[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Craig Walker (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 25 December 2017 (→‎How do I change a redirect?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This is the teahouse
Welcome to the Teahouse...                        
Shortcuts
A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

David notMD, a Teahouse 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.

WikEd blocks the keyboard shortcuts on Google Chrome and Firefox.

Hi Imaginelenin. This might be a good question for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) or even Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing since the Teahouse tends to focus more on general editing questions than specific technical issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marchjuly thank you! Imaginelenin (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other web archives

web.archive.org has been really wonky recently were I live, it fails to save pages often and claims it doesn't have several article in the archive despite the fact that I looked at them the previous day. It says "bad request" all the time. Is there any alternative I could use?★Trekker (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@*Treker: From WP:LINKROT there is also WebCite or look at Web archiving. RudolfRed (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm abit worried aboutgiving out my email adress but it's better than nothing.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@*Treker: I suggest that you consider archive.is. I use it when Archive.org isn't working properly and on pages for which Archive.org will not create an archive. No email address is needed. It offers two options: 1) you can paste the URL of a page into a box on the page I linked in the first sentence or 2) you can add a bookmarklet to your browser window. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!★Trekker (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@*Treker: You might also want to look at this web page. It lists about a dozen services for saving web pages. The only one that I have tried is Archive.is, so I can't vouch for any of the others. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank a lot again Eddie Blick! I feel much better kowing that I have alternatives, Archive.is is very good so far.★Trekker (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@*Treker: You're welcome! Archive.is has worked well for me, too. Like you, though, I think it's good to have alternatives available. I wish that I had known about archiving pages when I began working on Wikipedia. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Teblick: Me too. So many good old sources I wish I could have saved.★Trekker (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated file not showing up on page?

I updated a file with a better version, but on the article that it's on, it doesn't change to the correct version. The article is Takoba The Verified Cactus 100% 00:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VerifiedCactus. When I look at that article and the image, I see a version that was updated at 22:50 on 21 December 2017. If you see the earlier version. you may need to purge your cache. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do I purge my cache? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Verified Cactus that's a feature of your browser, not of Wikipedia. How to do it depends on which browser you're using, and in some cases which version. Try googling "how to clear the cache in" followed by the name of your browser and (if you know it) the version. That ought to find you some instructions. Neiltonks (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks! The Verified Cactus 100% 20:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VerifiedCactus and Neiltonks: There is one more cache: the cache at Wikipedia servers. You can simply just wait a few hours for it to update automatically, or you can invoke it manually. To do that, go to the file page at File:Samata ténue touareg.jpg and click the * tab. This should refresh the image cached by enwiki. If that doesn't help, go to Commons: c:File:Samata ténue touareg.jpg and click the purge tab – this should refresh the Commons' cache, which is the source for each of Wikipedias. --CiaPan (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors with COI adding List of Accolades for Brands

What can we do if we come across editors who are doing PR for brands and adding promotional content to Wikipedia?

I came across User:Sarah J Y Wong and noticed the user (and her colleagues) and had been editing several Singaporean brands over the years under IP and other usernames such as user:SuSan NLBS50 and user:FirstToaPayohSecondarySchool NLBS50. I have no issues if the content is non-promotional, but she is insisting on adding a list of local achievements and accolades of On Cheong Jewellery to Wikipedia. Are such lists allowed on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.196.133 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:COIN would be the right place to report conflict of interest and promotional editing. I couldn't find a specific guideline, but I do believe that a list of awards and accolades is promotional and shouldn't be added in most cases. Thanks! Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 09:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics?

Hi, I suspect my question will come across as whinging, and it is, actually, but here it is: I posted a query here regarding writing my first entry, and no sooner had I done so than someone else wrote and published an entry on the same subject. Me thinks twas not a coincidence. Is there no honour among Wiki authors? P. Tobie B. (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P. Tobie B., and welcome to the Teahouse again. It does seem a bit unfair that another user creates an article the day after you ask about writing one, but Wikipedia is a collaboration, and there is no ownership of articles. Perhaps Damian Vo took your question as a request for an article, or perhaps he was already working on the text. I don't know. You are very welcome to add the information that you have found to improve the article. Most editors here try to work together to improve the encyclopaedia. Editing here shouldn't be a competition (though I admit that occasionally it degenerates into argument). Dbfirs 08:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@P. Tobie B.: Josh O'Connor had his biggest role in God's Own Country (2017 film). It opened 25 October 2017 in the US which has the most editors. Damian Vo edited the film 26 October.[1] You mentioned Josh O'Connor here 15 November. Damian Vo has never edited this page and created Josh O'Connor 21 November. Wikipedia has thousands of discussion pages and only a small part of editors read this one. A coincidence seems very likely to me, and I would call it a minor coincidence. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Dbfirs. One day only. Like a shark tank! Well, I've learned my lesson. I do think the entry that I wrote is much better :-), so perhaps I'll insert a sentence or two. I've been doing that here and there and find it quite enjoyable. Happy Christmas!2604:2000:E0D3:3500:8090:12F0:AEAD:7DBF (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death dagger

