Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

I created the page Vijilesh_Karayad[edit]

I created the page Vijilesh_Karayad. But i could not get any notification on talk:Victor Schmidt|talk]]) 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Rahul Soman, it is allowed to do so, but, as a new editor, you would have been better off submitting it through WP:Articles for creation. As things stand, when your article gets reviewed, that will be the first feedback you get on it, but it may get deleted at the same time. You will then have to respond to the feedback to improve the article and go through far more red tape to re-submit it.
If, instead, you have an admin turn it into a draft and you then submit the draft, you might have the article accepted, and if it is not accepted it is far simpler to resubmit your article once you have fixed any deficiencies the reviewers have identified.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I used to submit through WP:Articles for creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Is that draft: Draft:Electronics the Religion? Wikipedia articles are based on what is previously published, not on something you made up or created. To prove something is not a hoax, supply references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm really sorry IPv4s and Orangmatter, but I think it best if you seek another internet platform to promote your ideas. Wikipedia is not the right one for you. Of course, if you can find and supply some mainstream media sources that show the world at large has taken notice of this nonsense, then we'll happily reconsider, per WP:GNG. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
If you do find such sources, you'll also need to get some help writing the article. As I remember it (I'm not able to see deleted articles), it was practically incomprehensible. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Help in Improving Article[edit]

Help in Improving Skillhouse Article

Good day, I was wondering if anyone can help me improve my article, it has been declined for being read as an advertisement but every fact I have stated properly referenced to a secondary source. How can I make the article read less like an advertisement? Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Shallou Vignette (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Shallou Vignette, I just glanced over the page, and I don't really see any major issues with promotional language. Pinging reviewer Theroadislong—could you comment on why you declined the draft? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb Thank you very much for taking the time to read through my article, is there anything I can do, or should do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallou Vignette (talkcontribs)
@Shallou Vignette: Just wait for Theroadislong to reply here. I don't personally see any changes you need to make to the draft, but it's considered bad form to resubmit it without making changes, so it's better to just address the concerns with the initial reviewer. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The whole draft reads like it was written by the marketing department, which I presume as you are being paid it probably was. For instance content like this which is sourced to your own website "The company operates on a four-tier fulfillment structure in which there is a specific department responsible for each aspect of the IT staffing process" and the glossy interior shots of the business mke it look more like your own website. Theroadislong (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree, with Theroadislong; there is also some poor grammar that would suggest it was written by a non-English native, duplication of content (Mark Smith is very important) and a lot of the sourcing for basic content is referring to primary sources the equivalent of domestic company registration websites, or membership / affiliation, rather than notable secondary coverage in reliable sources. Not sure the company meets notability. Koncorde (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shallou Vignette: I see from the malformatted userbox at your userpage, that you have a COI in relation to the company Skillhouse Staffing Solutions. Please note that in the case of paid editing there are are additional specific disclosure requirements that must be followed, per WMF terms of use, before any paid article can be approved at AfC. These requirements are explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How to disclose and are most easily satisfied by the paid editor placing a filled out {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at their userpage. Nsk92 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shallou Vignette:, you asked How can I make the article read less like an advertisement? One key to this is that the article has to be based on what people with no connection to the company are saying about it. As an example, take the last paragraph in the draft, about the colour scheme of the offices and what the colour red and the company logo symbolise. That is promotional content presented in Wikipedia's voice, even though it is actually based entirely on what the CEO, Mark Smith, said in an interview – which, by the way, means that the source is not secondary. I can't see any secondary sources in the draft with the exception of one or two listings such as Bloomberg. The Temple University source which is supposed to support the claim that "Skillhouse is also partnered with Temple University in fostering IT education amongst its working staff and registered candidates" does not mention Skillhouse (and "fostering IT education" is another instance of promotional wording). I searched for "Skillhouse" on the university website in case the wrong URL had been added in the reference by mistake, but the only times the word appears are two editions of the university newsletter where Mark Smith is mentioned as a former MBA at the university. So in addition to the fact that it reads like advertising, it is also not adequately sourced to show notability. Have a look at this information to see what would be required. --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Shallou Vignette: There's a lot of language used here that I would expect to see in ad copy (but not in an encyclopedia). The way the sentence Ever since coming to Japan, Mark has been involved in IT staffing and outsourcing services in Japan, US and Singapore for more than 30 years is worded promotes Smith's achievements. Another sentence with issues is The working staff of Skillhouse is made up of different nationalities to cater to both local and foreign clients and candidates, which isn't noteworthy (in the broad scheme of things) and is phrased to appease potential clients or hires. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Thank you very much for your input, I will work on fixing the article especially the promotional language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallou Vignette (talkcontribs) 07:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump[edit]

Would it be possible for someone else to write the bio for Donald Trump, it was obviously written by someone who is either a Democrat or someone who just Hates him !!! Could someone who is knowledgeable about how to do this and will not put in judgement like calling him a racist, a liar, accusing him of not replacing aca when pelosi stopped 3 plans and worst of all accusing him of not handling c19 properly when he did FAR more to battle this crisis than ANY president ever in american history, I mean come on the ships, the hospitals, the ppe, the ventilators, Warp speed vaccines and on and on and on. COME on the description of him doesn't give him CREDIT for anything but on the contrary does nothing but try to make him look as bad as possible. Will someone who feels neutral and will just write his bio WITHOUT injecting personal opinion please write this, if I knew how I would. If Wikipedia is going to be like the media and only allow favorable pieces to be written about Democrats then they don't deserve donations except from democrats. This should be a neutral site and only print the TRUTH not personal opinion. PLEASE someone give this the attention it deserves. Thanks; Mitchel 2601:940:4200:38F0:F414:C029:DA8:DAAD (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have reliable, independent sources that say otherwise about his life, please provide them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if you don't agree with what they say, you will need to take that up with them. See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified, because truth is in the eye of the beholder. If you just want to stay in your bubble and be told what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello IP. How're you doing out there in Alabama? I'm sitting here in the UK, listening to CNN live on the internet (ever since Fox News stopped letting me watch it here a couple of weeks ago for some reason). I haven't looked at the Trump article, but right now CNN is literally calling Trump a 'liar' and a 'con man' (over his $170m appeal for donations from gullible people to fight 'election fraud' with something called a PAC, whatever that is), so I imagine there are many other good and well-respected sources saying the same thing, which Wikipedia will, in due course, report. It doesn't report unsubstantiated nonsense. But you are totally and utterly correct in one thing: You said about Covid19 "he did FAR more to battle this crisis than ANY president ever in american history" Spot on. Damn right he did. That's one statement that nobody in their right mind would argue with at this time. As you know, the virus appeared during the final 12 months of Trump's presidency, so no prior president could ever have done anything about it, as it didn't exist then. So, of course he's done more than any past president in american history! From what I'm hearing on this side of the pond, I suspect the next incoming president will be able to easily and quickly match all Trump's efforts and commitment thus far to tackle Covid-19, and I know that Wikipedia will report what other reliable sources say when those things occur. What we don't (or shouldn't) inject, is personal opinion; we base Wikipedia content on factual, verifiable, reliable sources. Thus far, a total of 6,104 different editors have contributed to the article on Donald Trump. It isn't just one person collating this information, you know! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Care to mulligan on the topic area you want to get involved in?A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 01:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Two comments: 1) As Nick Moyes pointed out, every article is the accrual of content added by multiple editors, so there was no "someone" who wrote the article, nor "someone else" who can place it; and 2) the Foundation accepts donations to keep the Wiki-universe operating, but that is entirely separate from the volunteer editors who create and delete and edit articles. David notMD (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. This is how the holocaust happened you know? The bigger the lie... Gobsmacking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Articles here are written through the basis of credible sources on the web. We cannot change what doesn't sound right to us, otherwise that would be a "Conflict of Interest" edit. Opting to not include a detail from a credible source because it won't do the subject good is one of the many COI examples. Basically, we can remove it if it isn't backed up, if it is, it stays. Mejorasi723 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What is Endflatlist?[edit]

When editing (for example, the article on Friedrich Nietzsche: I see the word “Endflatlist” between brackets, but the list doesn’t appear as a list in the article itself. Thanks. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@GümsGrammatiçus: its a template. See Template:endflatlist. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion that I see Template:endflatlist. So, I saw Template:endflatlist, and that page doesn't appear to explain what it is much beyond that it's a template. So I'm interested in knowing what it does? Or Why would it exist in an article? Or why would editors bother with an Endflatlist template? It doesn't seem to contribute to the general reader of Wikipedia, but it must have some purpose. Thanks.GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@GümsGrammatiçus: Are you not seeing the several pages of documentation? The examples at Template:Flatlist/doc#Examples should answer your question. Many templates have two versions: one in which all the values are given directly to the template (the {{Flatlist|...}} example); and another in which there is a starting and ending template with the values in between (the {{Startflatlist}} ... {{Endflatlist}} example). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you AlanM1, I am indeed seeing the example lists (Dog, horse... etc.) But I'm looking for a definition of a device or template with the word “Endflatlist” between brackets -- a list that doesn’t appear as a list in the article itself. What does it do? Why would an editor include such a thing that is invisible to the general reader? If you want to make a list there are many ways to do that, why do editors use this particular device or template? What would be the criteria for including items in such lists?GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I have explored a bit, and I believe I have found the answer to my own question: “A flatlist or endflatlist (placed between curly brackets) can be defined as an editing device that is used to create a list of words or proper nouns, that will appear in an article horizontally — running from the left margin to the right margin, as opposed to stacking the words vertically. Using another template or device, the content of a list can be hidden, and then caused to appear after a reader clicks on the word ‘show’.” I think that might be a fair definition. It strikes me that if a definition like that does not exist on Wikipedia (as appears to be the case), there might be a need for a general “Glossary for Wikipedia Editors” — other glossaries exist here. It could use some Teahouse questions as a source — I see candidate entries on this Teahouse page. Thanks to all for considering my questions. -- GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@GümsGrammatiçus: Keep in mind that we are all volunteers here. Expecting every template to have precise formal documentation, or to fit within a totally consistent master-desiged grammar, is a bit much to expect from a bunch of loosely-organized volunteers with real lives and day jobs. Face-smile.svg
Why use {{Endflatlist}} is explained by way of the examples – it's a required/necessary part of the syntax of a {{Startflatlist}}–{{Endflatlist}} pair, in the same way that </ref> is a required part of a <ref> ... </ref> reference. It doesn't display anything to the reader itself, but leaving it out causes the software to render the page incorrectly.
If you look at the end of the doc, there is a (default collapsed) "navbox", entitled "HTML lists", which shows a number of templates that are used to create different types of lists. A more general short reference can be found at WP:CHEATSHEET, which has examples of basic Wikitext and other things, with many links to more detailed docs. I hope this helps. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: Thank you very much for the good suggestions, and for the helpful links you provided. GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

font too small[edit]

How enlarge font in which articles and edits appear? Eye strain. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

TBR-qed, Whatever you type will be set at the default font size. There is a smaller and bigger font, though.
<small>Small text</small> :
<big>Big text</big>
Which looks like this and this.
However, I wouldn't suggest using them, as Wikipedia uses the same font for every article.
Additionally, you can use a ctrl + key bind to zoom in. Le Panini Talk 12:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@TBR-qed: In the options of most browsers, you can set the default fonts and sizes (e.g. in FireFox. Tools→Options→Language and Appearance). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

faulty encyclopedia reference[edit]

