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

Guidance for COI[edit]

Hello editors! Is there a particular place I should be posting requests for editing assistance with updates to my company's article because of my paid conflict of interest as an employee? I'm new to the community and looking to learn more about the best approach. So far, I have posted requests to the article's Talk page and looked for collaboration on Talk pages of a few relevant WikiProjects. After learning about the edit request template, I added that to my requests as well. Finally, I have posted to the Talk pages of individual editors who I thought might be relevant and interested, some with no reply and two declining interest. I understand that I must not edit my company's page myself and am looking for a path forward to help update the encyclopedia while honoring the rules in place for a COI editor like me. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! SCbhaynes (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SCbhaynes: Thank you for disclosing your paid editor status on both your user page and the article's talk page. You have successfully requested changes to the article using the proper format. Other editors have responded, asking for more information below your edit requests on the article's talk page. Please provide clear, concise responses so they can continue to assist you. Thank you! Orvilletalk 00:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Question About Editing[edit]

I know the primary activity here is adding new information from different sources, but for some reason that feels really daunting to me. I've tried correcting spelling and grammar, but most of those edits get reverted, and to be honest, I'm feeling a bit lost here. Is there anything else I can do to be helpful here, things that won't get reverted? I do want to be a good editor here, but am unsure of where to start. Endymiona19 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Endymiona19, welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to start out via The Wikipedia Adventure, which guides new users in being accustomed to Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Endymiona19, I know exactly what you mean! I've edited an article, but feel I know less about editing than I did when I started. The guides are, by and large, useless, and most of the questions I put to the Teahouse result in load of incomprehensible answers that seem designed to make me feel stupid. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Endymiona19. There are plenty of discrete tasks you can help out with that are listed at Wikipedia:Community portal#Help out that are not "fraught". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I have yet to collaborate or add anything besides a citations template without it being reverted. I am a person who appreciates support to begin making positive changes, but I have yet to find it on Wikipedia. DHHornfeldt (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Like this 'teahouse.' If you were looking for conversation over tea it is surprising when you find you're actually standing at an info booth and being redirected. DHHornfeldt (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
DHHornfeldt I'm sorry that the Teahouse disapointed in that sense. The fact is that the talk-page format isn't really suited to a social setting. If I may redirect you again, some Wikipedians do use live chat to speak to each other which does have more of a chatty vibe to it - see WP:IRC or WP:DISCORD depending on your preference, I suspect that might be more your... 🕶 ...cup of tea. --Paultalk❭ 11:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
DHHornfeldt, Welcome to the teahouse. You do make an interesting point but I think it's a little misplaced. Let me see if I can persuade you. Imagine walking into a physical tea shop, and asking for directions to the loo. if you received the response, "welcome to our tea house, why don't you please have a seat, I'll bring you a cup of tea and we can talk" when you really want to be told how to find the loo, I think you'd agree that they weren't being helpful by offering to engage in a conversation when they simply wanted information. This is a place for chatting but it's also an information resource. If someone comes in and asks a question that has been asked 100 times before, it is far more efficient to point them to the place where all the questions are answered rather than taking the time to rewrite and possibly misexplain the concepts. Your initial post express the frustrations of many brand-new editors and you specifically asked where to start. years of experience with brand-new editors led us to the conclusion that we needed something for brand-new editors and that's why the Wikipedia adventure was created. It's an attempt to do something other than create a boring list of rules; it hopefully is a mildly entertaining introduction to Wikipedia editing. In other words, it was the perfect response to your question. If you try that site and still have some questions, you'll be in a better position to ask a specific question and people here will be happy to try to specifically answer, although I'll warn you in advance the odds are high that they will point you to a page that has all the answers. If you'd like to try chatting, try chatting and someone may join in. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, Paul Carpenter Maybe you didn't notice I'm not the op. I get that you're trying to help but I'm not looking for anything. As you said "This is a place for chatting..." so I thought I'd try chatting. Now I know how chatting goes. Seems like you are excited for WP:ADVENTURE and I hope that lightens your workload. Many happy returns and all that. DHHornfeldt (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, DHHornfeldt, you make a good point about social spaces and the role of the Teahouse. I've heard that some of the other-language Wikipedias like German or Italian have more general off-topic chat at their equivalents of our en:Wikipedia:Village Pump (café, beer-hall etc.). I think it's a problem of scaling up to larger numbers of people. That and and the drive-by nature of many of the Teahouse questions. Pelagicmessages ) – (20:41 Sun 17, AEDT) 09:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who originally posted this section. I just wanted to thank everyone for their help and welcomes. I am making my way around here and am currently working with another editor on an article, so I think I'll eventually find my place here. Endymiona19 (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Mean people[edit]

What can you do when other Wikipedians are being really mean and won't stop when you ask them to stop? Benevolent human (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Benevolent human, hello and welcome to this collaborative project. Please could you cite a particular example? Or be more specific? Celestina007 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Benevolent human: See: Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing with harassment and Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment. Act accordingly. DMT biscuit (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Benevolent, I trust you meant well, but probably you should stay away from US politics topics for a while as you said to Liz (and ethno-religious groups and identity politics). For those people who don’t want to mend fences, best to give yourself and them some space. Not everybody’s a fan of wikilove, but it was worth a try. If you disengage and someone hounds you, then admin intervention as a last resort. Pelagicmessages ) – (20:07 Sun 17, AEDT) 09:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Pelagic: Yes, I will be staying away from those topics until at least mid-April. I appreciate your advice and will follow it, thank you. @Celestina007:, these are the difficulties I faced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_for_page_restrictions_enforcing_civility_on_Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez Benevolent human (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I join the editing team?[edit]

 2600:8801:2D00:15C0:98FB:65B4:40A:6189 (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I log in?[edit]

FYI – Merging into above section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 2600:8801:2D00:15C0:98FB:65B4:40A:6189 (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

In the veeeery top right corner, you can sign up and create an account. Welcome to Wikipedia! Panini 🥪 02:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome! You have "joined the team" simply by being here and being willing to participate. If you wish, you may create an account which provides some benefits as a participant. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Feeling pushed away[edit]

I've been a user for years on Wikipedia, but I rarely edit. There are some minor articles that I've created and some niche ones that are important, but nevertheless when I try to edit a current article for anything more then I typo I get pushback. An article that says it has two definitions in the first paragraph? An obvious split, but one person prevents it out of a personal agenda to have the two combined (despite it being two articles in one) and since I don't know how to get friends on Wikipedia I can't do anything about it. I see someone copy and paste a huge portion of an article into various other related articles with the same references. I read up on the references and find that it's a more complicated matter that requires greater discussion, and that the references are actually explaining a different matter, with a few sentences being able to be interpreted that way if one isn't reading those scientific papers closely. If read more carefully, then several articles would have to be merged and created and many rewritten. I decide to erase the plagiarism from the articles where the information counts the least (leaving it on one or two) and add here and dialogue in the talk pages asking for discussion on this topic and providing details to these errors. Instead of dialogue my edits are reversed and I'm pushed away for not keeping sources and providing a bad explanation in the Edit Summary even though I gave many explanations in the talk page of those articles. I make an article for a small modern religion based on an ancient one, and I link it to the ancient's article and add an internet resource explaining its practice, and it gets deleted. Lo and behold, years later there's a new article up and running years and it's doing alright. However I find that the website I linked wasn't there, and when I search for it it turns out to have been taken down, implying that there's a possibility that those Wikieditors who shut my article down also harassed the maker of the website where I got my source from and shut them down as well. There's more as well.