Hello, folks. I'm hoping you can shed some light on a question that doesn't seem to covered by our Manual of Style. I've been noticing that some articles that contains lists of people are starting to get those "death dagger" symbols placed next to some of the names to indicate that the people are deceased. But there's never any sourcing for that fact and, in many cases, the person doesn't have an article here (so there's no opportunity for double checking at the article). I'm of the opinion that these should all be removed, but I haven't been able to find anything in the MoS that I can cite.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the birth/death dates that usually appear in the first sentence of an article about a person. Nor am I talking about special cases, such as indicating killed-in-action in the infobox for a military article. And I'm not so sure that I'm talking about situations contemplated by WP:MOSBD, which seems to limit itself to cases where the year of death is given for the person in some other article's list.

Any thoughts you have on this will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @NewYorkActuary: I would say that in the situation you describe the relevant policy is WP:V. Whatever the manual of style says, we certainly should not include nontrivial unsourced information. Sourcing the status for a large list of people could be done by the source for the list, or by individual articles, but if there is no source out there, we should not indicate such status, IMO. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum boards attendance of finances

almost the museum articles with management sections are years if not decades out of date can the Wikipedia community delete them as they are completely Irelevant the management sections need to be updated yearly or deleted Flamingoflorida (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Flamingoflorida: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If there are specific articles you have concerns about, feel free to comment on the talk pages of those articles about any information that is not correct. You don't mention any specific articles in your comment, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "management sections", but if you are referring to the staff of museums or budget, I would think that it would be easy to update that information from museum websites. Please understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and people do what they can when they can do it. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Flamingoflorida. Welcome to the Teahouse. Before answering your question I must declare an interest, in that I have a professional background in museum work. Firstly, raising concerns here over general issues about content in a whole genre of articles isn't really something that the Teahouse can address. It's best raised on the Talk Page of the individual museum articles themselves. Obviously, if content is a little out if date it's helpful to raise it there so other editors are aware of deficiencies to be addressed.
I have had a quick skim through some of your recent edits to a few museum articles, and I do not think some of the edits you have made have been at all constructive. In fact, some seem quite damaging. Whilst you are right to point out that some content is not up to date, removing properly cited statements about museum governance and major funding sources because it uses sources that are five or more years old is unhelpful. In the main, you should leave such well-sourced statements in place, but you could contribute positively by simply ensuring they're all put in the past tense. As an example, this removal of 2013 visitor figures from the Infobox of the Museum of Modern Art and the statement that it ranked 13th in the world for visitors is not acceptable. Had you taken the trouble to research and replace them with more up to date stats then that would have been fine. But you didn't.
Blanking valid content because it doesn't meet your idea of being up to date is, put frankly, liable to be interpreted as disruptive, although I think you made them all in good faith. Equally, this edit to the same article has removed perfectly good and apparently well-referenced content on the history of the museum's structure and funding which is perfectly relevant to the article. So, please take this as a polite warning to be a little more careful, and less gung-ho in your approach to wanting to see slightly out of date articles improved in future. Add to them, don't just delete stuff you don't like. I applauded you desire to see articles brought up to date, but not the way you appear to have gone about it in some cases. I'm sorry to come across so critical here, and don't be surprised if you see quite a few of these edits being reverted. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the comments from Nick and 331dot above, I would suggest that if you have suggestions applicable to museum articles in general, rather than any specific article, the place to discuss them is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

two different works, both referenced separately, same author--getting conflated

I am having difficulty referencing two separate works by the same author--the software keeps getting confused. I attempted to differentiate the name itself in the 'name equals in quotes', but it doesn't seem to have worked. How is this properly done? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: What are the symptoms of 'the software getting confused'? Can you give a link to the problematic page, or even better: to the problematic change? The latter can be obtained from the page history as a prev link at appropriate edit. --CiaPan (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning from here where it's morning! Thank you for responding. Basically the second reference is blank. The number and space for it is there in the reflist--but there's nothing in the space. What code would I put in to provide a link and where will I find that code? Do you know if there is a Wiki page that explains how to reference two works/one author?Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As CiaPan said: "Can you give a link to the problematic page, or even better: to the problematic change?" --David Biddulph (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If, by any chance, you were referring to Special:Contributions/Jenhawk777, did you intend ref name = "Jerome F.D Creach-1"/ to read ref name = "Jerome F.D. Creach-1"/? Slightly worrying that the software didn't report an undefined ref. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenhawk777: If you're talking about User:Jenhawk777/sandbox and the end of the first sentence in the section Human violence and hamas, then I second David – add the dot after 'D' in 'F.D Creach'. --CiaPan (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? All of this because I can't type worth a crap? I am laughing so hard I will pee myself if I don't get off the computer! Oy vey! Thank you everyone! I'm apparently an idiot who should not be allowed out alone!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I an editor now?