My sandbox is flummoxed by a failed effort to refer to a section of an encyclopedia article, as distinct from reference to page or chapter. My section on Duhem; Stanford encyclopedia section 1.2 in article by Psillos. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed, and welcxome to the Teahouse. Your question was a bit hard to comprehend, but I did find two duff references at User:TBR-qed/sandbox which I fixed with this edit. (You had some spurious characters present in two of the references, and some curly brackets used in the wrong places.) Hope that helps? I am a bit concerned that you appear to be writing an incredibly long-winded essay on a topic about which we appear to already have an article (Problem of induction). Is there a reason for this? Striking final question as I've just found this. It also looks like you're beginning to appreciate that we don't write opinion pages about topics in this encyclopaedia, but report what other reliable sources have written about them, and in in a neutral, non-interpretative manner, which is very different from the style encouraged in academia. Regards,  Nick Moyes (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your corrections and revision warning. I hope soon to finish my sandbox revision demonstrating that the existing Problem of induction is indeed obsolete, and that massive replacement is justified.TBR-qed (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Getting article reviewed[edit]

Help please! Getting article reviewed. Hi, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and trying to get this article published:

Could someone please confirm it's in the line for review. If not, could someone please submit it for review by Wikipedia editors? Thank you very much! Hal.mccollum (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Hal.mccollum: and welcome to the Teahouse. No, the article has not been resubmitted, but you can do that rather easily: simply click the blue "Resubmit" button in the pink box. However, before you do that you have to check that no part of the article text is copied straight from any of the sources. One reason it was rejected before was that it contained copyright violating text, and I see that you have rewritten some parts, but not very much, so I have to ask if you have made sure that there are no copyright violations left. --bonadea contributions talk 15:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
And do note, Hal.mccollum, that, currently, your article reads more like a resume. This poses a problem in that resumes do not sufficiently show notability as Wikipedia defines it. Wikipedia notability arises from in-depth coverage in reliable, published sources which are independent of their subject. Another thing to keep in mind is that, in an encyclopedia, what a person is known for is typically kept short in the lead paragraph. If a musician is a teacher, has recordings, has an academic position, etc. (which are normal for a musician), only musician should be mentioned in the lead pararaph.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your feedback @Quisqualis: & @Bonadea:. I updated the opening paragraph. I am happy it isn't violating any copyright. Could someone please confirm it's been resubmitted for review? (Sorry, still getting to grips with the submit function). Thanks a lot. Link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal.mccollum (talkcontribs) 11:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hal.mccollum: Yes, you resubmitted it, and it is waiting for review now! Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Black Flight eligibility[edit]


I am in a quandary. I am interested in creating an article on B Flight, Royal Naval Squadron 10 during World War I. This flight was known as the Black Flight because they painted their Sopwith Triplanes black and gave them black-themed names. They were all Canadian flying aces and were led by Raymond Collishaw (61 aerial victories) in "Black Maria". William Melville Alexander in "Black Prince" scored 23 victories. Ellis Vair Reid in "Black Roger" scored 19 victories. John Edward Sharman, "Black Death", 8 victories. Gerald Ewart Nash, "Black Sheep", 6 victories. Distinguished Service Crosses all around, as well as some even more prestigious decorations. Collishaw went on to become an Air vice-marshal.

Looks dead-bang notable, right? Well, the difficulty comes in with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#Units and formations. To quote their policy: "...sub-units that exist below the level of those formations or units listed above—such as sections, platoons, troops, batteries, companies, and flights—are not intrinsically notable." A listed suggestion is incorporation into their parent unit, but Black Flight and Collishaw were the most prominent features of Naval 10.

What to do? Is Black Flight notable in and of itself? Suggestions are definitely solicited.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If there exist multiple reliable sources discussing them in detail then they are notable. Ruslik_Zero 20:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Georgejdorner. Under our main notability guideline topics are presumed notable if they have '"received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

The subject-specific notability guidelines (e.g., for books), and advice at Wikiprojects like this one for military history topics, are essentially adjuncts to that standard – usually attempts to isolate certain attributes that, if some some class of topics share, are an indication that the right types of sources are likely to exist, needed to demonstrate a topic's notability. This is essentially the opposite, an attempt to define a class for which sources are not likely to exist.

Stated another way, when the Wikiproject tells you that X is not "intrinsically notable", I would translate that as saying, in effect: "things within class X are not likely to be actually notable, because for most class-X-subjects, past experience tell us you won't be able to locate the right type, quantity and depth of sources to demonstrates their notability.

All this is to say, if the B Flight of Royal Naval Squadron 10 has actually received significant treatment in reliable, secondary and independent sources, and you demonstrate that by writing an article using those sources (i.e., properly citing them as you go), then the topic is notable, and a stand-alone article is warranted. Full stop. If those sources exist, get writing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Georgejdorner I would add a section 2 after history to No. 210 Squadron RAF. If you complete it and find there's enough to do a content fork, then that's the next step. You could ask on the article's talk page after you are done, to get more knowledgeable military buffs involved than you might find here. If there's not enough for the fork, then you could add a redirect to that section. Happy editing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I second what Tim has said above. A very good way to approach this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
To's not notability that bothers me. It's the policy that says they are too small a unit for their own article that I see as a block. I do not care to write an article on Black Flight, only to have it deleted.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Your sticking point is "intrinsically." Documenting that a small unit existed and did its job is not sufficient. Documenting that a small unit existed and did an extraordinary job likely would be. The fact that the pilots are already article topics suggests the group can qualify, too. David notMD (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The five of them flying together were credited with 87 aerial victories, which is not exactly ordinary. And I agree with you that the flight should easily qualify--except for that darned policy.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Georgejdorner, I think I should clarify the situation; the essay (not a policy) does not preclude anyone from creating an article on the subject. It just says that the simple fact of a subunit existing does not justify an article. In all aspects, a subunit would be treated the same as any other topic in establishing notability i.e. having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Zoozaz1 talk 03:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Coverage? Let's begin with Raymond Collishaw and the Black Flight. And there's the usual Osprey and Grub Street coverage.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup on draft[edit]

Greetings and salutations once more teahouse staff! I've been working on Draft:Jonathan Basile, and was wondering if someone could do a readthrough/checkup/readability test/etc. and also remind me of how to move a draft to the mainspace whenever it's ready. I feel like there is somewhere else I should be asking this so if that is a thing that'd be nice to know, thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi SnazzyInfinity. Please don't try to move that draft to mainspace. If you do, I will simply WP:REDIRECT it to The Library of Babel (website). You are welcome to do that to, simply by adding the following text:
#REDIRECT The Library of Babel (website) and then preview and save the page.
You seem to be wanting 'two cracks of the whip' here by using virtually the same references in both articles - one about the man and one about the website he created. To me, the latter looks more notable, but I think you should decide which you feel is most notable, and redirect the other one to it. If you think both are, you'll need to find better references that talk in much more detail about him. Let me know what you think, and should you have a connection with this subject you might need to declare a conflict of interest on your userpage. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed a lack of unique references, perhaps I'll leave it for a while and see if anything useful as a reference appears, thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 23:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be best to merge the two pages. Would I create a section in The Library of Babel (website) for "the creator"? Is this how I would do that? SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 15:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @SnazzyInfinity: I've come across that website before—it's a very cool thing to exist! I agree with Nick that you'd be better off to focus on the page for the website rather than creating a page for Basile. Have two pages rather than one will slow down the development of both by creating additional duplicative work. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed a lack of unique references, perhaps I'll leave it for a while and see if anything useful as a reference appears, thanks! SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 23:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


Hello! How do I report someone who is adding unsourced additions that are false? Thank you very much Just Piping In (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Just Piping In (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Just Piping In You should first attempt discussion with other editors to achieve a consensus. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, but in what can be verified. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Just Piping In You can also put a {{citation needed}} template near the un-referenced content. If WP:Biographies of living persons applies and it is "negative/harmful" information, skip the tagging and revert it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
davidwr and 331dot, I did revert it. Is there no way to report someone on Wikipedia? This person’s editing is very unproductive and they should not be editing. I hope there’s a way to report. Just Piping In (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
There is, but you really want to reserve WP:AN and the other notice-boards until after you've tried other options, or for obvious WP:NOTHERE or similar situations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Well davidwr, could you give them a warning? Just Piping In (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to jump into this unless I happen to run across it through my normal editing. If the person really is doing things that warrant a warning and it's on a page that has more than just a few people paying attention to it, someone will warn him eventually unless he stops doing the "bad behavior" on his own. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
davidwr, so I just have to let them keep doing it? I feel like we should put into place a way that editors can warn other editors not to make unsourced and untrue edits. Just Piping In (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
There is, it's called their talk page. But your original question was about "reporting" a user, not directly communicating with them one-on-one as a colleague of equal standing. If you are new enough to Wikipedia to ask how to warn a user, stick with the "level 1" warnings on Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace or hand-crafted messages that are even more polite than the ones in the templates. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Did my article submit[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for helping volunteer here — I appreciate the work you all do! I've previously edited articles on here years ago but with an old account I forgot the login for. I just tried to submit my first article — hoping to write a few more too! Can anyone kindly let me know if everything looks to be in order? Jdweikler (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jdweikler. No, your draft was not submitted. Drafts are not automatically submitted when you click on the "Publish changes" button. I've added a template to the top of the draft; so, just click on the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button when you think it's ready for review. Before you do so, however, you might want to take a look at WP:NFILM for some general information regarding Wikipedia notability as it pertains to films.
I also removed the film poster from the infobox. Although I'm sure you uploaded it to Commons in good faith, Comons doesn't accept any type of fair use content at all. You might want to take a closer look at c:Commons:Licensing for more details, but generally most images you find online are going to be considered to be protected by copyright; so, unless you're the copyright holder or can show that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT for the image to be uploaded to Commons, it can't really be kept. One thing about movie poster art, however, is that it can often be uploaded a non-free content locally to English Wikipedia, and that's probably what you should do here. Non-free content though can't be used in drafts which means you should wait until the draft has been accepted before trying to upload the file again. Once the draft has been accepted, you can use WP:UPLOAD to upload the file locally to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Jdweikler. I agree with Marchjuly's advice about the movie poster. In my opinion, your draft is strong and will probably be accepted. What would be useful is if you can add references to reviews of the film by professional film critics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly and Cullen328! Super helpful. I believe it should pass notability due to involvement of notable people, and release by a major studio. Thanks for the notes on the poster too — I'll follow your guidance on that. Re: reviews, I have not yet found any yet, but will add if I can dig any up. Jdweikler (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Idea: colorize the black & white photos and replace existing photos with colorized copy of it[edit]

With the recent advancement of the automated tools that will allow editors to colorize the photos in just a minute, I am thinking of an idea where to colorize the historic photos that are not in color and replace the original black and white photo in article with the colorized copy of the photo, but not sure if it's a good idea to do or not.