I get the impression that I'm not allowed to make anything but unimportant articles that no one will see, and if I dare make an edit that's actually important to the article and to how the world responds to it based on the education they receive in the article I'm suddenly the bad guy. If I mess something up on my edit, instead of it being fixed it's reversed completely and I'm made out to be a bad person. How am I supposed to learn if people antagonize me for my mistakes and don't let me take a step up? How am I supposed to learn if people don't teach me where I made a mistake and how to revise it? What am I supposed to do about a website that claims "any editor can fix it" and it holds a "neutral viewpoint" but all the edits on an article anyone will care about are apparently so controversial that I'd need a community and friends to back me up, and I don't have that? Not to mention that while every now and then you get someone with a strong opinion about an article, but just needing a community to back me up against one or a few people implies that I need opinions to fight against opinions, and opinions aren't neutral. How am I supposed to be a Wikipedia editor who actually writes and fixes articles? (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for commenting here. You didn't link the articles you tried to contribute to above, so it's hard to know how to respond, especially since I don't see them in your contributions history. I left you a welcome message with some general links which I hope will help you, but if you could add some links below or just name the articles you contributed to or created, someone will be better able to help you. Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
If your statements are true, then those editors have violated a serious policy: WP:AGF. This requires editors to assume that editors actually mean good when they edit, even if it accidentally violated a guideline. That being said, if you have a link to the related articles and the website, it would be helpful. GeraldWL 08:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
You had me up until ... implying there's a possibility that those Wikieditors who shut my article down also harassed the maker of the website where I got my source from and shut them down as well.. That would be pretty surprising, and a heck of a leap to take under most circumstances. Again, without the details, this is just venting from an anonymous editor, and I don't think anyone can offer a reasonable solution to the issue. I urge you to log into your account and tell us what it's about so we can help. If this sounds familiar to anyone else, please chime in, too. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Photo upload[edit]

Adding photos to a existing Article

Hi guys. I am trying to upload this photo via an ipad. Secondly in terms of copyright. It’s my photo from my camera. Surely I can sign a dec on Wikipedia to testify to this? Nobody is making a profit from this so I hardly think the National Museum of Bulgaria where I took a photo of the bust, would be seeking royalties.

Does this help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have a rare photo I need to add to a Post. How do I do it his? The only edit options I have are Edit, replace or add link. GregSierocinski (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@GregSierocinski: Which version of Wikipedia are you trying from (Desktop Website, Mobile Website, or Wikipedia app)? In general, inserting images involves two steps: 1) upload the image to The english Wikipedia or to our central media project, WIkimedia Commons 2) Insert the image into the article. The image policy is a complex thing, so in order to help you with step 1) we need more information, mainly 1) Who created the image 2) What is on it (yust a few words) 3)If you are not the creator, is the creator still living, or when did he die? Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, GregSierocinski, and thank you for wanting to help improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately dealing with images isn't as simple as one might hope for two reasons, one technical, and one legal. The technical reason is that images are not uploaded into an article, but into a central store, from which they can be used in one or more articles. For most images, this is a sister project to Wikipedia, called Wikimedia Commons, though in some circumstances images get uploaded to Wikipedia itself. Either way, you can upload images using the Upload wizard. Once you have uploaded, it will show you what you have to add to an article to get it to display.
The second issue is often the tricky one: copyright. Wikipedia's goal is that all its contents be reusable by anybody for any purpose: when we add text we are always releasing it under a licence which allows this (as stated at the bottom of every edit page). With images, this can be tricky. If the image is in the public domain (either by reason of age, or because the copyright owner has explicitly released it to the PD, as the US government does for many images), there is no problem. If the image is uploaded by whoever holds the copyright (eg a photo they took themselves) then they can license it on the fly. But for many photographs - both on the internet, and in people's collections - it can be difficult to determine who owns the copyright, and then to get them to take the steps required to release them. But Commons will not accept images without a statement of how they meet the licensing requirement.
I'm guessing you have a photo of the bust of Lucius Licinius Sura. If it is a picture you took yourself, that makes part of the problem easier, as you can upload it as "own work". But with photos of artworks, they are regarded as "derivative" works, and the copyright lies with both the photographer and the owner of the rights to the original work. I'm guessing that the bust of Sura is in the public domain, by reason of age: but it might be, for example, that Romanian law gives the museum its own copyright in the items: it seems unlikely, but I don't know. I suggest asking at Commons:Commons:Licensing. If you do, explain the provenance of the photograph. --ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it plagiarism to copy-paste from The Encyclopædia Britannica?[edit]

I would think it is, but the text copied in Moses Amyraut appears to have been copied from a 1910 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. See this link: link

I searched for one phrase because it seemed odd, and discovered that the entire "Life" section of Moses Amyraut was simply copy-pasted from that encyclopedia entry. However, since the edition is 1910, does that mean copyright has expired? I am unfamiliar with the rules regarding this situation. Wes sideman (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wes sideman, see it's references section. There is an attribution stating that it incorporates text from Britannica's 11th edition, which is public domain (copyright expired). GeraldWL 13:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah thank you. I should have looked farther down the page. Wes sideman (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Wes sideman, Just to summarize, plagiarism and copyright violations are related but not identical concepts. It's plagiarism if it's unattributed, whether or not the copyright is still in force, but it was attributed in this case. It's a copyright violation if the copyright is still in force and not a license permitting use, even if attributed (with the exception that short passages properly identified as quotes are acceptable).--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha. I just didn't see the attribution, because it was at the bottom of the article, as opposed to the ends of sentences/paragraphs, like I'm used to. I didn't know you could attribute that way. Wes sideman (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


Header inserted by ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

How can i intergrate my made up website "Chatapedia" into an wikipedia article? Hell no please (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Hell no please. It depends what you mean by "integrate". If you want to reuse material from Wikipedia, you can reuse nearly all of it freely, as long as you follow the requirements in reusing Wikipedia material. And of course you can freely link to Wikipedia pages from your site. But if you want to go the other way, no. You may not link external sites unless this complies with EL; and, other than a non-promotional mention on your user page if you choose to, as something you do, there is nowhere in Wikipedia that you should talk about it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
ColinFine, They aren't looking to reuse material from Wikipedia, they want to write an article in Wikipedia about a website they created. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

except from the teahouse and chatapedia-talk?

Hell no please (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

All article edits you made have been reverted, and every attempt to create an article, Speedy deleted, including three attempts to make an article about your website, 'Chatapedia'. I strongly suggest you work through the Wikipedia tutorial exercises before returning to editing articles or attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked for ignoring Talk page warnings. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Sooo this is one of users who innocently disrupt the talk page, as seen in their responses to the warnings they received. They wrote in the talk that they've "not been helpful" in Wikipedia "EVER". I wrote that as long as you want to contribute and you want to learn from your mistakes, you can be helpful. Not to be sympathetic or something, but they're probably overwhelmed by the warnings, which don't particularly help, seemingly. GeraldWL 17:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. They did get early attempts at supportive and sympathetic messages – see their Talk page history and elsewhere – but, you could argue, they chose to ignore most of what they were being quite nicely told, and continue with their unfortunate trajectory. I really would like to retain potentially enthusiastic and useful editors but when someone is apparently not getting it as badly as this, I worry that we are fringing quite rapidly into CIR territory. And in that case, how much effort do we then need to make to retain? It's sad, but ... Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Editor in question has repeatedly deleted Warnings from own Talk page, the blocked notice, and also the denial of the unblock request. David notMD (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

They are still promoting their website even after the block. Notice the not-so-subtle advert for Chatapedia at the top of his/her talk page. Spiderone 14:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Imo Page[edit]