Am I an editor now?Balawiki12 (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balawiki12 and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you have been an editor since your first edit, and you will become WP:Autoconfirmed after two more edits. This status mean that you can create articles, move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or upload a new version of an existing file. Please be careful, when you make edits, to avoid adding unnecessary links that we call WP:Spam. This project is an encyclopaedia, so does not allow advertising or promotion. Do ask again here if you need help with editing. Dbfirs 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article needing attention

Hi, going through random articles while solving DAB, I came across this article AnonCoders. It has several issues including MOS, footnotes, wikilinks and many unreliable sources. The article history has been quite disruptive with many reversions and maintenance tag deletions, while those adding actual content have been IP users/accounts with few edits, several of them (including the creator) blocked. What would be the best course of action to proceed? Would an extendedconfirmed page protection be approved? Thanks, MT TrainDiscuss 09:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to before the recent edit by the now-blocked IP 185.112.82.43, the edit having been grossly malformatted (capitals on every word) & with no footnotes & no explanation of the removal of the previous content. The article had been stable for some time, but if it suffers from repeated vandalism in future it can be protected via a request at WP:RFPP. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, May I know? That How to publish my first article on Wikipedia? Because my submission have cancelled.

{Hello, May I know? That How to publish my first article on Wikipedia? Because my submission have cancelled. } SURENDRA LEGHA (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, SURENDRA LEGHA. You appear to have been trying to create an article at User:SURENDRA LEGHA, but that is your user page and not the place for an article. Wikipedia:User pages explains what user pages are for. For more information on creating new articles, see Wikipedia:Your first article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YOU MUST ACCEPT MY ARTICLE!!!!!!!!!

Why did my article(Al Marar Tribe) get canceled and my cousins made an article about there tribe ( Al Bu Muhair Tribe) and you guys accepted it?

Then you must accept my article BaniYas (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to accept any article. ~ GB fan 14:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey BaniYas. First, please don't shout. It's generally considered rude. Second, your article was declined because it includes no sources whatsoever. Content on Wikipedia needs to include references to sources that meet our standards for reliability so that content may be verifiable for readers. You may want to review our tutorial on referencing for beginners, which can help explain this in more detail. GMGtalk 14:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BaniYas please read Other stuff exists; the existence of one article doesn't automatically mean any other article needs to be accepted. This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, and sometimes inappropriate articles get through, even for years. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again - Bani Yas exists as an article. In it, Al Marar is listed as one of the branches. I recommend that rather than try to create Al Marar as a new article, you add content WITH CITATIONS (yes, I am speaking loudly, to get your full attention) to that article. The citations do not have to be in English, but they do have to exist as credible, independent, PUBLISHED sources of information about Al Marar. You and your family being members of the tribe is not enough. In time, if there is enough content about Al Marar Tribe, it can be used to create a separate article. Note that per T's action, the separate article about Al Bu Muhair Tribe no longer exists. David notMD (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that BaniYas was blocked a couple of hours after posting this question. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an Article for a reknowned retired women's college basketball coach

Hello. I am a fan of the University of South Carolina. Their women's basketball team won the national championship last season. This season, their head coach Dawn Staley just became the program's #1 coach in history for career wins by her team beating Temple yesterday. She passed a former coach named Nancy Wilson, and due to the achievement, I searched for Wilson's wiki page, but found nothing about her.

Wilson not only was SC's winning-est coach (until yesterday), but she was also head coach for the College of Charleston, and is their winning-est coach as well. So she's had a fairly notable career as a collegiate head coach of 30 years (she was also asst. HC of the ABL's Seattle Reign, a professional team).

Anyhow, I decided to create a Wiki page for her. I have never tried to do this before, but I think I've mostly gotten it fleshed out on my sandbox page. My question is, what do I need to do now in order to publish it? Should I have someone review it, or just go ahead and publish it? Thanks for your help.

CLEaddy CLEaddy (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on her here Dawn Staley. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Theroadislong. I see that you chose not to read my question. You linked the article for Dawn Staley. I'm referring about creating an article for Nancy Wilson.

CLEaddy (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops my apologies! You can create an article here WP:AFC if there are sufficient reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invited Me On Teahouse

Hello, sir i want to moved a draft with a article. Draft Name: Draft: Aap Ke Aa Jane Se Article Name : Aap Ke Aa Jane Se please invited on Teahouse Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Http002 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You will need to find published reliable sources independent of the subject. At present the sources in your draft seem to be one from the subject's publisher and one from a forum. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop resubmitting the draft without addressing the problems. Repeatedly doing so is a waste of your time but more significantly is a waste of time for reviewers, and if you continue to do so it is liable to be regarded as tendentious editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template

May I know if there are good templates for wishing Christmar and/or New Year? :P Thank you very much in advance! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adityavagarwal. If you consider posting to the talk pages of others then see Category:WikiLove templates. Note that editors have different religions or no religion. For something you could display in your own user or talk page, see {{Merry Christmas Banner}}, {{Happy Holidays}}, Category:Holiday user templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks a ton, PrimeHunter! :D Have a great day! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do the bar and the VTE at the bottom of the page mean?

