Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

Cappuccino

What are ingredients for making cappuccino 😊😊 Ngutyana Sisipho (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You're asking in the wrong place. This place is for asking about using Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

2 tablespoons of coffee, a pinch of salt, and fill the rest of the cup with birthday cake flavored coffee creamer. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 13:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ask at the Coffeehouse. EEng 15:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, if the OP intends to use the preparation for stimulant purposes this could be interpreted as a request for medical advice. We better be careful. EEng 23:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, cappuccinos are a dangerous gateway drug. First it's all foam and cocoa powder, then someone introduces you to pumpkin spice and your life changes irreparably. Zindor (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, it's appreciated if you remain mature while at the tea-house. _Signed,Benjamin Borg ^(Talk) 17:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my humour isn't everyone's cup of tea. Zindor (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide whether he's serious. EEng 00:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Lucy Newlyn -- template message

Hello, I'm new here. I apologise in advance for all the mistakes I will doubtless make. I have read the 5 principles and worked through the tutorial which I hope is a good start but which I suspect is not enough to stop me tripping over rules.

My question is about the template message on the wiki page for the poet Lucy Newlyn [Newlyn]. I tried a few weeks ago to remove the template message because it seemed a little unfair to me. I read a few other poets' pages and Newlyn's does not seem out of line with theirs, except for the ISBN links. Are these the problem? I assume they were put in to make it easy for people to find the books in libraries should they wish to. If I take them out, will that fix the perceived problem? CSpe4ke CSpe4ke (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Lucy Newlyn. David notMD (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@CSpe4ke: It's not the worst I've seen, but the wording in the article does look slightly promotional. Take this sentence for example: "She is an expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge, and has published extensively in the field of English Romantic literature, including four books with Oxford University Press and the Cambridge Companion to Coleridge." The words "expert" and "extensively" here are non-neutral and the books phrase is a little boastful. I would change it to "Newlyn's writing mainly concerns English Romantic literature with an emphasis on the works of William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge." The article ultimately reads like a resume or a book dust jacket rather than a biography, so I would trim down a lot of that and turn it into a list format under the heading "Awards". Neutrality is held to a very high standard on Wikipedia. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this. I will request the edit. CSpe4ke (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

One more question (sorry) but Lucy (who I do know, full disclosure, which is why I'll be requesting the edits) does appear to be a world expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge. I don't know her scholarship at all but I looked her up and three of her books have, together, been cited over 650 times -- I haven't added up all the citations on her many articles bc who has the time? Surely her high standing as an academic is important to her biography? I'm confused. CSpe4ke (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, CSpe4ke. If you can find a reliably published source wholly unconnected with Newlyn that refers to her as an expert on Wordsworth and Coleridge, then that phrase can be quoted directly in the article, and cited to its source. But if nobody has used that description in a suitable published source - or if only her colleagues and publishers have said it - then the description is original research, and doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

In my opinion, promotional tone now gone, so removed tag. David notMD (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty good article now. Out of the articles about living academics I've seen, it's one of the better ones. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

how do I know my article is ready?

wow, this place is awesome! just got invited and reading up on threads :) I have a question, I am currently working on my first page, and I wanted to get some advice. How do I know when it's ready? how much (or how little) content does it need to be ready to submit? Donnakekka (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Donnakekka: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. WP:YFA will give you some guidance on this. RudolfRed (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the suggestions! have read through it, and wanted to also ask: if I dont find all the info I need from reputable sources, what if I am interview the person/the subject of the page directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Donnakekka, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that an interview with the subject is not of much use: it counts as a primary source, and only very limited information from it can be used. Wikipedia is basically not very interested in what any subject says or wants to say about themselves: almost the whole of every article should be based on what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them (in reliable sources). Apart from uncontroversial factual information like dates and places, if you have information only from the subject, it should not go in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

thank you Colin, that makes sense. yes, I did look at the 'primary sources' page, however I cannot find anywhere online the subject date and place of birth, as well as the Theatre school she studied at, so I wanted to ask her directly if possible. but I didnt want to bother unless I can publish that information :) not sure I am making sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not only is interviewing the subject directly not acceptable as a reference, but published interviews are not accepted as support for information the interviewee says about themself. Just because a person describes themself as a 'stable genius' does not make it so. David notMD (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Donnakekka, I disagree somewhat with what David notMD said above. Our core content policy Verifiability has a section that can be reached at the shortcut WP:ABOUTSELF. Here is a quote:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook."

As an example, if a physician says in an interview that they were born in city A in a certain year and graduated from medical school B in a certain year 25 years later, then that is plausible, not self-serving, and can be included in the Wikipedia biography unless the person is known to fabricate information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

David notMD Cullen328 

Ok first thing: I am not sure I am doing the tagging to your names correctly, so apologies if I am not :) Next: Cullen, you are spot on! yes, I am currently looking at magazines/newspapers interviews as I am trying to cross check with multiple sources. for example: the subject's business is often describe as 'the leading burlesque agency in the UK', but I will not include that as I feel it might be a tad speculative. although there arent many burlesque agencies in the UK to begin with. however, if I find the name of the school at which she studied or the year she started her business, on at least two articles, then I feel like it can be included. Am I doing this right then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnakekka (talk • contribs)

Courtesy ping David notMD and Cullen328. Donnakekka, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~, which is below the escape key at the top left corner of the keyboard) that get automatically converted to your signature and timestamp when you hit publish. This lets people know who wrote the message and when, is essential for proper functioning of bots that manage discussion pages and is necessary for the system that notifies people that you've mentioned them to work. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Usedtobecool! really appreciate the help :) 80.1.74.69 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive?

Are we allowed to remake a NPOV Noticeboard request when the ressult is inconclusive?

Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[1]], I had a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[2]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV.

Another user objected this, arguing that its NPOV as it is, as such, I made a NPOV Noticeboard request here: [[3]]. Needless to say, the request was a complete failure. There was a lot of discussion with the other user I disagreed with, most people understandably could not be bothered to read such a long text and had a hard time understanding what the request is about. The ressult was inconclusive, the request died without any non-involved user express any pro or against thoughts about it. As one user eloquently puts it at the end, "I think this discussion should be closed. Nobody is willing to read lengthy texts".

Which is why I would like to remake the NPOV Noticeboard request, be as brief as possible, and don't engage in a long discussion with the other user this time. Is that allowed?

In case it is allowed, I would like to remake the NPOV request like this:

Concerning the Article - History of Transylvania [[4]], I have a concern that Antun Vrančić's quote is presented in a POV way [[5]]. Specifically this part - while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be: "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number". - as the wording "it is noted" implies that this interpretation is objectively correct, which is not NPOV.

This is the current version of the article:

According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".

These is the change I would like to make:

According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks", while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".

I am partially responsable for the mess the other NPOV Noticeboard request became. I did not wish to avoid the concerns raised by the other user to not make it appear as if I'm evading them. I realise now that this was silly, it only served to agglomerate the page and make it more confusing for other people to understand the issue. It did not contribute to the discussion or Wikipedia as a whole, I should have been brief in my response to the other user to make my opposite stance known, but not engage in a long discussion. Let other users share their thoughts. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that the two of you are pretty close to agreeing on the wording. That's good! The only difference is that the current version has "According to the Romanian interpretations ... while in Hungarian interpretations", and you prefer "According to the Romanian interpretations ... while according to Hungarian interpretations". NPoV suggests treating both nationalities equally: "According to Romanian interpretations ... while according to Hungarian interpretations". (And I'm curious – what were Vrančić's words? I'd like to judge for myself what he wrote.) Maproom (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

His original works is in Latin, I only have this part: "Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant". In the contested part, the word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. Romanian translation: "who even though they easily equal the others in number". Hungarian translation: "who even though they easily equal any of the others in number". As the Hungarian translation argues that "quamlibet" also means "any" in this context. LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The other user I had the dispute with made a reply here [[6]] and I replied to him here [[7]]. Since you undertand what the issue is about, I would appreciate if you would share your opinion on the NPOV Noticeboard request [[8]]. I would remove the whole wall of text we had previously and just replace it with what I wrote here, but I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to do that. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Maproom. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lengthy ANI discussion archived without a resolution

Good day.

Is it possible to bring back an archived discussion in WP:ANI? It is not yet closed since there was no resolution yet on the proposed topic ban. It is such a waste for a lengthy discussion to go like this.

It is located at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil_behavior_and_removal_of_references_in_Imelda_Marcos.

Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 09:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It would appear that the discussion was archived automatically which happens after 72 hours of inactivity. Am I to understand that the issue is still ongoing? It looks like it started a whole month ago, if it's still happening then I'd say that's not really an "incident" anymore - it's more a long term issue. I would consider that the main noticeboard is the correct forum. But take a look at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE to see what all of the options are. Best of luck solving your dispute. --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

FTR, WP:ANI is the board for urgent issues as well as chronic ones (about editor behaviour) that haven't been resolved. WP:AN is for issues that may be of interest to administrators in general. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's actually at the end-stage already. Editors are already weighing in on the two proposals (topic ban) when the thread was archived. HiwilmsTalk 12:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe just unarchive it, I'm sure that couldn't do much harm. --Paul ❬talk❭ 08:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'll unarchive. EEng 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Thanks a lot. Pinging Chieharumachi:. HiwilmsTalk 14:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

All of which is fine, but is there any way to ensure that the bot only archives complete threads (i.e. level two headers) and not subsections of threads (level three headers and below)? Mjroots (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, if it did that, it's probably a bug, because I can't see any such option in the bot's documentation. Just out of curiosity, do you have the diff of where that happened? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool This is the edit in question actually, this is it - a level two header and a level three subsection were archived, but there were other level three subsections in that thread active at the time that were not archived. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Σ, the bot's owner. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, what I see in that diff is, five level-2 sections were archived, none of them had subsections. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool that'll teach me to pay attention to dates, as well as times. I've amended that post with the correct diff, Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, I don't see anything wrong with that diff either. If this is about the Imelda Marcos thread, perhaps the source of confusion is the edits that were made to the archive itself [9]? Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's it exactly; for the record, see [10]. And the bot absolutely, positively operates only on complete ==-level threads. EEng 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Making edits under an IP address only

Is it proper for a user to make edits to articles under his or her IP address only and not under a username? If no username is used, then there is no opportunity to leave messages on a talk page of the editor regarding the revisions. This seems an attempt to short-circuit dialogue about the changes; in that case the only place to converse is on the talk page of the article itself. I'd appreciate knowing if there is a rule or policy addressing this. Thanks. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

IP users have talk pages, though generally discussion about an article should take place on the article talk page. It is not required to have an account to edit or participate here. 331dot (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have seen that over time (weeks?) an IP editor's IP address change and then change again, even though from the partial number match it is evidence that it is the same editor. Best perhaps to leave a comment at the article's talk page, only resorting to the IP's talk page it there is a very recent edit. David notMD (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. Ballinacurra Weston (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that IPs don't receive notifications and don't have watchlists, so the only way they'll see a message on the article's talk page is if they happen to look there for some reason. I'd suggest leaving a note on the IP's talk page pointing to the article talk page section in addition. I believe they will get notification (at least in the desktop view) when they have new content on their own IP talk page. (Disclaimer: Some of the previous may be wrong – I can't find the answers at the moment). I always try to suggest that IP editors who want to make more than just drive-by corrections should WP:REGISTER, for reasons of communication, configurable features and gadgets, and enhanced privacy (since their IP address becomes hidden from all but a few admins). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the way a page is displayed since recent edit

The following section of the page on The Baroque Cycle by Neal Stephenson, is not displayed correctly since the latest edit.

Thanks for your attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle#Characters 2001:16B8:A57D:4E00:45A1:1326:B9AA:8BD8 (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done fixed. The page was missing a {{col end}} template. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we add any new wording?

