This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.



Most recent archives
841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 860

No SAVE button in sandbox

I have no SAVE button in my Sandbox. Am I doing something wrong or must I complete my work in one sitting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijames1 (talkcontribs) 13:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikijames1, Save = Publish changes, does that help? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wikijames1: Welcome to the Teahouse, and may I just expand on what Gråbergs Gråa Sång says above? Everything we do is online here, even our sandboxes can be seen by anyone who cares to look for them. For that reason we no longer 'save' our edits, we publish the changes we made. So go ahead and ht the big, blue 'Publish changes' button to save your work. But, and it's a big BUT, publishing our changes made to our sandbox, talk page or draft page, is not the same as Publishing an article into the main part of the encyclopaedia - even if the words we use sound similar. Once you get to the stage of wanting to create an article, have a read of this page on making your first article and having it reviewed. We always recommend new editors to start off gently however. So you might like to have a go at gaining all fifteen badges in our interactive learning tour called The Wikipedia Adventure. I'll pop by in a mo and leave you a welcome message with a handful of useful links to some of the key bits of Wikipedia to get you started. Then do feel free to ask any further questions should you find yourself getting stuck. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to say that that button's new name is starting to really annoy me, not long ago I encountered this [1]. I think we are loosing several "first edits" because of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The 'Publish changes' name change has annoyed and confused many new editors since it was introduced, on legal advice, by the Wikimedia Foundation team in Dec 2017 ("after several years of discussions" see here), not least because it was implemented with very poor communication and insufficient coordination to ensure that all the critical help and guidance pages were amended to reflect that change. However, these issues have all now been addressed, so we are, I'm afraid, simply going to have to get used to it. But I will ping Whatamidoing_(WMF) so s/he is aware that new editors are still being confused between "save" and "publish". Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Nick. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all Wikijames1 (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikijames1: I'm not so completely confident as Nick that all of the help and guidance pages have been corrected, so I want to ask if you saw advice to use a "SAVE" button somewhere on Wikipedia. I know I found and corrected a somewhat obscure mention of SAVE a few months ago. If it was a source off-wiki that mentioned the SAVE button, it's understandable that an older set of instructions or a video may refer to the old name of the button, but it's not under our control (other than perhaps sending a comment to the outfit that it is giving out obsolete information). — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
See this discussion. He was looking for a private way to save his page, without publishing it on the internet where anyone could read it.
So far, every new editor who has asked for a "Save" button (and has explained why) has been looking for a non-public way to save their work. That function is not available on Wikipedia, and it never has been. This fact might need to be added to some help pages. If you want to save your work privately (e.g., so your first edit can be "perfect", then you would have to copy it and save the text somehow on your own computer.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I think you're right about this change "losing" a few first edits, but those are edits that people do not mean to post on the internet in the first place, so this is probably a good thing. It should mean somewhat less work for oversighters. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I don't think that's true enough, I think a significant number of edits are "scared away" because they read "publish changes" as something else than for example posting a question at Teahouse. But that's my view, hard to prove. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
However, I think "publish changes" may also scare away some "thought this was non-public" edits, which of course it should. I'm pretty sure I've seen that misunderstanding before the change. I still think there's some baby in that bathwater, but I agree there's bathwater. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
And I'm willing to agree that there's baby in there, too. I doubt that we'll ever find a perfect solution. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
A non-perfect solution..? On WP!? Well I never! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for posting that! 😆 Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced that He was looking for a private way to save his page is an accurate representation of I just wanted to temporarily save my work for further editing at a later time (diff). Furthermore, even if it was true that every new editor who has asked for a "Save" button (and has explained why) has been looking for a non-public way to save their work, that is clearly not the same as "every new editor who did not click the publish change button did so because they wanted to changes to be private" (which is the correct premise for the argument that follows, and which is false in that absolute form, per GGS's diff where it is clear that the user is OK with making the changes public as long as it is not a definitive version). I remember having seen a couple of new editors taking here at the Teahouse who displayed that thinking, though I cannot be bothered to dig the archives right now.
The real question is how much of each type of problem we have more or less after the change. I do not think anyone has clear statistics on that (if they have, I would be interested to hear them). I do think the claim of oversighters having less work is extremely spurious though. Of course we are never going to see a diff or log entry proving that point (since well, oversight is about removing them from view) but "I guess they must exist" is less convincing than "I have seen them". Also, "that edit was not perfect, I want my first log entry to be stellar" is no valid grounds for oversight.
I think Whatamidoing (WMF) is being trapped in cabinet collective responsibility here. Legal mandated the change to be safe on the you-are-actually-releasing-this-under-CC side, everything else is post-hoc justification because it was (wisely) calculated that the (reasonable IMO) position "our lawyers told us so, now shut up" would not fly with the community. (Pinging because I do not like trash-talking in people's backs, not because I expect a reply: the policy is not going to change, so I do not care a lot whether the official line is factually justified or whether Whatamidoing privately agrees with it, and it is not like I am entitled to an answer to my rant.) TigraanClick here to contact me 09:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think that there was as much of a "product" question as a "legal" one with this. User testing by the researchers confirmed that "Save" was (now, but less so back when Wikipedia started) associated with private changing (in English, anyway, but that's what matters for this wiki). This result was consistent with comments reported from class editing projects and comments from editors over the last few years. It was the "product" side that drove the "legal" side, because – well, I'd say that understanding what the button does leads to informed consent about the consequences of clicking it, but in their jargon, they'd probably say something about a meeting of the minds or perhaps occasionally mens rea, with the common idea being that users need to understand what they're doing before they do it. Yes, that's relevant to the releasing-this-under-CC side of things, but it's occasionally relevant to the massive-invasion-of-privacy side of things and the you-just-earned-a-libel-lawsuit side of things, too.
Also, in my experience, "Legal said so, so cope" actually does fly in most communities, including this one. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't often find it worth the time to argue with that one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
In response to jmcgnh, I'm reasonably confident in my statement because I was so frustrated earlier this year with the failure to properly coordinate this 'minor change' that I put in a lot of effort to find, amend or notify others to update all the suddenly-out-of-date help pages that newcomers rely upon every day. But if you - or any editor - do uncover any more, please leave details at this page where I keep a running tally of issues needing action.
But, Whatamidoing (WMF) et al, what I still think we need is different alt-text when you mouseover the big, blue 'Publish changes' button in Mainspace and in Userspace. Surely it wouldn't take too much to change the latter to something along the lines of: Publish changes to your own userpage, or, dare I say, Save and publish changes to your own userpage?. Maybe something for the Community Wishlist Survey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talkcontribs) 02:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I fixed template {{2nd chance}} yesterday. It is just now added to your list as a done item. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you think that "Save and publish changes to your own userpage" on a user sandbox page would increase or decrease the likelihood of a brand-new editor interpreting this as "Click this button if and only if you want this posted very publicly and probably irrevocably on the internet right now"?
I don't know whether it's technically possible at the moment, but I think the first question is going to be about whether people will understand the consequences. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 Now that I'm no longer a new user, The current set up is perfectly fine. But for a new user, there are some things that are confusing. When I started I found You Tube very helpful. For example, I wanted to reply to a message and was told to respond on 'this' page, I searched for hours on that page looking for a button to click or an edit box. I messaged an admin and he said to just respond on that page. Again searched that page. Am I on the right page, maybe it hasn't been updated?. Ok, finally I figured it out, I wrote on my page and somehow someone else got the message! But now that i've learned to swim, everything is fine and I'm happy!.Wikijames1 (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You might want to take a 2nd look at the above text and rethink that opinion on "swimming".Tym Whittier (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The labeling of "fake news" seems inappropriate and biased how can we change that?

CNN has been called "fake news" by THE PRESIDENT OF THE US, and many more sources. If that is not a valid source I don't know what is. Yet if I were to put that in their description on their wiki it would most certainly be reversed. Yet with news stories like this "Sessions firing planned like a murder" [1] which is implicitly biased and clearly over the top I would hardly disagree. Yet, I would still find it inappropriate to do so.

Yet, on the other hand, InfoWars [2] is called fake news in their description. If I were to remove that it would most certainly be added back. But this is a dangerous accusation and unfair in my opinion. I am already aware, that most of you reading this will have a difference of opinion, but I ask you as reasonable people to hear me out, and help me correct this issue.

Wikipedia should not be used to discredit or censor those most people disagree with, it is our obligation to maintain a fair and objective look at each group. When it comes to news organizations, we need to be particularly cautious as to not let our bias get in the way. As much as I dislike CNN's unfair reporting, I would never call it fake news. And as someone who actually listens to InfoWars, I can attest that they are not fake news, though they are biased. The sources linking to them being fake news don't even make sense to be honest, non of them make InfoWars "fake news" yet the claim sticks. The strongest "reference" is the one about his claim about Sandy Hook. Though he mulled the idea around that it might be fake, he never implicitly said it was and reported it that way. Even then that is his opinion and not fake news.

I believe this is an unfair accusation with misused sources and I would like to remove it, but I know I will face a team of opposition, and I just realized I don't have enough edits anyway.

Can anyone help get the right thing done, and remove that label?

Best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talkcontribs) 17:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


To keep the references close to the text that uses them, I moved the list here. Pretended leer {talk} 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Healinglaw: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You don't need a certain number of edits to post on article talk pages, which is the proper forum to give this sort of comment. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Infowars is labeled as fake news because multiple independent reliable sources have called them that, and demonstrated multiple instances where they have invented stories out of whole cloth. Statements by Donald Trump are not treated as a reliable source, because Donald Trump is not a reliable source. In fact, he lies often enough that it is possible to begin to analyze the issue statistically, and estimate that he makes on average, somewhere around 5.01 public false statements per day. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for epistemological relativism or assertions of moral equivalency. We do not seek to provide balance where none exists. If you regularly consume information from unreliable sources such as Infowars, then the fact that Wikipedia's content does not align with your worldview is not a bug, it is a feature. GMGtalk 18:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@331dot:Thanks for letting me know, I was having difficulty finding the right location. I will do tht from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talkcontribs) 05:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Please cite your sources, or carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talkcontribs) 05:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Almost all of that is horribly inaccurate. President Trump is not a reliable source because he's the "President of the United States", and not a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia Policies. He's a political figure, and not a news organization. This would be true of any President, and any political figure. So you can't say "The sky is blue." because President Trump said it was, but you CAN say "ABC News reported that Donald Trump said the sky is blue." The difference may be hard to understand to a newcomer, but it's critical for an encyclopedia. The comments above by GreenMeansGo about Trump's character are inappropriate for several reasons, the most important of which is that it leads by a bad example. It's not just wrong, but it allows New Editors to think and believe wrongly, which creates more problems for other people to have to deal with. What happens when this New Editor shows up to an Article and starts advocating the inclusion of some politician's statements as a "reliable source" because this goofy "truth index" thing says they "always tell the truth", and you told him it's okay as long as the magic, truth-detecting gonkulator approves said politician's speech? The New Editor asked a question that goes directly (and only) to the definition of what a "reliable source" is, and did not solicit your opinions on the "truthfulness" of politicians or the "reliability" of one news outlet or another. The "feature" aspect of Wikipedia you mention exists precisely because your faulty understanding of "how it works" is the exact opposite of what actually takes place here. It's about the policies and guidelines, and not the personal opinions of the Editors being elevated to the encyclopedic level.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Healinglaw said as someone who actually listens to InfoWars, I can attest that they are not fake news, -- IMO, this is almost sufficient for a WP:CIR block. InfoWars has pushed conspiracy theories that:
It is the McDonald's of Tinfoil Haberdashery. If I see any further defense of InfoWars, I'm just going to block under WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi Ian, Thanks for the Info! In response to your sources: Info Wars hosts a variety of guests, and they are not scripted. They are allowed to freely talk about what they want, for the most part. In specific your "Children on Mars" link, I listened to that show myself when it came out, he did not say anything like that, his guest did, furthermore he dismissed the claims the following day. Note that the article states his guest Robert David Steele said that and did not quote Alex Jones.

