URL should go away. The link to the information about that (which is also in point 4 in the list on your talk page) is Wikipedia:Citing sources. As for b) it doesn't really look as if you followed the advice in point 2. on your talk page - the sources in your article are still basically the same as they were before your draft was rejected, and as far as I can see without spending too much time looking into unidentifid URLs, there is really only one (Stern) that is independent and talks about Schnau in depth, as opposed to mentioning him in passing. This is what is required. (There are also several inadequate references on the page, including but not limited to links to Netflix, YouTube, and Wikipedia itself, which do not meet the requirements for "professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources".) As regards c), the draft is not entirely promotional, but it is also not neutrally written. That is often difficult when writing about topics where there is a conflict of interest, but it is not impossible. But again, before you look into these things you have to address the conflict of interest issue. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The basic search I have done for years now no longer works. Now I have to select image types to search instead of just doing a search that delivers all the images mapped to a specific date. Who thought that was a good idea? Find that person who made that change and tell them they are an idiot. You took something simple and jacked it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Which-moron (talk • contribs) 04:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can I edit the sandbox? 182.16.170.54 (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 182.16.170.54. I believe that only registered accounts have a user sandbox, but I think IP accounts can edit the project-wide sandbox. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started editing an article called 'History of Samos' only to find its contents already exist (verbatim?) in the article called 'Samos'. Is it necessary to have both articles? If not, what's the best process for deletion? Shillings1005 (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Shillings1005. History of Samos shows no significant difference from Samos#History, and the general article on Samos at about 40 Kb is not too long, so the simplest would be to make the History article into a redirect pointing to Samos#History (of course removing the banner at the top of that section). Alternatively you could do what the banner recommends and edit down the History section into a summary, retaining the Main article link at the top of that section: Noyster (talk), 09:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the page The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, a novel by Umberto Eco.

Umberto Eco was a semiotician: he worked with words, assigning meaning to words, connecting words by meaning, context, etc.

The novel contains hundreds of quotations/allusions from poems, novels, songs, sayings, paintings, illustrations, etc.

Intertextuality is the main thing in this novel: by identifying and connecting the quotations/allusions that spring into the main character's mind, the competent reader learns about the story and inner world of meanings of the main character, a guy who has lost his autobiographic, episodic memory but not his semantic memory, i.e. he only remembers words — in fact, a Hell or a Heaven for a semiotician.

Any competent reader can identify the quotation/allusion, the original author, the work the quotation has been extracted from or the allusion points to, the year of publication, etc. These pieces of information are not owned by Umberto Eco nor by anyone (except a few quotations might be copyrighted, i.e. owned by the original authors).

I would like to add these pieces of information to the main article, or perhaps to new articles:

Quotation/Allusion

Name of Author

Date of Birth

Date of Death

Nationality

Language

Title of the work being quoted or alluded to

Year of Publication

Website address as a reference for verification purposes

Wikipedia rules seem to allow the possibility to declare, with adequate references, the cultural connections that an author has chosen to reveal in their work, for example here or here, or even here, or here.

In the case of Umberto Eco's novel this would take up considerable space - probably many articles, perhaps one for each of the 18 chapters, as this project shows.

Would someone let me know what they think about it?, i.e. if such a project meets Wikipedia's criteria.

Unarosaèunarosa (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]