Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the Teahouse...                        

A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Shortcuts

• WP:TEA
• WP:TH
• WP:THQ

Click here to
ask a question

David Biddulph, a Teahouse host

Question forum

Host profiles

Guest profiles

Experienced editor? Become a host!

Learn more about the Teahouse

Articles to improve

Question archive

Guest archive

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]

I have contributed financially to Wikipedia but I am still being continually interrupted by Wikipedia to donate. It’s a pain in the neck and frustrates me greatly to the point where I’m contemplating severely limiting my use of the platform, at the very least. Stop it! Please... I can pay no more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.217.167.90 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to your Preferences, click Gadgets, and then turn on "Suppress display of fundraiser banners." Outofmario (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with posters like 103. As a registered and experienced editor, I've been able to figure out how to switch off the nagging appeals; and I find it unreasonable that new users receive so many of them. I've noticed that complaints like the above have become much more frequent in the last month or two. No-one here at Wikipedia is responsible for the appeals, it's the Wikimedia Foundation that inflicts them on us. Can anyone advise on where complaints can be effectively directed? Maproom (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: It usually seems to be Whatamidoing (WMF) who acts as the Wikimedia Foundation's ambassador to English Wikipedia; you could try asking her who's responsible. As someone who reads Wikipedia a lot while logged out, I can testify that the adverts this year are far more intrusive and obnoxious than they've ever been before. ‑ Iridescent 07:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent:, @Maproom: - to the extent that it has become a meme. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: how did you switch off the nagging appeals? Airbornemihir (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airbornemihir, by following random links and clicking here and there until I hit upon something that worked. It's not where I would expect, Preferences / Notifications. I'm reluctant to search any more in case I accidentally switch them on again. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: Thanks, anyway. Airbornemihir (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really need your help guys in giving your opinion of what you want from me as an editor. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks --I love rpgs (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving hundreds of images to Commons does not make you Admin ready. Keep calm and edit on. David notMD (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't going to become an admin for at least 2 years regardless of what you do on Wikipedia. Fortunately for you, being an admin is a thankless job that you don't really want. If you want to be more involved administratively, I recommend reading pages like Requested moves, Articles for deletion, or good article reviews. You can also write and improve articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but @Power~enwiki: if admins are such a "thankless job" then why are there so many admins on wikipedia? Also BU Rob 13 became an admin in less than a year after his registration--I love rpgs [please ping me! ] 17:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 hadn't just been kicked off Commons for disruption after failing to reply to a single one of the 58 complaints on their talkpage, for one thing… ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings everyone my question is how to create new Wikipedia article about internet relay design on Wikipedia? I have manuscripts prepared and I wish to transmit to article format hopefully on the morrow for benefitting all. I have read a few help channels but I am no closer to achieving this goal and I would appreciate helps. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do not publish original research. Unless you have a third party source for this information it (probably) shouldn't be published on Wikipedia. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Refquest. Please read Your first article and you may also find The Wikipedia Adventure worth completing. I noticed that you are using the word "manuscripts" which usually refers to unpublished documents. Only published sources are acceptable in an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Yes thank you I have read these pages. I would like helpful guidance please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 05:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refquest, please ask a specific question. "Helpful guidance" is just too vague. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My specific question is how do I creating new article? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information on how to do that is in a link which you were given above: WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David and good evening, I have read this link but I require actual guidance. Providing me with link I have reading is not helpful. Furthermore, mentioning that I was already given the unhelpful link may to be considered rude. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refquest (talk • contribs) 14:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refquest: Your first article and The Wikipedia Adventure constitute the standard advice every new editor gets. David (not me, the other David) is being helpful, not rude. Second, Wikipedia runs on civility. Calling a helpful person rude, a person who volunteers their own time to answer questions, is - rude. Third, my guess is you want to write an article based on your own efforts ("manuscripts prepared"). That is not allowed at Wikipedia. Last, please sign your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Refquest. If you did not find the Your first article page helpful, and would like to immediately start writing, you can use the Article Wizard. The first steps there are reminders but it will eventually get you to your first draft. Also, I hope you have noted the suggestions of the others here just so you can avoid your efforts getting wasted. Even if you were able to write an article, it will be rejected if it did not meet the standards. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I had an article about Datacolor rejected due to unreliable secondary sources. I had translated the original article from German (Datacolor page to create an English version, as this company is based in New Jersey, so this would be useful. Does anyone have any recommendations of how to correctly translate an existing article with appropriate sources so that it does not get rejected again? I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, so any tips would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Jacri11 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jacri11 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'd be happy to try to help you out to explain the issues with the article and how you can fix them. The problem with the article, as you said, is sourcing. You did not provide multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and significantly cover the topic, as required by the notability guidelines for companies. Of the two sources you provided, the first one was the company's website, which is not considered independent as it was created by the company; anyone can make a company and then make a website, so this reference can't be used to establish notability. The second ref is the company's profile on Owler, which, similarly, doesn't meet the strict guidelines needed to be a good reference for notability establishing, because isn't considered reliable nor independent. An example of a good source would be a New York Times article about the company written by someone not affiliated with it. The best thing to do would be to just keep searching for good sources; if none exist, then the article may unfortunately not be suitable for Wikipedia. Getting an article accepted is one of the most tricky things for new users, so please don't get discouraged. If you have a question as to whether a source would help establish notability, please don't hesitate to ask here or on my talk page. Does this help you out some?--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, different language Wikipedias have different policies on notability, so just because the German Wikipedia has an article, that doesn't necessarily mean that a translated version of the article would be allowed in the English Wikipedia. shoy (reactions) 16:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SkyGazer 512 and shoy This is extremely helpful. I will continue to search for better and more reliable sources. Thank you so much for your responses - I appreciate it! Jacri11 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Jacri11; I'm glad I could help. Good luck and again, if you have any more questions feel free to ask here. :-)--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a living person has a Google knowledge panel and a Wiki page, how do you ensure the two are integrated? I'm specifically asking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Bastian. I do have a COI, which is noted on my user page. Thanks! Avgalatl (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google has no connection to Wikipedia or Wikimedia and we have no control over their output. The algorithms they use are a heavily-protected commercial secret so we can't say how their information is selected (although much of the material they credit to "Wikipedia" is almost certainly actually drawn from Wikidata); for more specific information, you'd need to ask Google direct (www.google.com/contact). ‑ Iridescent 17:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do if you have an important piece of information to add to a page but it is restricted? This information is quite important and could really help any people looking at the page. The page is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Sugg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollyw004 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mollyw004: welcome to the Teahouse! You can request edits like this: Go to the article's talk page, Talk:Joe Sugg and post an edit request there. Copy this code: {{edit semi-protected}} and paste it into a new section on the talk page, and then write your request below. You'll need to provide independent sources for whatever information it is you want to include. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my name is Luke Jarvis, my account is lukejarvis1994