As for Pizzagate he apologized, though I am not sure he pushed it much to begin with. :*[[2]]

For the school shooting, he briefly said he thought it might be staged, he did not say it was, just that he thought it was possible. He later walked that back, and last I checked an opinion that is wrong, is not fake news. False flag events do happen. :*[[3]]

Hilary Clinton... is probably a witch. Can't argue with that :P

And its atrazine, an herbicide in the water causing frog to not reproduce, not chemtrail. He did say it was turning them guy, which is not entirely true, as they were actually changing genders :*[]]]

It's not fake news, it is news with a bias, just like CNN, just like Fox, the Hill, the WSJ etc. If CNN can say Sessions firing planned like a murder Alex Jones can say They are turning the freaking frogs gay

It's his slant. News has always had a slant, that's how you make headlines. He doesn't hide his like others. That doesn't make it fake, just different. No one should believe everything they hear no matter the source, not because of fake news, but bias and slant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Healinglaw (talkcontribs)

Like I said, if I saw any further defense of InfoWars, I was going to block. Filling out the relevant stuff now. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've just re-read this whole thread for about the 5th time in as many days, and now have a question using "Infowars" as an example. First I accept the idea that Infowars (and similar) "news outlets" are not, can not, and should not be used as a reliable source, but a stopped clock is right twice a day. Here's the hypothetical:
reliable source A says "the sky was blue on Tuesday, according to Donald Trump"
reliable source B says "Hillary Clinton said the sky was blue on Tuesday, despite the fact that it was raining"
Infowars says "Despite the fact that it was raining, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump said the sky was blue on Tuesday"
Point of this exercise is to illustrate how an "unreliable" source might take two facts that are corroborated by two other, and reliable sources, and "fuse" them together in a single sentence, thereby allowing the Editor to convey the same information by using one sentence from an "unreliable" source, thereby making the Article more readable. (shorter, more concise, etc...)
What do other people think?
Tym Whittier (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. Unreliable sources should not be used, and scare quotes will not make Infowars acceptable under any circumstances. --bonadea contributions talk 19:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

When will an article become unprotected?

Hello, I’ve been wanting to edit an article about Gavin McInnes. I watched an NBC interview of him and the proud boys where he said himself it was fair to call him Islamophobic. But every time anyone else edits, the edit is reverted back to Anti-Islam. Why is that? If he called himself an Islamophobe why can’t we describe him that way? Second, every time I try to edit the page the page is protected. I see others making edits, but I can’t. When does page protection end and can I make this edit and attribute it to the interview? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatimaniqbal (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles get protected because of disruption by well-meaning readers who try to change things in a way that runs counter to Wikipedia editorial policies and guidelines. The article is semi-protected until 15 November 2018. Once your account has been active for 4 days with at least 10 edits, you will be able to edit this article. Until then, you can propose changes on the talk page. Preface your proposed change with the tag {{edit semi-protected}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Gavin is a primary source. You'll need a secondary source that says he described himself as "Islamophobic".Tym Whittier (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

New Article needing citations

I've clicked the 'publish changes' for my new article on Jessie Payne in my sandbox. Fingers crossed some lovely Wiki editor will now check it to see if it's suitable...but how do I know that's the case? i.e. Will i get a message to say someone is looking at it? I know that I need to add extra info to the citations, or to learn how to input them correctly, and I'll get on with trying to make sense of that and learning how to do it...if I am reassured that the article is suitable! (Any training days coming up? I did my last article 4 years ago and things have changed)

Courtesy link User:Tanzi22/sandbox or nobody will know what you are referring to. Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If you think it might be suitable, submit it for review it via WP:AfC by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top. If it gets refused, don't be discouraged, the reviewer should say on the template what needs improving. [Username Needed] 13:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Tanzi22. You can still make a number of changes. For example, all headings are currently in all caps. Numbers from zero to nine should be spelled out (e.g. two children). Also I feel that some parts are more like narratives. I recommend that you check the Wikipedia Manual of Style to address some of the issues. Good luck! Darwin Naz (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Free-use photos

I'm trying to figure out how the whole free-use thing for images of people who are no longer living works, and I keep going around in circles on various policy pages. I started two articles today, Roz Young and Marj Heyduck, and of course I'd like to include photos. Both women were photographed quite often. I've actually been trying to work my network as they both were active in the town I grew up in, but so far no luck finding someone who knows someone who actually photographed either of them themselves. How do I go about finding a free-use photo? Thanks for any help! valereee (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello valereee. I'm Rebestalic. I recommend you go into source mode, and click on the picture button, fifth from the left on the toolbar. Find any picture you want about Roz Yound or Marj Heyduck, and click "upload". Then, you should see an option to go to the Commons upload wizard. You can then follow the page's instructions.
Good luck,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 00:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Valereee. I'm not entirely sure what you are asking; but I've a suspicion (based on your mentioning people who are no longer living) that you are actually talking about using non-free images. Wikipedia has a strong preference for images which are free to reuse: either they have been put in the public domain explicitly or by reason of their age, or the copyright holder has explicitly licensed them under a suitable licence. These are the only kind of images that Commons will accept.
But because of the difficulty of finding some images, English Wikipedia accepts non-free images in certain circumstances, as long as all of the criteria in the non-free content criteria have been met: in that case the image may be uploaded to English Wikipedia (not to Commons). One of the criteria is that there is no reasonable prospect of finding a free image; for that reason, non-free images of living people are hardly ever acceptable. A non-free image of a no-longer-living person may be acceptable, but will not automatically be so: the uploader will still need to show that the image and its use meet all the criteria.
Does this clarify things? --ColinFine (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine yes, that clarifies things, thanks. The use meets the first nine criteria; for the Roz Young article I've actually reached out to a local historian who wrote a book about this woman and is displaying a perfect photo of her on his blog and facebook page. I don't know if he is the actual copyright holder, as it looks like a professional portrait, but if he isn't he may know who is. Rebestalic thanks, I tried to follow your instructions, but it seems to be wanting me to upload the photo from my own computer, which I'm happy to do except for my own concerns about that making it look like I'm trying to claim copyright. And also, of course, I can't yet answer that tenth criterion, which I imagine is where the upload wizard is going next. valereee (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
{U|Valereee}}: as long as all the criteria are met, permission is not required (though of course you may choose to ask for it for politeness' sake). --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, good to know, thanks! Wish I could save this helpful discussion so I can find it again three years from now when I try to reteach it to myself, lol valereee (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Valereee: wait a few days until it's been archived, so that it will have a permanent name, and then put the link [[WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_859#Free-use photos]] somewhere you can find it, such as your user page. (It might not be 859: use the Archive search - just under the contents list above - to find which archive it gets put in). --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Found a photo and even tracked down the author, who gave permission and even provided a higher-quality image, so I uploaded it! Fingers crossed I uploaded correctly, and thanks again for the help! valereee (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Obcaecati illum eveniet nemo explicabo, dolorum aliquid veniam perferendis saepe repellat deserunt exercitationem animi, reprehenderit consectetur? Obcaecati voluptates non mollitia id et!

I'm new...??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey anon. If you have a specific question about editing Wikipedia, I'm sure there are plenty of folks around willing to help. GMGtalk 14:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you're looking for the Latin Wikipedia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That was lorem ipsum, not a real text. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
But it is latin! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång - Is Jabberwocky English? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Ave. Quaeris fortasse paginam Lorem ipsum. --ColinFine (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks to me like someone is working on/tweaking their spam bot.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Introductory phrase in Demographics section

While editing boroughs, townships, and census-designated places in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, I have found the phrase "In the borough the population was spread out," followed by a discussion of the ages of the population. When I read it, I envisioned the inhabitants spread out in the street waiting to be handcuffed and taken away. Since I am certain that this is not what the author intended to say, I have changed many of them to say "In the borough the age of the population was spread out,". A slight improvement but not necessarily adequate. See page [] as an example. Possible improvements might be "The median age of the population was 39 years, less than the median age for Armstrong County, which was 40 years. The detailed statistics are: " This is only one suggestion and I am certain that there are better ones out there.

My question is: should these be changed? If so, what other possibilities are there?

Niccolo1512 (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Niccolo1512. Feel free to change the phrase if you wish. After all, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 01:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I have discovered that the phrase is boilerplate inserted by a script. That means that there are probably thousands of populations "spread out". I will at least get Armstrong County off the ground.

BTS Controversy situation


User Phoenix7777 is adding fake news to the BTS article and I'm afraid it will be happen a lot these days so I ask some cooperation and advice.

The nazi hat issue the user added was an edit made by antis years ago from a magazine photoshoot Ceci magazine Korea here. You can literally search the magazine scans and see it's fake and the extremist right wing group leaded by Makoto Sakurai knows it's fake yet are still spreading the edit.

This user is also citing a biased articles without doing the proper research about the liberation day shirt that is released in korea, in no way the shirt is mocking the A-Bomb as media like The Guardian are reporting, the own creator of the shirt already gave interviews and apologized for using the sensitive image. South Korea and Japan are going through a tense diplomatic situation and Japanese media are using the group to spread fake news, you can read the Billboard reference about it. Also the accusation about the flag at the concert is fake and the company from the artist Seo Taiji that organized the event is already consulting to their lawyers to sue for defamation the people accusing the flag being Nazi.