Keagiles (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Keagiles: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The "V" is a link to the page for the template that appears on the page you are viewing. The "T" is a link to the template's talk page, and the "E" is a link that opens up the edit window for that template. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And what how do you add links in that bottom area, or are they related to links in the text? I hope I am making sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keagiles (talk • contribs)
@Keagiles: The usual way to add links to such navigation templates is to click "E" for edit and follow the format of the existing links. We can say more if you say which links you want added to which box. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take a look at that. Keagiles (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to take a page I am making in the page creation editor/window and put it in my sandbox instead?

I created a page, and created a large part of it, but I don't think I want to share it just yet, until more info is out and it better fits Wikipedia policies for a page exisiting on this site. How can I take a page created in the page creation editor/window that the page being created has yet to actually be created, how can I put that in my sandbox so I can save it without sharing it as a page on Wikipedia just yet? Greshthegreat (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Greshthegreat and welcome to the Teahouse.
Your sandbox would also be visible to other users. If you want to save a copy of your page offline, you would need to copy the edit window contents to a text editor on your own computer.
The same approach would work for saving your draft to a sandbox, though. Start by creating your sandbox in a separate window and simply copy the draft edit window contents into the sandbox edit window. Be sure to leave the {{user sandbox}} template at the top. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright that the sandbox is visibile to others, I don't mind that at all. I just want to save the page without having to create it and make it an official page on Wikipedia since I am not finished making it just yet. I'll do as the two of you have suggested, and save it in a sandbox, and then a page later on when I am ready to make it an actual page, unless someone has beat me to it, since the pages topic is a fairly popular event happening next summer.

Greshthegreat (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually only one person responded to my question, not two people Greshthegreat (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take to get a re-review done?

Hi,

I have resubmitted an article for review and my submission is still pending for 23 days. Is it normal for a review to take these many number of days or have I missed any steps before submitting it which is causing the delay? How can I confirm?

Thank you for help!

Huma.hamid (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huma.hamid: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that you properly submitted your draft. There are over 2700 drafts awaiting review, so please be patient. Reviews are done by volunteers who (like all of us) do what they can when they can do it. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While you are waiting for it to be reviewed, it would be wise for you to remove the numerous misplaced external links from the body of the text. Where relevant you may wish to replace them by references. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for a prompt response and a very helpful advice!

Huma.hamid (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get any answers or suggestions at the Idea Lab.

Two times I have proposed something on the idea lab and got a response from the same user which pointed me to a link that wasn't helpful as I brought up ideas and arguments that weren't mentioned. Also I couldn't say anything there because the discussion was saved and you weren't supposed to edit it. (it was translation ideas). What am I supposed to do? YuriGagrin12 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@YuriGagrin12: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think there's much you can do. You cannot force people to respond to your posts, and if you find the responses you have been given insufficient, the only thing you can do is wait for another. If the discussion is closed, it is best to try to move on. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make my own Wikipedia article?

I want to make my own articles. Jtarvin (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtarvin: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to contribute. Creating a new article is not an easy task for a newcomer. The usual advice is to get some experience by working to improve existing articles. If you want to proceed on creating an new article, then read the guidance at WP:YFA and use the article wizard there to create a draft for review. RudolfRed (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtarvin: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your interest in creating articles is appreciated, but I would caution you that successfully doing so is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice, and effort. New users who are most successful at creating articles first started small by spending time finding existing articles in areas that interest them and making small, needed edits to them. This helps them to learn how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. New users who dive right into creating articles often end up disappointed and hurt after their work is mercilessly edited and possibly deleted by other users, due to being unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I don't want to see you or anyone disappointed. I would strongly suggest that you work in existing articles first before attempting to create new ones.
However, if you still want to attempt it, you should definitely first read Your First Article. Then, you should visit Articles for Creation where you can create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way, you get feedback while the article is in draft form, as opposed to a full fledged Wikipedia article. I hope this helps you. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why Did my Article being declined

What i was Trying to do was to help the people who are poor but if my article was not the part of Wikipedia its Fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphesihle Luthuli G (talk • contribs) 20:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphesihle Luthuli G: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Helping poor people is a worthy cause, however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media or other forum to connect with people in need. If you go to WP:OUT you may find a more appropriate forum to do what you wish to do. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So tell me can You give me some suggestions how to write the article that are the part for Wikipedia because I'm truly lost now— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphesihle Luthuli G (talk • contribs)

@Sphesihle Luthuli G: Please understand that creating an article is very hard. You can read Your First Article to learn more about it, but I would strongly suggest that you first find existing articles in areas that interest you and make small edits to them, which will help you learn how Wikipedia works and what is being looked for in articles. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give feedback about my article please?