I have been doing ITV Daytime chat show "Loose Women" have been doing this for the last couple of months of the information and also to update it. The reason I am writing this because I just help for someone to help me bring back the episodes of the weeks the panellists is on and also the last 19 years I feel it would benefit for anyone to know whose on and also to keep track.

However I another thing to ask I need assistance and guidance of how to use the Wikipedia full title of talking about or URL of any page I am talking or even asking about and also the cite of the sources I am using or writing.

Finally I would like to say Thank You very much for the invitation to the Teahouse.

I would like to say it would be very much appreciated for anyone to help me and I will try and reply to anything when I can. If there is any help or support for the programmes in the UK let me know. I am very openly honest what I do and say and I am 100% of my effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeJarvis1994 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appears you have been editing Loose Women and List of Loose Women presenters for months, so not clear what your problems are. Is this about how to cite? Lastly, sign your comments by typing four of ~. David notMD (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a page where everyone on vikipedia can read and say their opinion. I want to write something on such page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan311 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan311: there's the miscellaneous section of the Village Pump. However, depending on what you want to write about, there may be a talk page more specifically oriented to that topic that could potentially be a more appropriate venue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathan311: But, please be aware we have no pages for chit-chat or for discussing personal opinions in the way that online forums (fora) offer. We only discuss matters relevant to editing Wikipedia or editing a particular article (where you would use that article's Talk Page to raise issues about the article's content). You might like to read WP:NOTFORUM to get an idea what we don't accept as part of expressing opinions. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: The user who started this section has started a discussion at Talk:Lithuania#Location, but failed to give any arguments or sources to support his claims. In the end, he started accusing and insulting me. I have written more than once that he needs to give arguments and support his claims with sources, but every time he just acted like I was the one who wanted to change something even after I wrote my arguments and/or supported them. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My advice - if this is about Lithuania start a new discussion there. I will point out that as of this moment the article reads "...is a country in the Baltic region of Europe." If this is about your opinion of other editors, the best advice is "don't." One guideline of Wikipedia is comment on comments, but do not disparage the person who wrote them. David notMD (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, we're having trouble removing this 'UDP' banner because a more senior member keeps reinstating it (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Ricks). The article has been gone over with a fine toothed comb and no one is even sure if it was paid for at any time. The point here is that this isn't a black and white issue (after researching on wiki) and that the problem (if there is even a problem(!)) is between a *suspected* paid poster and our senior member, not with the page. Recent comments seem to be ignored. Please help. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hesperian Nguyen: Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a duplicate copy of a post you placed on Talk:Jim Ricks half an hour previously. That page really seems the best place for your request to be answered by involved editors, rather than here, and we do ask people not to post in more than one place at a time as this then just duplicates volunteer effort. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes:Ok, I am only seeking help and didn't know about that rule.Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created 26 September by NeedaAnsari00, who claims to be an engineer from/in India. SAME DAY, Herperian Nguyen started massive number of edits to article. On 9 December, Genericname23 started editing, and has been a frequent editor to the exclusion of almost anything else. G was separately accused of being a sock on another article, dismissed accusation, but a cloud remains. Hard to believe that three people from far corners of the word fascinated with Jim Ricks. Not seeing fire, but smelling smoke. At minimum, I concur with the UDP and COI banners. David notMD (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I read through the teahouse I see a lot of usernames, but in red. They do not have user pages. How is that a person can have a user name, but not a user:page?Oldperson (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just signing up for Wikipedia doesn't in and of itself create a user page for the user. The user in question needs to manually create it themselves and many users (not just vandals) probably don't want to bother creating one. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict] When a user creates an account, it automatically comes with the potential for a user page, but no account holder is obliged to have a user page, and many do not bother to create one if they don't want to say anything about themselves as a Wikipedia editor, which is what the page is really intended for. (You may have noticed that I have deliberately remained one step further back and have never opened an account at all, despite being an active editor for over 15 years.)

It's trivially easy for the user to create their user page; they simply have to click on the red link of their user name, be taken to a message that says essentially "this page doesn't exist yet", and then type something (anything) to get it started.

Creating an account also creates the potential for a user Talk page to allow communication with them, such as welcoming them to Wikipedia, leaving useful links to help them edit, and notifying them if they have inadvertently (or, sometimes, deliberately) breached Wikipedia protocols in some way. Any other user can activate the talk page, in the same manner as previously described, to perform these functions and usually someone does. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recently posted my first article, Rodent Research Hardware System. This is a set of enclosures for rodents used on the ISS. In the list of suggested improvements was "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources.". The article is about research hardware developed by NASA and provides a summary of the research that has been done and that is currently planned. NASA has the final say on all research that will use the system. Almost all links I used for the article are in the NASA.gov or NASA.org domains. My effort was to provide simple factual information about the program. Much of the research that the experiments involved in is ongoing and does not have published results. It is unclear to me in this case what, "independent, third-party source" would be any more reliable than NASA. Where I did reference information where NASA was not the primary authoritative source I did make an effort to use a third party. For example in an explanation of the requirements for one mission I referenced the source document of the guidelines they were seeking to comply with - https://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf. I found an older article, Scientific research on the International Space Station, that also almost exclusively references NASA sources. Can someone clarify what type of references are being sought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCO11163 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than items published by NASA about NASA, it would be preferable to cite articles written about NASA (and its activities) by independent journalists in magazines and journals edited and published by organisations independent of NASA (i.e. "third parties"), such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Sky and Telescope, Science, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, etc., etc.