Don't understand the tag on Imo (app) page. Should I move my page to draft? Where can I read if there is a discussion regarding this page? Sonofstar (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sonofstar: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to add to it. That article has already been moved to Draft:Imo_(app). You can continue to work on it there. I suggest reading WP:YFA which will help you with the steps to make the draft ready for review. RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
You created article and moved it to mainspace. An editor deemed in unworthy and moved it to draft. You did some editing and again moved it to mainspace. Your own Edit comment:"Page is good to move." Then another editor moved it to draft. I strongly recommend you let the draft go through the AfC review process versus flipping it to mainspace again. David notMD (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
There’s already Imo (software). From memory, I think that was mentioned recently somewhere? Pelagicmessages ) – (09:53 Sun 17, AEDT) 22:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sonofstar: your draft contains more citations and useful information than the recently-created page Imo (software), so you should definitely collaborate on improving that one rather than making another with a similar title. It might be sensible later to create a re-direct from "Imo (app)" to "Imo (software)" but you should discuss that at the article's Talk page first. Once you have finished merging your information, you can ask for the draft to be deleted. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks to acknowledging it and share the process. I dropped a message on the talk page of the page creator of Imo Software user. Let me drop a message on the talk page of IMO app also and try to merge the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofstar (talkcontribs) 06:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Retired" template being posted to noticeboards?[edit]

Why/how do random people post

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

to the noticeboards? This happens semi-regularly, and I don't understand how they end up there. Sometimes they want to delete their account, but why do so many users independently arrive at the same bizarrely convoluted and ineffectual method for achieving that? JoelleJay (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally I take it as a kind of shouty "I QUIT!" The user you linked may have just misunderstood, however. One would think that anyone who knows enough to insert a template would be doing so intentionally? Pelagicmessages ) – (10:03 Sun 17, AEDT) 23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi JoelleJay. The {{Retired}} template is mainly for user pages. I don't think it for use on noticeboards; so, if an editor added it there, then they probably did so by mistake. Editors use the "Retired" template for a variety of reasons but most just want to let others know that they're no longer editing and thus no longer responding to anything posted on their user talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia. It's an optional template, but some feel it's better then just simply disappearing without a trace. Just for reference, accounts cannot be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I know how the template is supposed to be used for userpages, I'm just confused how there are dozens of users who are (seemingly) inexperienced/CIR enough* to try to post that template on a noticeboard, but also understand what a template is and can navigate to a noticeboard. I always assumed they were trolls, but it's also such a pointless and specific effort with so little disruption that it's hard to imagine why anyone would do that.
Just on AN since September, there was the above 2-week-old user, with 4 edits; this 1-day-old account with 3 edits; a 2-week-old with 8 edits; and this guy who made it over 2 years with 2 edits. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
If they click their username without having a user page then they get a page like User:SiraliAgg with the link user page in the first line. That page mentions {{Retired}} in Wikipedia:User pages#User pages and leaving Wikipedia. That could explain how they find the template. I don't know how they reach WP:AN. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Ooh PrimeHunter that makes so much sense for the template! JoelleJay (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
With respect to I'm just confused how there are dozens of users who are (seemingly) inexperienced/CIR enough* to try to post that template on a noticeboard, but also understand what a template is and can navigate to a noticeboard., welcome to Wikipedia where some people "chose to understand" only the things they like and "refuse to understand" pretty much everything else. There is after all no requirement to editing other than being to access the website. It's basically learn as you go along and some people only learn what interests them or what helps them accomplish their objectives. As for it's also such a pointless and specific effort with so little disruption that it's hard to imagine why anyone would do that., pretty much the same thing could be said about WP:VANDAL, WP:SOCK, WP:DE, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, WP:PRAM, WP:EW, WP:IDHT, etc. Some editors seem to need to feel they're WP:WINNING at all times and perhaps they feel that going out with a bang by announcing their departure is the best way to show everyone else who's really in control. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with JoelleJay – it's weird. I think it's more likely that there was some kind of external influence guiding them to post it on AN. There are social media and other sites that are inhabited by WP-haters/disruptors; you probably can find it if you want to search and wade through the drivel. I'd rather do most anything else. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Index How long does it take for a contribution to be indexed? Jimn8n8 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Jimn8n8, only articles in the mainspace are indexed in search engines, assuming this is what you are asking. It either takes 90 days or a new pages patroller to approve it, whichever comes first. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Jimn8n8 If you mean Wikipedia's own index of articles, I believe these are indexed within a few hours of creation.--Shantavira|feed me 12:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jimn8n8: What you have done is a common mistake – creating a new article on your user page, which is, instead, for telling other editors a little about yourself and your editing interests on Wikipedia. Pospective articles should either be created in your User:Jimn8n8/sandbox or in the "Draft" namespace. Based on it's current state, it looks like you have some work to do still, so I'd suggest just cut/pasting it from User:Jimn8n8 to User:Jimn8n8/sandbox. Then, have a look at WP:YFA and WP:AFC. When you're ready, insert {{subst:submit}} at the top of it and it will be reviewed by the AFC volunteer reviewers. Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

How to ping someone in a comment[edit]

I want to ping someone on a comment on a talk page but I'm not sure how tips? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Gandalf the Groovy: If you add some text that includes a link to their userpage and is properly signed, they will be pinged. One easy way to do this is to start your comment with {{Reply to|their username}}. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gandalf the Groovy. You can find out more about this in WP:PING. One thing about pinging is that some people don't like to be pinged; so, they've set their user preferences not to receive any such notifications. Many editors will watch discussions they're interested in for new comments being posted so sometimes a ping isn't necessary. It's OK to ping someone, but try not to overdo it if they don't respond right away. One ping is usually enough; if the editor doesn't respond, then it might be because they don't want to respond. If it's something really important, sometimes follow up a ping with polite post on the other editor's user talk page is more than enough of a notification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing the "See Also" area[edit]

FYI – Splitting into own section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I am adding some "See Also" references to an article. When I try to see the preview, the See Also code appears as markup code rather than as it would appear when reading the page. If I click "Read", I think it would discard the changes. How can I preview my changes to the See Also area? Phoenix-anna (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Phoenix-anna, are you clicking Preview or Show changes? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The above sounds likely. I can only think of one other possibility. I have occasionally seen users copy the code from some page that was providing example markup, but instead of copying the example in read mode, copied it after clicking edit, and then attempted to use code that had nowiki tags around it, .e.g., <nowiki>Markup</nowki> (or <pre> tags or others). Is that a possibility here Phoenix-anna? If so, remove the nowiki tags (or similar) which are used to cause markup not to display.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
@Phoenix-anna: Many errors can cause it. A see also section previews in the same way as everything else. If you link the page and post your code here or somewhere else then we can see what is wrong. You can also save it in the page and revert yourself if the result is bad. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)[edit]

Something is wrong with Template:Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) and I can't figure out how to fix it. Can someone please help? Thank you, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Charlie Smith FDTB. Can you explain what problem you see or are encountering with its use? The template is displaying fine as far as I can tell.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Charlie Smith FDTB: I guess you refer to unwanted whitespace at "Organizations", "Communities" and "Books and publications" in [1]. Some of the parameters had non-breaking spaces which are not stripped. I have removed them.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Every so often, I've wasted time hunting down problems that end up being due to embedded nbsps and other unusual characters that I can't see a legit reason to be in wikitext. Has it been considered to have an edit filter to prevent these (or at least warn, if there is an occasional legitimate reason for them)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@AlanM1: There was a proposal to tag at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 11#Copying and pasting with WP:VE adding hundreds of hidden non-breaking spaces. It was in response to a specific VisualEditor issue which was fixed. MOS:NBSP says: "Insert non-breaking and thin spaces symbolically ({{nbsp}}, {{thinsp}}, &nbsp; or &thinsp;), never by entering them directly into the edit window from the keyboard". I don't know any legitimate uses. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing comments that show up twice[edit]