Hello, I've written an article but an editor thought it was autobiographical, so I did some reading at Wikipedia, reedited it and added independent sources as citations. Could someone please review it for me to see if it works now please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alper_Tuzcu

[User:Alpertuzcu] (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpertuzcu: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You state "an editor thought it was autobiographical" but your username is that of the person you wrote the draft about. Are you Alper Tuzcu? As to the draft, it is in the review pipeline, please be patient as there are over 2600 drafts waiting for review. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks so much for writing back! So the content itself is solely made of facts and doesn't have any subjective statements after my latest edits. Yet, I might have missed out, which is why I wanted to double check with you guys. If there is anything that I would need to fix, could you please let me know? It's been in the review for 58 days, so I wouldn't want it to get rejected to wait another 2 months! I appreciate you help and thank you.

[[User:Alpertuzcu] (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Alpertuzcu, it was lovely to look through you article whilst listening to your music on Soundcloud. Thank you for that. I relaxed to it and checked all your references, and you'll be pleased to know that you do actually exist, according to Wikipedia's criteria, anyway! The question you have to ask is, do you meet our notability criteria for musicians? (Read it here: WP:NMUSIC) If you can't show evidence that you can meet these criteria today, then console yourself that you're a good musician and that you may well win awards or attract sufficient media attention that you may do later. There are plenty of other platforms for creative people to promote themselves online without trying to get a page on Wikipedia. Of course, if you can meet them today, do put them into your draft, as there's nothing there to show this at the moment . You also need to declare your Conflict of Interest if, as seems apparent, you are the artist trying to write about yourself. This, I'm afraid, is the hardest of all task for anyone trying to create a new article,  and if you're that notable, it's best left for other independent editors to write about you instead. Hope this helps a bit. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for your feedback! Also I'm glad you enjoyed the music. To answer your question, yes I do fulfill Wikipedia's criteria for notable musicians, specifically:

'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.'

I have cited articles and interviews in the article featuring national newspapers Agos and Radikal (Turkey) and Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) in my references, and I have more that I can provide to you if you wish (they don't have online links but I can provide the scans of newspaper articles). I kindly invite you to check these newspapers and their reliability, because just because you might not have heard of them, or that you live in a different country would not make them less reliable.

To reiterate, the information in my article can be verified from these independent publications and if an editor were to write an article, there would be nothing different because the article I wrote just has facts and no subjective lines as to my knowledge. But, again, we are all humans and I might have missed out something so I would appreciate if you could let me know if there is any part in the article that needs to be fixed.

I would be happy to declare a conflict of interest if you can please guide me how to do so.

Thank you for your help and have a nice weekend!

Alpertuzcu (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpertuzcu: To declare a conflict of interest, simply make a statement about it on your user page. Details about this can be found at WP:COI. I would again ask you if you are Alper Tuzcu. If you are only a representative of Alper Tuzcu, you will need to change your username by following the instructions at WP:CHU. If you are a representative you will also need to declare as a paid editor per WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I discuss revisions with another editor?

I unintentionally entered into an edit war. It would have been much better had we been able to converse via Wikipedia about the article. How can I do this? Thanks, Seek Of Truth Seeker of truth 2015 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeker of truth 2015, just use the article talk page or the editor's talk page. It might not be too late either. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add: I looked at your edits and they are to a very contentious topic and did not have sources. You can edit controversial stuff, but many people who spend a lot of time doing so end up getting mad and quitting. The same thing with any topic that has political overtones, people are going to have opinions and they're going to argue about how something should be covered on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to dissuade you, but you may also want to do some editing on non-controversial articles. Just some advice. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying notability

My question concerns Draft: Markus Meechan. I was told that the sources I used did not show Meechan's notability. Given that he is the centre of a story that most of the media in Scotland, and to a far lesser extent outside, has been following, and that he owns a YouTube channel with 500k subscribers, I believe he is notable. My question is: how can I show this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInspector5 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TheInspector5. Welcome to our Teahouse, and thanks for asking a very good question. To answer very briefly: I doubt you ever will. Sorry. The problem you have here is experienced by innumerable editors who, through no fault of their own (apart from perhaps not reading or understanding our key policies and guidelines) fail to grasp the core purpose of this encyclopaedia - to gather together and present information in a neutral manner on subjects worthy of note, all backed up with references to support that information. Yes, you have met our requirement of verifiability in that you've given  reliable sources that prove this person exists. But to meet our standard for notability, we require in-depth coverage of that subject, and none of the articles you cite go anywhere near achieving that. Lots of people -good and bad- get short term coverage in newspapers because of some minor event or other. These don't interest us here. Do please read this guideline WP:NOTNEWS to learn why this encyclopaedia is not a medium for reporting on relatively insignificant people involved in short-term news events. Nobody here cares how many followers they have on social media, and you would need to have demonstrated much more coverage about the subject before your draft ever stood a chance of being accepted. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but I do earnestly hope it won't put you off from contributing in other ways to this amazing encyclopaedia. Of course, you could always consider contributing this story to our sister project, Wikinews. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheInspector5 there is a "meme" about Youtube that is used here sometimes: "Being famous on Youtube is like being rich in Monopoly", it has little to no relevance outside of Youtube itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix this