We need help to protect the page from biased points of view from jnetz and fans until the situation is cleared because this situation is beyond fandoms, there are politics and extremist groups included. ↳ GiovannaG . . . (My talk) 16:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@GiovannaG: Calling a sourced edit "fake news" and trying to disprove it with original research is unlikely to win you any friends or convince seasoned editors. If you think The Guardian is incorrect, provide reliable sources that said so. I will urge my fellow editors to watch this page but not for the reasons you mention. It seems to me that there might be an issue with fangirls of this particular band trying to prevent anything negative to be said about them. Regards SoWhy 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@GiovannaG: I agree with SoWhy (who I've already pinged via the BTS Talk page,so shalln't do again here), and I have left my views that the new controversy section is highly relevant. Suggesting that well respected organisations such as The Guardian Newspaper and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre are engaging in fake news against BTS is rather ridiculous - it certainly merits coverage here, providing it's done in an encyclopaedic, balanced manner. And I say this - as you know - as a bit of an accidental supporter of BTS. (By the way: I'm really pleased to see you've now got that standalone page on Jungkook, and my daughter had an absolutely superb time at the BTS gig at the O2 arena in London last month.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Update: There is now a WP:RFC on the talk page of this article to gain consensus on whether or not content from WP:RS is appropriate to include in a new section on this page, and the page itself has been temporarily given protection from editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Having trouble archiving my talk page

I've tried to archive my talkpage following the instructions at WP:TALKARCHIVE, first using Cluebot, and then lowercase sigmabot, but for whatever reason it doesn't seem to be working. In both cases, I waited several days (almost two weeks with Cluebot), but the bots both seem to be ignoring my page. I have several conversations older than the minimum age parameter, so I really don't understand what's going on. Do I need to manually create the pages that will store the archive before the bots come through? signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill, welcome to the Teahouse. There is nothing to archive with the current archiving code on your talk page. It says algo=old(90d) and minthreadstoarchive=2. This means only archive threads which are at least 90 days old, and only run archiving when there are at least 2 threads to archive. You only have one thread older than 90 days. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Copywritten images

Hello! I have read the Fair Use Wizard, but I'm not clear on if you can upload an image, like the cover of a movie or video game, and just say under the description of the image the owner of that cover art, or if that's against fair use. Pierson D (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Pierson D, and thanks for asking. The image and the way it is used must meet all the criteria in the WP:Non-free content criteria. If they do, then you can upload it (to Wikipedia, not to Commons) as non-free media. --ColinFine (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:AI_Peer_Review - requires revision, chat, probably more revision

Greetings and Salutations Wikonians, Ok fine, in that case, consider a revision of the entire Section AI-complete problem: AI peer review. --Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Gravitoelectrotensor. I find this post a little confusing; is this a question?
P.S. The demonym for users of Wikipedia is "Wikipedians" :).
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 01:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Rebestalic[dubious—discuss]. The title link Draft:AI_Peer_Review is to the article I'm asking for the Wikipedians and perhaps a few Wikonians to comment on whether the comments by the reveiwer have been met to justify resubmitting the article.


Gravitoelectrotensor —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Gravitoelectrotensor, and welcome to Wikipedia! I think this draft has an understandability problem. How about starting it like this:

Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation: an evaluation of a work by people of similar competence to its authors.

or even like this

A peer review is an evaluation of a work by people of similar competence to its authors. Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation.

Normally, articles should start with their titles or at least have it in their first sentences. But you could probably prioritise readability over consistency with other articles here. Later sentences in the article could use even more editing, but I don't understand the text well enough to do that myself.
Other issues I've noticed include:
  • A multi-line quotation formatted as multiple one-line quotations. That, and its use of weird characters might be considered accessibility problems. I might look at this at some time, but there are other things I'd rather do first.
  • What does "logical objective refinement" mean? What's logical? The objectives or the refinement? Or is the refinement logical and objective? Considering the topic of this draft, you might find "Time flies like an arrow" interesting to read.
  • Just because something is a name, it doesn't mean it has to be in bold. :: And something that gets mentioned multiple times should probably not be bolded multiple times. I'm not saying bold shouldn't be used, but don't overuse it in paragraphs. Using it to show that the word that is a pronoun might be okay. What you do in the first sentence is probably also okay, but I'm not sure about the latter. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Pretended leer {talk}, Thanks for the welcome, I've watched Wikipedia explode with info since the mid-2000's, hope to contribute something myself here. Regarding understandability, here is the first sentence of the existing Wiki Peer review article:

Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility.

which (without showing the references here) I modified slightly to

Artificial intelligence (AI) peer-review is a machine intelligence replication of the human intelligence peer review evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work. Research and development towards an AI peer review capability seeks a further refinement of the methods of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility in determining an academic paper's suitability for publication.

Note that I did start the article with the title in the first sentence. Generally, as much of the article as possible is copied from the existing Wikipedia articles it connects together.
Regarding the other issues you noticed:
  • What are the sadly weird characters you are referring to here: "A multi-line quotation formatted as multiple one-line quotations. That, and its use of weird characters might be considered accessibility problems. I might look at this at some time, but there are other things I'd rather do first."
  • OK so I revised this phrase out of the article's second sentence shown above: "What does "logical objective refinement" mean? What's logical? The objectives or the refinement? Or is the refinement logical and objective? Considering the topic of this draft, you might find "Time flies like an arrow" interesting to read." The context of this article is formalized, i.e., machine readable, logic. Peer review is supposed to be objective, i.e., based on logic. An AI peer review machine learning cognitive system would represent a "logical objective refinement," however yeah if that's sounds like an essay then ok fine.
  • OK just one bold.
So I think I'm ready to resubmit the article, after taking out the essay parts without direct references.
If I were to really write an essay ... about the oncoming trainwreck called AI we're told we are completely unprepared for, I would start with the fact most engineers and scientists, including the self-defined Aspen CERN LHC 10,000 physicists, are completely unfamiliar with the formalized mathematical logic underpining all of AI. To the extent, in spite of the widely held belief, the universe operates according to some mathematical group operation ... even the 10,000 particle-multiverse physicists cannot state their "theories" in the mathematical language of a logical conjecture — which formalized conjecture if verified could then join the list of proven theorems. Gravitoelectrotensor (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gravitoelectrotensor: I've fixed it now. You were using <blockquote>text</blocquote> multiple times in a row. And then you were using the character • as a bullet for the bulletted list. What we normally do is having lines starting with asterisks. Unfortunately, I made a mistake when fixing it and now I can't get a diff for the fix. But I can show the code before and after.


<blockquote>• No evidence for supersymmetry so far at LHC </blockquote>
<blockquote>• Without supersymmetry, we don't understand how the Higgs boson can exist without violating basic mechanisms of quantum physics</blockquote><blockquote>→ Either the new run of the LHC should discover superpartners, or radical new ideas are needed </blockquote>
<blockquote>[[Maria Spiropulu]] ([ see ''The Future of the Higgs Boson'' - YouTube APS video at 20:32])<ref>{{Citation|last=APS Physics|title=The Future of the Higgs Boson|date=2014-04-14|url=|access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref> </blockquote>


* No evidence for supersymmetry so far at LHC
* Without supersymmetry, we don't understand how the Higgs boson can exist without violating basic mechanisms of quantum physics
{{arrow|alt=Therefore}} Either the new run of the LHC should discover superpartners, or radical new ideas are needed
{{Block indent|1=[[Maria Spiropulu]] ([ see ''The Future of the Higgs Boson'' - YouTube APS video at 20:32])<ref>{{Citation|last=APS Physics|title=The Future of the Higgs Boson|date=2014-04-14|url=|access-date=2018-09-14}}</ref>}}

As you can see, the before code looks like several one-line quotations rather than a single multi-line one. Not very readable. And I used template:block indent for the author of the quote after not finding anything in the Manual of Style saying how that should be written.

Sequences of lines starting with asterisks become bulletted lists. But having <blockquote> at the start of a line stopped it from working, so I added a line break before it. Then I didn't need the other "bullet" characters.

I also used {{arrow|alt=Therefore}} to make an arrow that screen readers could read as a "therefore". The template had had an error which had to be fixed before I could use it here. Because of that, I waited before putting it in the draft. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gravitoelectrotensor: Some sentences still look rather long, but I guess I'm not in the intended audience. But at least now I can feel I understand the lead section.
And one thing you can try to do when writing is to read the text aloud after writing it. It helps notice hard to read passages. – Pretended leer {talk} 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Matthew S - i need your help

Hi everyone, I'm Kiodos from Germany! I've just started writing here on Wikipedia. I am very happy to be able to help this website. I only need your support to start positively!

I did a considerable amount of research to find all the articles, there are Italian and foreign articles about this artist. I would like to create articles about artists winning important contests. He won an MTV award. This is the article: [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiodos (talkcontribs) 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kiodos. Once you are happy with Matthew S and you think that it reads well enough to be a high-quality article, you can submit the draft for review. Page reviewers can then consider your article for publication.
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 01:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Rebestalic.
How can I send the article for review?
It should be ok now!
Kiodos (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello again Kiodos. It looks like the draft has been sent for review. Good work! I'll help contribute to the article as well.
Happy editing,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 08:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--Kiodos (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

a user has added suggestions in the article, can they be useful? --Kiodos (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I belive that having an article published is a pure luck.

I wounder why this article that I have created is declined when similar articles already exist on Wikipedia with similar activities as company that I have tried to put on Wikipedia. I belive that there are enough referencies on Ewla draft page, but maybe I am just mising the point, and that is that some articles will be published, and some will not. Its pure luck. Similar pages already exist, with very little referencies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroslav.uzice87 (talkcontribs) 21:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Miroslav.uzice87: If you have found any articles that do not cite independent reliable sources that sufficiently establish notability, or have a promotional tone, please point them out for us so we can decline or delete those as needed.
If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything, here are the steps you should follow:
1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with luck but with abiding by the rather clear standards we have in place. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hellio, Miroslav.uzice87.Your draft article includes overtly promotional language such as "Ewla fashion brand represents style and quality since 1994 when it was founded. The company provides a focused selection of high quality fashion and fashion basics at compelling values in an innovative and exciting environment. Effortless style, authenticity and easy-going living are at the heart of the brand's philosophy." This kind of language is fine on the company's website and in its marketing materials but is completely inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. If you see that type of language in other articles, list this articles here and I will delete it if other editors don't delete it first. I suggest that you read about the neutral point of view and conflict of interest. We take these policies seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
First question I'd have is, "Is the topic/subject noteable?" If not, then everything else is a waste of time. You could have everything you need and if the topic isn't noteable, it will still get deleted.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


Im looking for help to Update my Wikipedia Info, i have my information on Google Demographics and verified Google Search, and would like to have all my artist information on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Janpierre (talkcontribs) 21:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Julio Janpierre: If there is an article about you on this site, see WP:BLP.
Whether or not there is an article about you, also see WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Julio Janpierre, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that you have a very common misconception, that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with promoting your career or enhancing your web presence. It hasn't, and attempts to use it for that purpose usually end in frustration. If Wikipedia has an article about you, it will not be your article. It should not be written by you, it should not be edited by you, and it should contain very little material that comes from you. It should instead be a summary of what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish in reliable, edited places. Your involvement in it should be limited to making suggestions, which uninvolved editors will decide whether to implement or not. --ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