How to add a new wording or phenomenon in wikipedia? Preethanuj Preethalayam (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Preethanuj Preethalayam, Hello! It depends on many things, like what WP:Reliable sources covering these new wording or phenomenon can you cite, guidance like WP:PROPORTION etc. If this is about chemistry, you can try to ask for advice at WT:CHEMISTRY. Be specific, as in "I'd like to add this text in this article, based on these WP:RS." WP:TUTORIAL may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Preethanuj Preethalayam: Without details, it's hard to tell, but please also see WP:NEOLOGISM if it applies. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

can I write my autobiography

 107.72.178.17 (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Almost certainly no, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Although you writing your autobiography is forbidden on the mainspace, you can probably write some information about you on your userpage. (here) You also might want to log in before you do so. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 08:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

To expand what Benjamin Borg has said: in order to have a user page, you need to create an account. You can share some information about yourself on your user page, but it is primarily for sharing about you as a Wikipedia editor. It should not be made to look like an encyclopaedia article, and it will not get indexed by search engines. See Userpages. --ColinFine (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Politics in Isfahan

Pahlevun believes list of police stations should not be here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_in_Isfahan&diff=983848138&oldid=983671927 Baratiiman (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Baratiiman (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please consider creating a separate article with the list. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun is right. Indeed, Politics in Isfahan is a hodge-podge of random information about the city, and should probably be deleted, or merged into Isfahan. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

My content was denied and the email I received was a one way email

Hi there, my daughter is a musician and had a song with a band that was released as a single in March 2017, the band is quite well known and the song is their biggest to date with over 13 million streams. I edited the page and the details were taken down and i was unable to reply to the email and prove the content is correct by pointing to articles etc on line.

I not great at this stuff but it took me a long time and I'm not willing to do it all again if gets taken down.

Please help and advise.

The band is Slumberjack the song is "Afraid Unafraid" featuring Sydnee Carte, released as a single in March 2017 by One Love records Carter10047 (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carter10047,

Wikipedia sends you emails to let you know that a message has been left on your talk page. If you want to reply to the message then you can do so there, or on the talk page of the person who sent you the message. It looks like JalenFolf reverted your edit back in March because you did not provide a source to go with the information that you added but that said, if you do have a conflict of interest then you should seriously think twice about directly editing that article in the first place.

--Paul ❬talk❭ 08:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Slumberjack.   Maproom (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Slumberjack did in fact release a single "Afraid Unafraid" in 2017 with Sydnee Carter. As noted above, the reference you provided that this song charted in Australia made no mention of it. If there are articles confirming the single and its charting, you can edit the article again with those references, or make a case on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Page

I have provided all available information to this page, I request you to consider because all the 04 books published by Reputed Publishers like Routledge and Palgrave Macmillan includes my details as an Editor. creation of this page will help me a lot for the academic growth 2409:4071:200D:EA4D:45E5:8731:B78F:F070 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this about Draft:Rajendra Baikady? If it is, please read Wikipedia's policy on notability.   Maproom (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Baikadyrajendra Being an editor of one book does not meet Wikipedia's notion of academic notability. Wikipedia also discourages attempts at autobiography WP:AUTO. David notMD (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Question

i need help please Habeeb Bello (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've been creating File Talk pages with no associated File pages, and they've been deleted. If we understood what you're trying to do, we might be able to help. Maproom (talk)

08:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, you may ask questions here or at the official Wikipedia help desk.. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 08:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

But please do not ask the same question at both places. David notMD (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikilinks are linked to wrong Wiki article

Hi, I noticed that on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marko_Dimitrijevi%C4%87 when you look at "What links here" you get a list of pages, not all of them about the subject of this article. The first five pages listed under "What links here" are supposed to be going to an article about someone else named Marko Dimitrijević, who is a businessman, and who had an article on Wikipedia which was deleted in 2007. The Marko Dimitrijević this page is about is a basketball coach. The question is how best to fix the incorrect links. The four deletion pages (also the deletion page for Everest Capital should not be linked to the basketball coach) all say "Please do not modify it". The fifth page "Usertalk:Hedgie1" I suppose would be easy to just remove the Wikilink. But maybe a better solution would be to more simply change the name of the article to "Marko Dimitrijević (basketball coach)". Please advise, and I will follow your instructions. Thanks. Passiflorida (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see that there was previously some content about Dimitrijević the businessman, but that has since been deleted. I can't see any live articles linking to Dimitrijević that aren't basketball related, can you point one out? I don't think it would be a good idea to change the name of the article if the basketball coach is the only one on wikipedia - consider the reader who just wants to get straight to the article in question. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Passiflorida. I'm not sure it's necessary to "fix" the links on those other pages. Normally when multiple articles have the same title, Wikipedia uses something called disambiguation to differentiate between them. In this case, however, there is only one article titled Marko Dimitrijević, which is about the basketball player/coach; the other one about the business man no longer exists so it's unlikely going to create any problems with any internal linking between pages. There might be a way for an administrator to "fix" this, but I wouldn't suggest go removing links from other pages or adding disambiguation by moving pages just yet since this doesn't seem like a "problem" requiring immediate action. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess I am a little confused. If you are on any one of those five pages, the four deletion pages and the one user/talk page, and you click on the link to Marko Dimitrijević, it takes you to the wrong person's article. Isn't that a problem? I understand you might not want to change the name of the article, and a disambiguation page is not needed since there is only one article now on Wikipedia with that exact name, but the links are misleading, literally. I think it would be a good idea, to preserve the accuracy of Wikipedia, to have this problem fixed. Unless what I am not understanding is that the deletion pages are not considered "live articles" as User talk:Paul Carpenter said above, and I am worried about nothing.Passiflorida (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to point out one more thing: the Talk page says that the page has been deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marko_Dimitrijevi%C4%87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passiflorida (talk • contribs) 09:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, AfD pages are kept purely as a historical record, for internal reference. They're kind of inherently out of date as soon as the deletion has been done, so it wouldn't make sense to "fix" them. Famously, nothing in this AfD makes sense any more. Good point about the talk page though, I've edited that to clear it up. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Subpages

Hello My question is how to create subpages i want to create templates in my subpages. Wpedia User (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to create a Sub-page, you probably want to visit the Official Wikipedia Article for Sub-pages. Benjamin Borg (Talk) 10:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikitia

Is there anything that can be done about Wikitia copying a draft article and publishing it wholesale and incomplete - ie is there a way to get them to remove it? Silly soul (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Silly soul. The licence under which almost all material in Wikipedia is released specifically allows it to be reused for any purpose, commercial or not, as long as the use complies with the conditions of the licence. See WP:Forks and mirrors. Surprisingly, Wikitia is not listed at WP:Mirrors and forks/VWXYZ. --ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Silly soul, I'd consider adding {{draft article}} and/or {{workpage}} to the top of your article so that if it gets mirrored, it will at least be highlighted to any reader as incomplete. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay ColinFine thanks for your advice. I will add {{draft article}} and/or {{workpage}} although as its already been copied from an older draft then perhaps its too late. Should Wikitia be added to WP:Forks and mirrors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silly soul (talk • contribs)

Fixing ping to ColinFine. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with finding a draft with a conflict of interest.

I have a conflict of interest on one of the page I was about to create. Draft: Green Canvas. Now I cannot access the draft or the page at all. Please help. Green Canvas (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Green Canvas: Im afraid you dont appear to have ever saved a Draft with that name. Please note that "Publish" Should be understood as "Publish this to others can look at it", not "Publish this to the encyclopedia". Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirm user

Hello i have made more than 500 edits and my account is 30 Days old but still i didn't became Extended confirm user. 😭 Wpedia User (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wpedia User: It looks like your account was created almost 30 days ago – if I interpret the time stamps correctly, there's still a few hours left. Very few articles require extended confirmed permissions, though, so having the permission will make almost no difference in what you can edit. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Wpedia User became extended-confirmed at 2020-10-18T16:49:55Z, about 5 hours after their post above and about 90 minutes after exactly 30 days (720 hours) had passed since their account was created (2020-09-18T15:16:35Z). Another user I just checked, who asked a similar question in the hours leading up to their 30-day anniversary, was added to the group about 45 minutes after the 30 days had passed. I can surmise from this that there is a process that runs maybe bi-hourly or so to find accounts that have aged at least 30 days and modifies their group as needed. It would be good if people would wait until a day after 30 days have passed before assuming there is something wrong and posting here (there can always be temporary failures and backlogs too). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Well it's like, ya know, when a kid turns 21 at midnight and is then legal to drink. You don't seriously expect them to miss their first night of intoxication just because some bot is lazy? EEng 23:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• @AlanM1: thank you so much sir I am very happy because i became Extended confirm user. ❤️

Creating a page for my new newspaper

I am creating a page for my new newspaper, Liberty Life, which is kinda like a local version of Stars and Stripes (newspaper).

I can write the content but I am not sure where to start? Do I create a page separate from my own personal page? Signals 1 (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Signals 1, just saying that Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. If you want to make a page because having a WP page of your newspaper will make it seem great, Wikipedia is also not a greatness validator. GeraldWL 13:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Signals 1, and welcome to the Teahouse. If there has been significant independent material published about your newspaper, in reliable sources, then Wikipedia wants to have an article about it, based on that independent coverage, not on what you say or want to say. If there has not, then it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and Wikipedia does not want to have an article about it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

As to "where", see Help:Your first article on how to create and then submit a draft. Your "personal page" is only for describing your intentions and accomplishments as a Wikipedia editor. David notMD (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Issue with Pornographic image

Hello! As I was innocently googling “pearl necklace” for shopping purposes, a Wikipedia image of a woman’s neck covered with drops of semen popped up right at the top of my Search page. I have children who probably Google things all the time, and this is absolutely inappropriate. I went to the page to report it (obviously not a Wikipedia contributor myself) it looked like it was protected and also linked to multiple other sexual definitions. Why is this open to any public search for a pearl necklace? I’ve been a supporter of Wikipedia and now I am more than disappointed. Any ideas? Thanks. 71.121.162.79 (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome. This policy page will answer the concerns you have. Your question has been asked by many people throughout Wikipedia's history. But to simply put it out: Wikipedia is explicit in information because it is an encyclopedia meant to share information no matter the information's distress, unless the image is illegal, like child porn or copyright infringers. Wikipedia is not made for children because, again, it is an encyclopedia. I've heard that you can set so that distressing images won't be displayed on your device unless you click on it, correct me editors. Have a nice day! GeraldWL 13:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

About your children concerns-- I'm not a parent, but if I were you, I would say to them that that is not what they're looking for, and if they ever seen similar pictures, just skip it; I don't think they'll think much about it. I'm not the best fan of watching their every search either. Feel free to express any concerns here if you have one. GeraldWL 13:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• You can suppress the display of images, but that requires having an account. See WP:NOIMAGE. There are also things you can do to your web browser on your end to suppress images. As noted, Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. Parents should supervise and monitor their children's internet use. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your issue also seems to be with Google's algorithms; you could contact them, but it would be hard to weed that image out. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't Google's SafeSearch filter out explicit images such as this, and isn't it opt-out rather than opt-in? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 13:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Look at the Emiway Bantai

The title is protected by Emiway Bantai administrators. So I made a draft titled Draft:Emiway Bantai (rapper). But later I came to know that this article title is also protected. Don't know why the reviewer or administrator doesn't see it. I request you to review the draft: Emiway Bantai (rapper) or publish its correct title in Emiway Bantai. 223.189.134.213 (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse Hosts are not necessarily Administrators. As evident at Emiway Bantai, multiple attempts to create an article about this person have been deleted and the topic 'salted', hence is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it. I suggest you leave a message on the Talk page of one of the Administrators involved in the block. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

David notMD, Thanks, I got satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.238.132.228 (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Art Deco article

Hello dear editors. I have an issue with Art Deco article and I have raised the issue on the talk page of said article. I would like to have an experienced editor take a look at it and give his opinion. It is an article edited by a handful of editors consistently, there are smaller edits made by others but any significant change comes from couple of editors. Please take a look at it and recommend further action and if possible make more editors involved. I can only edit from time to time due to my work, and that is article that requires attention. That is all, thank you. AnnMariette (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AnnMariette, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are having a content dispute with Coldcreation: this is a normal part of creating a collaborative project like Wikipedia. You've done the right thing by starting a discussion on the talk page; Dispute resolution tells you how to proceed if you cannot reach consensus. WP:3O might be a way to proceed, or posting on WikiProject Visual arts, pointing to the discussion and asking others to contribute to it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia Donate Link?