FYI due to copyright restrictions, only colorize the photo that are published in public domain, Creative Commons CC-BY-2.0, CC‑BY‑SA‑2.0 or Flickr "No known copyright restrictions" license. WPSamson (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi WPSamson. An intersting idea perhaps, but probably not something suited for an in-depth discussion here at the Teahouse. Perhaps WP:VPR or even c:COM:VPP would be better places to discuss this. One quick thought though and some food for thought is that colorizing an old image might be something that is deemed creative enough to establish a new copyright as a WP:Derivative work. So, essentially a colorized version of an old photo might make it eligible for copyright protection even if the original no longer is (see [[:. That could be problematic when it comes to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:COM:L. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello WPSamson. Another major problem with your idea is the fact that original research is forbidden on Wikipedia. Was that old house painted white or light grey or sky blue? Was the woman's dress blue or green? Was the man's necktie red or blue? What colors were all those cars? And that horse? And so on. As I see the matter, it would be impossible to make those decisions in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Cullen328, I agree. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm also with Cullen328. Wikipedia deals in facts. Intermingling fiction wold not be an improvement. Maproom (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Bias Ratings[edit]

Why doesn't Wikipedia just use AllSides ratings for their bias ratings, e.g. MSNBC would be classified as left-wing, as per AllSides Evil Slug (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Evil Slug. Wikipedia editors are concerned much more with reliability than political bias. Although highly biased news sources may be less reliable than more "centrist" ones, that may not always be the case. Consider the Weekly World News, one of the least reliable widely circulated publications in U.S. history, but not one especially known for political bias. And why would a top ten website like Wikipedia farm out its assessment of sources to a much smaller and newer website? We already have a robust infrastructure for evaluating the reliability of sources. That being said, I am of the opinion that AllSides is a very worthy venture. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
See also WP:Reliable sources/Perennial. In short, the bias of a source isn't as relevant as its reliability when it comes to the subject matter. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 02:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that on the page about any specific outlet, e.g. MSNBC, it should say what bias that outlet has based on AllSides Evil Slug (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello again Evil Slug. Wikipedia does not have any "standardized" or "preferred" or "recommended" references. It is up to individual editors working on individual articles to decide which references are best for that article. Adding a single website as a reference to many articles would probably be perceived as spamming, and would probably get some strong pushback. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate articles[edit]

I just found two articles on the exact same thing, just with different titles (Anthologise and Anthologise Poetry Competition), what should I do about this? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly redirected the slighly-newer version to the slightly-older version.[1] They were created by the same editor years ago. They started out identical or nearly so. As of earlier today, they were still almost identical. Thanks for shining light on this duplicate article.
Had WP:CSD#A10 applied, I would've used it instead. A10 only applies to Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic though, and these were both created years ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
davidwr Thanks, what should I do if I see this again? Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Omniscientmoose42: A10s are pretty obvious. For non-A10s, it's always going to be a case by case situation. Had these been just two articles on the same topic with different text, I probably would've either boldly merged the contents on the spot and then redirected one to the other, or slapped {{merge}} templates on them and started a merge discussion. Since there wasn't anything worth merging, I just went ahead and did the redirect. The only reason I didn't nominate one for deletion is that I didn't take the time to go through the histories of both looking for things to merge OR evidence that content had been copied from one to the other. When in doubt about the need to preserve attribution history, err on the side of caution and don't delete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Davidwr: Ok thanks Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"Indian" vs "Indigenous" - Wikipedia Standard?[edit]

Is there a standard on Wikipedia for terminology used to refer to Native Americans/indigenous people? In the following article, there are instances where "Indian" is used out of necessity, such as linking to the "Yurok Indian Reservation", but the term is also used generically several times. It is my understanding that this is a less-preferred term by the people it refers to, so would it be acceptable to swap these for "indigenous" as applicable? ShepardoftheEarth (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to change it then go ahead. Omniscientmoose42 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Be careful if you're planning on blanket search-and-replace, though. This particular naming dispute isn't settled; there are quite a few high-profile members of the communities (e.g. Russell Means) who dislike the term "Native American" and prefer "American Indian", and also numerous situations where "Indian" is used for legal reasons because something has been defined by one of the Indian Acts—make sure you carefully check the context before making any changes on this particular issue. ‑ Iridescent 08:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A few questions about Sandbox and moving an article to the Wikipedia main space[edit]

I have two questions. If you partially erase Sandbox, does that remove a previous article you've submitted? I've been reluctant to erase a previous article draft for fear it might impact an entry that has been around for two years. So, I've been working on a draft of another article that I've finished and wish to move to the main Wiki page. Should I erase the old one and then move the new one? Since I have an account, does it need to be reviewed before submission? I'm also assuming I can't cut and paste as well in terms of moving the article.

Thanks for any feedback. I last created an article two years ago and it seems like the process has changed a little. Octopus69 (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Octopus69, have you thought about moving your article content into draftspace? You can get it reviewed by a reviewer to see if it's ready for articlespace with {{AfC submission}} (automatically submits for review; add /draft after "submission" if you're not ready yet). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Octopus69. When a page (including a sandbox) is moved, it usually leaves a redirect behind: if you navigate to that page, the software will take you to the target page, but there will be a message at the top "Redirected from xxxx", and you can pick that link to go back to the original page. When editing, you are either on the original page (now a redirect) or on the target page; any edits you make to one will not affect the other. Once somebody has removed the #REDIRECT statement, the link between the pages is broken, and if the original page is a sandbox, it can be reused for a new purpose. Does that answer your question? --ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Octopus69: I'll just add that what is in your sandbox now at User:Octopus69/sandbox has absolutely no impact on what is now in the article you wrote about Robert Carli. So you can delete whateveer you wish from it. And, by going to the 'View History' tab, you can look at any past saved version of that page and see long-deleted content, if you wish. You may also work with more than one sandbox. For example, you could create User:Octopus69/sandbox2 or User:Octopus69/sandbox3 if you so wished, and work on different articles in each. Moving a sandbox into mainspace takes with it all your edit history, showing how the article was assembled, which I find really useful. Just copy/pasting the latest version into a new mainspace page loses all that history. Submitting a draft through Articles for Creation means you get feedback and a chance to correct and resubmit an article. Placing a draft straight into mainspace means that, if it's not up to standard, it could be deleted through one of three routes if other editors feel it should not be there. AFC has a 2-3 month likely delay for articles about people and companies, and is a gentler process of review and feedback, with more chances it won't be deleted. The choice is yours. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Republic TV[edit]

Please visit Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to view a discussion started by me on the reliability of Republic TV. Editor @Bonadea: advised me that my actions during this discussion and many other processes were mistaken, and they were either unnecessary or small vandalisms. I accepted his suggestion to concentrate just on normal editing at present. Could any host or member of the Teahouse do the summarizing of the discussion started by me, and then add it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, if they feel it necessary. Thank you.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Who was the first country?[edit]

 2A02:2F0E:419:6400:71C8:E4B5:564D:217F (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ask at WP:Reference desk. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2601:601:9480:BE30:8882:7F4D:D92C:5E40|2601:601:9480:BE30:8882:7F4D:D92C:5E40]] (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Why won’t Hollywood carry Wikipedia[edit]

I was wondering why havent you all reached out to the satanic narcissistic Hollywood actors to make significant donations to Wikipedia? Or reach out to. athletes? Like LEBRON James ??? He makes millions of millions of dollars just for playing basketball why don’t you all reach out to him and his team and ask him to donate to Wikipedia to cover all your expenses for one year so that us the poor and the middle class can enjoy the benefits being being able to look up educational information while we’re on lockdown!!!!! 2600:1700:DFA0:BA00:B8CF:24DF:4B3E:A55D (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's finances are stable right now so you are free to use Wikipedia as you wish. If you are unable to donate yourself, that's not a problem. Please don't bring class warfare issues or personal attacks to this board. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
2600:1700:DFA0:BA00:B8CF:24DF:4B3E:A55D, It isn't up to us. Currently there is no critical need for money. Besides that begging is not encouraged.SenatorLEVI (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This is what Wikipedia currently looks like to our readers
SenatorLEVI, try logging out and viewing what Wikipedia looks like to readers at the moment (see right); depending on your monitor configuration between ​13 and ​12 the screen is taken up by a giant begging letter. Until the appeal is taken down on New Years Day, there are going to be a lot more posts from readers who are understandably under the impression that Wikipedia is on the verge of going bust. ‑ Iridescent 10:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
As noted, those readers can create accounts to turn off the messages. You can try asking the Foundation to stop or change their message, but I don't think that's going to happen. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the appeal—I'm just explaining to SL (a new editor) that we always get a flood of confused messages at the start of December, and that there's a reason the OP is talking about begging letters. ‑ Iridescent 10:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
IP user, Wikipedia editors have no say in the placement of those banners, and nobody here knows whether you have donated or not – nor does anybody here care. This is important, because once in a while somebody comes along and thinks that their financial donations to the Wikimedia foundation should give them a say in what is and is not written in English Wikipedia, but again, nobody cares whether they have donated money or not. Also note that editors are not employed by the Wikimedia foundation or by Wikipedia, so you are talking to people whose expenses are not paid by any donations. --bonadea contributions talk 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that the appearance of the "begging letter" depends in part on what platform you are using to view Wikipedia, and whether you have donated in the past. Right now, I am not seeing this on my desktop, possibly because I have already donated this year. But I am seeing it on my Android device, which is not logged into my account. (This is just a guess on my part; I have no inside knowledge of this.) Mike Marchmont (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It can't possibly have anything to do with whether you have donated. Your editor account should not be possible to tie to a real-life identity, unless you explicitly disclose it yourself. If the donation system associated your bank account or Paypal account or however you donate with your account here, that would be a major violation of your integrity. Surely you are not asked for an editor name when you donate? --bonadea contributions talk 10:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can make out, the begging letter (white text on a huge blue background as seen here in the UK) doesn't appear if you are usually logged in to your account when you open your browser on the Wikipedia main page. However, anyone not logged in — and most casual readers — will see the letter. Mine includes radio buttons to make donations and states that "the average donation is £10" (presumably Nudge theory). I'm not surprised that this makes people think that the WMF is going bust and is perhaps a little insensitive given the year we have all being experiencing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if ad blockers might also take care of it? I just tried checking Wikipedia from a different browser where I wasn't logged in, and didn't see it there either. I don't know why, but my guess is that my trusty adblocker is doing its stuff there. I certainly agree about it being insensitive and would avoid Wikipedia during December if I had to see that thing – and I have a lot of sympathy for the OP even though I wouldn't think soliciting donations from specific rich Americans is a good way to go. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll just add that I was lying back in a nice hot bath a few hours ago, minding my own business, watching the end of series 2 of Battlestar Galactica on an Android tablet, when I nipped over to Wikipedia (not logged in) to discover the bloody Cylons had taken over and had posted a big blue begging notice that virtually implied that if I didn't donate £2 immediately (like everyone else), then the whole of Wikipedia - and all my hard labours over the last 10 years - might soon be taken down. I was not impressed by the messaging. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: If you're talking about the end of the second series of the 2004 show, then you're still in the good stuff. Please advise me when you start getting near the end of season 4, because I don't want to be anywhere near that dissapointment, and my condolences.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
LOL! Maybe I should finish watching now then, and simply cherish my unrequited love for President Roslin. (Don't tell the wife!) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Ha! No seriously (but don't actually read this now)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Expanding and correction[edit]