Such publications are what are termed Secondary sources, as opposed to documentation by NASA (or Government grant-issuing bodies) which would be Primary sources. (Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a Tertiary source.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.251.247 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make an article on a celebrity as they did not already have a pafe but I am now sure now to fully publish it. I’m not sure whether some has to check it and see is it publishable or do I just publish it myself. I’m quite confused Mollyw004 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mollyw004 Welcome to Tea house. If you referred to Draft:Oli White and Draft:Mariangeli Collado, they are not ready to be submitted for review. Please read WP:Your First Article and referencing for beginners to familiar yourself on how to write an article and provide inline citation. If the above articles are not what you had in mind, then pls pop back here and provide the link to the article so we may help you in more specify manner. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am part of the Wiki Scholars program and while moving a new article live I incorrectly sent it to the wrong location. It appears to be my talk page? but as a live article? I was hoping to either put it back in my sandbox (not sure this is possible) or in the correct main space. Apologies as I am new at this and missed something while exploring Move related training and articles. Please see below.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Carol7288/sandbox2&redirect=no

Thanks for the help! Carol7288 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Carol7288[reply]

Hello Carol7288. It looks like everything has been done correctly, it's just that when moving pages, Wikipedia leaves a redirect by default, because it is often helpful for people who are looking for the page. If you want the redirect removed, you can simply copy {{db-u1}} to the top of the page (that is, the redirect page [1] and not Etta Haynie Maddox), and an administrator should be around to delete it shortly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carol7288, Welcome to Tea House. You sand box is empty now. Your aticle Etta Haynie Maddox is in the pool of new page waiting in review. You still could edit the page. If you want the page to move to draft space so you would take your time to edit it as it might have a lot more for development, then I would move it for you. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello My first article got published recently and I got a notification of Page Issue stating that it may not meet the notability clause. I contacted fellow wikipedians over chat and shared that the references were indeed from reliable secondary sources . Some agreed and some gave suggestions for better organization of the content and quoting of the sources. I listened to the advice and did accordingly.

But still the Maintenance template has not disappeared. What can be done to address this concern?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushrut_Badhe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talk • contribs) 04:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavankum Welcome to Tea House. The tag is removed. Thank you for your contribution and editing. Cheers CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, someone has recently renamed this article about sports athlete from "Igor" to "Ihor". Now, according to Wikipedia's article titles usage, a "Common name is preferred" and according to English sources related to this athlete, his common name is "Igor". Here are few sources that mention him as such: http://www.the-sports.org/igor-dziuba-speed-skating-spf202823.html http://speedskatingresults.com/index.php?p=17&s=3809 http://www.schaatsstatistieken.nl/index.php?file=schaatser&code=1983121401 http://www.speedskatingbase.eu/?section=skaters&subsection=skater&skaterid=4910