The donation button seems to have disappeared from https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikimedia_Foundation as compared to https://wikimediafoundation.org/ Charles Juvon (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Charles Juvon. That Wikiwand page is a mirror of the Wikipedia article about the Wikimedia Foundation, whereas https://wikimediafoundation.org/ is the website of the Wikimedia Foundation. An encylcopedic article, even about the WMF, wouldn't usually include a donate button. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to suggest that these are monetary damages that should be addressed by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon, The wiki wand article is the counterpart of this article in Wikipedia:

Wikimedia_Foundation

Not this site.

The Wikipedia article doesn't have the donate button.

The foundation landing site does have a donate button, but I don't believe wikiwand has a counterpart to that page. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA that allows copying for any purpose without any payment. No monetary damages here. From what I see, Wikiwand is providing attribution, and that is all that is required by the license. RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with Admin misbehaviour

I registered an account after i saw an admin using the talk page of a political article as his personal political blog and violating WP:NOTFORUM in a clearly indisputable form. I did remove his blog posts and it got accepted and i noticed him on his Talk page. There is no objection of removing those blog posts. He then proceeded to call me an alt account (with no reasoning) and ultimately ended up closing the discussion on his talk page with the note that i should come back with my real account and cherry picked and deleted specific messages that i wrote that he disliked.

He threatened to have an Admin with checkuser permission check if i am an alt, and i assumed this happened, i even openly said that im ok with that if this helps him feel more comfortable (interestingly, he removed the part of my message where i said that). Nevertheless he continued with his baseless allegation. However, the allegation that i am an alt account, even implying that i am from an blocked alt (?) seems pretty offensive to me and i want this removed from his talk page. Im aware about Assuming Good Faith and try my best, but it seems like he just keeps that allegation there and removes my message where i say that im not and that a checkuser can look into it solely because he wants to shut it down.

Honestly, that whole thing is really disappointing and shattered my view of Wikimedia as a whole. The person in question is Admin for 15 years now. How hard would it be to say: "OK, that was WP:NOTFORUM, thanks for the reminder" instead of starting to throw allegations around? I don't know wikipedias policy about alts, but how does that even matter?--Judahclipt (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Judahclipt User conduct issues are handled at WP:ANI, but I would think very carefully before going there, as your own conduct will be examined as well. This will include your edit warring to keep your post on another user's talk page(users are allowed to remove posts from their own user talk page). My suggestion, if you are a new user, would be to let this go. But that's up to you. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

User is now blocked. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong info

I corrected spelling on Nyon olive … I live here. It is Nyons olive, which has it’s own page under the Tanche olive. Wiki rejected it. Current reference is totally wrong. How do I correct it? ChezProvence (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The info in a table about olives refers to a world famous olive as the Nyon olive. That is wrong. It is Nyons. I live here. I know that is true. It ebpven has irs own page, referring to the Tanche olive. But my edit was rejected, keeping in place the rather incompetent definition including the misspelling. Frustrated about how to make a simple edit on Wiki. ChezProvence (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ChezProvence Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry to hear about your frustration. The issue with your edit is that you changed an external reference to a reference to another Wikipedia article- such circular referencing is not permitted, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia articles cannot reference other Wikipedia articles as sources. If you have an external reliable source that says what you are trying to add, that would be acceptable. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I will add that it is not enough for you to say that you know something is true- Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. We can't accept your personal word of something no matter how true it is. It needs to be in a published source that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ChezProvence, I have just completed a Google search, and roughly half of the reliable English language sources spell it "Nyon" and roughly half spell it "Nyons". It appears that there are two accepted spellings, so you are not correct to say this is a misspelling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ChezProvence Rather than trying to use Tanche as a reference, better to use the "Nyons" reference in that article = https://www.frenchfeast.com/products.htm Then, the variety name could be shown as Nyon (also Nyons), with two references. That would be preferred to replacing Nyon with Nyons and removing one ref for the other. David notMD (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Tool for finding links

I thought there was tool for findings pages that might have subjects that could link back to a page you are editing. I can't seem to find that tool now. Muirton (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muirton: If your page name is Foo bar, I would use Search to search for "Foo bar" -insource:"[[Foo bar" (See correction below), to find articles with that page name, but not if it's already linked. Some additional tweaking may be needed if it's too common a name and gets false hits. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I've used search. I probably should have been more specific. A regular search takes you to the article page, and then you need to look through the page to find your search hit. I used a tool last year that takes you right to the word you searched for in the article when you click on the search result. I don't know where I got the tool. I was hoping for help in finding it again. Muirton (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Muirton: Once you're on the search results page, use the browser's "Find in this page" (usually Ctrl-F) to search for Foo bar. Then, middle-click (or left-click if you've configured your browser to open new links in new tabs/windows) on one of the entries in the search results to go to that page in a new tab. Do a "Find again" (usually with F3) to search for the Foo bar in that page. When you're done editing the page to add the link, close it to go back to the search results and repeat as needed. There may well be scripts that package this up neatly (maybe involving Chrome's extension to search from URL syntax with the #:~:text=Foo%20bar suffix), but this is how I do it "manually" with basic tools. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This? Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool and Muirton: That tool includes pages that are already linked to the target, though, which the search does not. At least now that I've fixed it, that is : [11] searches for "Foo bar" -insource:/\[\[\s*Foo bar/ —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and Usedtobecool: These responses have been helpful. Thanks guys Muirton (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Conlangs

I started writing an article on a conlang I made here but I also noticed that you cant advertise or self promote and have independent sources and I was wondering if posting an article like this would be considered self promotion or not and how I could incorporate independent sources. Osric the Brash (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Osric the Brash. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what published, independent reliable sources say about a topic. If, for example, three prestigious linguistics journals have written about the language you created, then it may also be possible to write a Wikipedia article about it. So, have independent sources covered your language? Lacking such coverage, then your efforts are self promotional and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please read the guideline about editing with a conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Osric the Brash: I expect it would be difficult for you to write a neutral article on this topic, as it is something you created yourself. But, if you have independent reliable sources establishing notability, and if you disclose the WP:COI, then you can submit your draft for review via WP:AFC, and a non-involved editor can review it. RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Geneology

I downloaded a graphic showing "Henry VIII of England is 32 degrees from Albrecht der Kelner" but it got lost and I can't find it again. Any suggestions? Used it for a familhy tree. 192.81.86.192 (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed your email address from your comment. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you have spelled "Albrecht der Kelner" correctly? That name does not appear anywhere on English Wikipedia (other than this thread). You might also try asking at the Reference Desk, which can be more useful for this type of question. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

So does it make any difference

I participated in an article talk page a few days ago and the members of Teahouse helped me to do it well and after that they want reliable sources for the changes i want but before I do it somebody else do it for the similar changes,so does it make any difference? or only i can provide sources for changes i want to make? You can see here[12] Sumit banaphar (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sumit banaphar: generally, the WP:BURDEN to bring sources in´s on the editor that makes (or wants to make) the change. Unsourced changes that arent obvivious can be reverted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The question you pose above is hard to understand. (As an example, so does what make any difference?) And therefore I clicked on the link you provide. What I see is hard to understand. If you want to make an edit request, you should post a message pointing to the problematic text within the article, and specifying the exact text you want it replaced with. Read and reread your text for accuracy and style before you post it. Do not complicate this request with rhetorical questions, complaints about the unfairness of the process, descriptions of how your ethnic background or whatever makes you well qualified to judge, or other stuff. If you do add such unnecessary material and are lucky, people will merely ignore it. If you're less lucky, then it will lead them to dismiss you as a time-waster. Provide clear evidence for your suggested text. If this is a paragraph (or more) that has various stages and depends on various sources, then provide a source for each stage. -- Hoary (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an example of an edit request that was carried out. It's clear and concise, it provides a reason and a source. Please study it and learn from it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

General reliability and/or quality of sources expected in alumni sections of colleges and universities (St. Xavier's College, Kolkata#Notable alumni)

Hi, I'm trying to improve (work on) the St. Xavier's College, Kolkata article. The #Notable Alumni section of the article has a notice asking users to

improve this article by removing names that do not have independent reliable sources 
showing they merit inclusion in this article AND alumni, or by incorporating the relevant
publications into the body of the article through appropriate citations.

However, on trying to look for sources on Google most of the sources that actually talks about them being from Xaviers are either tweets, self-published articles and/or company profiles and/or interviews which aren't considered independent and reliable. I'm pretty sure most of the people listed there are notable enough to be there but there just doesn't seem to be any reliable sources talking from which college they graduated. Any help on this regard would be greatly appreciated :) Sohom Datta (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S: How do you quote text in comments? I can't seem to be able to get my comment quote to format properly. Sohom Datta (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd delete all that aren't well sourced. "What you call a reliable source doesn't exist, so I'm forced to use sources that you happen not to like" doesn't cut it. Neither does "But this is what their articles say." Or "Everyone knows that it's true." Or "He told me himself", or whatever. Unfortunately, a lot of editors seem to want to boost certain universities by adding to the lists of their alumni, so you are going to hurt some people's feelings. Well, tough. ¶ You also ask:

How do you quote text in comments? [...]

I think that the method I've just used is effective for most cases. It's certainly easy to implement. Put one additional colon at the start, and italicize the whole thing (which in turn will deitalicize what was in italics). Easier done than said. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I'll try my best to keep only those that I find reliable sources for. Also, thanks for showing how to quote stuff in comments :) Sohom Datta (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikitable under an infobox?

Not sure if this is right place to ask technical questions, but here goes... I want to get a small wikitable to appear directly underneath an infobox. Is there a style= parameter that can make that happen? Thanks! Assambrew (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Assambrew if I understand you correctly you need to add style="float:right;" to align the table to the right page margin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Assambrew: I.e., start the table with:

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right"

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys, but I already tried "float:right". On edit page, I placed the wikitable directly under the infobox, then previewed. The wikitable then shows at the top, to the left of the infobox, floated right from the text. You can see this in my sandbox: [13]

I'm hoping to get the wikitable directly underneath the infobox. Assambrew (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Assambrew, it's possible that you might need to clear both on the element, or preferably, use Template:clear. If the infobox isn't floating it could also cause a similar effect. It may be the case that this isn't possible, due to the site wide CSS. Would you mind linking us to the page you are working on? Zindor (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually ignore my generic suggestion. I'm looking at your sandbox now. Zindor (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Zindor. But actually I may abandon my idea, which was to place a "Previous-Next" table on every article about Messier objects, as a convenient way of browsing through them. But now I realize, there's the Messier Objects template already at the bottom of each, which allows convenient browsing. Anyway, thanks for your time guys! Assambrew (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to know how to add some custom status like other people

Some people add stuff like, This is has a nintendo switch and a photo beside it. I would be glad if you told me how Wikipidean's Creed (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wikipidean's Creed. Are you referring to userboxes? Anarchyte (talk • work) 08:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they are named but most likely yes

Wikipidean's Creed, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so please consider improving articles before you worry about how your user page appears. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hoary, Sure I am working on that but I like to brighten people up when they see a funny or happy user page not some boring random

Actually, many new editors put in time on creating an interesting User page before going on to participating in improving Wikipedia articles. Only those who work on their User page to the exclusion of doing any encyclopedia work are at risk for being blocked for not being here to work on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Userboxes explains about User boxes (including making a new one), and Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries has lists of existing Userboxes that can be copied. David notMD (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

To all Wikipedia editors

>>>COMPLAINT<<<

Where does this end? All I would like is to have the Wikipedia article, that has been written about me, completed after 3 years of grief.

In 2017, after 15 years of full-time social documentary work, I was given a one-man exhibition at Firstsite gallery in Colchester, Essex, UK. The marketing company employed by the gallery reviewed my life’s work (which began in 1988) - all of the work that had been published by international news media, my commercial books and many other exhibitions - and told me I had, in their opinion, earned the opportunity to have a Wikipedia article published about my work, because it is notable.

Apparently, although everything to do with Wikipedia is a mystery to me, a German couple, or a couple in Germany, unknown to me, made the Wikipedia article in a month and it was published. The article was 95% incomplete and misleading, but I was grateful to have it and, because I was involved with motorcycling 2,500 miles off-road, from Brisbane to Australia’s remotest Aboriginal community, didn’t have a chance at that moment to say anything in order to improve the article.