How do you write a draft on a novel you write, and keep it neutral? Theobliviaf (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Theobliviaf. I'm a little confused by your question. If you have written a novel and get it published, then after others have read it and it has been mentioned in reputable sources such as newspaper reviews it may merit an article here on Wikipedia. Until that point, it won't. The very last person who should draft such an article is you as the author of the novel, since you would find it impossible to do so in a neutral way. That's also why Wikipedia is not a place for autobiographies. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy link to draft Draft:A Curse so Dark and Lonely. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Clear now that Theobliviaf did not write the novel, but is trying to create an article about the novel. As Theroadislong, commented at the draft, no references = no accepting of article. Use existing articles about famous books as models. David notMD (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


How do you contribute to an encyclopedia? Are there rules? Admins? Bosses? Caneto (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Caneto. You can find out more about how to contribute at WP:CONTRIBUTE. As for the other part if your question, Wikipedia is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation so I guess it would be the “boss” so to speak; most of the actual editing and monitoring of the site, however, is done by WP:VOLUNTEERs who are part of the Wikipedia WP:COMMUNITY. All editors are for the most part equal when it comes to editing, but there are some who have been chosen by the Wikipedia Community to be WP:ADMINISTRATORs to keep things under control and running smoothly as well as to try and sort out any problems before they get to out of control. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Caneto: Adding to above: your ideas here are equally as valid as anyone else's! This is a Wikipedia written by people like you and me, and you know things that others don't, so we would value your contributions to this project, whatever it may be. Editors are expected to treat each other with civility and respect, and you'll find that most of us are pretty nice people (I hope?)  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 10:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Caneto. Wikipedia's rules are not supposed to be treated as statutory legislation, but we have many policies, and guidlines and essays. In addition to some of the links posted above, the core policies and gudelines that govern article content – what can and should be written and what should not in articles, and what topics we should cover and what we should not, are in large part governed by just a few: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A question about alternate accounts[edit]

Hello, I frequently forget my password, so can I create an alternate account for that reason? More importantly, does the policy allows me to do so and if I do it would I get blocked? I can confirm that I will not use it for malicious or any bad reasons. Kajjul (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kajjul and welcome to the Teahouse. The policy can be read at WP:VALIDALT. It is obviously OK to create a new account if you abandon an old one, although I would hope you can remember your WP password or note it down somewhere safe so that you don't need to do so. There are quite a few other valid reasons to have multiple accounts, although you should acknowledge on each User Page that there is another account in use. The only real bar is in using multiple accounts for WP:Sockpuppetry, which definitely could get you banned. It is also illegal for multiple people to share one log-on ID Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kajjul if you add an email address to your account, then you can reset your password if you forget it, rather than just creating a new account. You can add an email address on Special:Preferences, section "Email options". Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


I'm currently working on a submission, but the Infobox isn't showing all the info. Is there a size or info restriction within Infobox? Any way to increase its size to include more info? Thanks! Octopus69 (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the infobox you're using. There are many topic-specific infoboxen which can have more information than a generic infobox will, but you'd need to read the usage notes for the infobox in question to figure out what each parameter is and what it means. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Octopus69. Assuming you are talking about the draft in your sandbox, that's currently using Template:Infobox writer. You may not know that this can be used as a module (or sub-template) of Template:Infobox person. The latter has many more parameters. (See writer template page for further details) Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Octopus69 {{infobox writer}} does not have a url parameter but it does have a website parameter (and {{url}} doesn't work with doubled brackets), so I fixed the display at your sandbox with this edit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Amina Zoubi[edit]

Hello I need help to edit this article or well known artist Amina Zoubir, it seems that the references I have added on diffreent sources to justify the recognition of the person are not taken in consideration. Can you help me to correct and edit this article, thank you for your help. best

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. You need a lot more sources, cited in-line, to be able to come close to satisfying our biographical requirements. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The user above copy-pasted a whole draft, so i'm replacing it with this comment. The article referred to was Draft:Amina Zoubir -GoatLordServant(Talk-Contribs) 13:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Danke. I edit-conflicted with you removing the draft chunk. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about blocked IPs and accounts[edit]

Hi! I've been editing as various IPs for some time now, mostly while bored at work, but a few of the (obviously shared) addresses which get randomly assigned to me there are blocked for misbehavior by coworkers. I've now (equally obviously) created an account, but I'm not sure what will happen if I log in at work and get assigned one of the blocked IPs. Will my account be autoblocked? Any advice on how to handle this? Thanks! Wikignome Wintergreen (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wikignome Wintergreen: That depends on whether the block on the IP address is hard or soft - see WP:HARDBLOCK. If it is hard then any editing through that IP address even by registered accounts is blocked. If that happens you could apply for an IP block exemption. Nthep (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
So far so good. I guess my coworkers haven't been too troublesome, but I'll keep the block exemption thing in mind. Thanks for your help! Wikignome Wintergreen (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Should I make this page/series of pages?[edit]

I’ve recently wanted to make a page for the auctioneer Blaine Lotz, and I’ve read the notability guidelines and I think he does a somewhat good job of fitting the guidelines. Not also that but maybe I could make pages for other auctioneers, mainly pages for auctioneers who have recently won the world championship, as pretty much no other auctioneers gets coverage. Please let me know what you think about if I should make these pages. Jack Ryan Morris (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jack Ryan Morris, and thanks for your question. Rather than making us do all the work for you, would you be so kind as to supply links to those 'Reliable Sources' that you feel would be used to prove his Notability? We'll happily take a quick look at them for you, but we're unlikely to want to delve around the internet in search of sources ourselves. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
There is an article on the World Livestock Auctioneer Championship but it's very thin on details and decent references, so you may like to start by improving it. If you can find third-party reliable sources then they also should help you for the biography to be done later. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Here are a couple of news article I found about Blaine Lotz, I’m not sure if this is enough. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Jack Ryan Morris (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:ONEEVENT probably suggests not, although the citations themselves look OK. My suggestion to work on the existing article and by all means mention him there seems likely to be a better use of your time. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Move stopped due to triggered automated filter[edit]

Please move the page "East Valla" to "Östra Valla". Waazzou (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Waazzou, The correct place for move requests is WP:RMT. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Why did HostBot ask me to come here?[edit]

??? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

RusherLeBFDIFan, you were invited to come here to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, if you had any. As a newer user, you are more likely than most to have questions. The Teahouse and the WP:Help desk are always around, should you need them.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


Why does ClueBot sometimes revert my edits when they’re not even vandalism? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

RusherLeBFDIFan, Cluebot makes few mistakes, but, being an automated process, not a human, it lacks certain intuitive abilities and sometimes makes silly mistakes. Still, it is faster, more detail-oriented and more tireless than any human. Please have a forgiving attitude towards the indefatigable Cluebot!--Quisqualis (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@RusherLeBFDIFan: You can report false positives at User:ClueBot_NG/FalsePositives which will help the bot get better. RudolfRed (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the Cold War wiki project still active?[edit]

read the headline Annoyingorange150803224 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Annoyingorange150803224: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cold_War has a note that it is inactive. There is a link there to its parent project Military History that is still active. RudolfRed (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: Why?[edit]

Pipe Major John McLellan DCM of Dunoon Composer & poet I wrote an article in the draft page about P/M John McLellan DCM but it was deleted in the last few minutes. I added relevant citations to media sources and recieved an email ok to quote those sources but my article about this subject was speedily deleted, why? Baishan17 (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Baishan17: There are a few notes on your talk page User_talk:Baishan17 that explain the deletion reasons. RudolfRed (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Baishan17: Quite bluntly, you have repeatedly broken copyright laws by stealing text content from copyright sources and releasing them here on Wikipedia, which you have absolutely no legal right so to do. You have repeated this infringement and that, too, was deleted. This is one of the most serious abuses you can make on Wikipedia, and you may well have your editing rights permanently withdrawn if you ever do that again.
You need to understand, not only how to properly edit and lay out a page (your deleted version was probably the worst I've ever seen here), but you also need to read WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE to understand that you MUST put content on Wikipedia in your own words and not closely copy other articles. I will copy this instruction to your talk page, lest you forget it. Is that clear enough? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(fixing my failed ping to Baishan17. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC) )
Hello, Baishan17. You also need to read about neutral point of view. No Wikipedia article should ever use evaluative language like "one of Scotland's truly great composers", or "hugely talented individual" (as you did in your edits to Dunoon) unless in a direct quotation from an attributed reliably published source wholly independent of the subject so described. Nor should it say that anything "continues to be in demand" or "is very popular" without a citation to a reliable independent source that says so. --ColinFine (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Bot edit question[edit]

I was reading the Clue Bot NG FAQ about why this bot's edits don't use the bot flag and it says "Since anti-vandal bots are doing a steady stream of edits that would otherwise (usually and eventually) be done by a human[...]". Isn't this true of every bot? That is, don't all bots exist to do edits that would normally be done by a human? Can someone explain what the difference is here between reverting vandalism and any other edit some bot would do? RudolfRed (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: It's an interesting question, and I think the answer is found in the second bullet point on that page, which states: "Anti-vandal bots do not perform precise, exact work like most other bots do. They act more like humans, with most edits correct and good, but a small percentage of mistakes. Bot edits show up as (unflagged) human edits so they can be reviewed for possible mistakes if necessary, like other human edits." In other words, nobody needs to review the edits made by Signbot when someone forgets to sign their posts here (these are 100% accurate), but we do need humans to review the potentially erroneous reversions that Cluebot and other bots make to earlier human edits. Were their edits flagged as bot edits, it could mean that wrong reversions (and I do see them from time to time) would go unnoticed by an editor who chooses not to be worry about standard, 100% automated and petty changes made by other bots. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the reply and the explanation. Yes, the second bullet makes sense. RudolfRed (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

George Harrison photo[edit]

Hi. I was looking up George Harrison on Bing.

I see the photograph that accompanies the Wikipedia link is not of George Harrison, but Paul McCartney!

Is there any way to change it?