This article has no sources and has been tagged since 2009 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Israel_bank_stock_crisis can somebody please fix this the writing is inflammatory Flamingoflorida (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flamingoflorida. You are now the best person in the world to improve this article. Using your Google search skills, find the best sources that describe this 1983 banking crisis. Format those sources into references, according to Referencing for beginners. Rewrite the article, summarizing what those reliable sources say about this banking crisis. The encyclopedia will be better off when you are done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Cullen328, whilst you'd normally be absolutely right to say this, I think in this particular instance, Flamingoflorida might be far from the best person in the world to edit this article. This editor has a conflict of interest on this topic and matters relating to the Renati family, and has been brought to both WP:COIN and now WP:ANI in recent days. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that you are right, Nick Moyes. My usual inclination is to assume good faith but sometimes evidence emerges that indicates that extra caution is required. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit not being reviewed?

Hello All - Merry Christmas! I recently proposed an edit to the Charles Sabine biography page on the relevant talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Sabine It was reviewed and I was told I needed references. I've added a reference, but no one has reviewed the updated page. On the first edit, I saw an indication that editors had X number of edits to review ahead of mine. On the update, I didn't see an indication. Are things just slow over the Christmas period? Have I made an error in the way I've requested the second update? Thanks! PapaPapaya1 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, PapaPapaya1. Your edit request was answered by a volunteer editor in less than 36 hours, which I think is an excellent response time. It can take many weeks, for example, for a draft of a new article to be reviewed by volunteers. Let me offer some friendly advice to you as a paid editor: Do not complain if volunteers take some time to respond to your requests. You are getting paid and we are not. Complaining causes resentment, and you do not want that. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How has Wikipedia changed in the last 5-ish years?

I used to be a very devoted editor to Wikipedia, and then I stopped editing about five years ago (let's say, for the sake of argument, January of 2012).

What's changed since then -- in terms of policies, technology, etc? Obviously I see we have a cool new editing interface. Did anyone ever make progress on setting up an auto-archive system to combat link rot in cited sources? What were the big scandals and crises that I missed?

Thanks! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the linkrot we now have IABot, which use can use here https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=runbotsingle -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since that time span is virtually equivalent to my time here, let me add my observations:
  1. There is a much stronger drive to include sourcing for all changes, not just controversial ones. Personally, I view this as good, as we are rapidly replacing traditional encyclopedias as the go-to source for information, and since Wikipedia will never be "citable" due to its dynamic nature, it gives the reader something to use as a real source.
  2. As just a quick read of this very page will indicate, paid editing and the use of Wikipedia for promotion and SEO has become a thing/problem/nuisance/overriding issue, depending on your viewpoint.
  3. Although not completely, most needed articles have already been created, shifting the emphasis from article creation to article improvement and updating.
  4. Partially because of #3, there are many more articles being created dealing with current events than in the past. The desirability of this is also subject to widely varying acceptance amongst the community.
Welcome back! John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We also have this nifty new thing called a ping, which I should have used in my message above to let you know I'd responded, Agradman. Merry Christmas. John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get an article to be semi-protected?

Is there a nomination process? The Verified Cactus 100% 20:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

requests are made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You'll need a valid reason Meters (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks The Verified Cactus 100% 20:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ettiquette For Requesting A Copy Of A Deleted Page

Per the Help Desk request at 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blockfolio_page_"speedy_deleted"_but_how_can_I_modify_what_I_first_wrote?_Can't_find_history._Please_advise.' a copy of the deleted content would be expected; is there some reason it would not be forthcoming (even if only to the original author himself)? Further, the author (Corpania) had his account deleted by the editor who marked the article for deletion; is the fact of the same considered fair/standard practice for Wikipedia these days? idfubar (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Idfubar. Your question has been asked and answered at several other locations, and you are unlikely to get a different answer no matter where you ask. The deleted article was completely unacceptable and there is no reason to restore it in any form. Please get the message. We do not restore content that is 100% inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Instead, please write content that is in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Persisting in this campaign may be seen as disruptive editing, which may lead to a block. Please stop now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm... change of seasons, change of host... but only one of two questions answered? (Talk to you later?) idfubar (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er, sorry, "blocked" (not "deleted"); incidentally, per the ( deleting editor's reply) the matter appears to be addressed, for now (though no explanation - of how openly expressing suspicion, via unsubstantiated allegation a la a "corporate we" being the source of the article WP:PA, is behavior becoming or otherwise correctly expected of a Wikipedia editor - has been provided; does that need to be reported?)...idfubar (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rape of the Sabine Women