Years later, annoyed that my article looked amateur, I attempted to edit the article myself. I chose a username, using my own website address, and that was the moment the gates of hell opened. I was used to, up to that moment, of using the same username for online banking, social media, online shopping etc with my website address and I didn’t know Wikipedia wouldn’t allow this. I didn’t realise knowledge of code was needed to correct the article, since you are still using HTML, or a derivative, and made a mistake, my 2nd one. I made the page look untidy so contacted an editor for help, who reverted it. Because I had attempted to edit the page, had an illegal username AND WAS ACCUSED OF PAID-EDITING, I was promptly blocked. I had nothing to do with paid-editing but that didn’t seem to make a difference, I was blocked, end of story.

More time passed and I decided I had a spare month I could afford to waste in order to try and rectify this problem. That’s a month editors, that means 4 weeks, 30 days, 12 hours a day, do the math, yes - 360 hours to waste working every day on the Wikipedia article about my work.

I worked out that to be able to do anything at all I had to get myself unblocked, as by this time I had learnt I needed an editor to revise my Wikipedia article as I was not allowed to go near it. To begin with, I had wanted to update my profile photograph, but was told this was too hard to do. So instead it was easier to just delete it. After more time still I decided I wanted to re-instate the original photo, even though it was outdated and 7 years old, because any other photo that wasn’t a selfie would be impossible to use. So CaptainEek helped me to upload the original photo and this involved jumping through many hoops. But finally I got there.

Captain Eek said I could ask (them, I respect this person is gender-neutral) for more help but when I came around to asking them later on, they said they were too busy to be involved with Wikipedia so I should look elsewhere. I then exchanged approximately 50 emails with Cordless Larry, who was very obliging but became exasperated because they were not IT specialists and could not answer all of my questions. I asked for marked screen grabs to help me navigate Wikipedia correctly and eventually managed to change my username after 3 attempts and then, it was accepted, though seemingly still not approved.

Then, with a new username that I was allowed to use, I was unblocked and was directed to the Teahouse where I could ask editors for help with the article about the work I have created.

More hassle. I find an editor who is very obliging but who says I owe them for the work they are doing and would like me to do some work for them in return. I thought Wikipedia was a free resource, so why do I always have to do something for people in return? It is suggested that I be paid to design a book for a spouses Xmas present where a photo of the editor and I will be used in the book, together with any photo they choose of mine, that has been uploaded to Wikipedia Commons, because they don’t need my permission now as they have suggested I waive my copyright. And that I also ride to London to photo a collection of sculpture for their project that ultimately sees me travel to Zimbabwe. I am told to buy a 2 TB hard drive and told to pay them between £0.01 and £1 with Paypal, to their Paypal account. I don’t understand what is happening but pay the £1. (Isn’t this the sort of thing that Chinese and Nigerians do, to scam you?!)

In the meantime, I am asked to write an article for The Signpost. I write and post my photos for 6 and a half hours at the request of the editor-in-chief of The Signpost, Smallbones. After submitting my article and doing what was asked of me, Smallbones tells me that there might be problems with copyright and my captions and photos and...well, everything. And this person is skeptical of me because of paid-editing, and they don't want to pay me for my work, which further devalues my work and partly why I unashamedly have to live in a tent all year round - because people don't appreciate the value of my photography and don't pay me.

Next the Xmas project/Zimbabwe project editor is hassled by other editors because they (the editor) have posted too many of my photos to Wikimedia Commons. Another editor warns Zimbabwe editor to be careful, because now that he is helping me, there is a ‘relationship’ between him and I. What?! Not only that BUT if my photos are used to support the article about my work it can be considered ‘self-promoting’! So the amount of my photos being uploaded to my article should be reduced, if not completely excluded? So I make the decision, if my photos aren’t allowed on the article about my work, The Signpost would be hypocritical also, if they used my work as that too could be considered self-promoting. And because Smallbones is being small-minded about my article and quote ‘will take out the beautiful parts’ and sends his edited version back to me in segments, with links to each segment, I decide to back off completely.

Let me tell you editors, there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians in your little group of fanatics. When I submit my work to the BBC my editor takes it and that is the last I hear until it is published. There are no snide remarks, no blustering, postering or showboating, no lengthy tournament of ping pong with emails going back and forwards all and every day. There is a simple one-time transfer of information that is edited and published, and not to around to 1000 people, but 100’s of 1000’s of people. And do you think that the BBC does not fact check and have strict T & C’s and codes of conduct? Who has been around longest? An online search reveals that the BBC has been around 79 years longer than Wikipedia, and it shows.

Editors at Wikipedia are not God, you are not infallible, you can’t expect me to do work for you in return for making my page look as it should. Editors here don’t have power over others and shouldn’t be flexing muscles they don’t have. Editors should be respectful of people who have articles written about them and maintain Wikipedia standards by making sure that the people on your site are respected and properly represented. You lot are zealots for facts and truth but in reality you are hypocrites and counter-productive to your cause. You cause more problems than providing cures. All I would like is to have an editor make the article about me complete, to the present date. But if an editor helps too much, they are told to be careful because they have now formed a relationship! In the future, perhaps it is wiser to have a different editor help every week so there is no risk of favouritism or even...nepotism once that 'relationship' has been formed!

So, where does this end? Are there any normal people out there? Who can help me without expecting anything in return. To get the article that is about my work representing my work properly? A person I can communicate with without having to send 10 emails a day, and who isn’t hassled for helping me by other editors and where one problem after another isn’t raked up. I appreciate that for many of you, this is your hobby and you don’t have anything else to do, but others, me for example, has a life to lead and other work to do. Make this a simpler, more reasonable process in the future, and stop acting as though you are all so special.

Perhaps go out there and do something notable so you can have your own article about you, so you don’t have to waste other people’s time, 'editing'.EddieLeVisco (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Ed Gold. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

To your last comment, we are all so special. We labor anonymously to improve articles so that people we have never met, nor will, benefit from good information. It's an encyclopedia. Yes, there is an article about you (Ed Gold), and yes, you are not satisfied with it, but that does not mean that you, or a friend/acquaintance helping you, gets to change the content to what you want. I cannot speak to your other frustrating experiences. However, to date, User:Michael D. Turnbull has uploaded 140 of your photographs to Wikipedia Commons (and mentioned the possibility of uploading hundreds more), and at the article about you, created a portal to that collection. As best I can tell, none of these have been used in any Wikipedia articles. I consider that an abuse of Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: How can uploading something to a site that isn't Wikipedia be an abuse of Wikipedia? 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:B0C3:F665:5C5F:684C (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Because of the portal. David notMD (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, to what end are these dozens of low resolution photos being placed at Commons if they are of living people, from whom permission-to-use may be required? The files on those photos include this text: "Although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain, the person(s) shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses. In these cases, a model release or other evidence of consent could protect you from infringement claims. Though not obliged to do so, the uploader may be able to help you to obtain such evidence." This means that editors would need to contact Turnbull, who would contact Gold, who either does or does not have model release or consent documentation from each person in the photo. David notMD (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am just going to respond to this insulting diatribe by EddieLeVisco to tell him that Wikipedia is just an encyclopaedia. It summarises key published information about notable subjects. It is not a personal website. We are not here for him. It is created and managed by volunteers, and it operates by consensus, and few of its 6,176,800+ articles are really complete. In reality, there are lots of 'Indians' and no 'Chiefs' here and, yes, that can sometimes be a problem folk have to deal with. We do not have a 'Complaints Department'; we are not paid to give a service, nor would legitimate editors ever seek payment from anyone. (Sounds like you were scammed - sorry to hear that, mate) We do our best to help people here - sometimes even off-wiki. But EddieLeVisco (a.k.a. Ed Gold) already has an article about them; he has a chum uploading 1000+ of his photos, and has only made two approaches for help - the first on 9th October, and now this, as far as I can tell. Yet everyone seems to be at fault but themselves. And to portray the creation of an encyclopaedia page about him as some terrible, convoluted three year saga seems somewhat OTT. The convolutions come when that subject feels they have a right to get the page created perfectly, just as they want it. That won't happen. The best advice to get what you want is to invest time and money into enhancing and promoting your already quite impressive personal website. That way you'll get it to your liking, in every way. It already shows you are clearly a really great photographer, but your interpersonal skills seem somewhat lacking. I really don't know how anyone could expect people to even think about helping them after they end their rant by saying: "Perhaps go out there and do something notable so you can have your own article about you, so you don’t have to waste other people’s time, 'editing'." I'm sorry they found their experience here frustrating, but I for one won't be 'wasting' any of my time by offering help; I'm sure others now feel the same, too. (If you do find uncited stuff about you that's wrong, you are free to remove it immediately. Otherwise, please read WP:OWN.) Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't read it as all an insulting diatribe. I have a lot of sympathy with what EddieLeVisco says. I will respond to just two of his points:

"there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians in your little group of fanatics". Yes, the lack of any hierarchy can be unsettling for us too. No, we're quite a big group, I see that there are 3,849 editors who've made over 25,000 edits. Yes, fanatics is a fair description.

"I find an editor who is very obliging but who says I owe them for the work they are doing and would like me to do some work for them in return." In my view, that is not acceptable. If the facts are really as you say, I'd like to know who that editor was. When I do things for people at Wikipedia, I never ask for or expect anything in return. Maproom (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Strike that. Maproom (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• You are here for self-promotion, but Wikipedia is not for promotion. We are writing an encyclopedia with a really low bar for inclusion. That is why borderline notable topics get to get included here but it also means there are far too many articles and it will take Wikipedia volunteers many more decades to get even the vital topics to a reasonably good standard.
  You are in a hurry because you want to polish up the biography in question before Nov 1. Please tell us why any of us should care? No subproject has categorised that article as above "low" priority. You don't even want to make edit requests to the talk page because that would put your attempts at promoting the subject too close to the article. You can't have everything you want in your own schedule from people you're not paying to get things done. Please stop wasting people's time, no matter how worthless you think they are. Suck it up and make edit requests (use this if you are in too much of a hurry to figure out how to), or don't. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How to create a company Page?

I would like to create a company page for my organization for their presence in Wikipedia. What are the procedure to create a company page here? Ashumacs84 (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ashumacs84, don't. Your company page will inevitably sound promotional, because you have a conflict-of-interest. The page will most likely get deleted. If you company is notable, another Wikipedian will create a page on it. Thanks, Giraffer ^munch 11:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User box isnt working

I'm not sure what am I doing wrong but when I copy and paste the userbox link it doesn't show the user box it shows just a link Wikipidean's Creed (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Works if without the nowiki and with curly double brackets {{ }}. Try copying what is below to your User page. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This user only needs 4 more Wumpa fruit for an extra life.

I see that you have mastered adding Userboxes to your page. Great. David notMD (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Uploading small images

I have not been able to upload a small image (section of a page written in Microsoft Word, created by the snipping tool) because of AbuseFilter/153 as I am a new user. The above information was given to me by Jeff G., but I could not reply back. Something went wrong or something I did wrong (or you have made everything too complicated here). So, what do I do in order to be able to upload small images (the image in question is 89,418 bytes or 1,168 x 628 = 733,504 pixels). Thank you! Dimitrios Trimijopulos (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dimitrios Trimijopulos: Use the Commons.wikimedia.org upload Wizard directly. The question I have, why do you need to upload screenshots of MS Word documents? Unpublished sources are not acceptable anyway. 12:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Dimitrios. Before going any further please read WP:NOR.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Obel Award

I would like to make an article on The Obel Award. A new international architecture award presented by the Henrik Frode Obel Foundation. I am unsure on the notability since I am new to editing wikipedia.

There are plenty of articles and mentions on the internet from well established sources:

https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/obel-award-2019-junya-ishigami

https://aasarchitecture.com/2020/06/obel-award-2019-water-garden-by-junya-ishigami-associates.html/

https://utzoncenter.dk/da/nyhed/ny-international-arkitekturpris-uddeles-paa-utzon-center-8941

https://www.aedes-arc.de/cms/aedes/de/programm?id=19510817

https://www.architecture-exhibitions.com/aedes-architekturforum/obel-award-2019

https://www.world-architects.com/en/architecture-news/headlines/inaugural-obel-award-to-junya-ishigamis-water-garden

http://www.designcurial.com/news/brief-encounters-the-obel-award-7610698/

https://de51gn.com/tag/obel-award-2019/

https://www.archdaily.com/927003/art-biotop-water-garden-recognized-with-inaugural-obel-award?ad_medium=gallery

https://worldarchitecture.org/article-links/eehzg/junya-ishigami-s-art-biotop-water-garden-in-japan-awarded-the-2019-obel-award.html

https://www.artforum.com/news/junya-ishigami-wins-inaugural-obel-award-for-architecture-81109

https://www.dezeen.com/2019/10/24/junya-ishigami-art-biotop-water-garden-obel-award/

https://www.scalemag.online/tag/obel-award/

The list goes on. Are any of these links considered "notable"?