I was hoping to remove comments from a discussion I started since the same comments are on two different talk pages. Is that possible to do? Thank you! (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP See WP:REDACT for more, but generally you may remove or edit comments you make on a talk page as long as nobody has responded to them yet or as long as too much time has past since you made the post. So, if you posted the same thing on two talk pages and nobody has responded to you yet, then you probably can remove one of the posts; if someone has responded, then you probably should just let that person know that the same discussion is taking place on another talk page and politely ask them to continue it there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe ... not too much time has past ... was the intent above. I.e., you shouldn't delete something that others may have already read (and might be reacting/responding to). Use the techniques at WP:REDACT instead. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"established practice in the motorsport articles" ?[edit]

Hi, so I edited to include both practice and qualifying session dates within the tables of the article but had the changes reverted due to "established practice in the motorsport articles". I am a little confused as knowing this information would be beneficial if you are looking up the article in the first place so why is it not allowed? Pshankland (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pshankland: The editor might be referring to consensus that was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the best place to ask your question is the article's talk page: Talk:2019 Formula 2 Championship. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January copy-edit drive[edit]

How do I get my copy-edited article checked for quality? I read the instructions but it was confusing. I want to be able to remove it from the list of articles to be copy-edited. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Which article would that be?--Shantavira|feed me 15:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Note related discussion at user's talk page. I believe "list" above refers to the fact that List of Cayman Islands hurricanes remained in cleanup categories following copyedit, b/c it had {{copyedit}} still on display (the only other possibility I could think of was if it was on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, but it wasn't). This in turn resulted from a bit of a saga: Article was copyedited, including removal of that template; the copyedit was reverted; OP attempted to revert that revert, but didn't revert to actual last copyedited revision, which revision contained the template – so the cleanup categories were "back". @Gandalf the Groovy: Am I correct that it was the cleanup categories' persistence that was the issue? (If so, I assume the issue is clarified now). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Jonny Giger[edit]


I can't find good references for Draft: Jonny Giger. Can someone suggest something?--SkateboardingWiki (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC) SkateboardingWiki (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, SkateboardingWiki. I note that the draft article has now been rejected (not just declined) by another reviewer. This means that, in their opinion, no amount of work will turn the draft into an acceptable article here and you are wasting your time trying. The lack of references showing WP:NOTABILITY to Wikipedia standards is the problem. If you, as a skateboarding enthusiast, can't find such references, it is unlikely that anyone else will. I suggest you move on and contribute to other articles that interest you. Adding material to existing articles is a lot easier than trying to draft new ones. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ballet Ireland[edit]

Rejected - Draft:Ballet Ireland First, thanks to user:Padavalamkuttanpilla for the quick review. I am surprised that the references were deemed as not significant coverage. I can include more references if necessary. I imagined that the National Ballet company of a sovereign country would be worthy of a Wiki entry but am open to correction and can delete if references are not sufficient. Any help with the specific of why the references are deemed insignificant would be appreciated. Thanks all! Midnight713 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Midnight713 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Midnight713. I note that your draft was not "rejected" (which has a specific meaning here — essentially that no amount of further work is likely to get it accepted) but "declined": which means it may well be accepted if improved, in this case with further reliable, secondary sources such as the ones you already included from The Irish Times. Find and include a few more of these and the article should be able to pass the threshold for acceptance. Good luck. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
To add to that, sponsored sources like this one fail the independent part, since there are payments involved and nobody can tell for sure how big the influences truely were. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting Victor, thank you. I did not see that 'sponsored' item until you pointed it out! Midnight713 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

About Copyrights[edit]

Hello, I'm here to ask a question about the tags added to the page Ichgam by Cordless Larry (talk · contribs). I don't think this page violates copyright. And as per me there should be no strikes on it. I request the administrator to take this into the consideration and talk back. I don't want that page to get deleted. If this happens, this will be very disappointing to me and I can't love to edit on Wikipedia anymore. Moreover, that page is wholly written by me. All the data is fair and correct supported by citations. Please protect this pageKamilalibhat (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kamilalibhat: Nobody said that Ichgam violated any copyrights. Cordless Larry added two tags to the article, {{more citations needed}} and {{original research}}, neither of which has anything to do with copyright. That being said, I find it unlikely that the article is going to be protected, because we don't protect articles to enforce a particular revision. I do notice however that Draft:Government Boys Higher Secondary School Ichgam was tagged for speedy deletion due to copyright violations. Draft:Government Boys Higher Secondary School Ichgam is very close to three different URLs on the domain, all of which appear to be copyrighted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I did identify copyright violations from two sources in the subsections of Ichgam#Schools in Ichgam, Victor Schmidt. Kamilalibhat, you may have cited the sources of this material, but that doesn't give you the right to copy it word-for-word. Please see Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for an explanation. These sections will be deleted, but not the whole article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Thanks for informing. I am sorry for the mistake. I really apologize. But what about Ichgam#Schools in Ichgam#IPS Ichgam.I don't think that is copy pasted. This website is the only source from which I could get info about IPS Ichgam. It is their official website. And I didn't copied, I wrote in my own words in that section of IPS Ichgam. I don't know how you believe that info was copied word-for-word, but really it was not done for the section IPS Ichgam. As I already said I apologize for copying the section GBHSS Ichgam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamilalibhat (talkcontribs) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Parts of that section are also copied, Kamilalibhat - see the report here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Formatting my first entry![edit]

Hi, I did my first edit today and I think I managed ok except that I struggled with the formatting of my reference to The Guardian newspaper. I could not make it neatly align with the other entries which was annoying. Any advice on this or anything else I didn't quite get right?

It was the entry for former Wales rugby player Alix Poonam.

Thanks 👍

Joel 2A02:C7F:602C:3200:653B:C37:AC3:62D1 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello - looking through your contributions, this post on the Teahouse is your only contribution to Wikipedia; furthermore, there isn't actually an article entitled Alix Poonam on English Wikipedia. Did you edit one of our sister projects in a different language? If so - we don't actually have jurisdiction over those; they're their own projects, with their own citation rules and policies. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec) The global contributions listing does not show any edits from this IP-address in other languages Wikipedias, either, and Google search doesn't find an 'Alix Poonam' article in the whole '' domain. --CiaPan (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi JoelV1973. Please note that you edited while logged out above, so the only way to find the edits your post regards was to search for an article by the name you mentioned, which is not Alix Poonam, but Alix Popham. I started helping out but eventually removed everything you wrote from the article. If any return of that content is in order, you can view the diffs from the page history for each edit I made. Here's the details:
  • First I fixed the citation issue by taking the content you posted below the reference markup, and moving it next to the content you wrote in the body, using <ref> ... </ref> tags, so that it would format as a footnoted citation. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners (and I suggest more globally, that you take a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial).
  • I also changed it to use a citation template ({{Cite news}}), so it would format consistently, and added the newspaper article's authors' names and fixed its date (14, not 15th). I also removed a separate raw embedded link that you added within the text.
  • I then started looking at that source to check what you wrote against its content, to verify the details (also to remove a certain promotional tone in the language you used, e.g., "launched"; "pioneering", etc.). The first problem I noted was that you said it was launched on a particular date, when the Guardian says no such thing.
  • But then I read more carefully, and discovered that this charity, that you say was launched by Popham, was not. Rather the article notes that his wife is one of its trustees, and he is apparently mentioned in the article because he is the type of player that the charity aims to help with neuro-degenerative issues resulting from brain injuries suffered during sports careers. So, as I noted in my removal edit summary, the source does not verify that Head for Change was established by Popham – and even if he is one of its founders, which would have to be verified with a different source, saying he launched it has quite incorrect connotations. It's great that you are donating your time to help out, but I feel compelled to say, please be careful when adding content to articles that the information is truly verified by the source cited. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@JoelV1973: Damn. More importantly than any of the above, some of the content you added was a direct copy-and-paste copyright violation and plagiarism of content from the charity's non-free, copyrighted website. Please don't ever do that again. I will leave a detailed message about this at your talk page--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