OHCHR is United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR is UN Refugee Agency)

Hi. I saw a mistake regarding United Nations Human Rights Council, but only realized after that there are many words that needs to be corrected. I have never contributed to Wikipedia before and should probably not have done anything before taking a better look at what I got myself into. I don't have the time to update everything. Can someone please help? [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitin1969 (talkcontribs) 23:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Nitin1969:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Article-related concerns are usually better discussed at the article's associated talkpage, in this case Talk:United Nations Human Rights Council. However, I believe you are mixing up OHCHR and UNHRC (not UNHCR as mentioned in the hatnote on top of the article). I have reverted your good-faith edit but fixed a few instances of UNHRC - UNHCR confusion in the article (see also the article's "history" for specific changes and their reasoning). If you'd like to discuss this further, please start a thread at the article's talkpage, where other interested editors can also chime in. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia - if you see any obvious errors, you are of course welcome to fix them yourself or raise them on the articles' respective talkpages. Whereever possible, please make sure to provide independent reliable sources for substantial content changes. GermanJoe (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Creating a page for a Talent


I am trying to make a page for one of our digital talent, Amber Scholl. She is a YouTube sensation and our team is trying to have a page for her on Wikipedia. I have been submitting drafts for her page, but it keeps declining. Please advise on how to move forward.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberscholl1 (talkcontribs) 00:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Amberscholl1: You need to read about what makes a subject Notable and also be aware of conflict of interest and paid editing guidelines. You should follow the guidance at WP:YFA and use the wizard there to create a draft for review. Based on your sandbox, this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
And remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your client. RudolfRed (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Amberscholl1. The very next thing that you must do here on Wikipedia is to comply with our mandatory paid editing disclosure. This is not negotiable. The next thing that you must do is realize that Wikipedia is not an online platform for you to promote your clients. There are countless other platforms where that is acceptable, like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and so on. On the other hand, Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and not a place for advertising or promotion. You are talking about User:Amberscholl1/sandbox, which is an unreferenced and highly promotional draft. There is no way that this draft will be accepted into the encyclopedia, unless it is dramatically rewritten and properly referenced. As for your claim that she is a "YouTube sensation", that is exactly the type of over the top promotionalism that simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, if you are not Amber Scholl, then your username may be violating the policy on misleading usernames. See WP:Username. RudolfRed (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Help with Citations

I'm trying to get away from the Tea House and non-participatory conversations in the "Discussion" sections, based on the advice of at least two Editors here. To that end I have set out two small projects to learn how to do things and immediately have run into a wall.

One Article has a "spam" citation, that I thought I'd simply delete, but when I went to "Edit" that Section (at the bottom of an Article), all that displayed was a blank page, with just this:

"= = References = = { { reflist } }"

(I broke it up to prevent it from rendering.)

Assume that means the "references" are somewhere else. Where? How do I get there?

Second project is to include a cite in an Article. The Article uses the source but doesn't include it. Is this the same place & process?Tym Whittier (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tym Whittier. References are put in at the spot the number appears in the article. The software generates the footnote at the point where "reflist" appears. See Help:Referencing for beginners for details. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay I read all that, very confusing, says there's 3 ways to edit the references, I want to start out with Wikipedia Markup first, then move to tools, maybe. But again the entire page is blank when I "edit" it, despite the fact that the Article lists over a hundred reference. I assume that's because they are "somewhere else". I can't delete a cite from a blank page. Do you need me to paste the specific page?Tym Whittier (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tym Whittier. The Wikipedia software justs displays the formatted references in the "References" section of the article, but that's not really where they're typically located. The actual references themselves are in most cases added to the body of the article near the content they're intended to support. It will basically look something like this: Article content<ref>citation</ref>. There are various ways to find the location of a specific reference in an article, but the easiest is problably to go to the "References" section and then click on the ^ symbol (it works like a back-link to the footnote marker for the reference) and it should take you to location of the reference. Once you know the location, you can open the edit window for the relevant seciton of the article, find the reference and edit it as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. It's what I was looking for. Now my concern is that I'm going to "Be Bold" and make a mess of things. I read a thing once where someone messed with the cites and threw the whole numbering system off. I started this thinking it would be a relatively easy and safe project to learn on. Was I wrong?Tym Whittier (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Tym Whittier: As you're working in Source editor mode, not in Visual Editor, you could always do a text search in your browser for these characters: <ref (I've intentionally left off the closing chevron of <ref>because some references are given shortcut names so they can be used again and again within one article, and these begin <ref name="shortcut">. But whatever you do, don't make the mistake I made when I started out editing: I'd not realised one could insert reference details using a nice easy popup template by clicking the 'Cite' button. Instead, I nearly went mad, trying to manually edit the code for each reference by cutting, pasting and then modifying an existing reference to create a new one. Life's actually a lot easier than that, whichever editor you prefer to use, as both have 'Cite' buttons in their toolbars. And to answer your latest reply, don't worry if you do mess up a page by 'being bold'. Just make sure you a) Preview the page before publishing changes, and b) checking how the saved/published page appears by looking for nasty red error messages. Even if you do that,you can go into 'View History' find your last entry on the top row and click 'Undo' to revert to the previous version. But, if you use the 'Cite' button to select the relevant template, you shouldn't be making errors with the markup anyway. I'm sure you'll be fine. Go for it. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's OK to be WP:BOLD since pretty much any problem you cause can be fixed by simply reverting your edit. Before clicking "Publish changes", hit "Show preview" first to see whether you made any mistakes: the software will show the citations in preview window and point out any errors in red. Just go back and fix them as needed. The footnote numbers are automatically added by the software based upon the location of the citation: the first citation added is assigned #1 and then it follows from there. So, you'll only change the number if you change the location of the citation. Most citation errors are simple syntax errors where somebody forgets to complete a parameter or add a "ref" or "/ref" tag, so these are no big deal; however, you can practice the formatting in your user sandbox if you want to make sure you got it right. The main thing you need to be concerned with is whether the source you're citing is a WP:RS and whether you're removing an existing citation for the right reason. Those two things are typically the ones where someone might disagree with what you did and revert your edit; if that happens, follow WP:BRD and use the article talk page to discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
One last thing to remember which is kind of important is that Wikipedia doesn't have one particular citation style it prefers over all others; in other words, there's is no "Wikipedia house style" for citing sources. So, you need to be aware of things such as WP:CITEVAR and WP:DATEUNIFY, etc. Generally, you should try to adhere to the style already being used in the article, unless there's a really good policy or guideline based reason for changing it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all of that. It's all new except the idea that style consistency is standardized within the Article and not from Article to Article. Still think I need to get all these messages multiple times however. This stuff is extraordinarily complex.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
... and just to add that the Wikipedia software takes care of the reference numbering, so don't try to adjust it. Just ignore the numbers. They will be automatically renumbered if you add or remove a reference. Dbfirs 08:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


I’ve seen on the article about Kabongo Tshimanga you have his date of birth wrong click into his the number 2 at the side his actually born on the 22/07/97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:9F2F:5E00:9CDF:DC27:3585:F323 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP user. The Teahouse is used for questions about using Wikipedia. If you would like to give a suggestion regarding the article, please post this suggestion at the article's talk page.
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 02:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've changed the date of birth to match the reference. Dbfirs 08:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

what to do about a page with no sources?

Hello, I was going though this page: Terry v. Ohio and realized there are almost no sources for most of the article, except for court decisions and then, for only one or two sections. Last night I added in all the "citation needed" and "unreferenced" templates.

I think this is a very important Fourth Amendment decision and I would like to rewrite it over the next month. My question is should I just delete the unreferenced sections and start over? I have no idea where the original editor got sources from.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Seahawk01 and welcome back to the Teahouse.
You should feel free to replace any unreferenced sections with new text that contains proper references. Deleting long-standing, though unreferenced, text should be done with a degree of caution and it's always worth dropping a note on the talk page outlining your intentions and reasoning, if you don't have the completed replacement already in hand. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


I don't want engage in an edit war so I'm requesting to go through this page history. The article was not according to WP:NPV so I fixed that but a person is inserting unsourced material again and again and writing "Will provide citation shortly". So the article is becoming a fan page. Hamim000000 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hamim000000: Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like there have now been a few eyes on this new article. You were right to be concerned and to warn another editor over adding statements unsupported by citations, though I note the person did add some soon afterwards. Any content that does not seem encyclopaedic, and only serves as unsupported trivia to promote some minor celebrity should be removed - but always ensure you justify each one with a clear edit summary. Nick \Moyes
Renotifying Hamim000000 as I failed to sign my previous post due to an edit conflict. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Spanish version of 'Fina Puigdevall' page I created has disappeared :(

Hi everyone!

I have been asked to contribute a new Wikipedia page as an assignment for my Master's Degree, and I decided to create the Spanish version of a page about Catalan chef Fina Puigdevall (the page is currently only available in Catalan).

Yesterday I published my translation and was working on it, adding references, linking it through to other Wikipedia content... this morning, it's all gone. I have looked at my contributions page and it doesn't even show there! There's no record of my work anywhere - yet I was publishing changes and amends incrementally, clicking on 'publish' and explaining the changes every so often... I just don't understand where I could have gone wrong? I even checked that my page was correctly published by accessing it through the Catalan version?

If you have any idea what I can do to recover my work, or at least not to do the same mistakes again, I would be really grateful!