Thank you in advance Anca1661 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

hello, Anca1661, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for asking your question - doing that can save a lot of wasted effort and heartache sometimes. Although nobody would doubt the accuracy of all those stories you linked to, they are all, unfortunately, really just 'insider business journals. It would need articles in mainstream media like national newspapers to make me feel this award meets our Notability Criteria. There are so many awards of this type that evidence from within that particular sector's own news outlets just wouldn't be enough. It may also be WP:TOOSOON, and perhaps in the future there will be better sources available. But even then, I feel that mention of any award probably ought to be a part of a page about the award-giving body or Foundation - at least in the first instance. But I see there is not one, either here or on Danish Wikipedia. That might be the first subject to look out for sources about. A similar sort of example of a notable award that springs to mind (mainly because I received an award for 'Imaginative Education Work' from it back in the 1990s!) is the Gulbenkian Prize. There you will see a number of mainstream media references, plus internal wikilinks to the award-giving foundation. I'm not going to say give up on this, but I am not convinced your award scheme has been established long enough to have become 'notable' in the sense that Wikipedia uses that word. See WP:GNG and WP:N for two shortcuts to these topics. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)        

I have written approval for use of content from the original author, how do I make sure it does not get deleted because of copyright again?

I have edited the wikipedia page on Johfra Bosschart. The majority of the content is published by the website https://www.johfra.nl/en/biographie/ and I have a written confirmation that I am allowed to use the entire content (text and images) to update the wikipedia page. The writer of this content is part of the Johfra Bosschart foundation (Jaap Bleumink). How do I make sure this information does not get deleted once again? I can show the proof of the confirmation from Jaap Bleumink, author of the text and owner of the images.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johfra_Bosschart IntlArtCollective (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if it's released under the correct license, it isn't appropriate as articles should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say, not what the subject or in this case, people with a financial interest wants. Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC

- Praxidicae: There is no financial interest with the author of this text whatsoever. He is part of the Johfra Foundation which is a non-profit organisation. So how does that conflict?

(edit conflict) I have reverted the addition. Please see WP:RS WP:SELFPUB WP:SELFCITE WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect, they run the foundation, which is a huge conflict of interest and still isn't independent. Praxidicae (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

- That does not make sense. The foundation is non-profit and consists of academics who published multiple books on the biography of Johfra (non-profit). I do not understand whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntlArtCollective (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The Jofra Foundation and the Jofra Museum are not independent sources of information. And both would benefit (reputationally if not financially) if there were a more extensive description of Jofra's career at Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC

- David notMD Ok so that is interesting, because the dutch version of this page is actually written by members of the foundation. So how to go about it? It would be okay if I summarize or re-formulate this biography in its entirety? How else is his story and life work ever going to be represented on wikipidia? Referencing multiple sources from multiple authors? It does not compute with me at all that formal academic publications on the life of the artist are seen as subjective or having financial / reputational interest. I am all for a objective representation of the facts, but fact of the matter is that these publications are excerpts of the autobiography of the artist himself who died over 20 years ago.

Hello, IntlArtCollective. Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything which the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates, agents, or employers say about them. It is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and have not been prompted or fed information by the subject or their associates, have chosen to publish about them in reliable sources. If there is little such independent material, then the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article will be accepted. (This is a slight overstatement, but not by much: certain information can be taken from non-independent sources, and there are specific, different criteria available for particular classes of subject, such as WP:NARTIST). But if the bulk of the information is from an autobiography, the subject may not meet our criteria.

Each edition of Wikipedia is an independent project, with its own rules, and a subject may be acceptable on Dutch Wikipedia that isn't on English, and vice versa; also, in en-wiki we have thousands of articles which were created before we became as careful, and which would not be accepted if they were written now: this is likely to be true on other editions as well. --ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

IntlArtCollective, leaving aside the issue of whether the Johfra Museum biography in an independent source, I doubt that the permission you received solves the copyright issue: Permission on Wikipedia must allow not only use on Wikipedia but also reuse anywhere for anything (including for-profit and modification). —teb728 t c 21:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing a Wikipedia

Why same pages like Wuhan cannot be edited?I tried to edit but it was locked. Rpn21 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rpn21: - some pages have had significant amounts of problematic editing. This is usually vandalism or edit-warring. This can trigger varying levels of protection (semi-protect, the lowest, being the most common). These limit direct editing to those with a certain track record. For semi-protected pages you need to be autoconfirmed, which means having 10 edits and an article 4 days old.

Usually protection is temporary, but repeat instances can lead to indefinite/long-term protection.

You can still request edits on the article's talk page. In the meantime, around 95% of our articles are not protected. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rpn21: the page Edit requests tells you how to make the requests that Nosebagbear mentions. --ColinFine (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lol I was about to make a new sub page in Wuhan Wikipedia giving information about how this virus started from there.still I don't understand why we can't write that there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpn21 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How Do You Add Categories To a New Article?

I just published my 6th new article, Dirty Sally, but I don't know how to add categories to an article. Other editors usually come along and add some later on, but I'd like to become a "real" editor and learn how to do it myself. This article is about a 1974 CBS western spinoff television show, and there are probably lots of categories to add, if I knew how to do it. Karenthewriter (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

A bare-bones answer: After finding that a category does exist, and noting exactly what it's called (including upper and lower case, and any terms in parentheses appended to it), go to the edit page of your article and at the bottom, add "[[Category:exact title of category]]"--with the square brackets, but without the quotation marks. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Karenthewriter: It's often helpful to look at the categories at the bottom of a similar article (in this case, Gunsmoke might be a good choice) and use the ones that are also appropriate to your article. Deor (User:Deor) 18:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Uporządnicki and User:Deor. Dirty Sally now has 4 categories, all added via the wonders of cut and paste. --Karenthewriter (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert older edits

How to revert an older edit? And what is the difference between revert and manual revert. Eroberar (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eroberar: For every edit, you can try hitting the "undo" button next to it in the article's history page. However, if it's older, you may not be able to directly undo, in which case you will have to manually change the text. If A makes an edit and B undoes that edit with no edits between A and B, B's edit is known as a "revert". If B did not hit the "undo" button but instead manually changed the text, that's known as a "manual revert". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia "adoption"

I read the adoption article but I'm not sure I can attend that much and by much I mean a lot! so is it ok if i put the {{adoptme}} in my user page? Wikipidean's Creed (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikipidean's Creed: Yes, you can do that, but Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user advises that it is best to contact a potential adopter directly. RudolfRed (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikipidean's Creed: Welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst in once sense RudolfRed was quite correct in their answer, the reality is actually quite different. Because you only joined Wikipedia today, you are far better off asking here at the Teahouse for help with specific questions. You will get help much quicker, too. The Adopt-a-user process requires a lot of commitment from both parties, and nowadays adoption better suits relatively inexperienced users who have already learned some of the basics but can show dedication to wanting to go on to understand things in greater depth. I'm afraid you are most unlikely to get an adopter looking at your contributions and thinking, "yes, this person is committed. I'd be happy to give lots of my time to help them." Later on, they might well be willing to do that, once they've seen what kind of edits you're making and the range of your interest and commitment here. But right now it would not work for you, sorry. Equally, no Adopter really looks out for the 'adopt-me' templates or responds to them - it requires the new user to go and make that initial approach once they feel they're ready to be 'adopted'. So stick with asking for help here, for now, then see how you go. You might pick things up dead easily, especially if you take the time to read any guidance or policy pages you encounter! Do have a go at our interactive tour: The Wikipedia Adventure - there are 15 different badges you can collect as you progress. All the best, and come back soon! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)    

Difference between a draft and a stub article

What's the difference between a draft, and an article that needs improvement? I've got a draft right now (Draft:Candleman), and right now its at stub status. Do I have to wait before I can submit it for approval, or can I submit it now, and if it gets approved, continue to work on it? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini:, Draft means anything that is in the draftspace, and not in the mainspace. Stub is a content based assessment of any article/draft that how much information it has. A little but meaningful article/draft would be stub, then start, then C, then B, and then GA (and GA status is given to any article after a due review) and so on. A detailed information is at WP:ASSESS. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If your draft article meets the notability criteria at the GNG or the SNG criteria, you're free to move it to mainspace. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Helpful, Disruptive, Neither?

I am (slowly) working my way through Category:Pages using Infobox person with deprecated parameter home town (this does not let me wikilink for some reason, so I apologize for the 'external link' to...wikipedia) and the category has a lot of Draft pages in it, such as this one: Draft:4K Gaming Nepal - should I pass over things like that, or go ahead and tidy it up by removing home_town from the infobox? I don't want to be disruptive, but I also don't want to do a bunch of edits that aren't worthwhile/don't improve the encyclopedia. Cheers! sootikins ^{(gaze/palaver)} 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi sootikins, welcome to the Teahouse. To wikilink to categories, place a comma colon inside the square brackets but before the name; like so Category:Pages using Infobox person with deprecated parameter home town. If the drafts are in draftspace, rather than userspace, then you should be fine making those edits; just be sure to use clear edit summaries. To make your edits worthwhile, perhaps be selective about which ones you edit, choosing only pages likely to be published in the main article space.

There does however exist an automated tool called Auto Wiki Browser (AWB), which I believe can perform the kind of edits you are performing but a lot faster. I don't think you have enough edits yet to qualify for access to the tool, but try asking at the AWB task page to see whether it would be feasible, and maybe someone would consider helping you out on this. Zindor (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: For "place a comma inside the square brackets" in the post above, read "place a colon inside the square brackets". (Just so no new editors get confused.) Deor (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for catching that. I've now struck through and amended it. Zindor (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Hi sootikins. In order to link to a category and avoid the need to place an external link as in your question above, place a colon before after the doubled brackets, e.g., [[:category:NAME]]. I think on balance it's helpful (if it was, rather, clearly mistaken, I still wouldn't describe it as "disruptive"—as obviously done in good faith). Per WP:DRAFTNOCAT: "Drafts, no matter whether in the draft namespace or your userspace, are not articles, and thus do not belong in content categories...". So not only does fixing these address the quoted issue, but if these drafts eventually go live, the category will be correct in them. But that is not done by removing the hometown (which has the detriment of removing information, that would be somewhat burdensome to return). I suggest instead that you don't remove the town entirely, but simply comment it out from the drafts' infoboxes, e.g., <!-- Name of Town --> , which has the benefit of leaving the information in, which can be easily made live by removing the comment-out markup when a draft is moved to the mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you all for the tip about the colon! Secondly, Should I do that (comment out, but don't remove) even though the parameter itself is deprecated? It feels like I'd just be adding even more clutter with the commenting out. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding! I will happily revert myself where I have already removed the parameters that had a hometown listed, I think I've done maybe 50 at most and the majority are still the current edit, the last I looked. sootikins ^{(gaze/palaver)} 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I misunderstood sorry--I somehow interpreted as the category being somehow separate, and not that placing hometowns in infoboxes itself is deprecated. Just ignore me:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha, no worries, it's not a straightforward question! Thank you for your input, it does make me lean towards going ahead and cleaning up the Drafts I run across. sootikins ^{(gaze/palaver)} 20:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is my page still in draft? (LoadUp Technologies)

Hi there! I have been trying to get my draft of LoadUp Technologies published, and am not sure why it hasn't been approved. I originally wrote a much longer article, but after the review came back that there weren't enough citations and it sounded a little like advertising copy, I shortened it and removed any copy that wasn't written in the proper encyclopedia voice. Since then, it's been sitting in drafts. How do I get another review? I am a little unsure why the original wasn't approved, as I used referenced the already-approved 800-GOT-JUNK Wiki (they are also a junk removal company like LoadUp Technologies is) to make sure that I was including things that had been previously approved for a similar type of entry. Just not sure exactly what is so different between what I originally submitted and what was approved for 800-GOT-JUNK.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated! Maggieminton88 (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Maggieminton88 I have added the submission template to allow you to submit it for a review, but if you were to do so, it would almost certainly be rejected again. This is because it does little more than tell of the existence of the company and what it does, and is sourced to nothing but press release-type sources or announcements of routine business, neither of which establishes that this company meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company.