There are absolutely 0 sources that mention him by the name "Ihor". So, if I understood WP:COMMONNAME correctly, the article title should be changed back to "Igor Dziuba". Or am I missing something else and WP:COMMONNAME does not apply in this case?Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom Welcome to Tea house. Yes, WP:COMMONNAME does apply in this case. I have moved the page back to Igor Dziuba. As you might know Ihor is the Ukrainian name similar that of Russian Igor. I think the editor change the name because the subject is an Ukrainian and not knowing the WP:COMMONNAME do apply here in Wikipedia. The article do need independent, reliable sources to support the notability and the content of the claimed, and those database lists which recording of the subject competitions are considered not reliable and / or not independent. Since you were born in former USSR and presumably know Russian language/Eastern Slavic language and if you could find some sources to support the content claimed and add them into the page, it would be highly appreciate. I just hate to see the page might be one day to be nominated for deletion/PROP as no sources are provided. thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my name is Jenne josp. I want to create few articles related to information . Help me please to create foresight group international article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenne josp (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you conclude "Sure, I have those sources, no problem", then continue with Wikipedia:Your first article. If not, choose something else to work on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I made some changes in my organization page (Cambridge School Srinivaspuri) on 17 dec 2018 from my id deepanshi.82, however on the next day the changes were not reflected on the page. I am new to Wikipedia and I am confused why this is happening. Regards Deepanshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepanshi.82 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Deepanshi.82. Your edits were undone by Mean as custard because they appeared promotional. Please do not edit the article if you are associated with the school. It is against our conflict of interest policy. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deepanshi.82. "Your organization's page" is actually an article in an encyclopedia which anyone may edit with appropriate sourcing. You do not own it. Wikipedia is not for profit, which is why we don't "make pages" for the highest bidder. We try to amass as much notable information on a subject, from reliable sources, as we possibly can. You and your organization play no role here, unfortunately.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of adding promotional material, you could find WP:Reliable sources for the basic facts. At present, the article has no references at all. Dbfirs 08:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say I edit a wikipedia page. A few month later, somebody modifies my version (not using "undo", just overwriting what I've done). By default, there will be no alert about this, if I'm correct. I find it quite peculiar. IMHO the basic setting should be to alert you, that's it to have the checkbox "Watch this page" checked by default each time you edit a page. You can still manually check this but for most users I guess they forget to check this (I've almost forgotten on this page myself...).Linuxo (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Linuxo: In your preferences there's a "Watchlist" tab where you can select the option "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist". Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 06:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Very useful, thanks! (A bit buried in the settings also...) Linuxo (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And just to explain why it's not the default: regular editors will end up editing thousands and thousands of pages. If they were all added to their watchlist automatically, it would quickly become unusable. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  They could disable it (as bonadea have noted, we could do the reverse). My idea was especially to encourage "unregular editors" to be more regular editor. I guess people editing page would like to know how it goes for their modifications. Linuxo (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Joe Roe, I currently have 13,133 pages on my watchlist after nearly ten years of editing, and it is by no means "unusable". Most of those pages, such as five year old AfD debates for example, are almost never edited. I can rapidly scan dozens of entries on my watchlist, ignoring the majority that are highly likely to be productive edits, and taking a closer look at those that display one or more indicators of possibly disruptive editing. My watchlist is both usable and very useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cullen328: I have a similar number and agree. But if I'd had that preference ticked, I think I would be closer to a hundred thousand by now. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I watch 20 (even though I have edited hundreds) and that is enough for me. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing an article in which I don't want a hyphenated word to break at the end of the line. I have seen some kind of "no break" syntax used on WP, but nothing I've come up with is working. Can you refer me to the article which covers this subject?--Quisqualis (talk) 07:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quisqualis. Try looking at MOS:HYPHEN. I think what you're looking for is right above MOS:SHY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That worked a treat. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am a newbie, and i want to write an article. unfortunately i mess up. Actually every time i try to write an article it shows me to the page where is a list of actions i can do: 1 . sandbox, improve and article wizard. please help me solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by გრინვეი (talk • contribs) 07:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi გრინვეი - please take a look at WP:YFA, which gives some good process information on how to write your first article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi გრინვეი and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have started a new article at Draft:Greenway Georgia. We can help you to improve the English, but at present the draft has no references to establish WP:Notability, so it will not be accepted. You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners and add some references, preferably in English, but they can be in any language. The criteria on English Wikipedia might be more strict than those in Georgia. For example, YouTube is not considered to be a WP:Reliable source. Dbfirs 08:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a club, society or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7."

I'm creating pages regarding healthcare in the state of Oregon. IHN is one of 16 organizations that the state government has allowed to be formed (~2012) for the locoregional coordination of healthcare and is used by 50,000 people across three counties in Oregon.

I am failing to see how this does not meet criterion for a wikipedia page based on "importance."

For the second time tonight. Can someone help review or advise. It seems like there are more people trying to deconstruct than build wikipedia pages. I'm open to suggestions on how to make my page better. This is a little frustrating to newbies trying to build something.