Hello my name is Mark my username is jdamsforall, I have written two edits to Wikipedia on "Syria" and the other on the "Rape of the Sabine Women" both were extremely well researched and cited. Both were rejected out of hand. The latest was on the Rape of the Sabines history. The only historical reference anywhere to be found is in the Book of Jasher which is found cited in Joshua and 2nd Samuel, copies of it can be readily found on Amazon. It is the Book of Genesis it was written by Moses, Jasher simply means upright, true account. It is the only historical reference of this event I have ever come across. Who ever deleted it decided it was "apocryphal" ? Apocryphal means hidden...Jasher is not some hidden book, it tells the history of so much of Egypt, Babylon etc...it is too hard to list all it contains, it fleshes out so many historical references in Genesis, I have found it to be an absolute gold mine of information. The content of the Rape as given in Wikipedia is nothing but myth and supposition yet this is acceptable for what entertainment ? You might as well buy a comic book and believe that, the article on Syria was even worse. The history of Syria in the Bible is extensive, the language, Aramaic, the origin of the name the people who dwelt there all were referenced from the Bible. Aramaic used to be the court language of Assyria and Babylon, Aramaic,Persian and Hebrew were all synonymous back then because everyone after the flood spoke the same language Adam and Eve spoke. Babylon was built by Nimrod the son of Ethiopia. That city was built 40 years before Abraham was born, the Tower was destroyed in the 48th of Abraham's life and the 940th year of Noah's life. The confusion of languages took place in that same year when the tower was destroyed. Aram was the brother of Elam, Asshur and Arphaxad, the sons of Shem. Aram is Syria, Asshur was the founder of Assyria, he built Nineveh the capital of that ancient empire. Elam is Persia, as in the Persian empire. Arphaxad was the son through whom Abraham was born. The Bible is not welcome to the heathen and unfortunately this is likely the real reason for such immediate deletions. Anyway I did not know how to communicate with anyone of responsibility and I navigated to your pic and thought I'll just write to you regarding the response from Wikipedia. You can check my posts for yourself if history interests you, I could have greatly expand on the citations and cross references, but I'm not a person to waste time, " I don't speak to the deaf twice"... anyway for whatever it's worth, Thanks Jdamsforall (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdamsforall: According to Book of Jasher (biblical references), the actual book referenced in the bible, is unknown. However, there exist 12th, 13th and 16th century books with that name (Sefer haYashar) and even an 18th century fake version (Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher)). Since all but the book mentioned in the Bible were written long after the story Rape of the Sabine Women was told by Romans, references to it are unsurprising. Your contribution to the article does not say which version is being referenced and you may have read a (much) more modern book with that title than you assumed. Moreover, you used a book with that title as a WP:PRIMARY source. It's a typical case of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. Kleuske (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The long paragraph above is quite hard to follow. It seems that you want to cite the Book of Jasher as a reference in the article The Rape of the Sabine Women. As far as I can tell, no copy of the Book of Jasher exists, its existence is known only from mentions of it in other works. I'm pretty sure that a work which no longer exists and whose contents are known to no-one does not qualify as a "reliable published source".
It is possible that I have misunderstood you. If so, perhaps you could state your question more clearly, and much less verbosely. Maproom (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free help?

Is anyone can help me free of charge to edit my page and approve it? Will appreciate your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Denis_KhoroshkoKhoroshko (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to read WP:Referencing for beginners to learn how to insert an in-line reference for each statement in the draft. I'm not sure how many people will be available to help on Christmas day, but Happy Christmas anyway. Dbfirs 20:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at each reference. They are all in Russian which I can not read.... so I was unable to relate them to the text of the article. sorry I could not help. You will also have difficulty because it is an autobiography. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedians edit for free, or are supposed to. If somebody is paid to write something here they are supposed to disclose it on their userpage or possibly the talk page of the article they are working on.
Merry Christmas! White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to delineate Author's notability

Hi guys,

I have been submitting a draft for Author and Art-Critic John K. Grande Draft: John K. Grande and it was declined, with the understandable argument, that the sources show not adequately Grande's notability. Thing is, eventhough there are dozens of sources stating Grande as an important figure in the field of Ecological Art (even the Wikipage states a couple of his books) I could not find particular readings with solely him being the subject of it. None of the sources are him talking about himself, which seems to be usually the problem with doubtful notability. One also has to understand, that the field he works in is narrow and low-profile, but even from the sources I have on my hands it becomes quite obvious that a lot of working artists and theorists in this field owe a lot to Grandes contributions and ideas. He obviously was not very keen on selling himself as somekind of a personality. Do you have any ideas of improving the draft to facilitate the creation of a wikipedia article this guy deserves?

Thanks, Teahouse!