Thank you in advance,

Laura (laurahueto93) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurahueto93 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Laurahueto93: welcome to the Teahouse! Every language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, and it looks like you created the page at the Spanish-language version, which was of course the appropriate place for a Spanish-language article. However, that means that editors at the English-language version can't really help. I can only see that a page has been deleted today at [] , and I assume it's the article you created. You'll need to ask the deleting administrator over at es.wikipedia about it - you can see their user name and a link to their user talk page in the deletion log. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much for your help, I didn't realise the distinction between the different versions of the wikipedia depending on the language. Thank you so much, I have asked him why he deleted it. Laurahueto93 (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection request :

I want to get the article Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Statistics , which contains a good deal of important Tottenham Hotspur F.C. records and statistics protected so that vandals don't do anything or make uncited edits . How do I do it ? I WOS A CHOC (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@I WOS A CHOC: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles are not protected preemptively; however, if there is an actual problem with vandalism, you may make a request at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: Thanks , I will see if I can get it protected . I WOS A CHOC (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I WOS A CHOC blocked as a sockpuppet of Anuchak. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Content Requirement & Less

Could I please be informed of the content requirement for a new article on a Youtuber? --QuantumPen (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atbreuer11: It's the same as for any person: That the person in question has been covered in a significant way by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals have more information about criteria that can indicate whether a person in a specific field is notable enough for inclusion. Regards SoWhy 11:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks --QuantumPen (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You also need to learn proper formatting for references. David notMD (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I will fix the reference formatting. --QuantumPen (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@David notMD: Are the references now in compliance? --QuantumPen (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please inform me if my page still does not contain enough independent sources. I have observed so far a level of hostility in some of Wikipedia's members that concerns me. What is my conflict of interest with your organization? I know there are many other pages to be reviewed, but I have a feeling mine has a set of eyes on it. --QuantumPen (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

By the decisions of other consciousnesses, and no more no less, I sit here in a state I never could think imaginable. Yet still, I retype my username already knowing of my ban, so that if it is lifted some will not have to spend energy to identify me. I need to say hello. --QuantumPen (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey QuantumPen. It's not clear exactly how the nature of consciousness is terribly relevant to your question. But as to your question, a fan made Wiki, his own LinkedIn profile,, Famous Birthdays... none of these are reliable for the purposes of writing biographies of living persons. Those sources that do seem fairly good, such as the Forbes source and the European Journal of Cultural Studies source, are fairly brief in their coverage, and it's not clear that they provide sufficient in-depth information for us to write a well balanced encyclopedia article.
It's also not clear to what you are referring to as your ban, but if you have had a previous account on Wikipedia, you should disclose that account, usually with a declaration on your user page. GMGtalk 14:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please let me talk to SalimJah (talk · contribs). The Kite Runner. "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" --QuantumPen (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Referencing format improved, but still not ideal. More to the point, what you are using as references are not suitable to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. There is no intended hostility. Asking a question at TeaHouse does bring eyes to your now FIVE TIME REJECTED draft. The volunteer editors here may not be maximally tactful, but their replies have been intended to be useful - your references are not good enough. Please be aware that "conflict of interest" has a specific meaning for Wikipedia - in means that an editor has a personal relationship with the topic, often a family member or friend. You are not being reprimanded for having an undeclared COI. None of the editors here have a grudge against Draft:Lewis Hilsenteger or you. You are not banned or blocked. But please stop resubmitting the draft. Because it is getting really, really annoying. David notMD (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I am annoying. And smart and other things. I will do better. --QuantumPen (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Four time rejected to be pedantic (sorry). After all its just Wikipedia, --QuantumPen (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I'm not seeing where anyone has been calling you these types of names, either here, on the draft, or on your talk page. But given that an article on this topic has apparently been deleted four times now, the best advice here may be that you should consider writing about a different topic for the time being, and allow some time for better sources to become available for Hilsenteger. GMGtalk 16:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not write that QuantumPen annoying, I wrote that repeatedly submitting the draft (with only cosmetic changes, none of which addressed the fatal weaknesses of the citations), was annoying. Draft:Lewis Hilsenteger now shows that it was submitted SIX times on 13 November, submission declined each time. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Utility of primary, non-independent, reliable sources

I have been trying to understand exactly what Wikipedia policies define as the correct handling of sourcing content from and citing academic Computer Science publications. To preface with the exact questions I wish to have clarified:

  1. Is expanding articles with information pulled from primary, reliable, but not independent sources (with citation) viewed as a desired and meaningful contribution?
  2. What degree of reference is required to satisfy WP:LISTCOMPANY?

I have come to understand from WP:RS that citing a paper from a respected, peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings would be viewed as a reliable source. In the vast majority of cases, the publications are written by the same people that did the research, and so the source counts as primary, per WP:PRIMARY. By the same reasoning though, this close relationship and vested interest in the work would make the source not independent, according to WP:IS.

Wikipedia, seems to view secondary, independent, reliable sources as the ideal. WP:SCHOLARSHIP highlights a strong preference for secondary sources. The guidelines on Non-independent sources suggests using non-independent sources for content is okay, but suggests qualifying all information pulled from a non-independent source as potentially suspect. Is the preference for secondary sources only a preference? Does the requirement of marking suspect all information pulled from non-independent sources apply to academic publications?

In scanning through existing articles and their citations, I'm assuming the answer for (1) is "Yes". However, these articles seem to frequently have citations that are primary, not reliable, and not independent. Should I be trying to remove/replace these citations?

WP:LISTCOMPANY views a source being both independent and reliable as a requirement for inclusion on a list. Within the realm of CS academia, I understand a survey paper can likely be considered an independent and reliable publication. However, it's not clear to me the extent of a reference or examination that would be required to satisfy WP:LISTCOMPANY in this context. If a system, proprietary or open source, is cited as a reference, mentioned in related works, or benchmarked against in a reliable, primary publication, would any of those count as a sufficient reference? Or is it required for the secondary publication to be a detailed analysis of the primary source? If it's a reference to a system not developed by the authors of the primary publication, does it count as an independent reference, even though the overall paper is not independent?

tl;dr: I could use some pointers on what is "idealistically Wikipedian" as to what should be used for sources, or to very well sourced technical topics.

Thanks! Linearizable (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Ozedam to WillKomen

Thanks so much for your friendly welcome User:WillKomen. I can't wait to start editing! Ozedam (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ozedam, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've moved your comment to a new section here, because it's not part of the discussion about Administrators where you posted it. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. If you want to directly talk to another editor, the best place to do so is on their "Talk page" (for more information, see Help:Talk pages). However, User:WillKomen is not a real user, but an account used by the Wikipedia Adventure (which I see you've already followed). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask them here, and happy editing! rchard2scout (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

BY mistake

First this is my first time on wikipedia and I am new so I don't know what to post. I didn't like this site thing and i want to delete my account. No useful thing in here i mean i always do my assignments using this site but I am so annoyed what you have said about the question I asked although the answer was not correct and blocked my page! what! Have a nice time without me. Thank you --MeKLT (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, MeKLT. Welcome to the Teahouse, which we always hope is a friendly place for new editors to come and seek help. I have already left a note on your talk page to say that I would be saddened if you left us. You didn't actually have your page blocked, and I told you that I had removed an incorrect warning message that another editor left for you. These can seem scary, and I am sorry about that. Do stick around, please. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

BE fast

I asked question so be fast! --MeKLT (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please be patient there are many editors who are asking questions here and all the hosts also have other works like editing articles answering questions is not only their work. To be a Wikipedian you need to be patient.Denim11 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Good things come to those who wait, MeKLT. :)
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 04:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What is the difference between vandalism and disruptive edits?

Hey, I have been reverting vandalism by monitoring recent changes but while leaving talk page warnings I am not sure whether it is vandalism or disruptive? So please tell me.Denim11 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Denim11: Vandalism is a subtype of disruptive editing–all vandalism is disruptive, not all disruptive editing is vandalism. Vandalism is not only disruptive, but malicious, intentional disruption. Merely-disruptive editing can be accidental, or the result of disagreements between editors without intent to sabotage Wikipedia itself (for instance, edit-warring is disruptive, but if both editors truly believe that they are improving wikipedia, it is not vandalism). As such, vandalism is a much more serious accusation than disruptive editing. As far as warnings are concerned, WP:WARNVAND describes several levels of default warning messages you can put on someone's talk page; the first two give the target the benefit of the doubt, while level-3 and beyond explicitly accuse them of vandalism and should be used only for repeat-offenders that have ignored previous warnings. For more information, see WP:VANDALISM and WP:DE. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Denim11: It's quite possible for an editor to be so keen to deal with what they see as vandalism that their own actions in reverting or warning other editors can, itself, become disruptive. I think you know what I'm alluding to. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI notification requierments

A user who I will call X has a long pattern of assuming bad faith and occasionally making bogus accusations during content disputes, if this continues it may become disruptive enough to report at ANI(but I am afraid that an ANI involving X will become rather dramatic). If I have to report X at ANI, I will of course notify them as is required, but if I mention examples of X's behavior toward other users, should I notify those users as well? Also, if X accuses me of POV pushing(as a hypothetical let's say X thinks i'm a pro-trump POV pusher), and I defend by showing diffs of times I reverted pro-trump edits, should I notify the pro-trump editors I reverted? I expect that if reported, X will immediately seek boomerang sanctions against me, and the bogus accusations I refer to above include threatening to report me for pinging an editor who X tends to disagree with, so I don't want to be accused of canvassing editors that X disagrees with to the ANI, but I want to still comply with the notification requirements for ANI.

Unless X becomes disruptive enough that I actually report them at ANI, I will not confirm or deny any guesses as to X's identity, My questions at the teahouse are just so I understand ANI notification requirements. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Tornado chaser. It's not required that you notify anyone other than the editor you are reporting. You may notify others if their input is required, but as you point out, doing to excessively or carelessly can be construed as canvassing. And anyway, much of the point of a noticeboard thread is to attract outside input from uninvolved editors. So it's often not necessary to widely notify, and the only thing you're going to get grief over is not notifying the subject of the report. GMGtalk 22:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a question !

Dear Teahouse,

Hello I am new to Wikipedia but would love to become an administrator. How can I join to become an administrator ?

I have only been on Wikipedia for only a few days.