It seems a bit disrespectful, but also a fairly basic error on a extremely well-known subject. Rickylee369 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rickylee360. Wikipedia's article about George Harrison has a picture of him. If Bing is substituting the wrong picture from somewhere else, you need to complain to Bing, not to Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Rickylee369: Providing the imagery at the Wikipedia article about George Harrison is correct, this will be an algorithm error by Bing, and absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia. It is, however, a reflection that Google and Bing both regard Wikipedia content so highly (but never contribute financially to our work) that they take it, mash it up, and serve it back to you on their pages. (Our licences do permit this, of course, but the error is wholly theirs.) I know Google has a 'report this image' button, so maybe Bing does too? Nick Moyes (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Rickylee369: This is Bing being Bing. What they mistakenly grab and display from Wikipedia and how they label it has nothing to do with us. At the bottom you can click to suggest an edit and then click on Paul's picture and let them know. I just did as well. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Worth pointing out is that George Harrison is a Featured article, an example of Wikipedia's very best work. Any reader who takes the time to read the entire article, as I did a few years back, will have a much deeper understanding of that talented man. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Why were so many accounts blocked on one day?[edit]

I looked at a chart of recent blocks and unblocks and saw a large spike in blocks on November 16. Does anyone know why this is? I'm curious and don't see any other place to post this kind of question. Parrotapocalypse (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As a guess, Trump or his campaign did something particularly gross, or was stopped from something, that day or the day before, and a lot of people came on here to tell us we were lying. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A question unrelated to editing[edit]

What is the category for uncreatable pages, I’m just wondering RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: But what pages would that category go on, if it existed? The pages wouldn't exist, by definition. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Are you thinking of WP:SALT?--Shantavira|feed me 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Yup. 2604:2000:1500:5BCF:90DC:94B3:A95E:96C2 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
See Special:ProtectedTitles. Is there a reason you're interested? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The first item on the list is a category. Yeah, there's a more polite category for Oedipus and similar people or characters. This one isn't quite as specific as the blacklisted one, but it's close enough to be useful. (the preceeding is for laughs, no, I am NOT advocating unlocking that title, WP:NOTCENSORED be danged!) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References to get an article approved[edit]

What constitutes a source that is considered reliable, and will work to get our article approved. AgileMaster (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: User:AgileMaster/sandbox/Essential Scrum TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@AgileMaster: Reviews in independent third party sources would be most useful in this case. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Who is the "we" in "our article", AgileMaster? Please be aware that sharing accounts is not permitted: if more than one person is using the account, then each should register an individual account. If the "our" means that you are believing that the draft or the article belongs to some "us", then I'm afraid you are mistaken. A Wikipedia article does not belong to its subject, is not for the benefit of its subject, and should be nearly 100% based on what people have published who have no connection with the subject. In my personal view, your current draft is 100% promotion: as far as I can see, it does not contain a single word that is based on what somebody unconnected with the book has published about it. --ColinFine (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm just waiting for that OTRS identity-verification regarding Her Royal Magesty (User:I'mTheQueenAndIRule?) followed by her asking a question like this, using the royal we. Face-smile.svg davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
To me, this draft is pure promotion by people with a likely and obvious WP:COI in publishing this new book. It is already cited in the article about the software, and I see absolutely no grounds for a stand-alone article, or even a redirect. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability threshold[edit]

If you are writing an article for a movie and include reviews of the film, how is it not notable? It isn't incidental mention. I feel like the notability guidelines are such that I can't win... MoviesAndMusicFan (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Sno Babies — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 19:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Get rid of the cites to IMDb (wiki), j-14 (name-drop), Variety (name-drop), Global Recovery Initiatives Foundation (press release), Cheddar (too sparse), and Rolling Stone (name-drop). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@MoviesAndMusicFan: As a general rule, not all reviews should be treated equal. Some reviewers focus on the odd and obscure. A low-budget, no-name film might get "lucky" and get reviewed by, say, 3 reviewers who happen to pick, say, the "lowest-grossing film of the week" or "a recent film by a director who has never directed a film with a $100,000+ budget before" to do a review on. Assuming the reviews are the ONLY claim of notability, it would be a very weak one. Likewise, some REVIEWERS don't carry as much weight as others. The movie reviewer from the local community newspaper that reviews every student film from the local community college doesn't carry much weight with respect to those films, even if he might be a nationally recognized movie reviewer. In this case, the movies are reviewed because the movie creators were lucky enough to be attending that community college not because of anything about the film that would otherwise be "noticed" to attract attention from that or any other major reviewer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Row on Covid 19 in the UK[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: COVID-19 in the UK

As can be seen on the article's history, myself and another editor have been engaged in something of an edit war on Covid 19 in the UK. He wishes to illustrate information about travel restrictions introduced on the Wales-England border in November with an image of a sign reading "Welsh Covid rules apply". I argue that this is inaccurate as the image is from several months earlier when no restrictions were in place. I have tried to remove the image whilst giving my reasoning on multiple occasions but he has reverted it. Llewee (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Llewee, I strongly suggest you ping (as I have for you) John Jones on the article's talk page and start a discussion about the content. This is essentially an edit war and can result in blocks for the involved parties if the three-revert rule is breached. If the two of you can't work something out there, consider getting a third opinion or taking it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


How can I transfer a page from my Sandbox to the real Wikipedia? Diaz Benson (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Submit it for review with {{subst:submit}}. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 01:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Diaz Benson (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Which do you prefer, what's in your sandbox, or Draft:Oxford University L'Chaim Society (also your creation)? -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It is the same. Diaz Benson (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Two comments:
  1. Maintaining rival versions of the same proposed article is a bad idea. There are many ways it can cause confusion, and no obvious benefit.
  2. (This is not a criticism, it's a question directed at those who understand "reliable sources"): is Alamy, cited for the sixth reference, a reliable source? Maproom (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Lists based on categories[edit]

I decided to try making a list based on a category because I had seen a few in the past and it was declined. The article is Draft:List of comic book podcasts, which I now know is probably an example of the WP:SALAT rule "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone other than the creator of the list." Although, based on the comment that was left perhaps I could rework the article based on news listicles of comic book podcasts.

What I'm specifically wondering is whether any of the groupings under the "Category:Podcasts by genre" would be appropriate for a lists article. From what I understand I need something with more content, but it's unclear how much content is necessary for a lists article. For instance, there are already the following lists based on podcasts by genre: List of daily news podcasts, List of food podcasts, List of American crime podcasts, and List of Australian crime podcastsTipsyElephant (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably the best place for you to discuss this would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting or perhaps even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists since those are places where you're likely to find editors interested in working on articles about "lists" and "podcasts". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk Sub-pages[edit]

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to get more involved with my first wikiproject--WikiProject_Podcasting. I want to create a manual of style or guidelines for articles relevant to the project and a place to discuss those guidelines. I went to another wikiproject, WikiProject_Musicians, and checked out their talk page and they've got a super organized banner that I'm not confident that I can recreate. Is there a Wikipedia help page that explains how to create that kind of banner and is it okay for me to just do it? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting, Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi TipsyElephant. I think the best place for you to discuss this would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting since that seems where you're going to find editors who might be interested in what you're proposing. I wouldn't suggest you try to make any MOS, etc. on your own without estabishing a strong WP:CONSENSUS to do so; it's OK to propose something like this, but implementating it is a completely different thing and will likely be something that's thoroughly hashed out to make sure its done with already existing community-wide policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi TipsyElephant. I would start with the short introductory material at Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining a project; then (as directed there) seeing the more involved treatment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which explains things like gathering support/seeking interested potential participants first, and, if you find sufficient interest, then listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals (as noted there: "Sadly, most new WikiProjects go inactive soon after they start" – so finding committed participants seems really key for this to have a chance. [I myself started a Wikiproject that was actually active for a short time, but died on the vine for lack of interest.])

As to the banner, I do think that's probably a bit cart-before-horse at this juncture but you can work on such matters at a subpage of your userspace, such as User:TipsyElephant/WikiProject Podcast-header, taking the code from the banner subpage of the Wikiproject here, and tailoring it for the proposed Wikiproject's use. If you were to create that subpage with the code from there, please be sure to provide copyright attibution through your edit summary when you first save to that subpage (e.g., "Copying content for emulation from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/header]]; see its page history for attribution" (see: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Also, please remember that if at some point in the future the Wikiproject is ready to 'go live' and the banner is ready for use, you have to maintain the connection to the source by moving it to the appropriate Wikiproject subpage (i.e., don't copy and paste to there). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating article based on a list[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft: Leiden Manifesto(incomplete)

Hello everyone, I am a new editor who is trying to make their first article. For reference, this is the main reference of the article I am creating:leiden manifesto

Since the source is a list, how should the article be created? Should I insert the list verbatim? I was thinking of having "synopsis", and "reception" headings. Redactedentity (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is your main reference, you have a problem. Anyone may create a list of requests, assertions or demands (or in this case, "principles") and call the result a "manifesto". Not anyone, it's true, but a lot of people can get material published in Nature. The question you should be asking yourself as prospective creator of an article on this "manifesto" is: What notice has been paid to it by people whose opinions matter and did not contribute to writing it? What reliable, independent sources say about the manifesto should be what your article is primarily based on. And if there isn't much, then the manifesto probably doesn't merit an article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the reply. The Leiden Manifesto was a list of guidelines to facilitate less biased reviewing of scientific research through better use of Scientometrics. It has been cited in journals several times, as well as endorsed by members of the scientific community, similar to the way the DORA was. I had the introduction reviewed by User:Andrew nyr, their response was that more substantial written content would most likely be sufficient to publish this article. I welcome you to research the article, and its implications on the bibliometrics community. This is my draft so far (the further dialogue with User:Andrew nyr took place on their talk page)Draft:Leiden Manifesto. Any critique is welcome, it helps to further my skills as a good NPOV writer.--Redactedentity (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)]
As Hoary has said, the manifesto alone is not notable unless you examine the many, many online sources which discuss it and its impact. It appears to have been taken seriously in publishing and perhaps elsewhere. There are a ton of articles to go through and winnow to find the most solid sources to demonstrate the obvious notability of the manifesto. You have your work cut out for you. I'm very surprised that nobody has tackled this subject thus far. Good luck.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have begun research on the manifesto and have drafted the "initial motivations" section so far. Here it is: Draft:Leiden Manifesto. I am still unsure though how I would format the "synopsis" section. Should it be a bulleted list? Or should I summarize similar to the way done in The Communist Manifesto?--Redactedentity (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
A bulleted list of the ten points would work, as most are self-explanatory. I noticed that #3 and #8 may need slight clarification beyond their one-sentence summations, though. To introduce the bulleted list, you might describe several meta-points which the ten points tend to imply, such as quality over quantity and perverse incentives, which I hope your sources will discuss.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Help editing an article for re-Submission[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Gilles J Guillemin


I have received a rejection for my Submission for Draft: Gilles J Guillemin for not being encyclopaedic enough/too many peacock words/terms.

I have reviewed it myself and edited as much as I can see, as well as adding some more citations. However, I would love if someone could take a look over it before I re-submit to make sure I have understood the reason it was rejected and made the appropriate changes.

This is my first submission, so I am still working out how to make a good article.

Many thanks :) Rom0011 (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rom0011, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft has been declined (which is different from being rejected—the subject is not suitable to be on Wikipedia). Taking a brief look at the article it reads like ad copy. It currently serves to promote him more than to inform readers about him. I'll let the declining reviewer give thoughts as to particularly problematic spots, but take care to format the article properly, such as references going at the end of terminating punctuation and words should only be emboldened in certain cases. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Rom0011. I cleaned up the first two paragraphs of Draft:Gilles J Guillemin, which had too much resume-type detail. I then examined your references and find that your sources consist of:
  1. connected sources, which cannot be assumed to be neutral
  2. papers the Guillernin team has published
  3. journal board pages for whom Guillermin is an editor
  4. a vey local newspaper story
  5. Legion d'Honneur
  6. a charity event page which did not mention Guillermin at all
Wikipedia notability doesn't come from an enumeration of facts about a subject. Significant coverage in independent, published sources which discuss the subject in depth are what an international encyclopedia needs; Employers and HR professionals are not Wikipedia's target audience. With respect to the biobank, surely there should be something more than a PR notice on line. Neuroscientists all over Oceania must have been excited to have it. Find coverage of that in reliable sources. If you are not familiar with Guillermin's research, be sure to familiarize yourself so you can find (we hope) mentions of its significance to his field of study. Good luck; you have a lot of shovel work ahead of you. Beyond the two paragraphs I edited, I went no further, but some of the remainder of the article needs to be cut, plus find more evidence of significance. For instance, did the Legion go into any detail on the importance of his research? What did the speeches at his award ceremony say, if anything? Etc, etc.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

How I can improve article[edit]

First of all, I would like to say that I am honored to have a chance to contribute at Teahouse space. Well, I have a query that I just submitted a page for review and it was declined for being read as an advertisement. How I can make that article read less like an advertisement? Should I update the content again with proper external sources? Looking forward to replies.