Wikipedia articles must do more than tell about a company. They must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond brief mentions, name drops, press releases, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, or other primary sources. See Your First Article for more information.

If you have some association with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:LoadUp Technologies. I agree with the assessment - this will not become an article until better sourcing is found. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Getting started!

Hi Everyone, i am new to editing in Wikipedia but want to contribute! How can I easily seach for articles that need corrections in grammar etc ?

Thank you 8Directions (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@8Directions: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to help! Check out the Typo Team at WP:TYPO for tips on how to find an fix typos. Also on that page are links to other cleanup projects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Grammar and WP:CLEANUP. RudolfRed (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thamk you so much for the fast asnwer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8Directions (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding A Photo

I am trying to add a photo. The photo is mine, I took it with my own camera. Yet Wikipedia is rejecting it. What else can I do to post my pic? Gshistorian (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Gshistorian Hello and welcome. You cannot upload images to Wikipedia unless you are autoconfirmed, meaning that your account is four days old with 10 edits. You haven't yet met either criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gshistorian and 331dot: I assume you refer to Our central Media Project Wikimedia Commons. If they are truely your photos, please use the Upload Wizard there directly. For the two sucessfull uploads, transcluding them works like this (check the source code) Note to 331dot: When dealing with photos or other media that fails to upload, it is almost always a good idea to look into The commons Edit filter log. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gshistorian: Hello, Eric. I am a little worried that, despite you being the photographer (and were presumably an employee or were contracted by CBS at the time?) you probably do not really have the rights to give away for commercial re-use the image of Fields on his own in front of the microphone. Whilst we really want to welcome photographers like you with open arms who have had access to celebrities and who are willing to make their work available here, the EXIF information for that image clearly states "MANDATORY CREDIT; NO ARCHIVE; NO SALES; NORTH AMERICA USE ONLY. MANDATORY CREDIT; NO SALES; NO ARCHIVE; NORTH AMERICAN USE ONLY" and "CBS©2008 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved." I'm afraid keeping the image on Wikimedia Commons would result in it breaching CBS' legal rights. For that reason, I fear we will need to ask Commons to remove it. However, I don't see the same issue with the other image. Maybe you took it in your lunch period, who knows? (the other chap could either be cropped out, or the image description on Commons updated to identify him if he's someone well-known. I think the problem might also have been that you added information from your own personal knowledge to the article (along with the image) and the lack of supporting citations probably made another editor feel that full reversion of your edits was for the best. If you could make sure you only add content, written in an encyclopaedic tone of voice and with references to allow it to be verified, that would be a lot better. (by 'voice' I mean using words like 'Ironically' sounds too much like personal opinions rather than non-neutral statements for an encyclopaedia). Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 

@Victor Schmidt: I have un-trancluded the images (commented them out, so as not to change the display of the text of your post), based on the details in my following post, indicating that though currently existing at the Commons, these are likely non-free images, ripe for deletion there, that cannot be used on Wikipedia.

<edit conflict> Hi Gshistorian. I see you changed the existing free image in the article from File:B_Hilton1.jpg, to the image you uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, File:Rich Fields.jpg, in this edit. Your edits (collectively) were reverted by a bot, which made a mistake in identifying them as possible vandalism. See this revision, with its edit summary. (We reserve "vandalism" to describe edits that are intended to harm the encyclopedia, obviously misplaced here, though I do think some of the language you tried to add was misplaced in its content and tone by employing unencyclopedic commentary/opinion/colloquialisms/résumé-like language – "enjoys a..."; "hold down"; "For his efforts..."; "Ironically"]). Please understand also that the information added in nearly all edits should be verified by citing a reliable source.

Anyway, back to the focus: assuming the new image is free—more on that below—why is it better than the existing image? In other words, why should it replace it, all things being equal? But things don't appear equal because there is a good reason, at least currently, to not include the new photo and to retain the existing one. It is that your upload to the Commons includes details that would certainly support a request to delete that image as not actually free (files uploaded to the Commons must properly be either released into the public domain, or granted a suitably free and compatible copyright license).

Predominantly, you have provided text accompanying the upload that attempts to reserve non-free copyright: "Photo: [__Omitted Name__/CBS©2008 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved." We don't use images here that are non-free and ripe for deletion as improperly uploaded to the Commons. It might be useful to read about how releases are done, but you have already indicated that CBS at least co-owns the copyright, so quite a formal process would be needed to demonstrate such a release for this image, and based on its details, the other you uploaded as well—that is, if you have the legal authority over CBS-owned content, and were willing to donate the image under the requisite free copyright license (that allows reuse even for commercial purposes). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

still building Gosset Experiment Design

Since I am still building a wikipedia page for Gosset Experiment Design,and this is my first attempt building a new page, I have much to learn. 1. I started in a sandbox. A wiki person nicely placed it in a more appropriate location.

2. I built two valid citations before I had a paragraph to attach them to, so the citations dangle near the beginning. I must learn to relocate them.

3. The author/creator placed the program in the public domain in 2017. So I have been building the wiki page from his intro and user's guide. Less than an hour ago, I followed the wiki instructions to send the author specific procedures so that he can grant wikipedia the required permissions. It may take over a day for him to respond.

4. I have been communicating with the author/creator for over a decade. He was enthusiastic when I informed him two weeks ago that I was building a wikipedia page.

I would like to continue building and saving the page, avoiding having it deleted before I am finished building. From one wiki comment, it sounded like I only have one more chance to complete the page up to wikipedia standards.

5. At the moment, every small addition I make appears to become a major item for inspection. That is okay with me, as long as I have more iterations to improve the article.

Thank you,Henkuoui (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Henkuoui (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Gosset Experiment Design exists and is not being threatened with deletion. You made some not unusual beginner's mistakes, such as pasting in copyright protected content. The Declining reviewer pointed out the critical need for references created in the body of the draft. IMPORTANT: "Publish changes" does not mean you have submitted the draft for a second review. All it means is that you have saved changes. You can work on the draft until you think it is worth submitting again. David notMD (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

But another common beginner's mistake, Henkuoui, is assuming that what the subject of the article says, or what people closely associated with the subject say, is of much relevance to the article. An article about a language by Hardin and Sloane might well refer to some papers by Hardin and Sloane, and link to them in an "External Links" section, but it should probably not cite them as references, certainly not as the main source. The article should be mostly based on information published by people unconnected with Hardin and Sloane. If they are the only source for information about the language (as opposed to people who have applied it) it may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.. Please see Notability and Citing sources. --ColinFine (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Henkuoui: As long as you edit the draft at least once every six months, and avoid doing things that are disruptive or unlawful (like adding copyrighted text or images), the draft will remain.

Keep in mind that the creator of GED is considered to be a primary source with regard to this subject, so things they say or even publish are of limited use as references.

If you want to alert other editors that you are making changes incrementally over a few hours, you can add the template {{In use}} or, if over several days, add {{Under construction}}, to the top of the page. This should keep others from working on it until you've removed the template.

Happy editing! —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Global Taj international film festival

Hi Lonelyboy19896. I have relocated your post to the bottom of the page, so that it will be seen, and given it a title. Courtesy link Draft:Global Taj International Film Festival.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello All.. I Am Trying to make a page For Global Taj international film festival. i made the page & gave proper external link & citations & submitted on publish changes . now it's showing That your page has submitted for Review. Any idea how much time it will Take to review by the Team. Because this is my first edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelyboy19896 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lonelyboy19896. Since (every revision of) the page was a blatant copyright violation of the film festival's website, I have deleted the draft under section G12 of the Criteria for speedy deletion. Please see the message I will be posting to your talk page momentarily.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hii user : fuhghettaboutit  can you Tell me How i can improve to make page on Global Taj international film festival. as i know that wikipedia Always needs data from reliable source & not your own writing should be there. only the article should contain data from a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelyboy19896 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lonelyboy19896, please read WP:What Wikipedia is not, especially the section "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". Unless the festival has already been extensively written about by independent commentators (not just articles based on press releases) then it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:notability, and any work you put in to trying to get such an article published will be a complete waste of your time. --ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks All for your help.  i am New editor on Wikipedia & will learn slowly slowly. can you Please help me with my Another Article made on a Short movie called Wrong Way by my friend Sandeep Bhojak. He is An actor & Director so i Am helping Him to Make his Short movie page. This movie is Released on youtube & won An award in film festival also. can you please Review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelyboy19896 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: aeepars to be about Draft:Wrong Way 2015. David notMD (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

yes This is The Article. i Am improving on It & working on It. This movie also selected in Film Festival.which i gave link in refrence. i need your approval to work on This page.This is my friend Short movie & carry a social message on Drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelyboy19896 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lonelyboy19896 Teahouse hosts try to answer questions about how to edit, but are not necessarily reviewers. You have submitted it. Reviewing can happen any time from days to several months. A big problem, however, is that to be Wikipedia-notable, it has to be written about at length in publications, that content not by anyone connected to the movie. David notMD (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Translation tasks

Hi, I was looking at Wikipedia translation tasks listed in the community portal. If I am translating a page from another language to English Wikipedia, do I have to review it for notability or simply translate and publish/add to review over here? Thank you. WindlessLowlands (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@WindlessLowlands: The different language Wikipedias have different notability standards. The English Wikipedia's standards are among the highest, so you should review the sourcing before you decide to translate an article to English. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Thank you. I'll keep that in mind. I will probably stick with editing for some time before I create any new pages. WindlessLowlands (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

WindlessLowlands. To expand on the above advice, by reading and participating in deletion discussions you can gain knowledge of Wikipedia's notability criteria and how they are applied.

We're always here at the Teahouse if you need assistance in future. Rosguill, any advice for this budding translator? Thanks, Zindor (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Zindor, I could give a bit more specific advice if I knew what topics WindlessLowlands is interested in, but generally speaking WP:THREE is a good newbie article writer's guide to notability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zindor: Thanks for the advice. I'll try to read the deletion discussions and make sense of them for now. I don't think I have enough or any experience to contribute to them at the moment. I have been reading essays and policies on notability, manual of style, what Wikipedia is not, and stuff like that for familiarization. WindlessLowlands (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks for sharing WP:THREE. It seems like a good starting point. I am not interested in any particular topic right now, but I'll definitely ask for advice on notability if I think of something. WindlessLowlands (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Chateau

Hi I want to create a page for a singer/songwriter, named Chateau) Chateau (Vocalist, Songwriter) (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Chateau. Based on your username, it appears you want to write an autobiography. This is strongly discouraged and it will be impossible to write an article that "sticks", unless you have been the subject of significant coverage (think at least a few paragraphs dedicated to you), in reliable sources, that are entirely independent of you (for example, articles about you published in professional music industry magazines). Please read WP:Notability, and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. In sum, if those sources don't exist, no article is possible. If they do exist, you shouldn't be the person to write it. But: i) if they do; and ii) you are dead set on going ahead anyway: the way to write is not to summarize what you know about yourself and your career, but rather, to go to those reliable, third-party published sources, and then write only what they verify, in your own words, citing the sources you are summarizing as you go. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Was there a technical change to the GA user topicon template?

I've been using Template:GA user topicon to list my GAs at the top of my Wikipedia userpage for years. Now it's suddenly printing "Wikipedia Good Article contributors" all over the top of my page. When I preview the templates' removal the plain text disappears. Is this an error or was there a change to the template? Please ping me in response. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Indy beetle (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Indy beetle Yes but not intentionally. I think it's because the new category wasnt wrapped in square brackets. Hopefully someone more awake than me gets there first to fix it lol. Zindor (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Should be ok now, I undid the change. Zindor (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zindor: Thanks! -Indy beetle (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple Metacritic Reviews

Writing a draft for Candleman, and sent it for review. What I've noticed, though, is that Candleman is cross-platform, and Metacritic has scores for each individual one (I currently only have it for switch). How do I list these individual scores in the table? Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 00:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: A quick look at FIFA 20#Reception and Minecraft#Reception show that they list every platform, so I'd go with that. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

My submitted draft is now missing?