Regards Resen01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resen01 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Resen01: You have to gain a reputation for good editing to be made an admin, only experienced editors are made admins, I think most admins are active editors for at least 2 years before being made admins, but if you become a productive editor maybe you could be an admin someday. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Resen01: Could I add to what Tornado chaser helpfully says? There is no 'joining' process on Wikipedia, not even for becoming an administrator. However, each person willing to be nominated to help out with administrative duties certainly needs considerable experience over some years, and has to gain the confidence of their fellow editors, who will look very closely at their past experience and skills in dealing with other editors, often under challenging circumstances. You can find out more at WP:ADMIN, but this honestly won't be something new editors need think about for quite some time. That page states: Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should generally be active, regular, and long-term Wikipedia contributors, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of nicknames in an article

In the article [] I included, in parenthesis, the nicknames of a number of the people mentioned because they are the names they use(d) exclusively, but are uncommon nicknames for their given names. I know the general rule is to avoid using both given and nicknames, but wondered if, in this case, it might be acceptable, or if I need to omit one or the other. Thank you! Srannamartina (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Srannamartina. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for taking the trouble to ask your question. It's a good one, and my advice is to suggest that including nicknames in that article not only adds nothing significant to the content of the page, but also disrupts the flow of reading. Had one or more of the children gone on to become notable in their own right, it might then seem justifiable (assuming you could demonstrate that the nickname was in general use at that time in their lives). But it's almost as irrelevant as telling me what colour the guy ropes were in their camp. So I'd leave them all out. I really appreciate you asking, though. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thank you! So you would suggest using only their full (given) names? Srannamartina (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Srannamartina: Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear on that. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Srannamartina: As a general rule, nicknames should only be included if the nickname was used primarily to refer to the subject in question. See MOS:NICKNAME for some guidance and examples. Regards SoWhy 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: OK, thank you!
@SoWhy: OK, thank you. That's actually why I was unsure about what to use - the nicknames I included are the names that these people use (or used) exclusively. But I agree with @Nick Moyes: that including their given names as well as their nicknames in parenthesis interrupts the flow of reading. Srannamartina (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

problem with DYK template

I've bolluxed up the template for a DYK nomination. It's at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Roz_Young. I thought I followed the directions to not try to link to the article within the nomination because the template would do it for me, but it didn't produce a bold link. Would someone be willing to take a look and tell me what I've done wrong? Sorry, I know I've been in here a lot. valereee (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Valereee: The template does not link the article title in the hooks because there is no way to know how it will be included there. Just edit Template:Did you know nominations/Roz Young and use the normal makeup ('''[[Roz Young]]''') to link to and bold the article in the hooks. Regards SoWhy 19:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I must just have misunderstood the directions! valereee (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Srannamartina: I've just fixed that for you, though I'd suggest your hooks really needed to state she was a newspaper columnist, and possibly link to the relevant newspaper article, albeit not in bold. Probably not too late to add another ALT hook? Would do it myself, but am editing from a tiny mobile this evening. If this is your first DYK - well done. Following the DYK instructions for the first time seems harder than writing your first article! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thank you...but this wasn't my question... *wink* Srannamartina (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Valereee: Oops - just pinged the wrong person. Doh! Can I suggest a tweak to the 'Reception and impact' section? I fear you've twice mixed up the subject and object in two sentences. It rather reads like Krisher helped Krisher, and PD James had a column with her after she'd died! These are minor tweaks I wouldn't normally worry about, but the folks at WP:DYK are pretty fussy. I also think you described somebody as "legendary" without adding a citation to that quote. You might like to look at that too. Good luck with getting your article on the main Wikipedia page. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick Moyes Yeah, I wasn't happy with either of those sentences! Will try to find a tweak. And thanks for fixing the wikilinks, I wasn't sure whether it was that simple or whether I'd make things worse. I dithered over whether to include that she was a newspaper columnist for brevity's sake, but it wouldn't actually make any of them too long. Thanks! valereee (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Valereee: Do put that in. The DYK hook really has to be 'sexy'. It must attract and make sense to people who've never ever heard of her, whereas you've probably spent the last few weeks deep inside that article and are assuming folk know what her job was, and where she worked. Which they won't. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Nick Moyes oh, believe me, I have no illusions about anyone knowing who she was, lol. She wasn't even a redlink Sunday morning. valereee (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Links to editor page

Hello !

I am editing the page of a NYC pluridisciplinary artist. Can I link her publications to her editors' websites so people can find the entire references of the book?

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 20:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Fieldsofunnamedflowers. Welcome to the Teahouse, and may I say what lovely username you have? (I'm a botanist, so am allowed to say that without sounding creepy!) I have a few questions for you:
  • what does pluridisciplinary actually mean, and what's wrong with using the less pretentious 'multi-disciplinary' in the article on Nicole Peyrafitte?
  • Can you supply a link or example of what you'd actually like to add so we can better understand your question?
Yes, references like the one I've put for Carnet 2, RedfoxPress, Ireland for example. Can I do more of these for the rest of the publications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Why don't you focus first on adding citations to support the statements about all her awards and exhibitions? There are none there at present.
Yes, I will do that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you replace all the capitalisation in the Awards section, please? This is not an appropriate style to use.
That's fixed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you find some citations to support her 'early life' section? I know you didn't add this, but some unreferenced bits really need deleting if they can't be supported with citations.
Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry not to have answered your question - but I feel these are far more important issues to address first. Should you know the artist you're writing about, do please read this page on Conflict of Interests. Regards, -Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldsofunnamedflowers (talkcontribs) 21:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

For those as curious as I was, it's about Nicole Peyrafitte David notMD (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I did include a link to the article in my reply, but thanks for highlighting it, David. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello - newbie here

Hello, and happy to be here. I had a question of qualifiable third party sources. Depending of course on the subject matter, are fashion blogs & fashion websites valid to use as third party reference? And I'm speaking of in particular the well known mainstream fashion blogs. The reason I ask is because "fashion" and the culture of which it is associated with tends to be more of "feel good rhetoric" - not that I have a problem with this kind of thing, but if one is doing a piece on an artist or designer, etc does the journalism of fashion blogs and sites qualify as sufficently responsible for Wikipedia reference? Please advise, and many thanks in advance. MAureliusAugustus (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Ave, M. Aurilie Auguste. It's usually hard to answer questions like this in the general case. I can point you at WP:BLOGS, which says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"; but to get a better answer, you should tell us what blog you are considering using, for what purpose. Better still would be to ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard. --ColinFine (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
ColinFine. Colin thanks. I'm going to take a look at the information resources you've pointed me to. This way I think my questions will be much better qualified. We'll speak soon, have a great day! MAureliusAugustus (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem Mural depicting the Cardo in Byzantine era

Has anyone noticed that the picture for "Jerusalem Mural depicting the Cardo in Byzantine era" in the Jerusalem page has a child with a backpack and baseball cap in the bottom right corner? [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Er, yes, hence the fact that it has "Note the one modern kid … TIME TRAVELLERS?! (read 'There Will Be Time' by Poul Anderson sometime… ;)" as its file description. ‑ Iridescent 22:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I've gently requested deletion of the image on Commons here but I don't know how they handle these things. It needs deleting from its uses here (and on Italian wikipedia). Nicely spotted! Thincat (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC) ... which I've done for two enwp articles but haven't fathomed Portal:Jerusalem yet. Thincat (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thincat, this is not a hoax. The boy is really there. The mural contains people from the modern era. According to this site, The wall mural in this Cardo depicts how the Cardo might have looked in the Byzantine period. The three people pictured in the left-hand corner are the former mayor Teddy Kollek and the two archaeologists who excavated the area. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I had realised it might be the mural itself that was the spoof but I didn't think that it was likely. Thincat (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
not sure why you are deleting the image. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thincat, it is not a spoof. It is a perfectly serious mural in a major historic site in Israel. To quote this source, You will notice a boy from the modern era with a green knapsack, a red baseball cap and a bottle of water, standing next to a young Roman girl who is extending her hand with a pomegranate to the boy. The artist is depicting the continuity and fluidity of history. . Please put the images back. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, both. I was aware that it might be the mural itself that was being playful but I had not supposed the articles were intending to display an image like this. I'll explain at commons and withdraw the deletion request. Thincat (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Maniti

How do I place an upcoming football player in Wikipedia. He just turned 16 years old My son Jacob Maniti. He plays for Melbounre Victory FC in the youth squad. And has represented, the national team Of Philippines Football team and also boys Australian Futsal team as a 12 years old — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdinand Maniti (talkcontribs) 23:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ferdinand Maniti: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your son would need to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for football players(written at WP:NFOOTBALL); looking at them, I see that they state "Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG". Unless your son is extensively written about with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, he probably would not merit an article as a football player based on the criteria there. I'm sorry that it may be disappointing to hear that. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


I am trying to help my wife make her wiki page for her. I have no idea where to start I was trying to do a template but no success. Can anyone help me make the page !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCfitness (talkcontribs) 23:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@CCfitness: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your account has no edits recorded in its history(aside from your post above) so if you have written about your wife somewhere please link to it. That said, any article would be an article about your wife, not for your wife. You and your wife would have no special rights over it to control what appears there. In fact, there are many good reasons why an article might not be desirable for your wife; please read this page for more information on that point.
Your wife will need to meet the appropriate notability criteria(in general, at WP:BIO, though there are fields with more specific criteria) in order to merit an article. Not every person merits an article here, even within the same field. You will need independent reliable sources, sources not associated with your wife, to support its content. You will also need to review conflict of interest; it is strongly advised that you not directly edit in the area of your conflict of interest, instead making edit requests and submitting drafts of new articles to Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I am going to have to pay someone to do this. I do not have enough help or knowledge in the matter MEH  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCfitness (talkcontribs) 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC) 

Policy on personal info of minor children

Hello Editors! I just picked this page's namesake off of a list (Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from November 2018 — which I can't seem to link here), and edited the content of one section, previously "FAMILY MAN", that includes the names and DOBs of his minor children. I've searched but can't find the policy about that aspect, so am not sure if I am allowed to remove their names and DOBs, but it seems a potential danger to the kids to publish that. Is this the place to ask for help finding the policy? Thank you for your attention. -RFT42 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME both apply here. I would suggest removing both the children's names and date of births.MarkZusab (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup for the advice, and for deleting that info. (I didn't even think to look for Privacy, and had searched for policy concerning children.) Back to the drawing board! -RFT42 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Copying vs Creating new Page

I am needing to develop a player profile page like the one at - [] - Can I somehow copy this page, edit the profile with a different player and then post? Or do I need to develop a new page from scratch?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBUtigerfan (talkcontribs) 01:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

More explanation is I am developing a page for Johnathan Powell who is a TE for the same team Trent Richardson is on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBUtigerfan (talkcontribs) 01:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello OBUtigerfan. First, I recommend that you read Wikipedia: Notability before beginning work on the article. Surprisingly, I once asked this exact type of question as well a few months back here at the Teahouse. Unfortunately, you'll have to start from scratch--A Wikipedia internal policy is that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source.
Good luck!
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 04:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@OBUtigerfan: I'm not sure Rebestalic's reply, helpful though it is, fully answers your query. Personally, I would have no worries about copying the wikitext of one page into my sandbox, deleting all the content of each section entirely, and any entries in the infobox or tables. In tables (which have a complex structure) I'd probably replace all numbers with XXX or YYYs simply so I don't lose that markup structure, nor confuse data from one person with new data I plan to add later, whilst keeping a very visible 'placeholder' as a prompt for future editing. I'd then save that skeleton, with an edit summary stating it was copied from a named article. Because I wasn't saving any actual content, I probably wouldn't need to state "see that page's history for all author contributions" which I might do were I to be copying and saving the full text into my sandbox. I'd then start work filling in each section with brand new, referenced content. I would just add a plea for you not to follow the florid, verbose and over-trivial writing style of so many sports personality pages here. Many of these enthusiastic editors fail to recognise that they're writing an encyclopedia entry, not practising for a career in sports journalism, where every minor detail of someone's sporting life, or every minute of some match has to be expounded upon in huge detail to satiate some need for trivial information in the readership. You should simply provide links to external website for those kinds of minutiae. (Please remember in future to sign every talk page post. To do that, simply type four keyboard tilde characters (like this: ~~~~) at the end of your final sentence.) Regards,  Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this page really necessary?