Thanks Kanwalhafeez (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kanwalhafeez. You are talking about Draft:Piramal Realty. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. You have three references, all to Piramal's own website. That's not acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
If this is about Draft:Piramal Realty, it was not declined (meaning that the draft is not up to Wikipedia's standard), it was rejected (meaning that the subject does not merit a Wikipedia article, regardless of what you do about it). So, in the reviewer's opinion, you will be wasting your time if you do more work on it. Maproom (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kanwalhafeez, To answer your question, you may want to read WP:YFA, WP:NPOV, WP:ORG & WP:RS. In summary if an article on an organization possesses in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the organization then it merits a Wikipedia article. You need to provide at least three solid sources. I hope I have been of help. Furthermore if you are an employee of the organization or you are to receive payment for creating the article, then to be honest, it’s best to just abandon the article. It isn’t worth the severe stress you’d invariably face. Celestina007 (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

User boxes[edit]

I've always wanted to put them on my page, but they are so confusing. Is there a list of all of them? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You can find some information about user boxes in WP:USERBOX. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a new Wikipedia page[edit]

Hi, I write to you on behalf of Ripu Daman, an Indian Plogger and fitness motivator. Ripu is a seasoned Indian runner and an ambassador of the country's Fit India Movement programme. I would like to know how can I create his page on the website Wikipedia. It would also be great if you could point me towards the person in-charge of the website in India.

Regards Rohit Paniker 2402:3A80:9DB:BB2:17D2:D297:A593:7285 (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rohit Paniker (IP 2402:3A80:9DB:BB2:17D2:D297:A593:7285). Probably the best place for you to start would be by taking a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for some general information about what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia isn't. Then, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is the person you want to create an article (Wikipedia has encyclopedic articles about subjects, and these are not really "pages" per se) about someone you may somehow be connected to (e.g. a friend, family member, client). Finally, there's no one person in-charge of a Wikipedia website or article as explained here. If you'd like to find editors who work on topics related to India, you can try Wikipedia:WikiProject India. If you want to find someone to help you at Hindi Wikipedia, try looking here. Just for reference, there are many Wikipedia projects in many different languages. All of these project are operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, but they each have their own community of editors and there own policies and guidelines. Sometimes these various project do things quite differently for each other; so, we can try and answer you questions about English Wikipedia here at the Teahouse, but you may need to ask for help on Hindi Wikipedia if you have questions related to it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Another question[edit]

2021 is coming up, is there a way I could archive all of my talk page messages from 2020? Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Trevortnidesserpedx. You can found more about how to archive a talk page at WP:ARCHIVE. There are various ways to archive a page which involve a WP:BOT, but you can also manually archive a page as well if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Article creation[edit]

How do I request for a television show article to be created? RJ Jai (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RJ Jai Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may request the creation of any article at Requested Articles, but there are tens of thousands of requests there, with few volunteers to act on them. and your request might not be acted on for awhile, if ever. The best way for it to be created is for you to do it yourself- though it is admittedly the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. If you take some time to learn about Wikipedia by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, you will get a feel for the process and what is expected of article content. You can then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. You may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

László Heltay[edit]

Hello, I submitted this for review, but it was rejected; the reason given was "All sources appear to be about his death." Given that these sources were, in the main, obituaries in world-renowned newspapers, or entries in authoritative works of reference (e.g. Who's Who) I do not understand what the issue is, nor can I see what else I have to do to get this article approved. Can anyone advise me? Thanks! simontcope (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Slim cop, The best place for you to discuss the decline of Draft:László Heltay is the talk page of the reviewer, 4thfile4thrank. I will say that I disagree with his reasoning. The sources aren't "about his death", they are obituaries. Obituaries in sources such as The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Times are well-researched, reliable, and authoritative, and provide excellent sources. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Slim cop:. At first sight, this looks to be a seriously flawed decline rationale, as there are a number of national media obituaries upon which this article is based upon. I would be happy to move it to mainspace myself. It's fair to say this decline was made by a brand new reviewer, so I'm pinging Primefac just so that they're aware of any guidance that might need to be given. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Update: Noting that concerns have just been expressed that the draft did contain serious copyright violations which do need addressing. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Life Story[edit]

Can you change my life story? No or Yes? I want to be a Professional Writer, not a Housekeeper only. Geebei1988 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

To Geebei1988: You registered your account a week ago, and to date, have made no attempts to contribute to Wikipedia. On your Talk page, an editor recommended Help:Introduction. I second that recommendation. Please cease from asking questions at Teahouse that have no connection to how to be a better editor. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Why my draft is declined[edit]

Hello my draft:

Published entry of other, similar companies:

The description of decline is ver vague. What to do exactly for this draft to be published? In my opinion the minimum standards are met, in opinion of moderator ( - they're not.

Please let me know, what exactly to change.

Best wishes - N Nataliagolisz (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Article X does not justify Article Y. The reason your draft keeps getting declined is because your sourcing is completely unacceptable and as a result you have not proven notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, Nataliagolisz, the text of your draft is mostly promotional. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their asssociates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Greeks wanted :)[edit]

Hi! Can anyone kindly let me know where to find users to whom I can ask to check my Greek ofΤομ_Ζούντμπι ? Thanks! RøedS (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Try WT:WikiProject Greece -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@RøedS: Each language Wikipedia has its own help desk. For Greek Wikipedia, it may be el:Βικιπαίδεια:Αγορά. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll try those pages. Thanks lots for quick and kind replying!! RøedS (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I be a moderator? (JK)[edit]

Yeah, just kidding. How do I add tables? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

RusherLeBFDIFan, Try Help:Introduction to tables with Wiki Markup/1. It'll guide you through the steps. Le Panini Talk 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Click insert and then table. The link above by Le Panini should help you. TigerScientist (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Hector Carlos Lora[edit]

Hi, I'm just writing because I'm seeking some help on a "conflict of interest problem." It seems that every time I try to publish, I am tagged as probably working for this person, even though I do not. I simply wanted to represent Passaic's (my hometown) community in a stronger way in Wikipedia for educational purposes, and I thought their leader would be a great place to start. I am planning to go beyond just him, but now I worry that other articles will be pegged as having a conflict of interest too. So what is my next step? How do I ensure everyone knows I am not working for this person? Thank you for your time. Kindly, LMPAJ (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC).

Hello, LMPAJ, and welcome to the Teahouse. Put a statement on your user page saying essentially what you have said above. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
User:LMPAJ - User:ColinFine gave you good advice in response to the question that you asked, which is in response to one of the comments that I made on Draft:Hector Carlos Lora. There is another issue. You created both a draft and an article, Hector Carlos Lora. Please don't create two copies of the same article, in draft space and in article space. Reviewer User:Praxidicae then redirected the article to Passaic, New Jersey with the edit summary of: 'extremely promotional campaign lit PR, not independent notable'. I agree that there were both notability issues and tone issues. Any further discussion should be about the redirect in article space rather than the draft. So discuss the redirect with User:Praxidicae on the redirect talk page, Talk:Hector Carlos Lora (or here). You put it in article space, so it can be discussed in article space

How to create internal page for individual journal[edit]

Hi there. I have been working on a WP article for a journal called Frontiers in Nutrition (you can see the article in my sandbox right now). However, after I was done with it I found out that Frontiers in Nutrition redirects to the list of journal on the main Frontiers page. There is a hat at the beginning of that page mentioning that several "Frontiers in..." journal redirect there, though some of the journals do have their separate pages (e.g. Frontiers in Psychology or Frontiers in Physics). So my question is how do I go about creating a separate article? Thanks in advance! Youllneverwalkalone2019 (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Youllneverwalkalone2019, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer, for the moment, is, Don't worry about it. If you submit your draft for review (I added a "userspace draft" header, with a button to do so), and it is accepted, the accepting reviewer will sort out the redirection.
Much more pressing is the fact that, like many inexperienced editors who try the extremely difficult task of writing a new article, you have gone about it back to front. Creating an article starts by finding independent sources which discuss the subject at some depth - because until you find those, all work you put in is at risk of being wasted. At present you have not a single independent source with significant coverage, and until you do, worrying about the name (and, for that matter, preparing an infobox or categories) is like painting the windows of a house that has no foundations and may fall down at any moment. Please see notability, and your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Pipe Major John McLellan DCM of Dunoon[edit]

Pipe Major John McLellan DCM of Dunoon I'd like to thank all the editors who have replied to my question. I've learned from this positive experience! And I aim to follow the Wikipedia guidelines in future articles. Keep up the good work!Baishan17 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Baishan17 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the appreciation, Baishan17. Feedback here can sometimes be rather bruising, so it's good to hear when people have found it useful. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

just curious, is someone being divorced considered exceptional?[edit]

I've watched a couple pages where someone claims that a person's divorce is considered wp:exceptional. I'm not sure but I thought the scarlet letter days of divorce are long gone particularly when about 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce within the US. I think their reason for not wanting it posted is because on the 2-3 articles that exist referencing the divorce one of the couple is stated to be seeing someone. I can understand this new relationship not being posted but the divorce itself I think is fairly fundamental. I've also hear the lady reference being divorced on her tv show. Maybe someone can give some clarity. SailedtheSeas (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SailedtheSeas, it's not that there's a stigma, it's that we don't want to report someone is divorced if they aren't. So we require a source. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
There are at least two online sources (as well as at least one time where she mentioned it on air), so it's not that there's not a source. I think the problem is that it also has one of the people in a relationship which appears to be after separation but before the final divorce. I guess it's unfortunate that the people are not more noteworthy so that there would be a lot of articles. Out of curiousity, if the person does mention being divorced (it was actually phrased by her as ex-husband) on air where there could be a video clip could that be used as a source? SailedtheSeas (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
SailedtheSeas, it may be worth checking out the first example in BLPpubfig and comparing that with the advice for non-public figures. The latter guidance also has a link about using primary source material. Regards, Zindor (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think using ex-husband is definite enough. Divorce proceedings can take a long time and its not too unusual for separated (but not yet divorced) spouses to refer to each other as ex-whatever. Zindor (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


I'm trying to add a new page for a musical artist that I've come across and I'm completely new to all of this. How do I add pictures and add other relevant sources to have the page approved??