Dear sir, Why are some pages not allowed to be edited? Toph bai fong (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Toph bai fong, and welcome to the Teahouse! Some pages on Wikipedia are protected because they receive large amounts of vandalism or to stop edit wars, however the majority aren't. You'll find that as you edit more in Wikipedia, you'll gain the ability to edit these pages. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello - some articles are protected because they're prone to vandalism, especially if the article covers a topic that is currently ongoing, or covers a popular person or subject.
Because of this, we tend to see an increase in the number of newly-created accounts, relatively new accounts, or IP address editors, who haven't made accounts, that can create problems through their edits. These edits might be the inclusion of content that shouldn't be on the article - if, on the article's Talk page, it's already been decided that X should be included, but that Y should be removed, then an editor looking to create a problem might repeatedly add Y back into the article. These accounts may also edit the article to add content that breaks Wikipedia' copyright rules, or may just deface the article entirely through the addition of offensive content, jibberish or the removal of all of its text.
To prevent this, some pages receive a certain level of protection. This may be temporary, or it may be for an extended period of time. This protection might prevent only IP address editors from editing; it might prevent IP address editors, and editors who haven't made over 500 edits over a period of 30 days from editing. These are the most common types of article protection, but there are a number of other levels of protection that are higher than this.
An article being protected doesn't prevent vandalism from happening. But it does slow it down significantly, and if an article has been defaced to a large degree, it can ensure that editors can get back to work fixing it, without having to deal with a barrage of vandals constantly undoing their hard work.
It isn't always new accounts or IP address editors who create problems, either; sometimes Wikipedia editors who have been here for years create these problems. I hope this answers your question. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.[edit]

Is marketing Wikipedia as a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" false advertising?

What are considered reliable sources and is there any reflection done at Wikipedia to see if there is bias or implicit bias that is being codified by the perception of those selected to review and accept articles or edits?

NmuoMmiri (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC) NmuoMmiri NmuoMmiri (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@NmuoMmiri: Everyone can edit Wikipedia, but there are guidelines that editors must follow - see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. One of those is the use reliable sources - see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anyone can share their opinion about bias in a particular article by posting on the article's talk page - see Help:Talk pages. GoingBatty (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thank you for the response. I am new to Wikipedia so I beg your patience with any doubts that I have about the editorial process. I have read the article on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The confusion that I have is when bias is mentioned in the article, it does not clarify bias in the articles that Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. The question I have is whether Wikipedia considers all articles that it classifies as reliable sources to be free from bias, overt and implicit? If so, then the reason for my first question was to verify if anyone can edit Wikipedia? Is the purpose of Wikipedia to market the media sources that it considers to be reliable or can anyone edit Wikipedia articles for objective review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NmuoMmiri (talkcontribs) 19:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@NmuoMmiri: Editors recognize that some sources can be biased. The suitability of sources is discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, with a list published at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. GoingBatty (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@NmuoMmiri: You may be referring to the references in your Draft:Providence Office Products. While the references you provided may contain correct information, they do not demonstrate how this company meets Wikipedia's standard for inclusion, called "notability". I suggest you also review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Thank you for your reply. I have been reviewing the list of reliable and perennial sources. I am not arguing that perhaps the consensus is that The New York Times, Time Magazine, and Newsweek are considered reliable sources while The New York Post and Daily Mail are considered unreliable. It could be a matter of opinion or a matter of legacy. And while Google Maps is considered reliable while Bing Maps is considered unreliable, could leave some to wonder, there may have been a consensus in this decision as well. I am not arguing with consensus, but consensus by whom? Is this consensus by viewers of Wikipedia or by a selection of editors? Among the editors, is there any protocols in place to prevent implicit bias? I ask because Wikipedia has quite a reach and although I am new to editing a Wikipedia article, I am familiar with the influence that it has on the Internet. I have reviewed the topic of notability. After reading, the first impression is to equate "notability" with "fame" or "infamy". And while infamy can lead to calamity, or calamity can lead to infamy, I ask whether Wikipedia allows references from sources that are not available on the Internet?

These are topics that may just be developing because of the recent discussion around media, the Internet, and censorship. Through the development of social media, it is an opinion that traditional media organizations holds and rejects certain views. Social media is considered platforms where people are able to express themselves freely. However, because of the dangers surrounding free speech, there has recently been an effort to provide some censorship in social media platforms. Many traditional media platforms have already had some type of censorship through the editorial process. The editorial process of Wikipedia is what I now have the opportunity to explore. I would like to learn if the editorial process for Wikipedia is more like a social media company or like a traditional media company. I assume it would be difficult to get a clear answer on that subject, but that was the theme of my original inquiry.

If there is any information or threads about how Wikipedia plans to address any concerns regarding both traditional and social media, they would be greatly appreciated. I understand the difficulty in assessment as these are growing technologies. I remember reading the New York Times as a youth, and the experience of reading it online is quite different than that I remember of perusing the actual pages. The front page of the online version has many opinion articles today. That is also true of the online versions of Time and Newsweek. That is quite a remarkable difference from decades ago. Are the qualifications for reliable sources given to a whole organization or just the part of the newspaper that are actual articles?

Thank you for providing guidance on editing the draft of Providence Office Products. Providence Office Products provided a great role for the community in offering products during the pandemic. It is an e-commerce business, that is not just a local store, but able to deliver products anywhere. Thank you again for your time in assisting me navigate this learning experience. NmuoMmiri

What is your connection to Providence Office Products? David notMD (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I am a customer of Providence Office Products, I have purchased products from Providence Office Products. During the pandemic, many small businesses in Texas went out of business. I am on the other side of Texas than Providence Office Products, hours away, but I was able to order products from them online and they delivered. This was notable, because early on in the pandemic, many products were difficult to find. Providence Office Products had local media coverage in their area for all the services that they were providing. Face masks, hygiene products, digital marketing materials, logo design, custom embroidery, t-shirts with logos, even coffee mugs. Anything you would need to keep a small business going, they could deliver, anywhere. Not just in Texas, anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NmuoMmiri (talkcontribs) 13:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Why are you concerned with my connection to Providence Office Products and not addressing any of my concerns about the editorial process at Wikipedia? I have read talk pages where people have had their pages about their best friends approved. What are the protocols if any to prevent overt or implicit bias among the editors at Wikipedia?

comment added by NmuoMmiri (talkcontribs)

NmuoMmiri, your last substantive comment is very long and I'm not going to engage with all your points, but just to pick up on a few:
  • Consensus is achieved through discussion by editors who have any interest. We can't compel people to participate in discussions, though important ones are widely publicised.
  • I'm not sure where you've read that Google Maps is considered reliable but Bing Maps unreliable, but I can't imagine many instances in which a map would be a useful source for article content.
  • You ask if the editorial process for Wikipedia is more like a social media company or like a traditional media company. I'd say neither. It's an encyclopedia, which is different to a social media site or something like a newspaper. Nether social media or traditional media content is determined by consensus.
  • In answer to "Are the qualifications for reliable sources given to a whole organization or just the part of the newspaper that are actual articles", yes, we often differentiate between news and opinion pieces from the same publication (either in terms of their reliability or whether they need to be treated as opinions rather than fact). See the various entries for Fox News at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for an example.
I hope that answers some of your queries. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Cordless Larry Thank you for the response and clarification. Yes, these explanations are very helpful. I have a better idea now of consensus. I am making the assumption that for reviews, there is not a consensus but a decision being made by individual editors. As I am not familiar with the editorial process, I still am unaware of any protocol to prevent bias by an individual editor or the consensus of a group of editors.