I was looking at this article yesterday and made a proposed deletion for it. DECA Ontario is a small organization that is part of DECA, which has its own Wikipedia page. There is nothing that sets DECA Ontario apart from the rest of DECA. A few minutes later someone objected and removed the tag. Looking at the article now, I think that a lot of the information is useful to a very, very small group of people. Under "Provincial Executive Officer Program (High School Division)" is a list of every single high school student who has been on the executive team since 2010. I can't find links to these people anywhere except social media. The entire page has zero sources. But I am not an expert at Wikipedia, I was hoping someone else could have a look at this page and provide their thoughts. Thanks.Anthonyliu (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Anthonyliu. The person who reverted your edit looks like an IP user. They have two contributions, and both are contributions for DECA Ontario. IP users should not be trusted when dealing with an operation of this importance. Feel free to nominate the page for deletion again. Before doing so, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Notability as well, just to make sure that deleting the article won't cause a massive tantrum by some users. That probably won't happen here at Wikipedia.
Thank you,
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 04:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rebestalic: I strongly encourage you to read WP:HUMAN. The problem is not that this edit was made by an IP editor (or a new editor for that matter), but that it does not give any reason to contest the PROD, which is usually a poor idea. If the most respected member of the community had done so, we should criticize them just as much. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
My (limited) understanding is that once a PROD has been contested, the proper path is Articles for Deletion (which has now been taken) rather than resubmitting PROD. And, that with AfD, it is a courtesy to bring the process to the attention of editors who have been recent contributors to the article, so that they may participate in the discussion. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
While Tigraan has pointed Rebestalic to the right place to check this, I am concerned enough to have struck through what Rebestalic posted above. (I know that altering another editor's comments is not normally acceptable.) I'm sure Rebestalic was in good faith, but it is never true that an IP user is "not to be trusted" simply because they have not created and logged into an account. Some IP editors are disruptive, but many are perfectly competent and reliable editors who choose not to create an account. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello ColinFine. I apologise for the inconvenience.
Rebestalic[dubious—discuss] 19:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Menu bar too full?

Is there a limit for the menu bar? It's half the size of the page now, and It won't let me add to it.--Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thegooduser. Which menu bar are you referring to and how do you try to add to it? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter:This one: Thegooduser (Bell) (Notices), etc --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 02:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: And how do you try to add to it? Please be specific if you refer to a preference or JavaScript which does not make an addition you expect. Does half the size of the page mean one line half the width of the window? I can make two lines. I can also make more than two but then the links overlap with other things. What is your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering? What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


Dear Sir, Please let me know what i have to do for accepting the draft Abanindra Maitra to enlist it in Wikipedia. Thanking you. Nilima Sen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima sen (talkcontribs) 04:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nilima sen: If you read the notes left on the draft, you'd see that it says you need to properly cite some independent reliable sources to establish notability.
I recommend just starting over, using the following steps:
1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Greetings I am looking for editor to help me add article on Wikipedia.

please contact me Editor 7070 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP editor, assuming that you are Editor7070 based on your signature here, you should first log in and read the messages on your user talk page, as well as the responses you received at the Help desk. If anything there is unclear, you can come back here and ask about it, or continue the discussion at the Help desk. If you are not that editor, I'm afraid we can't help you unless you tell us about the article you would like to create. --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I am future editor. I am lookin someone will publish article on my favour. Just someone that is authorized to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
To indent, add ":" to beginning of your content. Using the space bar makes it look like a quotation. It is very unlikely that editors who visit TeaHouse will be willing to write an article for you. There are guidelines available on how to create an article. A key question before you attempt this difficult task is whether the topic of your proposed article has been written about in independent publications, as that is essential to meeting Wikipedia's notions of notability. Which gets us to - what is it you want to create an article about? It looks like you might mean Draft:Agata Nowa. This submission was declined on 9 November as not having adequate citations. David notMD (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What do I do with the template after cleaning up a translation?

I just cleaned up an article that was marked as needing cleanup after translation from Hungarian ([]). How do I remove the "Template:Rough translation" template at the top of the page?Lingo nerd (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, Lingo nerd. Just open the page via the 'edit source' tab and delete the very first line that says {{rough translation}}. Or, in Visual Editor, go to the line beneath the template and delete leftwards until it disappears. I prefer the former method. Save by clicking 'Publish changes. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Bio creation

Hello, I began creating a Biography. and need to employ the article wizard can this content be transferred or do i need to start over. any info provided is appreciated. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talkcontribs) 14:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Deanna Coakley. You were trying to write a biography of Roberto McCausland Dieppa. The best thing to do would be to start over. You will have to show that he is well-enough known for a Wikipedia article, that he has been written about in reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc) that are independent of the artist. Once you have those references, begin the article by including just the information provided by those references. Then add other information, which can be from interviews or his website. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Harvard step test

what does the word barew mean?

what mathematical action is designated by the asterisk (*)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The word "barew" was added in this unexplained edit in April, and I have reverted it. The asterisk is a standard mathematical symbol for multiplication. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The word "barew" does not appear in any dictionary that I can find, so if it is a word then it is either extremely rare or very localised. * means multiply of course. Are these genuine questions? Dbfirs 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

How to add a picture to the top of an existing article

I would like to add a picture of the Capital Plaza which is in Abu Dhabi in its corresponding information box at the top of the article. How do I go about doing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorMayhem (talkcontribs) 17:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @MajorMayhem: - a few questions first - do you have a specific photo you are looking to add or are you asking where to find such a photo (and then add it)? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Question on writing an Article

Hi I wanted to write an article on a music artist who is living today. I know Wikipedia has strict standards on this. I noticed also there are many living artists today that someone has written about. Some famous and some not so famous. How would I go about doing this so it is excepted by Wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mja Records (talkcontribs) 18:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

One of our standards is that companies are not supposed to register accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
After you have created an account just for yourself, you can read WP:YFA on how to create an article and also make sure you follow the guidelines and requirements at WP:COI and WP:PAID. RudolfRed (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Text editor board missing

Hello THe board, where I could change lettering, create reference, link etc. has dissapeared from english text editor, but it is still present in czech one. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talkcontribs) 20:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vojtaruzek, welcome to the Teahouse. An old toolbar has been removed. "Enable the editing toolbar" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing makes another toolbar which has been default for years. This code in your common JavaScript creates a toolbar more like the old one:
Without the second command it omits the cite button and may load faster. See more at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Support ends for the 2006 wikitext editor. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It is enabled, but it is still missing, not in firefox, though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talkcontribs) 12:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

not comming up in serch

when i serch his name it isnt comming up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam Hantos (talkcontribs) 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Liam Hantos: When you search whose name? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Liam Hantos and welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It is not a tool to publicise yourself. Please don't keep adding your name to articles. Your user page is for you to tell other editors about yourself and your interests relating to editing here. It should not look like an article about yourself. Your name will not come up in Google searches relating to Wikipedia until there is an article about you, and that will not happen unless you are notable in the special Wikipedia sense. Google doesn't find any WP:Reliable sources about you when I search, so you probably haven't been written about in WP:Reliable sources yet. Until that happens, there will not be a Wikipedia article about you. Please see WP:Autobiography. Sorry to disappoint you, but most of us don't have Wikipedia articles, we just edit articles here about notable subjects. Dbfirs 21:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

posting English wiki page as new German wiki page

I've been asked to revise an existing English-language wiki page, and then have it posted as a new German page. I am unable to log into with my account, and wondering what is the best way to accomplish this?Tlvernon (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tlvernon: You may need to create a unified account. See WP:SUL and [4]. Once this is done, your account will be usable at all the Wikipedias. RudolfRed (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tlvernon: All accounts are already unified today. Special:CentralAuth/Tlvernon shows yours. What happens when you try to log in to the German Wikipedia at de:Special:UserLogin? Either you should already be logged in when you click the link, or your username and password should work. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to wrong page

I was trying to ask a question on an experienced admin's page, but was redirected to here. Is there any way I could stop the redirecting? The question,by the way, is directly before this post. @Nomnom121 (talk) 15:49 14 November 2018 (MST)

@Nomnom121: - am I right in thinking the below was your question
"After making edits that I considered helpful, a user removed them without any explanation. I only learned of this when David notMD informed me on the Teahouse. Is there any way to set up notifications for removed edits?"
You can Watchlist pages (including articles, talk pages etc) by pressing the little star at the top (when you've done it, it will fill in the empty star). If you click watchlist (right at the top right) it will list any edits made to your various watchlisted pages.
I'm a little confused by your redirect issue. Do you mean you posted on an admin's page and they suggested you come here, or that you tried to post and you were automatically sent here? If you could let me know that would help me (or another editor) answer your question Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Linda Cable jazz singer

Hi, please, where should I publish my request for a review, checking of the page I have finished tonight, it is in Sandbox/Heralune, can you reach it ? Should I publish to check it ? It's about an australian singer, Linda Cable. Thanks Heralune (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

To submit your sandbox draft for review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Question about Wiki Projects

Since there are the amount of different types of Wikipedia projects on this site, is there any way at all that you would be able to provide a way that would be easier for users in general to be able to look through all those different types of web links without it feeling like it's too time consuming? Even if it might mean having to insert video tutorials in as many different languages as possible so that it will make it easier for users in general to understand a lot better how to navigate through all those links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyAlbornoz (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@BillyAlbornoz: Welcome to Wikipedia. The tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL has several videos on different topics. Can you be more specific about what you are suggesting? RudolfRed (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

New User Here!

Hi! I would like to move an article rom my sandbox... I am already over 10 edits in, but I think I am just about 4 days in... Or maybe 3... But I wanna publish my article! Lol! Scarlet Quinn (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Scarlet Quinn: welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Teahouse! To write a new article in Wikipedia is the hardest thing to do for a new editor, and unfortunately, User:Scarlet Quinn/sandbox does not actually meet the requirements that Wikipedia has on notability for actors. The person you write about must meet these requirements and/or these requirements in order for a Wikipedia article to exist, and if you were to move your sandbox into the main encyclopedia, I'm afraid it would almost certainly be deleted. Another editor has already left a message on your sandbox draft; please read that, and see if you can find several reliable and independent sources that talk about this person in some depth. Without such sources, there can't (yet) be an article. Another thing: if you have a personal or professional connection with the people you are writing about, you will need to read and comply with this and (for a professional relationship) this. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

COI tag removal

Hi, I recently wrote an article on musician Noah K. I had originally written about one of his bands, Dollshot, that was challenged and ultimately deleted based on notability. I rewrote it recently (6 months later) since there were new sources that I believe overcome the notability issue, but it was ultimately deleted again. So, I wrote an article about the bandleader, K, who clearly passes WP:MUS and included a section on Dollshot within the article. As soon as it was posted RoySmith tagged it with a COI. At RoySmith's request, I have responded on my userpage User talk:Artaria195 and clarified my relationship to Noah, and to my understanding there is not a COI. I have done my best to write a neutral, unbiased, non-promotional article and carefully researched and cited sources for every statement contained within. Does anyone know how the COI tag can be removed? Thank you. Artaria195 (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Removed. Not sure why Roy placed it there since Template:COI editnotice says it should be placed on talk pages, not articles. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for the incorrect placement. I've put it on the talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Article with misleading or bias quotes or references

If I find and article which states false information and uses misleadings references in order to try to make it believable but when you look into the quotes either do no exist or simply do not mention the information they are referring to.