InterCommunity Health Network

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

Thanks. Help or advice appreciated. Helios688 (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I would tend to agree with the editor who tagged the article. I can't see that either one of the references you have added mentions the IHN anywhere. Another page you just created, Coordinated Care Organization is a copyright violation since the text there is taken straight from the website you use as a reference, so that will unfortunately also have to be tagged for deletion. It might be a good idea if you started creating articles as drafts instead - that won't prevent copyright violations being tagged, but drafts are gnerally not deleted for lack of shown importance or sourcing, and that will give you time to work on the text until it does show the importance and notability of the organisation. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Helios688 - and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you're articles were tagged with an A7 notice. This tag is for several categories of subjects, all of which do not indicate the subject is important. This does not mean that the subject is not important, or even notable. Simply that the article does not indicate how the subject is important. Both times when your articles where tagged, editors thought that your articles did not show how the subject was important. In the first instance, Samaritan Health Services, the article was little more than a malformed infobox. As you developed the article, another editor removed the A7 tag, as it was no longer appropriate. The second time (InterCommunity Health Network) the article is little more than a blurb. I don't want to speak for another editor, so I'll ping HitroMilanese - and perhaps they can tell you their rationale for tagging it as A7. A way to avoid this in the future is not to develop articles in the mainspace. Rather create them in draftspace, flesh them out, then move them to the mainspace (or ask a more experienced editor to move them, if you don't have the move capability yet). Another alternative can be to go through the AfC (Articles for Creation) process, see WP:AFC. Second, A7 is only about whether an article even mentions why a subject is important. Even if a subject has some importance, that is a lower level of scrutiny than notability. Please see WP:GNG to see what Wikipedia considers notable. You might also want to take a look at WP:YFA, regarding writing your first article. Third, your third article is a copyvio. It's been moved to draftspace so you develop it, but you need to re-word in your own verbiage. Please see WP:COPYVIO. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the quick response. 1. the link on the IHN page was to get to a document. I cleaned that up by changing the link to a HTML page on the same government site that references IHN and the other 15 CCOs. 2. I thought it would be okay to reference text in quotation marks on the CCO page I created. Sorry about that. I have deleted the quote and used my own words - there should no longer be a copyright issue with that page.

I will work on using the sandbox for future pages. As I worked on each page I realized that even though these important organizations have been around for years, no one has created wikipedia pages on any of them. I'll be more careful.

Can you review them again to see if they're still problematic? Helios688 (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Helios688. Your article is lacking references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia exists to summarize such sources and they are the solid gold that must be used to build Wikipedia articles. Your article purports to have two references but both are to the same Oregon state agency. Your first reference link does not mention this agency, at least as far as I can see. The second link includes a routine directory listing for this agency, which includes the type of information that someone might have found in the Yellow Pages in the past. Wikipedia is not a directory. It is an encyclopedia. The article states that this agency is involved in providing health services to just 55,000 people in three counties of Oregon. Speaking frankly, that is not a very impressive claim of notability, especially since the article states that the actual health care is provided by Samaritan Health Services instead. It appears that the topic of the article is a minor intermediary or broker agency created by some state law unique to Oregon. Unless you can provide much better references, there is no evidence that this agency is notable.

As for your supposition that there are "more people trying to deconstruct than build wikipedia pages", if that was true, then we would not have 5,769,265 articles on Wikipedia, the majority of which are halfway decent encyclopedia articles. What we actually have are more people who are trying to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia by checking that new articles comply with our policies and guidelines. Without these people, the encyclopedia would soon have 100,000,000 articles, and the vast majority of them would be advertisements, lies, conspiracy theories, get rich schemes, slander and disinformation operations. The world's #5 website would then rapidly lose its credibility and collapse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, No offence was meant. I love the feedback here. It helps me learn when the conversation is as above. Just remember that those of us who are trying to build but are not quite expert like many of you, it can be frustrating when you make mistakes and are threatened with immediate page removal. Thanks again Helios688 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is simple, Helios688. Before you move an article to the main space of the encyclopedia, double check be sure that it complies with our policies and guidelines. That's my method, and none of my roughly 100 articles has ever been deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks.

Helios688 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the main reason for my nominating this article was "no credible claim of significance" , see WP:CCS. That is why I suggested you on your talk page to create articles through WP:AFC process. An admin has declined speedy for very unclear reasons though, so it doesn't matter anymore. Regards Hitro talk 09:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

For a few months, I have been edited articles about military weapons and small arms and therefore I have added them to my watchlist. It seems that a floating IP, generally from Thailand, is adding unsourced countries in the "users" section. Sometimes the reference of another user is added as the reference of a new "random" user.

Could a filter be added to the anti-vandalism bots : if someone is adding a lot of country templates without adding a new reference, he will be automatically reverted ?