Why would my submitted draft be missing in the "Draft AfC submissions"? I am pretty sure that I saw it there last week at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AfC_sorting/Culture/Visual_arts.Desmond123x (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Desmond123x. Are you referring to the draft discussed here. You can find it at Draft:Brit Bunkley. Another editor named AndreaSG50 removed the "AFC submission" template from the top of the draft's page with this edit, which is probably why it's no longer listed at Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts. Are you working together with this other editor in trying to create an article about Brit Bunkley? You and that account both have basically the same content in your user sandboxes (User:AndreaSG50/sandbox and User:Desmond123x/sandbox); so, maybe one of you can shed some light on what's going on here since it seem to be something more than just a coincidence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes we are working on tis article together. She is fairly new and removed it by mistake. How do we get it back on as submission? Desmond123x (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Desmond123x and AndreaSG50: It sounds like you both know the artist and have started out by working just on this article together. So I have left advice on your talk pages as to how to declare any Conflict of Interest you may have before proceeding further. It's a simple thing, involving leaving an explanation on your userpage, if appropriate. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I live in the same city as the artist where he has exhibited. I am interested in his work and decided to write about it, with his friend who has access to many of the sources cited. I am not being paid. All sources are legitimate, easily verified and most are notable and speak for themselves. How is this a COI in a small city in a small nation? How do I put it back onto an "AFC submission"? Desmond123x (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry Des! My apologies! I'm not sure how that happened. How do we get it back on to the "AFC submission"? AndreaSG50 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I declared before and am declaring now (as I did on my userpage). I am a friend of Brit Bunkley. I was asked to help with the article with Desmond since I have access to a number of sources including books and catalogues. Desmond is a former art director from France who returned to New Zealand several years ago. He was supposed to submit the article, which he wrote (with my assistance for sources, which is why I kept a copy on my sandbox). So I am unclear how it was submitted in my name? AndreaSG50 (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC) AndreaSG50 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC) where to from here?

More help

An article in the draft space Draft:Nemilicheri, is declined at this time with a note 'Good content , now improve sourcing' and the reviewer also left a message that the article is improperly sourced.

Please help me in this regard the lack of improving proper sourcing process or method to be an article to be published in the main space. Thanks.

-- Helppublic (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Helppublic. The draft in question is Draft:Nemilicheri, which I have wikilinked for the convenience of other editors. There are many assertions in your draft which are unreferenced. Every claim of importance or significance should be referenced to an independent reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Helppublic: one thing I would still wish for as a Wikipedia user is better information about the sources you do use. (I agree with Cullen that there should also be more sources, but this is about the ones that are already in the draft.) I posted some information about this on your user talk page a couple of days ago (here), and I saw that you thanked me for it (which was very nice of you :-) ). After that you did add more information about the titles of the various sources, and that's great, but there are still some things missing in how the sources are presented.

The first reference is (or was, because I have updated it a bit now) listed at the bottom as ""Census 2011/District Census Handbook/State Tamil Nadu/Part A ebook (CRC)/Thiruvallur/3301_PART_A_DCHB_THIRUVALLUR.pdf/Page 30 (ii) Census_Town/Nemilicheri (CT)". Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India. Retrieved 18 October 2020." You had added a lot of detail to the title, but the URL still led to www.censusindia.gov.in, which is the main page for the Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. As a reader, if I click on the title of the reference I expect that I will find the exact source, in this case the District Census Handbook for Thiruvallur. That URL is https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/dchb/DCHB_A/33/3301_PART_A_DCHB_THIRUVALLUR.pdf . Since that is a very long publication, you should also provide the page where this information (the population of Nemilicheri) can be found. After a bit of searching, I found it on page 42, so the parameter "page=42" should be added to the reference. I have also changed the title – it is tricky to know exactly what the title is and what is the "work" in this kind of publication, but I think "District Census Handbook, Thiruvallur, Village and town directory" is OK as a title. Somebody might come along and change it to something better, though. I hope all this makes sense! Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns in the bios of people of importance

I was wondering if there was a way to add people's pronouns to the little sidebar with information like birth, death, marital status, ect. and if this could become common practice for new articles? Zin373 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Zin373 and welcome to the Teahouse!

This should only be done when there is a reliable source (not, for example, the subject's facebook page)) that takes notice of the pronouns and reports on them.

Currently {{Infobox person}} does not have any support for this particular bit of information, but if there can be a callsign= parameter, there can't be much objection to adding a pronouns= parameter. But you'd have to raise this as a formal proposal, probably at Template talk:Infobox person before any action will be taken. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Zin373, welcome to the Teahouse! The sidebars you are referring to are called infoboxes, and they are used in templates like Template:Infobox person.

That's an interesting suggestion. You could try raising it at the Village pump idea lab to get some more feedback. Adding pronouns to infoboxes project-wide would be a huge change, so there would likely be many considerations. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata

How to add entry or create Page in wikidata? Wpedia User (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wpedia User, go to wikidata:Special:NewItem. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Why were the changes undone?

I have made some edits to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Illusion_%28TV_series%29 to clarify the season designations for The CW. I added 2 references to verify my data. Brianis19 has undone my changes twice with no explanation. Why were the changes undone? What is wrong with the additions made? Waltp9999 (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Waltp9999: When you find that you're reverted by someone and they don't leave a reason why in the edit summary, talk to that editor first and ask for clarification through their user talk page (in this case, User talk:Brianis19). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Saving without publishing

This may be a stupid question, but... is there any way to save changes without publishing? I can't work out if previewing will automatically do this. I want to do this because I'm writing a new page which is taking a long time, and because I don't want to loose things (e.g. because my internet goes down) I keep 'publishing' in my sandbox, but it means the page history is getting very long. Ruthhenrietta (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I create new pages using Geany and save the result to my hard drive, now and again viewing what I've got in a Wikipedia "page" (?) that I give some silly throwaway name like "Alrgjsdjgsrgstjri", but am careful never to "publish" (save). (Indeed, there's one draft I've been tinkering with in this way since July or thereabouts.) When I'm happy with what I've got, and not before, I'll "publish" it with an appropriate title. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary:, are you saying that Geany supports the Wiki markup language, in the same way that it supports other languages such as C++ and HTML (with syntax highlighting, code completion, etc.)? If it does, that would be fantastically useful. If it doesn't, I wonder if any other text editor has that feature. Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Mike Marchmont, no, it certainly doesn't recognize it when it sees it, and there's no mention of Mediawiki in this splendid list. Perhaps it could be done (see this). I also make a lot of use of Geany for XHTML; and yes, it would be pleasant if Geany similarly closed Mediawiki's REF tags and so forth. Often I make a number of markup mistakes while using Geany, but it's easy to fix these within Wikipedia. My purpose here isn't to promote Geany in preference to other text editors (Notepad aside); it's just that Geany is one that does what it should, costs nothing, and runs on any major OS. -- Hoary (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ruthhenrietta: It really isn't that big of a deal if the page history is long. If you're concerned that you can't find a specific edit, use good edit summaries to help you find it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, previewing does not save. It merely shows you what your changes look like. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Hoary (I'll stick with Word!) & User:Ganbaruby (I won't worry) Ruthhenrietta (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Another tip. I edit articles in my Sandbox and preview them frequently. However, I virtually never save them there. Instead, I copy the (draft) text from the edit window into a text editor on my PC (I find MS Wordpad much better than MS Word, for example, because the latter will do stuff like turning two apostrophes — i.e. where italics are to be used — into " ). Later, when I return to continue building the article, I copy/paste the text from Wordpad back in to the edit box. Note that you need to check in your preferences for editing that the option "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)" is checked. This makes it physically impossible for you to publish a part-edit, since you will leave the edit summary blank, on purpose, while building drafts. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Ruthhenrietta, Michael D. Turnbull's method and mine are very similar to each other. If you must use MS Word, then configure it so that it behaves like a text editor. But if you're going to do that, you might as well just use a text editor: excellent examples are (legally) free of charge. Simply, anything shown in Comparison of text editors as running on your OS (Windows, MacOS, Linux, whatever), open source, recently upgraded and free of charge should do the job. -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Review

How many days it takes to review an article if I create on draft ?? Satyajitcreator (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Satyajitcreator: There are currently around 3,700 pending drafts in the backlog. Drafts are reviewed by volunteers in no particular order, so we really can't tell you how long it'll take; it could be a couple hours or a couple months. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Ganbaruby: thanks for your reply.

Eeeek - first timer questions!

Hi, So, I made a page, Nadim Nsouli, and I think I have done ok.....but I'm not convinced. When I try and add tags, like the page suggests to get reviewed faster, it says the draft doesn't exist. But I can see it! What am I doing wrong??

Thank you - in anticipation of your help!

20Edu 20Education (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@20Education: I think it's because you're putting in Nadim Nsouli, which indeed doesn't exist. Try Draft:Nadim Nsouli instead. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wanted: Normal person to finish WP article

Moved from WT:Teahouse § Wanted: Normal person to finish WP article

 – Belongs here, not on talk. Giraffer ^munch 11:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

3 years after an article was written about my work on Wikipedia it is still less than 50% complete. I repeat LESS THAN 50% COMPLETE.

The work I have done on my article page is being listed and, if this is the correct way to layout the article, 11 projects have so far been mentioned. There are at least another 15 projects that are worthy of mention and that can be backed up with verifiable referenced sources.

Is it possible, at all, to find an editor here that doesn't expect an exchange of effort in return for helping me with this article? Is it possible to find an editor who isn't a control freak, who doesn't make problems for the sake of it, who isn't pedantic and pernickety, who isn't a bully, and who won't accuse me of 'paid-editing' or lying. Now that I have been unblocked and chosen a username that has been accepted I would simply like to get the article finished in the least painful way.

You have already established that my photographs cannot be used on my article as it is self-promoting. This makes me question that surely the text is self-promoting also? How about having a blank white page about all that I have done in my life so far to account for over 100 media stories that have been written about my work? That surely would meet your approval and would mean that I don't need to add secondary and tertiary sources. Why has it taken 3 years to establish that the article needs additional sources?

I don't want to work with an editor who wants me to do stuff for them in return. I just want to have the article about my work brought up to date, without having to fall down a rabbit hole, and without spending 12 hours every day on this, without playing these tedious, time consuming petty games.

I'm not reading messages from Wikipedia because no doubt they are from angry Trump supporters. Find another way to contact me and maybe, one day, we can get an article that is up to date and truthful and doesn't have large gaps and omissions. Or, if this is no longer any fun for you editors why don't you completely delete my article as having a page that is less than half done DOES NOT SERVE ME OR ANYONE ELSE PROPERLY OR WELL.EddieLeVisco (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Article looks to me like there was already an editor helping, and you appear to be in direct contact with that editor. Koncorde (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes but he no longer believes that I am acting in accord with WP:AGF. He has switched from “I have been watching developments over the time Mike Turnbull has been kindly helping to edit the Wikipedia article about me. I am not impressed by how Mike Turnbull has been treated, given that he stood up to the plate to help me and no other editor did.” to "so why do I always have to do something for people [Mike Turnbull] in return?" He fails to mention that the "something" I had asked him to discuss doing would be in the nature of a commission for which I would pay him. All that discussion had occurred off-wiki in e-mails between us that used the contact address for him that anyone can obtain from his website. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Ed Gold, articles are never finished Wikipedia is an ongoing project and we are all volunteers here, and insulting us won't help you get your own way. Theroadislong (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@EddieLeVisco: As you indicated in your last post here, we get that you didn't have the most pleasant experience here. That sucks. But honestly, you're not all that special. Articles here are written by people that want to write about the subject, and your rants aren't really helping your case here. We have a system to make sure our articles are as neutral and verifiable as we can. You don't own your article, and we don't care if you like it or not; as editors, our only priority is making a well written article, no matter how long it takes. You may make edit requests along with all the other articles and see if anyone feels like writing about you. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You're looking for a "normal person", EddieLeVisco. When somebody writes something and SWITCHES TO FULL CAPITALS, I sense that they picture their readers as morons. I'm not so happy to be treated as a moron, but it doesn't much worry me: I have a thick skin. I tend to busy myself with articles about photographers who don't demand my attention, let alone insult me. But perhaps I'm abnormal. Given more time, I'd expand a lot of indisputably terrible "articles" (to stretch a definition) about indisputably outstanding photographers: Issei Suda is just one among dozens of these. -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

See also this person. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recourse at this moment has two options: 1) accept the article as it is, and the expectation that no one will visit it and then decide it needs more content; or 2) on the Talk page of the article, make very specific proposals for content to be added, with the hope that an editor will visit the article, go to the Talk page, and decide to either act on your request, or not. David notMD (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

can you semi-protect help?

help seems to be a target for vandals, which you can see in the page history. is it possible to have it semi-protected? I am an unexperienced editor and if I have done something wrong by asking this question, I am sorry. Firestar9990 (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Firestar9990, and welcome to the Teahouse. Head over to WP:RPP and file a request, and be sure to include a short rationale for protecting the page. An administrator will respond shortly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How do I add a new section?