Thanks. 2facediani (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@2facediani: Creating a draft is a very challenging task. I suggest reading WP:PSCOI, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and WP:Notability (music). If you want to continue and declare any conflict of interest on your help page, then try Help:Your first article, MOS:BIO, WP:Citing sources, and WP:External links. GoingBatty (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2facediani (talkcontribs) 18:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@2facediani: Before you add pictures, I suggest reading Wikipedia's image use policy, especially if the images to be used are potentially copyrighted. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.)Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Publishing an army unit wikipedia page[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:242d Ordnance Battalion (EOD)

ARMY UNIT WIKI PAGE I created a draft with hopes of someone reviewing and publishing the page but no luck. You can find the article under " Draft: 242D Ordnance Battalion (EOD) " Can someone please help me get this article published? Panamenoae (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Alex Panameno

@Panamenoae: Welcome to the Teahouse! In order to be published, the draft page needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. I'm not too familiar with military topics, but the relevant guideline is probably at WP:NUNIT. It also would definitely help to add inline references to high-quality sources. If you think your draft meets the notability standards there, you can submit it for review by pasting the code {{subst:submit}}. If it doesn't appear to meet the standards, then there is no way to get it published. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
This was also asked at the help desk. @Panamenoae: please only seek one method of assitence at a time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Fake reference[edit]

I visited Iyer and found a fake reference . The cite 82 provide a page number 3899 while the book only has 820 pages. Here is the book

Some one has lied and added a fake reference. Another account (Wikiality123) removed it by saying the same thing

An older version was restored by Holderlin2019 and it got lost. There is a lock and I cannot edit it. ஆகாயராஜ் (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@ஆகாயராஜ்: The page number is correct. Pages start in the 3000s, as per the Google link you provided. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@ஆகாயராஜ்: Right. You can see on page 3819 that it is the title page for "Volume V / Sasay to Zorgot". The first article page (Sasay) is 3833 and you can see that page number printed on that (upside-down) page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

20 years and One Billion Edits[edit]

Both of those events are approaching, will there be a wiki for these events? Like Wikipedia 10? Or will there just be some other festival? a gd fan (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about such an event, though I am pretty sure that due to COVID, there probbably isn't going to be many (And Some of the Ideas I haave are in WP:BEANS teritory) Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@GeometryDashFan12: It's already being discussed in the newsroom of Wikipedia's in-house monthly newsletter, The Signpost. You can see a "best guess" of when this will be at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Billionth edit countdown. As of now, the automatic calculations suggest that it will happen around January 11th. My guess is that as the date gets closer, editing will "pick up speed" so we may be looking at a few days before then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

it won't let me edit[edit]

wiki won't let me edit the page for undertale even though it has misinformation and must be changed please tell me how to edit this page

Thank you, J.S. Rinoking358 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rinoking358: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please start a discussion on that article's talk page to get consensus with other editors on your proposed changes. Be sure to include what sources you are using for you changes. RudolfRed (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the advice I will try to do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinoking358 (talkcontribs) 20:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, meaning that without having made more than ten edits, you were not allowed to edit it. You correctly proposed a change on the Talk page of the article and got an answer. David notMD (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Rinoking358: If you'd like, you can tell me what to add on my talk page and do it for you if you'd rather have it up now (I know my share of the game). Rhain has good credit for the article's status as well, so their an option too. Le Panini Talk 23:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Illegally photographed images[edit]

Does Wikipedia allow images that have been illegally or unauthorizedly taken?

For example, if someone went inside a religious building, and took pictures and/or videos, when photographs and/or videos are not permitted, then publishes them, does that go against Wikipedia's policy? Matthew.weller (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Matthew.weller: Maybe. This appears to be about photos inside LDS temples, which sounded familiar to me. See the two deletion discussions linked to at c:File talk:Salt Lake Temple Garb In Sealing Room.jpg. There are probably other such discussions both here and on Commons if you search. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable, but Wikipedia is not censored. Theroadislong (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Matthew.weller: The simple and honest answer to your question is "NO!", Wikipedia (including Wikimedia Commons) does not allow any images that have been taken illegally to be housed on Commons, or to be shown on Wikipedia. This is a key approach it takes that all images must be legally obtained and freely available. The problem comes in interpretation of the law in various countries. I have personally uploaded images I have taken myself of public art in England which have subsequently been deleted from Commons because they breach somewhat obscure copyright laws, and pictures of statues in France were deleted because there is no 'Freedom of Panorama' in that country. But if I put a sign up outside my house saying 'No Photos Allowed' that has no legal authority whatsoever. How that applies in a publicly accessible religious building, or an art gallery, where someone shoves up a sign saying 'No Photos' I honestly have no idea, just as a sign saying 'No Parking' may have no legal authority unless backed up by local laws or statutes. So, interpreting what is and what is not legal requires great care and very detailed knowledge, but that consideration is normally not done here, but by volunteers at Wikimedia Commons. For images only on Wikipedia, that is a matter for us, of course (though not me personally!). I note you posted this request, but I would comment that, unless a law were broken, no personal opinion of "offensiveness" would be considered relevant because this is an encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.  Nick Moyes (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)    

Notability guidelines for articles[edit]

Been working on Draft:Cycle of Life (Album), curious if it fits guidelines because I think autoconfirmed users have the ability to move drafts to mainspace but I don't know how. Thanks again Teahouse staff! SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC) SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 23:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity, I'm not familiar enough with music pages to be able to give you a good answer, but the notability criteria against which the page will be judged is at WP:NALBUM. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Sdkb. Would you happen to have any knowledge on the process of moving drafts and the types of users who can? I'd like to get into making more articles but I'm not 100% sure where/how to start. SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
SnazzyInfinity, Help:How to move a page has the instructions. Since you're autoconfirmed, you can move drafts directly to mainspace. However, they will still be reviewed by a New Page Patroller, who may nominate them for deletion if their notability is questionable. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! (P.S. I like your custom signature!)SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 01:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome! And thanks! Face-smile.svg {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@SnazzyInfinity: Since the article is so short and has almost no sources, I think you might consider merging it with Ghost Community. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 03:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


Do I need permission from anybody to create and publish a userbox? TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

TrevortniDesserpedx no a gd fan (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Trevortnidesserped, generally speaking, no. Adding a userbox may put you in a category for something like a WikiProject that might raise a few eyebrows, but no one really pays attention to those as far as I'm aware. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@TrevortniDesserpedx: Within reason, you are free top make any userbox you wish (see my poor attempt at humour here), but be aware that if you were to try to create a userbox that is deemed as offensive, racist or otherwise unacceptable, it will be deleted. (Personally, I quite like it when users help me by self-identifying as a racist, bigot or misogynist etc., but the consensus here seems to be that we delete offensive userboxes straight away). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Tagging a draft for review[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Gabriel T. Rozman

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". How do I tag for review my draft submission ? I pressed the "tag" button shown, but an AFC template box appeared with text already in the multiple and numbered white text boxes. Thank you. Kiraly17 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, if you're looking to resubmit the draft for review, you can click the blue Resubmit button in the latest declined divbox. I would suggest reading what the second declining reviewer (Berrely) has to say before pressing it, however. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Kiraly17, the draft has been declined, so before you resubmit it, you need to make sure you've addressed the concerns that led to it being declined. Once you've done that, there's a resubmit button at the top of the page. Also, if you have any connection to Rozman, please make sure you comply with our conflict of interest guideline. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Inserting a photo into a draft[edit]

FYI – Making this a subsection of the previous section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". I need help with inserting a photo. I have read the help text and have tried to google the info, but when I insert the photo according to the instructions as I understand them, the photo is inserted in the middle of a random paragraph of the draft! Thanks so much for any help.Kiraly17 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, could you edit the draft so we can see what you mean? We'll probably be able to fix it for you. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In the infobox, select add more fields and add the image field and then copy the link of the picture you want into that section. TigerScientist (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, however, an image doesn't help a draft get approved, and it's better to save them for when/if the draft is approved and moved to articlespace. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 03:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Kiraly17. I restored the image in the proper place for a lead image, which is immediately before the first sentence of the lead paragraph. You had inserted it in the section of the wikicode that has to do with the Articles for Creation review process. It displays correctly now, although I recommend cropping out those big empty spaces to the left and right. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Requesting teahouse feedback for improvement[edit]

FYI – Another section merge. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". I have twice submitted this draft for review. The first rejection stated it was too much like a resume/CV, the second rejection indicated a need for more biographical information. I am working on the latter but would welcome input from the community as for tips for approval. Thanks to all !!Kiraly17 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, general information on achieving neutrality is at WP:NPOV, and general information on writing a page is at Help:Your first article. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello Kiraly17. Here are two recommendations that will improve your draft: Remove every single solitary assertion in the article that is not verified by a reference to a reliable source. Alternatively, add references. Verifiability is a core content policy. Remove all the external links from the body of the draft. External links should be used very sparingly and only in specific sections. They are not for general information about other topics mentioned in the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Saving work while editing a draft[edit]

This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". When editing a draft, how do I save my work if I am not yet ready to publish? I have just lost 2 hours work (but fortunately printed beforehand so all is not lost). How do you save a draft, then go back later and continue working on it before finally publishing? Thanks a million.Kiraly17 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Kiraly17 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Kiraly17, whenever you click the blue publish button, the page is saved, and it should be there when you come back to it unless someone else edits it. You'd have to give us a more detailed explanation of what you did and how things disappeared for us to be able to figure out exactly what happened. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, in the future Kiraly17, please don't create new sections when asking questions about the same draft; it causes trouble for the archiving bot. Subsections (with === ===) are fine.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Its here: When searching do Draft:name of draft and it will come up. Also that page needs more reliable citations. TigerScientist (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that "publish changes" should be interpreted to simply mean "save changes". "Publish changes" does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia". The button used to say save changes, but the Foundation changed it for legal reasons, to emphasize that all edits are visible to the public even if not formally part of the encyclopedia(talk pages, policy pages, sandbox edits, etc.). 331dot (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

What to do when a possible vandal is detected[edit]

What is protocol for an auto-confirmed user when I find an account I believe who's intent is vandalism or unconstructive editing? SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 02:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity up, you can leave templated responses like {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. If they continue, you can report them to WP:AIV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks SnazzyInfinity (talkcontribs) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Dicesstool (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi SnazzyInfinity. Generally speaking, in order to report at WP:AIV, a user is expected to have received an escalating series of warning templates on their talk page and to have vandalized after the final warning. Please see WP:WARN. You don't always need to give a full series in order, and it is always subject to context, e.g., extreme vandalism requires less or (sometimes even no) warnings before a block, but reports at AIV are often declined if suitable warnings have not been given. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello SnazzyInfinity. It is important to be accurate in distinguishing between genuine vandalism and "unconstructive" edits. It has to do with clear evidence of intent. An edit that is actually vandalism is made with the intent of damaging the encyclopedia. Edits that are misguided, incorrect due to a misunderstanding or unfamiliarity with sources, but intended to improve an article, are not vandalism. Do not issue vandalism warnings for the second type of edit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not able to edit -- I have only "Edit Source" tab[edit]

Please disregard, the problem has been resolved.

Kindest Regards for any advice! W2317 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding a DFC recipient's name to the following Wikipedia page:[edit]

My father-in-law was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) from the US Air Force and I want to add his name to the Wikipedia page noted in the Subject box above. I have documentation in a pdf file (his original Distinguished Flying Cross certificate) that proves he was a recipient of this award.

I have no clue how to add his name (Francis W. Belanger) to the the list of DFC recipients on the following Wikipedia page:

Please help. This should be a simple task, but it appears that I do not have access to add a name to the list of recipients. I set my preferences to use the VisualEditor whenever it is available, but that did not give me access to add a name to the list of DFC recipients.

Also, I do not see how to attach a pdf file to this message which contains proof that he is a recipient of the DFC award. He was awarded the DFC on the 11th of October in 1970 accorinf to his DFC certificate.

This is very frustrating, but perhaps Wikipedia editing should not be user friendly for obvious reasons.