2607:F2C0:956A:3F00:1D0D:6D03:8FF9:81BD (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. I'm sorry, but what you have told us in the paragraph above is precisely that he is not notable as Wikipedia uses the term. Another way of looking at this is that Wikipedia articles should be based close to 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them. If there is little such material, then it follows that it is literally impossible to write an acceptable article about them. The only way you can proceed successfully is by finding reliable independent sources, and if they don't exist, I'm afraid there is no way round it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was not logged in posting the question. Okay, I understand the guidelines of Wikipedias notability.

Would you mind having a look at the sources? I mean receiving a honorary doctor and different prices already points out to the acknowledgment Grande has received from high academic and independent institutions. That does not really contribute to the discussion, but I have read Wiki articles about less important figures in academic and artistic fields, with worth sources. --Lundizius (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the movie Field of Dreams there is a line "If you build it, they will come." Mr. Grande is truly a notable author, artist and art-critic. What you need to find is what people have published about him. Those will be suitable citations for the biography of a living person. Until then, not.

In the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_Where_Evil_Dwells there is a list of actors. One of the hyperlinked names, Amy Barrett, links to an article about the wrong person. How do you fix that? 96.41.41.48 (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected; thank you for letting us know. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding Watchlists (Publicly Accessible/Viewable?)

May I please inquire as to whether a means exist to make one's own watchlist viewable to others, e.g. via a 'Share Publicly' checkbox - or even some Wiki markup code that could be included on a given 'User:' page? (Editors who have a lot of experience appear to have quite diverse tastes - but creative use of the 'User:' page, to share something about both Wikipedia and themselves, appears to be a common thread amongst all such accounts...) idfubar (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would consider this a good idea, but it is possible to download your watchlist and then (possibly with some reformatting to make it look better) you could upload that file in your userspace so it would become visible to others. My impression is that most active editors have a fairly large and dynamic watchlist, so something uploaded by this method is likely to get out-of-date. For many editors, the fact that their watchlist is not public is very important.
Other sorts of offline tricks are possible with watchlists. For instance, it would be possible for a WikiProject to post a sample list of pages that their members are advised to watch and interested editors could then slurp that list into their own watchlist. To explore this further, try clicking on the button that says "Edit raw watchlist". — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those approaches (and their reasoning) were considered... but the application in this particular case would be something like 'https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/5564812-rishi-chopra' (a bookshelf, but more like a living compendium - as the links are to articles)... Is there a proper way to request a feature which would facilitate the same? (Also, "thank you" for the the replies...) idfubar (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Idfubar. There's just time (between putting the turkey in the oven and starting the vegetables for Chistmas dinner) for me add that you could consider installing Page Collector script. It is entirely separate from your Watchlist, but allows you to create any number of named sub-pages, and then you can instantly add pages to them via a tab at the top of any page. These are all public, so can be easily shared. I have 3 such pages - one I'm building up with useful help or guidance pages that I feel I should sit down and read in detail sometime, and another for pages I personally want to edit in the future, and a 3rd for other pages I want to monitor for one reason or another. You could easily create one for a particular project and either share or encourage others to edit it, and anyone can use 'Recent Changes' to monitor altered pages on it. See also this advice. Merry Christmas, and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Moyes, thanks for the tip; is there a way to see the script in use? Just curious to see what a page of links created by 'Page Collector script' looks like... (Also, "Happy Holidays!") idfubar (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Idfubar, I've just gone back and added in links to my relevant subpages. New pages are automatically added to the bottom of the page, but you'll see you can then easily re-arrange content yourself if you want to. Remember, you won't get automatic notification of changes - they're more as a form of aide memoire. Hope this is a useful Xmas gift! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias present in a business organization's article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Advertising_Bureau This article on UK-based advertising bureau has a really biased point of view, and it seems a major contributor's (username is Sarah Chetta) only contributions on this site (over a span of two years) are to this organization's page. I'm going to change it, but I thought I would bring it to others' attention.

Update: I took a look into the user as her username is her real name. Lo and behold, https://iabuk.net/blogs/sarah-chetta she works for the IAB. Specifically, she's the 'Online Content and Communications Manager.' https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-chetta-60149538

TheTechnician27 (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheTechnician27. The best places to discuss your valid concerns are Talk:Internet Advertising Bureau and User talk: Sarah Chetta. It has been about three years since anyone has posted on her talk page, which indicates that active editors are not paying much attention to this article that she edits. You may want to notify her about Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is mandatory. Perhaps she is unaware of that policy. Please feel free to edit the article to comply with the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Internet_Advertising_Bureau was recreated by Chetta in defiance of its deletion under another name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change a redirect?

I've just written a short article on St Lawrence Shakespeare Festival. Previously, when one searched for the company in Wikipedia, there was a redirect to Prescott, ON (the town in which the festival is located), although in fact there was no information about the festival there. I have added a short paragraph about the festival to the Prescott article, but the link in that paragraph still shows no actual article on SLSF. Can anyone help, please? Craig Walker (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Craig Walker (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=817049708"