Hello! I've already looked at the tutorial about sections, but I'm still a bit confused. How do I add a new section to an existing article? How do I insert a section between two existing sections? Thank you in advance. Deathconsciousness (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit the section immediately above the one you want to add. At the foot of the material in the edit window, at the far left of a new line, insert "== title ==" (without the quotation marks, and of course with your title rather than "title"). On a new line below this, start typing your text for the new section. -- Hoary (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding on to this, adding more equal signs will change the type of title, as shown below:

Title

(2 equals on each side)

Title

(3 equals on each side)

Title

(4 equals on each side)

Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 14:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixing connected contributor issue

Hi, I gave someone bad advice, namely that she could edit an entry about herself as long as the statements were objective and backed up by reliable sources. Now her entry is flagged as having a "connected contributor." Since this is my fault, I would like to fix it. What could I do? Good city brew pub (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Which entry? Ruslik_Zero 14:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are asking about Chloé Valdary, the article is not tagged. The Talk page mentions that User:Cvaldary is connected to the article, which appears to be true, she (assuming Cvaldary is Chloé Valdary) has made a few relatively modest edits in the past. You should advise her to not do so going forward, but I do not see a need to remove the Talk page mention, as it does not compromise the validity of the article. David notMD (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding tables

Hello,

I would like to know if there is a way to put tables or templates next to each other in an article. In User:Longchess/toolbox, I would like to put templates next to each other, and in Happy Valley (Pennsylvania), I would like to put tables next to each other. (Demographics section)

Thanks, longchess (talk · contribs · block user) 15:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Longchess: I'd tinker around with column templates like Template:Col-begin, which divides the screen into sections. Read the documentation on that page to figure out how to use it. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

editing a page

I want to create a page for Bankrol Hayden but the name is already redirected to his record label, so the link will not turn red. What do I do? 76.28.135.78 (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've created a draftspace for you, here: Draft:Bankrol Hayden. If the article gets approved, the redirect will be removed. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 16:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

And I have inserted the template for biographys. See also WP:YFA. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Obituaries

Hi... How do I add an obituary for a person who is world famous for her work in Music Therapy? 99.255.178.224 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP user: welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not host obituaries; but if she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then we can have an article about her. Creating a new article is difficult for inexperienced editors (I recommend spending a few months improving some of our six million existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works, before trying it) but if you want to have a go, please start by reading your first article --ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How to contribute a picture of the surface of lava flows on the north shore of Lake Superior

I would like to contribute a picture taken of the surface of one of the lave flows on the north shore of Lake Superior to add to the Duluth Complex article. It illustrates very well the stresses that have shaped this landscape over the past billion years. Cracks running every which way as this semi amorphous glass deposit was stressed by glaciers and the lake itself freezing and thawing. I've contributed and edited a variety of things over past years but could not remember my user name or password to log in so I created a new account, sorry if that would cause any confusion. David L. Hasse (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, David L. Hasse. If you own the copyright to the picture, and are willing to license it under CC-BY-SA, you can upload it directly to Wikimedia Commons using the upload wizard: as far as I know, Commons doesn't prevent new accounts from uploading material. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

New entry

Hi how do i add a new entry Steven irvine (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? If its about writing articles, click this ink for info: Wikipedia:YFA Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 17:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I suspect it involves this User:Steven irvine/sandbox, Wikipedia isn't a means to promote yourself I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, Steven, you will be using up your time—for all of us a precious resource—on an endeavor that is likely one that cannot succeed. So I advise you to not go any further. The fact that your book series is not yet released and you are a "new author" are strong indicators that no article (one that can "stick", and will, not be deleted) is possible. This is because we only properly have articles on subjects that have been the subject of significant coverage (think at least a few paragraphs dedicated to the proposed topic), in reliable sources, that are entirely independent of you and/or the book series (for example, third-party articles about you or the series published in professional magazines). Please read generally Wikipedia:Notability, and specifically (as the case may be), Wikipedia:Notability (books) or WP:AUTHOR. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS guidance on internal references such as "(see below)" in an article, beyond MOS:SELFREF

Is there stylistic guidance on when to repeat the same information in different places in an article, and when to use a pointer such as "(see below)" to defer discussion to a different section of the article? I found MOS:SELFREF but it is about something else. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. It might have helped had you given an example of what you were thinking about, but I would say that you should avoid repeating any information, except to point out that key elements of significance can be placed (uncited if you wish) within the lead, and then expanded upon further down in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Avoid using phrases like '(see below)' and content can change and be moved about, and such instructions become irrelevant. You use the word 'discussion', but I'm hoping that was just a clumsy choice of words as articles should be neutral, encyclopaedic and not discussive, though it can cite different reliable sources to show that one story sometimes has more than one side to it. I assume your concern relates to Julia Ioffe. I've not looked at it in detail, but keeping content succinct and relevant is a good aspiration. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

New editor

I would love to join but I don't know what to do here.Tanks400 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Tanks400 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tanks400, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have joined! You have created an account, and edited on this page, so you are a Wikipedia editor. I see you have already made some edits, which have been reverted. The problem is that you are making the standard beginner's mistake (I remember making it myself) of adding what you know to an article. Wikipedia isn't interested in what you know, or what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows, because there is no way for a reader to check that it is accurate. What you need to do, if you want to add some inforamtion to an article, is to find a published source (preferably one independent of the subject of the article) and cite that source (see referencing for beginners). It is the citations which give Wikipedia value.

I suggest you look at Help:Introduction and The Wikipedia Adventure to learn more about how you can help us build an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Userbox

Where is the "this user tries to do the right thing. if they are doing something wrong, please let them know." userbox? Antrotherkus (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate question. Is now answered in a thread below. Zindor (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the Helen Keller page

Hi there!

Helen Selsdon here! I am the archivist at the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB). For 18 years I have been in charge of Helen Keller's archival collection. Keller worked for AFB for 44 years and bequeathed her archival collection to the organization when she died in 1968.

For many years now I have wished to make corrections to the Helen Keller Wikipedia page, but do not know how to begin doing this. The page contains factual errors, and does not adequately reflect her lifelong career as a champion for people who are blind and visually impaired.

Can somebody please help me with this?

Thank you! Helen Selsdon Wikipedia username: BlindAdvocacy1 BlindAdvocacy1 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Helen/BlindAdvocacy1! Glad to see people who are trying to correct errors. What I would suggest is going to the talk page for Helen Keller's article and request the edits you want fixed. Be sure to back up your requests with reliable sources that we can verify. I will caution, though, that the aim of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs or advocate for one issue or another, so as we are improving Helen's article, we may have to be careful not to be overly promotional, you know what I mean? Bkissin (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Given your position, you should also declare that you are in effect a paid editor. See WP:PAID You should declare this on your User page (pretty much the wording you have above, or else there is a template to use). Also, being Paid is why Bkissin directed you to proposing changes on the article's Talk page rather than editing the article directly. The follow-up will be that an editor not connected to HK or AFB will either make the requested changes, or not. Be patient. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

BlindAdcocacy1 Also, review what is already on the Talk page, including the two archives of older discussions. Could be that what you want to change has already been discussed and decided against. David notMD (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Pictures

Hello! I was wondering how to add pictures to a Wikipedia page. When I insert them, it always says that they are not able to be viewed for free. Could you please explain how to insert a picture? Thanks! Bunnyrabbitbunny (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images should answer most of your questions. Please be sure to respect copyrights. See WP:Copyright policy for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bunnyrabbitbunny: If your question relates to Draft:Toyota Camatte Petta, there is insufficient content and only one reference which is not to merit being a separate article. To avoid disappintment, you would be better off not making lots of really short, basic draft articles about individual models, but adding content to relevant pages about the series, such as Toyota concept vehicles (2010–2019). At present, that draft stands no chance of being moved to mainspace, and some of your other drafts seem equally flimsy. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

userboxes

sorry for posting this question in an unrelated thread, where is the userbox for "this user tries to do the right thing"?

(FYI, I didnt add a new section when i should have) Antrotherkus (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Antrotherkus, you might find what you are looking for in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Policies#Civility. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Writing an article for an artist

how can i write an article for an artist that has links to other artists with existing wikipedia pages? Drahmah (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Read Help:Your first article. Be sure the person actually meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines first, see WP:Notability and WP:Notability (music) for details. Be sure you provide adequate sources, see WP:Citing sources, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Independent sources for details. You might also want to read WP:WikiProject Music. There is a link near the top called "Discussion" where you can ask questions about how to write about music-related subjects. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

How do I know if the article is ready and how to submit?

I am making the wikipedia page for a professor, who is a major contriubtor in the field. Currently I have the page in my user sandbox, can you please guide me to see how to check if the article is ready for submission, and How should I do it? Thank you Xuexiujia (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Xuexiujia. That's a good question. Providing you're not so close to the subject that you "can't see the wood for the trees", you'll 'know' its nearly ready when it is easy to read, sounds like a short, succinct encyclopaedia entry about an interesting person, and everything within it is Verifiable by reference to reliable sources, and if it looks and reads like other similar articles on professors. Right now, User:Xuexiujia/sandbox, it's lacking a lead paragraph to summarise why this person is notable, and your own first paragraph is an incomprehensible list of apparently random words (job titles?) that might mean something to the subject, but certainly isn't written in flowing English. Much of the other bits look extremely promotional, as if the person themself has written it, and doesn't want to miss a single thing out. I often tell people that "less is more" on Wikipedia. It's far better to be short and succinct about a person, and cut out the stuff that looks like bullet points from their LinkedIn page or CV. A good article should be a pleasure to read - I'm afraid this it hasn't yet reached that point - but keep at it! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Xuexiujia: if this is about User:Xuexiujia/sandbox, it's a long way off ready. The first sentence is very long and unreadable, I don't think it has a verb in it, so I was put off trying to read further. There's a lot of unwarranted boldface further down the page. But both those are easily put right. Unfortunately there's another problem that may be harder to address. A Wikipedia article should be based on what has been written about its subject in reliable independent published sources; and those sources should be cited in the article. Your sandbox cites no sources at all. Maproom (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I cut a lot that has no place in an article. To confirm his notability, references must be to published stuff ABOUT him (not by him). And a standard Wikipedia question - what is your relation to the person? Employee? Relative? Friend? Coworker? Student? David notMD (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that certain revisions of the draft have now been deleted in light of copyright concerns.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft of article not reviewed for many weeks

Hello, an article I drafted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vicente_Chamber_Orchestra) is not showing any updates. What is the best way to have it reviewed and hopefully published? Thanks! 47.153.142.146 (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You have submitted it for review. As noted, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,737 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia suppression of information about Hunter Biden -- even on TALK pages

So I posted a link on a talk page to a NY Post article that includes a picture of Joe and Hunter Biden with oligarchs from Kazakhstan. My post was removed and I lost editing rights on the talk page. What did I do wrong? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Talk:Hunter_Biden @Michael-Ridgway: What makes you think you are blocked from the talk page? You just posted there not long ago and got a reply that you are posting old information. Additionally, you should not use the New York Post as a source. According to WP:RSN "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." RudolfRed (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)