How can I correct this information?

Also, what should I do if I find an article which was created to difamate or harm someones reputation. Is Wikkipedia supporting any false information and it its impossible to correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumaca70 (talkcontribs) 05:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The way to correct the information about yourself in this article is to find WP:Reliable sources that put forward the correct information. Since you have a WP:Conflict of interest, please put forward the corrections, with appropriate references, on the talk page of the article. Wikipedia articles are based on what independent sources have written. Dbfirs 06:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Tumaca70. Wikpedia has very strict standards about any content related to living people, since falsehoods or unreferenced negative commentary about living people can be terribly damaging to them, and to the reputation of this encyclopedia. Please report any ongoing incidents to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The New York Times describes Rory Carroll's account as "an impressively well-researched and readable portrait", but does anyone have access to the book: Comandante : myth and reality in Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela to check what is actually written about Tulio Capriles Mendoza? Dbfirs 08:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia

I know that citing wikipedia itself isn't allowed, but is linking to the more specific wikipedia page okay?

Example: I was trying to help cleanup List of Muslim scientists, and I didn't know if I needed to cite the birth and death dates directly, or since the page is linked and that has the same dates if that is good enough.

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallium314 (talkcontribs) 05:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC) .

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gallium314. It is entirely proper to link to other Wikipedia articles as informative resources. However, one Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for another Wikipedia article. Since our articles are freely edited, they cannot be fully reliable sources. However, any well-written Wikipedia article will summarize references to reliable sources. Read those sources, and many of them may be relevant to the article you are working on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gallium314: Adding to what Cullen328 says, and clarifying somewhat, I would not expect you to add a reference to support inclusion of birth and death year to "List of..." entry such as List of Muslim scientists, providing the article being wikilinked to includes those dates in its lead. In a similar way, we would't expect a disambiguation page (e.g.: Tom Jones, John Smith) to include references either when birth/death dates are shown. I certainly think what you're proposing to do to that List page will be very helpful. That said, I have since found other lists that do use references for each entry, such as List of British Jews, but I'd be OK with seeing your list without them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

What type of licence/copyright for using protein structures from Protein Data Bank (open access)

Example image: 1shg SH3 domain

Hello! I'd like to upload a protein structure that is published. All protein structures that are published are available in Protein Data Bank: [] Normally researchers take a structure from PDB (it's free and open access) and then they change the colors, orientation, etc of the structure depending on what they want to represent. In these modification the structure itself is intact but the orientation or color may change. The identifier of that protein structure is that four letters, in this case 4CAH. Then the original work and the identifier are cited. My question is when I do this, should I choose "this is my own work" or someone else's? Both the publication itself with the authors and the PDB URL will be cited of course. Here is an example: [] As far as I understand since I generate the final image and the original source is open access, I can cite the protein identifier, authors, and PDB link, and choose my own work. Is that correct? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyVeg14 (talkcontribs) 07:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DannyVeg14, and welcome to the Teahouse. You ask a very interesting and sensible question. I am assuming you're wanting to upload the protein image to Wikimedia Commons, rather than just to English Wikipedia, as that would seem most logical? Because Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are two separate entities, we tend to be extremely reluctant to advise on how they apply their own rules (there's are applied a lot more strictly than our own, too). Now, you indicate that you would be modifying a freely available image and validly licenced image, but only to the extent of changing colour or orientation. By reading this guidance page at Commons it's clear that you would not be adding sufficient new content as to be able to regard it is a 'derivative work', created by you. So, I think you should upload it as "not my own work", and do what you propose by clearly linking to the original usage policy, which took some finding (see here) and, of course, crediting the original image creators. You would simply be the uploader, and the authors would be credited in the Commons entry as the creators. You would be able to add detailed description to explain how you have subsequently modified the image. One thing you could do is to upload the unmodified image first, and then upload a new version with your own colour and orientation changes (each Commons image page has a link on the lower left side to "Upload a new version of this file" . That way, the page on Commons would contain two versions of the same image, giving users a choice over which one they wanted to utilise. Does this make sense? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

recovering from a speedy deletion

I would like to submit an article about a notable family in the hospitality industry - specifically on two brothers. I noticed that one brother already has a wiki page. When i submitted an article for the other brother, it was submitted for speedy deletion. I've contacted the user but he did not reply to my enquiries. Can i find out if i can still submit a revised version of the article? Would really like to see this through.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roslah9022 (talkcontribs) 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Roslah9022: Is the Brother in Question Notable? Geartooth Friendship is Magic! 13:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Very weird that the deleting admin did not reply. Hey, @Dlohcierekim, would you mind us restoring this article as a draft? Regards SoWhy 14:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing user/log-in name

For brevity: I need to change my user name for entries over the last year. Email address can stay the same. Is this doable? Or just got to my IP address, or? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6683:7E00:9DF3:8571:AEEB:A527 (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Equally for brevity: Welcome. Yes, see Wikipedia:Changing username. It's only worth doing if you've made lots of past edits. Otherwise best advice is to abandon old account, never ever use it again, and simply create a new one. Please sign all talk posts with four keyboard tildes (~~~~). Nick Moyes (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing the title of an article

I have created an article named William Farrar (settler), the name needs to be Councillor William Farrar. Primarily as it will be used as an external link, and William Farrar (settler) is not handy for an external link. At present the Article Cicely Jordan Farrar mentions him as her third husband, it would sound strange to say that she married William Farrar (settler) ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvanhholmes (talkcontribs) 10:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alvanhholmes. William Farrar (settler) seems to follow Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation and we don't make titles for linking purposes. A link from another Wikipedia page is called a wikilink or internal link. You can write [[William Farrar (settler)|William Farrar]] to produce William Farrar which links to the right article but only displays "William Farrar". This is called a piped link. See more at Help:Link#Wikilinks (internal links). PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Alvanhholmes and welcome back to the Teahouse. PrimeHunter has just said what I was going to say, but his reply was far more succinct than my verbose one. So I've just scrubbed most of it, but will leave in just two points. Firstly, that it is possible to create a redirect which would take someone from a search starting 'Councillor.....', but I'd only ever do that if I perceived a genuine need for that search, eg Dr ruth, Senator John F. Kennedy etc. I think people's common sense tells them to search by name first, not honorific. Secondly, why have you called Cicely, Cecily in a section heading on Farrar's page? This looks like a typo, and I'd just point out that we don't use wikilinks in section headings. If I remember your name correctly from previous postings, I believe you may be one of our newer and more mature 'silver surfers' here? If so, you do seem to be managing very well with what can be quite a daunting suite of detailed guidelines. So, keep up the really great work, and don't let us pedantic types grind you down! We do intend all our feedback to be helpful - honest. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

How do I move an article out of draft:.... to being reviewed for publication?

I have two articles in Draft: I assume that they will sit there forever until someone approves them for publication review, am I correct?

One of them I submitted for publishing, but it winds up in Draft and I was not notified.

What do I have to do to get the following articles into being reviewed for publication?


[] Alvanhholmes (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alvanhholmes - First, you created the Beggars Bush article, so it should appear on your watchlist, if you have that option selection in your preferences. If not, click the star on that page and it will be added to your watchlist, and will appear there anytime anyone makes changes to it. You've already left a message on Ariconte regarding the changes they made to the article, so I'll let them address that. The draft on Farrar's Island is queued up in the Articles for Creation project, and is awaiting review. Just took a look at it, and while it still needs a little bit of work, I've moved it to the mainspace. And as corrections are made, take a look at what was done, so you can understand where mistakes were made. Keep on editing. Onel5969 TT me 11:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wax interview

Hello, this is a very good and recent interview about Wax (UK). It disproves some of the inaccuracies on the Wikipedia page. There is one editor who keeps editing it out, not realising the impact it has. Can the 10cc/Wax pages please use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZanetaStepanova (talkcontribs)

@ZanetaStepanova: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If a user reverts one of your edits, the proper procedure is to go to the article talk page and discuss the matter, with you explaining the reasons you feel your edit is needed. Please read Bold, Revert, Discuss for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this vandalism? What's the least time-consuming way to deal with it?

I stumbled across this today: an IP-user took what looked like a well-sourced article and removed most of its content with comment "Wrong information, ... added bands real history,..." in March 2018. It was caught by a bot, but somehow overcome by the user in question. There was one attempt in August to bring back what seems to be the correct discography, reverted from the same IP. No discussion on the article's talk page, nothing. I'm not familiar with the band, but this seems like a weird case of vandalism?

I started reading through WP:VANDAL, but as usual with WP policies, it's very long-winded. I tried to find a place where volunteers who specialize on dealing with it hang out - only to find more and more long pages with no clear way to report such a thing. I tried to be bold and revert the edit, but the WP software didn't seem to let me. I was on the brink of walking away from it, but this place lured me in with the "friendly place" tagline ;) so I thought I'd give it a try. Any way to deal with it without entering into an edit war, issuing five levels of warnings to the user, finding the correct committee, participating in a discussion and so on??

Thanks --asqueella (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Asqueella: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV. You do not have to issue five levels of warnings to a user before reporting them, if you see no point in doing so(though the last warning should be the strongest). Users are not entitled to five warnings. I'm not sure why you would have been unable to revert the edit as the page is not protected. What message came up when you attempted to do so? 331dot (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

How can i create the perfect article

I need help for a new article i want to know what to do to create a article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigjoey (talkcontribs) 15:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ludwigjoey: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that successfully creating an article(don't worry about "perfect") is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, effort, and practice. New users who dive right in to article creation often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as their work is mercilessly edited and even deleted by others. I don't want that to happen to you, so I would strongly suggest that instead of starting out creating articles, you take some time to edit existing articles to get a feel for what is being looked for and how Wikipedia operates. You should also use this tutorial for new users which also will help you learn about Wikipedia. If you do these things before attempting to create an article, the odds are you will be much more successful.
However, if you still want to attempt to create an article right away, Your First Article is a must read; you can then use Articles for Creation to submit a draft for feedback before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, it will be treated less harshly. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it possible to reorder references? Also what is the the complete references syntax/formatting_rules?

ditto =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack32100 (talkcontribs) 15:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)