As for the examples of reliable sources, I was just referring to the list of reliable and perennial sources. I understand that this topic is beyond Wikipedia, so I am not expecting a response on the reliability of sources. I am just raising the point that that traditional and emerging media sources are also subject to opinions and bias. If Wikipedia is more like an encyclopedia than social media then it is subject to review of the bias or opinions of some of the sources in the perennial sources list.

Thank you for providing the classification of Wikipedia as more of an encyclopedia than a social media platform. I am currently looking at the page of Emuzed. I am providing this as an example of a company page that appears in Wikipedia for the sole purpose of comparison and not from any knowledge of the company what so ever. I am using this example just to find out more about how the review decision is made for these entries.

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. You have answered many of my questions. In fact, you have answered all but one of my questions. The only question that I have remaining are what, if any, are the protocols in place to reduce implicit bias at Wikipedia?

comment added by NmuoMmiri (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure that anything can be completely free of bias, NmuoMmiri, but please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I also meant to link to Wikipedia:Consensus above, for an explanation of how consensus is reached. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Cordless Larry That is helpful information. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view briefly discusses editorial bias but it could go into more detail about editorial bias if it provided an example of how editorial bias can occur. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is quite a fascinating article. Thank you for providing it. A good research project may be to see how often selection bias occurs if that information was available.

comment added by NmuoMmiri (talkcontribs)

I asked about your connection to Providence Office Products because WP:PAID or WP:COI may apply if you are being paid to create an article or have a personal connection to the topic at hand. Wikipedia asks that if either apply, that information be on your User page. Ditto for the other article for which you have created drafts. David notMD (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you for the advice. I am new to Wiki editing so I am not familiar with all the regulations. I wish I was being paid to edit wiki pages, but I am honestly not. I have created drafts on articles that I believe should be added. I am not an expert of office supply stores but I wanted to highlight a company that perservered and assisted people through the pandemic. A lot of companies were price gouging and crushing small businesses throughout the pandemic. Many small businesses went out of business. In Texas, a large percentage of the workforce rely on small businesses. If a small business is providing assistance in difficult times, is it notable?

I will be more careful about the topics that I propose at Wikipedia. But there are many topics that are just missing entirely. I read another comment that you made earlier about not letting existing pages be the standard for new pages. I think that helped in finding out why there appears to be double standards set accross many genres or topics that appear. I would still like to know more about the possibility of protocols at Wikipedia to impede double standards, systemic editorial bias, systemwide selection bias, or implicit bias at Wikipedia. :Cordless Larry provided some assistance but I do not think that the resources provided addressed all the concerns. Thank you for the guidance on paid editors and conflicts of interest. That was helpful. comment added by NmuoMmiri (talkcontribs)

David notMD My connection to Providence Office Products is that I am a Customer of Interest. I am a happy customer of Providence Office Products because it was very difficult to purchase office supplies during the pandemic. In the United States, the major office supply chains are in takeover talks and the few office supply stores that remain are notable. I am a customer of Providence Office Products just like I am a customer of Wikipedia. I do not remember companies in my Encyclopedia Britannica. Now it appears there are more companies in Wikipedia than anything else. There should be protocols to prevent the commercialization of Wikipedia, protocols that prevent selection bias or implicit bias at Wikipedia. NmuoMmiri (talkcontribs)

List of all Compounds[edit]

I was looking at all the isotopes of elements and was wondering, if possible, if we could do all the chemical compounds of every element in the world. Could we? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Blacephalon: Glossary of chemical formulae and List of inorganic compounds list the most common, but the first link also states why a complete list would not be possible. Orvilletalk 19:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Then why don't we expand on the lists we do have because I se no superheavy element compounds on there. UB Blacephalon (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Blacephalon: Go for it! You can also discuss the contents of the list article at Talk:Glossary_of_chemical_formulae, and find a community of editors working on improving chemistry-related articles at the Chemistry WikiProject. Orvilletalk 20:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I have but no one is talking to me...UB Blacephalon (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi again @Blacephalon: it may take days (on some articles a week or more) to get a response on a particular article's talk page. You may get a quicker response by starting a new discussion on the Chemistry WikiProject Talk Page. Happy editing! Orvilletalk 02:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Blacephalon: Sounds familiar. Haven't you brought this up previously? Perhaps nobody has anything new to say. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think I have before, not that anyone has done anything about it though that I know of. I do have some compounds that are in articles that are not in the list. Even still, its a bit confusing on if a compound has been made or not since the article is vague about it, ya know? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Hi, I have a question about the correct use of copyright for the publication of an image on wikipedia. I contacted the photographer who took the image and asked that I could use the image, of course I said I would use the correct copyright, giving the jokes to the photographer and providing the exact source where I took the image. He accepted via e-mail. Which copyright should I use? CC 2.0? or CC 4.0? Thanks a lot TommasoRmndn (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC) TommasoRmndn (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

TommasoRmndn, whatsoever the photographer released it under, and then the copyright issues will be handled by otrs volunteers. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
TheAafi, sorry but i don't undestand. I wanna upload the file on wikipedia commons, what copyright i have to select? where i can say that the photographer gave me the permission? he only say that i can use, not what copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommasoRmndn (talkcontribs) 21:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@TommasoRmndn: Unfortunately, the only person that can answer your question is the photographer. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) GoingBatty (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
GoingBatty The photographer not say what copyright i have to use, but he only say to gave the appropriate credit to the photographer and the source where the photo was pubblished the first time. I think the correct copyright is CC 4.0: you can use the image but you have to gave the appropriate credit. TommasoRmndn (talk)
TommasoRmndn, CC-BY SA 4.0 and similar things are free licenses, they are not copyrights. Only the copyright holder (the photographer) can license the image. Legally, you cannot do that for them. The photographer can upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, or follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Everything must be correct legally, or the image will be deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


hi I just wanted to ask what age are you supposed to be to make a Wikipedia account Alisha rains (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Alisha rains. There is no minimum age. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors may be relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ohh I thought I was too young to be on Wikipedia so am I allowed to ask anybody anythingAlisha rains (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

New Articles[edit]

Is there any means of fast-tracking approval for a new article e.g. for a black swan event such as Covid-19? ProfParochus (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProfParochus: Yes, autoconfirmed users of Wikipedia have the ability to create a new article directly in mainspace. However, the user runs the risk of having the article deleted if it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. GoingBatty (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
ProfParochus Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no "fast track" for drafts to be reviewed, as reviews are done by volunteers in no particular order, who do what they can when they can. Since you are autoconfirmed, you can directly create articles, but you should be extremely confident it would survive a deletion discussion. If you want other eyes on it before it is placed in the encyclopedia, you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I am blocked[edit]

Hello, Wikipedia keeps telling me that I am blocked whenever I want to edit but sometimes when I want to edit, I am unblocked again, it keeps coming and going. What could be the problem? Josedimaria237 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: It could be that you're trying to edit without logging in, and that your shared IP address was blocked because of bad actions taken by another user. Providing an exact example might be helpful. I suggest you always log in before editing. GoingBatty (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Your account has never been blocked but occasionally an account may be affected by an IP block. Please see Wikipedia:IP block exemption for more information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
GoingBatty, editing on app can be a pain the ass. When you do activities in desktop, your account is auto-logged out on app. Have contacted the developers but received no responses. GeraldWL 07:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sharing copyrighted content from my website[edit]


I have created a vaccine tracker website at to which I have copyrighted my content, but I believe the content I have added there will be very beneficial to use and contribute to some of the Wikipedia articles. I have recently posted some screenshots from my website but were turned down by the contributors of that page insisting that they are copyrighted (but me as the copyright holder, I give permission to myself to share the images on the articles). When I explained that to the contributors, they mentioned to me that I was conflicting interest. I am still not understanding why sharing the screenshots is classified as conflict of interest.

What can I do so I'm allowed to share my screenshots and what do I have to change from my license for this to be able to happen?