Some edits (it has been for months) : [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

--Le Petit Chat (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir, Good Day

Once again Masroor Chaudhary (New comer) is with you. I want to say that Noorun nisa, Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi and Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah were my Grand Mother and grand Father respectively. This is solid fact that Noorun nisa was married with Chaudhary Mohammad Kalimullah. There are many proof and evidences regarding this marriage but unfortunately, i don't know where these evidences are preserved. So, i cannot provide you any evidences regarding this marriage and i know that also wikipedia accept only reliable sources for editing. I hope that you will consider on this matter.

Best Regards,

Masroor Chaudhary Dist. Darbhanga, Bihar India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masroor Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masroor Chaudhary, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume your question relates to Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi. You are right that Wikipedia can only accept information based upon sources that other users are able to find and confirm. It can be very frustrating to have to leave out information simply because it cannot be proven, but that is precisely how Wikipedia operates. It is far better to have a short article full of provable statements, than a longer one containing a mixture of statements, where nobody knows which ones are right, wrong, or added for mischievous reasons. Luckily, it is often the relatively trivial information that has to be left out of for lack of references, and you are best not to try to add information from your personal knowledge, no matter how close your family ties. Thank you so much for your interest in improving Wikipedia. Please remember to sign talk page posts using four keyboard tilde characters (like this ~~~~), rather than type your name manually, as this leaves both a timestamp and link to your userpage which others find helpful. And if you want to know more about how Wikipedia works, we have an interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure which you might like to try out. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk)

In this edit I think I correctly interpreted MOS:LEADSENTENCE. I don't think the statistics about the size of the market belong in the lead section. My edit was reverted by a new editor. Before I revert and leave an explanation on the talk page, I just want to check that I am on safe ground. Comments? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curb Safe Charmer: Notwithstanding the fact that the article MealEnders has just been dominated for a deletion discussion, I completely agree with you. The lead should summarise only the notable topic, not wander off into background contextual statements on the slimming industry as the other editor has done, nor should it introduce ambiguity as has also happened (did this one product genuinely achieve[d] $168.95 billion in sales worldwide in 2016)? The original lead statement seems sufficient to me, and more succinct. In my view, you would be quite right to remove these additions and insert them elsewhere in the article, if required. I would have done this for you, but it's better for editors to feel confident in make the edits themselves. The article reads very much as a promotional page, despite one of the editors removing from their talk page a response to indicate that they did not have any WP:PAID or WP:COI involvement with this product. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to add an item to the reference list of an article, I just see "

", but not the content. How can I add then a reference?

• The reflist is compiled autoimatically from citations within the body of the article enclosed in <ref>...</ref> tags, but before you do that please note that citing your own work is a conflict of interest, so you should actually propose the change on the article's Talk page and let someone else make the edit if they consider it valid. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I do it here? The article Akan people infobox is broken due to anonymous editors tampering. NinuKinuski (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it for you, but you could have done it yourself, from the history, by comparing the current version with the last good version, then clicking "Undo". There was one unreferenced sentence that got reverted. If the anon editor can find a citation then we can put that back. Dbfirs 11:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I was wondering if someone could offer some help in how to create an article, since this will be my first time. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B146:4D1F:CCF1:FBF:3262:4B96 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice is at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This question is about the PEMS page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_emissions_measurement_system. While there are a handful of companies in the PEMS industry, the PEMS page reflects the products, services, and opinions of only one company. I work for one of those other companies. After having read through the help sections, it is clear this article violates two of the five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". I also read the help section on conflict of interest which states that I am strongly discouraged from editing the article myself. My questions is...what is the best way to flag or object to this article's content so that it gets fixed and is edited back to a neutral point of view?

Thanks! AlonsoWindmill (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlonzoWindmill: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I've posted some information on your user talk page that you will need to review regarding paid editing. It also mentions how you can make edit requests on article talk pages when you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 18 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." [9]
• WP article for the soundtrack album Blow-Up (soundtrack) conforms to IMDB entry. Here is the Allmusic link from that article. [10] 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]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

 – - much more relevant to a recent posting on the technical adminstration of this forum. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:10, 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]

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.