Professor Elsdon ProfessorElsdon (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi ProfessorElsdon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Entries are added by designating categories to them on their articles. Your father-in-law would have to have his own article on here before he could be included into the category, which means that he would have to meet at least Wikipedia's general notability guidelines; that is mostly determined from secondary reliable, independent sources. The certificate is a primary source which is great for fact-checking, but it shouldn't be the only type of sourced used; secondary sources are recommended. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


FYI – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Can you help me edit the page SMG4 please Starkiryu64 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Starkiryu64: You will need to find sources demonstrating the notability of this person in order to save the article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


What criteria of WP:NFCC#8 specifies? What comment written for the media files articles? There is misunderstanding with this guideline specifically this bolded word as the following:

  • Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. The Supermind (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The elements got pulled right[edit]

If you click here and scroll down, you will see all the elements got pulled right. Tried to fix it, but since I don't know how, I rather did not touch it. I have noticed a few Wiki pages having the same problem. Thank you for advise TomasHvizdak (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@TomasHvizdak: This page is not within the english Wikipedia, but within I think the slovak Wikipedia. Try asking at sk:Wikipédia:Potrebujem_pomoc. My guess would be that the table there is not properly closed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi @TomasHvizdak: The link you posted is for the Slovakian Wikipedia. You’ll have more luck posting on their help pages. I did a quick search and unfortunately can’t find the link for you. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 10:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I conjured my inner Slovakian and I believe I've fixed it. Zindor (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 Bety Bannwart (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bety Bannwart: Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. May we start with your question please? I have added a submit button to the draft, however, if it were submitted right now, it would be declined, as Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim you want to make about a living person needs to be directely backed up with an inline citation to a relible source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


should there be a disambiguation? Wilayah (administrative) and Walayah (ideology)? Baratiiman (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Need to get Articles to be Reviwed.[edit]

Hi there, I earlier created article for CNEEC, as a participant of WAM 2020, unfortunately didn't get my article approved due to its adverts/promo workdings n poor referencing n citations as well. Later, however I really worked hard upon editing, refernced n cited properly, removed promo characters as well. Please anybody here to help me out, that how I can I improve it even further, no prob. if it won't get accepted even at this time also, I am ready to work upon even a 100 times as well. What I only want to know is what's still wrong with the article that it has still hann't got any response or is it still in waiting progress. Kindly go through the below the link and all the page history as well which is to be checked. Many Thanks n Regards. ~~SB~~ 12:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SB Edits (talkcontribs)

I looked at just one source cited in the draft: this one at Pretty obviously this says what CNEEC pays the website to say: it even points out that miscellaneous information is missing because CNEEC hasn't supplied it. This is not a reliable source (as understood in Wikipedia). Wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft Samuel Ridwan[edit]

Please i need with my article Samuel Ridwan i want to get it approved but am not sure what the problem is so please help me identify the errors and how to fix it. please help thank you Campusfilla (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The template at the top says that the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I see no reference to any published, reliable, secondary source that's independent of Ridwan. If there are good sources, use them; if there aren't, the draft is doomed. -- Hoary (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Hoary So the problem is the references okay sure so i have to change them to a published article about Ridwan online and please how many reference do i need to put in Campusfilla (talk)
And Please Hoary Apart from the references is there any thing that needs to be done Campusfilla (talk)
Hello, Capusfilla. What you probably need to do is to throw away your first attempt, and then start again, by finding suitable references (which do not have to be online, but do have to have been reliably published. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their asssociates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.. --ColinFine (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, the most obvious problem is the lack of any evidence that Ridwan is notable. Unless you can establish his notability, any other work will be wasted. Maproom (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Well Noted ColinFine Maproom. Campusfilla (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I know I said that was my last question, but I have 1 more. Asked my last question at the help desk, but I found that you guys answer faster[edit]

How do I change my signature to pale pink background, purple words, and cursive font? Thanks in advance. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ex-Borg Seven of Nine. Yeah, we're great like that. I'll knock together some sigs for you and drop them in your sandbox. Once you've decided on a design, or made one yourself, go to the preferences tab in the top right of the screen, scroll down and paste the markup in the signature field, then tick the box that says 'Treat as Wiki markup'. Then click 'save' at the bottom of the page. Regards, Zindor (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Zindor: Lol, and thanks. I'll keep an eye out. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


Xanderman016: I want to upload music on my profile page, but Wikipedia isn't letting me. Why? Xanderman016 (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xanderman016: Why would you want to do that - we're building an encyclopaedia, not running as music station! Anyway, most music will be copyright so you can't release it for free here yourself, as you don't own it. However, there are already some free music files already on Commons that you could embed, and which will play if you click them. Like the one from my favourite musician that I've included here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Quote from your user page: "So, I created this to promote my Scratch account and to post my book here. I guess I can also use this to promote my followers." I deleted it. Welcome to Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia. It's not a free web host. -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Xanderman016 you are not allowed to use your user page for self promotion. See WP:USERPAGE for guidance on what is permitted and what isn't. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
You're also not allowed to use your sandbox to create a draft for something that you hope will drum up interest in the project you're working on. I deleted that too. Now, if you'd care to improve existing articles on subjects to which you're not related, basing your improvements on reliable, published sources independent of anyone you're writing about, you're welcome to stay. Years from now, others may publish material about your writings, and others again may use this material to create Wikipedia articles about your writings. -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Xanderman016: That was MY profile page! Why can't I do that on MY profile page!? Whatever happened to freedom of speech!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderman016 (talkcontribs) 15:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have "profile pages." It has articles about notable people. Freedom of speech is one thing, freedom to publish at other than social media is entirely another. Regardless of what you think can be on your User page, Wikipedia:User pages says otherwise. David notMD (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki notifications[edit]

Please see this, as yet, unanswered question I have posted at the Help Desk. I would welcome feedback there, lest I've been doing something wrong all this time. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Question re autoconfirmation[edit]

When can I be a “confirmed” and an “auto-confirmed” user? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Concentrate on making intelligent, well referenced edits to existing articles, the huge majority of which don't need any kind of "confirmation". -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi RusherLeBFDIFan Since you already have more than ten edits, you will be automatically autoconfirmed later today, when 21:30 (UTC) passes, i.e, 96 hours (four days) after your account was created. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Delete misspelled November 1866 redirect (Novembe 1866)[edit]

I accidentally created a misspelled redirect for November 1866, known as Novembe 1866. Please can someone get it removed? I can't see an option for it. Childishbeat (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirection is called "moving", for some reason. If you can create it, you can move it, to "November 1866". This is just one of many similar redirects you've created: July 1866 is another. Has anyone else said that their creation would be helpful? -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved it, but it kept the old redirect. I still ask for the old redirect to be removed, and for consistency across the similar redirects I've created. Childishbeat (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I've tagged the page for deletion. Regards, Zindor (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
And I have now deleted the erroneously-named redirect, although they could have requested a CSD themselves. But I really see no value in making such pointless redirects, and I have told User:Childishbeat to desist until they have explained their rationale and gained consensus (or shown a prior consensus) to do this.
@Hoary: would you regard this as potentially disruptive if they were to continue without that? I feel many of these redirects may well need deleting at WP:RfD, as these myriads of month/year redirects only seem to serve to clog up notable entries in the drop-down search results with pointless and irrelevant results, and with no real user gain. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)  
I didn't know my redirects would clog up these results. Childishbeat (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

How to submit draft[edit]

How do I submit for draft reveiw Iwillbe65 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, I have added the submit template, but the draft would be rejected if submitted as it stands, there is no indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Iwillbe65. All you need to do is post this to the top of the draft and save it: {{subst:submit}}. (Later inserted note: A template for submisson has already been placed for you—all you need to do now to submit it is click the blue button that says "Submit your draft for review!" – which would be premature at this time, per below) However, assuming this is about the content in your sandbox, that will be declined for a variety of reasons at the present time. Most importantly, what we are looking for are inline citations in the text, through footnotes, to reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent from the topic, which treat it in substantive detail, and directly support the material. It needs those to verify its content and demonstrate the notability of the topic. The current manner of citation – external links, hyperlinked to certain words in the text – is a good start, especially because some of those look to be good sources, but they need to be converted to footnotes, and some of them are not actually about the topic of the proposed article, e.g., the NYT article you linked about Arthur Weinstein has no mention of the milk bar.

It may be that this is a notable topic, but my (albeit quick) survey of the sources makes me think that even if you convert what you have now to proper citations, you will need to find more sources, that discuss the milkbar in detail, and rewrite this to only include information that the sources you cite actually verify. A good place to start for the referencing issue is Help:Referencing for beginners. And please see generally Help:Your first article. By the way, the content of the draft should not also be on your userpage. That is for telling us a little bit about yourself in relation to Wikipedia. e.g. your editing interests, a list of articles you've created, links to useful places, etc. Please see WP:UPGOOD and WP:UPNOT. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Question (again)[edit]

Where do I submit page ideas? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Or you can be bold and try it sourself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Where’s the category for airplanes + how do I join a WikiProjecy? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@RusherLeBFDIFan: There is no specific Category for airplanes, try searching in Category:Aircraft. As for WikiProjects, requirements and join Process is Project dependent. Try asking on the respective talkpage. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

can somebody help me please/من به کمک نیاز دارم[edit]

Hey there I am a new member of Wikipedia and I really need this page translated in English but Wikipedia doesn't let new members to translate so can you please translate this page for me actually I translated it in English but I couldn't publish it, so I saved it as a public draft This is the link of the Wikipedia page in Persian: This is the link of my public draft: If you can help me It means a lot to me thank you for taking your time to read this

سلام ، من عضو جدید ویکی پدیا هستم و واقعاً به این صفحه ترجمه شده به زبان انگلیسی احتیاج دارم اما ویکی پدیا به اعضای جدید اجازه ترجمه نمی دهد ، بنابراین لطفاً این صفحه را برای من ترجمه کنید ، در واقع من آن را به انگلیسی ترجمه کردم اما نمی توانم آن را منتشر کنم ، بنابراین من آن را به عنوان پیش نویس عمومی ذخیره کردم این پیوند صفحه ویکی پدیا به زبان فارسی است: این پیوند پیش نویس عمومی من است: اگر می توانید به من کمک کنید برای من معنی زیادی دارد متشکرم که وقت خود را برای خواندن این مقاله اختصاص دادید

Can someone review my draft(Persian to English)[edit]

This is the link of my draft can you please check it out: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROSE1820 (talkcontribs) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@ROSE1820: I see you submitted the draft for review today. Please be patient, as Wikipedia doesnt operate on deadlines. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Next Steps After "Publishing"[edit]

I created a Wiki article for a nonprofit organization that I founded and ran from 1995-2009 (the organization dissolved in 2010). Because I am a conflicted editor as its founder, I'm wondering what I should do after pressing "Publish Changes"? I read that "Now it's time for you to move the article from your personal userspace (as a subpage) to Wikipedia mainspace (where the real articles are)"* but I don't think I can do that as a conflicted editor. The name of the article is Stages of Learning and its page is here:

Does any one have any advice? Many thanks for any help about what to do next.

- My username is Floydrumohr

  • Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Creating a new article Floydrumohr (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we use Press release as sources[edit]

I have a doubt about using press releases as sources for Wikipedia articles, can we use Press Releases? Nameisthor (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

In limited cases, as described in WP:SELFPUB. Also, Press releases do nothing with regards to notability (as WIkipedia defines it). Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)