Please, let me know.

~George Georgek98 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You have received advice, both on donating copyrighted material and on conflict of interest. Advice on both topics is on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Georgek98. If your site says its content is copyright, then screenshots of it cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons under a free for commercial use licence. Clearly, you have it within your power to modify your website so as to release material that you have created so that it is available under a CC-BY-SA Creative Commons licence. You can't have it both ways. If you think it's beneficial and want to use it here, then you will need to release it properly. But be aware that if you have created content using materials derived from other copyrighted sources (map boundary outlines, being one potential pitfall, or copyrighted data being another) you might not necessarily even have the right to give it away. But, ignoring that for a moment, you have already been given a link on your userpage to how to donate copyrighted content. Simply saying in an edit summary on Wikipedia that you release it for reuse is wholly insufficient. Whilst you know who you say you are, the rest of us have no idea, and so we have ways to confirm the veracity of people's right to donate material, as explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. I'm grateful for your interest in wanting to share content, but we have procedures in place to ensure that people's rights are not infringed, and sometimes this means having to jump through a few extra hoops to protect everyone's interests, including the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation and its many projects for making all its content freely available for reuse by anyone, even commercially. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Would like help in editing my draft CallRail @Theroadislong[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:CallRail

I'm pretty new to this, so please excuse me if I'm writing this note in the wrong place. My recent article submission, CallRail, was declined by Theroadislong. I would like your help in understanding how I can improve this submission. When creating the article, I used an existing Wikipedia page as my guide. I studied their sources and how they framed up the topic with the hope that my post would not get flagged. Can you help me further understand and point me in the right direction? I can strip the copy down to sound more neutral but would like some guidance in terms of source finding, etc.

Thanks, AzumSauce07 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, AzumSauce07. The quality of the references is all-important when writing a Wikipedia article. What is required are multiple reliable sources that are completely independent of the topic (the company in this case), and these sources must devote significant coverage to the topic. What I see are directory listings, funding announcements, promotional websites and coverage obviously generated by company press releases. It is the quality of sources that matters, not the quantity. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Reviewers take those standards seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
AzumSauce07, I see that you have declared that you are a paid editor. I also see that you have a total of eight edits to date. I am curious why you think that you are qualified to write an acceptable article about a corporation with so little experience? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Not all existing articles deserve to exist. Thus, modeling on an existing article is no guarantee for success. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
(Ed) Indeed. For structure, tone, standard headings, categories, navboxes, etc. existing articles are a great guide. But the primary hurdle of notability is a separate thing.
Having said that, on a quick glance at the article, some parts (like the lead) read as objective descriptions, but others less so. For example Conversation Intelligence was launched around the same time as Form Tracking. It works by automatically recording calls and using artificial intelligence (AI) to transcribe and analyze phone calls.. That may be true, but does it primarily tell the reader what it is? Or only indirectly? I would write something like "Conversation Intelligence" is a feature/module/whatever that records calls and uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to transcribe and analyze phone calls. It was launched in year.[ref] And even then, is listing products and services the best way to describe what CallRail is? Our aim isn’t to sell CallRail to prospective customers.
Stylistic matters aside, the real question is "is CallRail significant enough to deserve an encyclopedia article?" Or are you just trying to improve the way you show up in Google, Alexa, and so on? There is a fundamental tension here: G, A, etc. use Wikipedia because our contents are supposedly vetted and kinda "reliable".[citation needed] If we were an indiscriminate listing of self-described company promos then we would be of no value to them. They could just pull their info cards straight from the official company websites. Or you could pay Google to get an ad listing at the top of the SERP.
Sorry for the rant. When it comes to sources, I would normally respect Forbes, but "5 Website Tools To Boost Your Marketing Campaigns" doesn’t sound like critical journalistic output. SearchEngineLand I would think is well-regarded. A local newspaper's local business awards might count for something but how important is that in the global scheme of things? Atlanta's not exactly a small town, but would a reader in Stuttgart or Mumbai care to whom AJC awarded a great workplace award?
Pelagicmessages ) – (01:09 Tue 19, AEDT) 14:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
It’s a Forbes "contributor" piece so useless in terms of reliability. SK2242 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
A more accurate link is WP:FORBESCON.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Weston Woods[edit]

I have info about Weston Woods. Can we add the 1986-90 Weston Woods Presents variant of the 1953 logo? CoolBoy789 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If the information is published, you should make a suggestion at Talk:Weston Woods Studios. (If it isn't published, it's unusable.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

January copy-edit drive[edit]

How do I make sure that the Article I edited get's removed from the list of articles needing copy-editing? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: See the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives. It looks like you just need to remove the copy-edit tag. RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gandalf the Groovy: Questions about the copy-edit drive should go here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Backlog_elimination_drives/January_2021 RudolfRed (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Bata do not have eyes (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Bata the shoe company? If so, yes they don't have eyes. Although the workers do... if they even do. GeraldWL 07:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
If you have a question or a suggestion, go ahead and express it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
If this is about the fish described in Labeo bata, the picture in that article would seem to disagree with you. If you have a reliable published source that says something about their eyes, please open a discussion at the talk page Talk:Labeo bata. --ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Or did you mean bats, as the 's' is close to the 'a' on the keyboard? David notMD (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I link a term to Wikidictionary?[edit]

The term aperçus is used in an article. Can I link the term to the Wikidictionary entry? If so, what is the proper syntax for that? TIA UClaudius (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @UClaudius: You can use [[wikt:aperçu]] or [[wiktionary:aperçu]], to link to it. Orvilletalk 02:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Still trying to link to a definition[edit]

FYI – Merged from below. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I had asked how to link a word to its definition and was told for the word aperçu I could use "wikt:aperçu or wiktionary:aperçu". Apparently, I am doing it wrong, because instead of just the linked word, the result is: wikt:aperçu or wiktionary:aperçu. What am I doing wrong? UClaudius (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

UClaudius, you didn't pipe it. Adding a | after the text in the brackets should do what you want it to do. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@UClaudius: If you want the blue link word to show as aperçu, you would type [[wikt:aperçu|]] Orvilletalk 07:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC).
Orville, If you want to link directly to the English section of the Wiktionary page, you can use the template {{wt}}. So {{wt|en|aperçu}} displays as aperçu, and links to the English part of that page. {{wt|fr|aperçu}} similarly links to the French section. --ColinFine (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

HTTPS vs HTTP?[edit]


In general, if a web server is doing a 301 Redirect ( to the HTTPS version of the url, should wikipedia list the HTTP or HTTPS url? Gavreh (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Gavreh: I'm not sure I fully understand your question. If you're referring to the internal blue Wikilinks, they are formatted like this: [[Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikilink|Wikilinks]], [[Porlock]], or [[WP:TEA]]. Since they don't contain the full URL, they are not HTTP or HTTPS specfic. Orvilletalk 02:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
If you are referring to links to external websites, WP:EL says that http links are preferred. RudolfRed (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavreh (talkcontribs) 03:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
No it does not. There is no preference for external links. It does say for Wikipedia articles, http is prefered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links#Specifying protocols says: "preferring http:, where available". The section mentions internal links but applies to all external-style links. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The section is definitely talking solely about inbound external links to Wikimedia. We should rewrite or expand it to clearly state that HTTPS is preferable in all cases of external linking, no matter the target. Zindor (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I can’t point to a guideline, but I would expect if you’re adding a new link then you should use the canonical target (after any 30x and stripping unnecessary params). Plus I thought there was a bot that updates http -> http links in the situation that you describe? Pelagicmessages ) – (23:38 Mon 18, AEDT) 12:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I already pointed to the guideline: Wikipedia:External links#Specifying protocols. It might be formulated better but it applies to all external links. http is preferred, even when both work without redirecting. If http redirects to http then there is absolutely no reason to link http. We have bots that update links to some sites which are known to work with http. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I was attempting to generalise to 301 redirects beyond the http→http case, but was a bit off-topic. Pelagicmessages ) – (06:36 Tue 19, AEDT) 19:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I have clarified the guideline.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a template for a List of Pages I've edited (w/stats)[edit]

I'd like a query for a list of articles, similar to the query for the list of contributions available with this: Special:Contributions/Jaredscribe.

Ideally, it should have four columns: name of article; number of edits made by this user; Total bytes added by this user; Bytes removed by this user. Does something like this already exist?Jaredscribe (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Jaredscribe (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Jaredscribe, we have something called XTools, which contains data on users that are publicly viewable. The first two queries you mentioned can be found on your XTools page here. The second two are only available on the XTools page of a certain article, which can be found by typing the article name in here. I'm not sure if what you asked for exists, but this is probably the next best thing. Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 08:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Can you suggest an article for deletion? If so, how? AlphonseOop (talk) 07:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but instead you normally think hard about the article, its subject, and the likelihood of creating a good (policies/guidelines-compliant) article about the subject; and if after doing this you conclude that the matter is hopeless, you go ahead and nominate it for deletion yourself. Here's how. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


i need a guider to get started with my account 42unkown (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

42unkown, what do you need help with? If you would like a guide to editing, The Wikipedia Adventure is a great place to start. Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 09:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Help with deleting content[edit]

Hi, I’m a new editor. I recently added an info box for the page Irish Music Rights Organisation. I put the logo that was already on the page into the infobox but did not want to make any destructive edits so I did not remove the logo that was already there. I hope this is not bad practice but in any event would somebody mind removing the logo(or inform me if I have done something untoward) Many thanks Midnight713 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Midnight713 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Midnight713, welcome to Wikipedia! What you've done is perfectly fine, so I've removed the duplicate. Thanks, Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 09:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Giraffer!

Midnight713 (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

echo off[edit]

@echo off — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@filterbubble off && echo chamber on; Pelagicmessages ) – (23:30 Mon 18, AEDT) 12:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@echo chamber on off on off on off on off on off on off. GeraldWL 14:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Title issue[edit]

FYI – Heading added by Berrely

Hello, I made a mistake and created the page Stefan Weintraub under a previous title and now I can't link to to the German original. Can someone please help ? Thanks in advance. LouisAlain (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC) LouisAlain (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

LouisAlain, are you trying to revert your move? — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 12:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@LouisAlain: I looked at your edits and see you added it to the Wikidata item Eric Borchard (Q1351136). I have removed it at Wikidata.[4] It can now be linked to another German article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help; the German original indeed links to the english version but I still can't link the english Stefan Weintraub to its German source. LouisAlain (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've added the English Wikipedia article to Wikidata. Hope that fix it. Grimes2 (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


πώς μπορώ να γίνω μέλος της wikipedia? (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Translation via Google Translate:
how can i become a member of wikipedia?
— Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 13:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
To join Wikipedia, you can create an account at Special:CreateAccount. However it may be better to create an account at your local Wikipedia The Greek Wikipedia.
Translation via Google Translate to Greek:
Για να εγγραφείτε στη Βικιπαίδεια, μπορείτε να δημιουργήσετε έναν λογαριασμό στη διεύθυνση Special:CreateAccount. Ωστόσο, ίσως είναι καλύτερο να δημιουργήσετε έναν λογαριασμό στην τοπική σας Wikipedia The Greek Wikipedia. — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 13:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


I want to have an article special just for my relative. He is a translator. Can I do that? And by the way, I want to know how to make an article on Wikipedia. Thank you! H0MARUP (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there H0MARUP, and welcome to Wikipedia. Policy strongly advices against creating an article for someone you know on Wikipedia, as it will mean you have a conflict of interest, so the article may not be written from a neutral point of view. Most people are notable; chances are, if they were someone would've already created an article about them. Wikipedia has specific guidelines on articles for people, seen at WP:NBIO. I would recomend not creating an article about your relative. However, if you believe they are notable and you can write from a neutral point of view, then H:YFA is a good place to get started. — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: Is there a chance you are referring to Draft:Christian Bernert? — Yours, Berrely • Berrely • TalkContribs 13:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about him. You can see my drafts? - Yours, User:H0MARUP 13:52, 18 January 2021

Trying to reply a message for user Berrely in my question. How can I do that??? H0MARUP (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You answered successfully, HOMARUP, except that you created a new section, which is not helpful when replying to an existing section. I have removed the header, merging the two section. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
And to answer your previous question: everything on Wikipedia is publically viewable - drafts, talk pages, sandboxes, everything. That's why the "Save" button was renamed to "Publish". But only articles in the main space are indexed by external engines such as Google. Please read about notability before doing any further work on your draft: Wikipedia is only interested in topics which have already been written about in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Your draft very, very, little content and no references. This cannot become an article unless there is published stuff about your relative. If there is not, then you should consider abandoning this effort. To delete your draft, at the top put db-userreq inside double curly brackets {{ }}. An Administrator will come along and delete the draft. David notMD (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah there is an online newspaper for him, but I just don't know how to add. Please help! H0MARUP (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)H0MARUPH0MARUP (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H0MARUP (talkcontribs) 10:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

H0MARUP, your two other drafts are not eligible for inclusion. First, the Austrian thing has nothing to tell and has no references. Second, the anime thing is copied from a fandom site, is unencyclopedic, and has no references. Please read WP:YFA to help you understanding what articles can be made. GeraldWL 12:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Creating article in Wikipedia - conflict of interests[edit]

Hello, I'm trying to upload to Wikipedia an article about the Polish shipyard Sunreef Yachts. The article was decline a couple of times, because there wasn't any information about the editor of the article. I'm writing about Sunreef Yachts shipyard as an employee of the company. Where can I submit this information to make sure that the article won't be declined again? Thank you in advance SztolpenOS (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SztolpenOS. You'll find details of the declarations you are required to make at paid editing. Doing so will not "make sure" that the article won't be declined again, but it is a requirement for you to continue to edit Wikipedia at all. As for getting the article accepted, please read the many comments at the top of it. One thing you could do is to remove all citations to sources which are based on press releases from Sunreef, and any information which is sourced only to such non-independent sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates 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) 15:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is marking articles as stubs considered minor edits?[edit]

Basically what the title says. I want to know if it's a minor edit to mark an article as a stub. Is it a minor edit? I would like to know. Toad64 14:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Toad62, if it's really a stub according to WP:STUB, then yes it's minor. GeraldWL 14:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me, I appreciate it! Stay safe. Toad64 14:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Toad62 I would say it's always non-minor, since it's a judgement call as to whether it's a stub or not. See WP:MINOR. Also, is there a reason you have your sig say Toad64 instead of your actual username, Toad62? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I like to change things up a bit, you know what I mean? Since the process of renaming your entire account is really long, I thought, "Hey, why don't I change my signature?". I won't change it for now, because I think the username Toad64 is nice. BUT, I may change it in the future if I get bored of the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toad62 (talkcontribs) 14:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I just had an idea what if I include my past signature usernames into a new section on my user page? So far, I've only changed it once, but if I change it in the future, it would be nice to know if someone was confused about the username thing. Toad64 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

|edition=has extra text ?[edit]

Hi everyone. I am new to this and working on a draft for a new page Draft:Ballet_Ireland After adding some book references/citations (sorry I am unsure of the distinction), I am getting an error "|edition=has extra text". Could someone enlighten me as to how I can resolve this or if I have made a rudimentary error in adding the citation? Many thanks Midnight713 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Midnight713, basically you added two words there (e.g. "Carl Sagan") and apparently |edition only welcomes one string. I've combined the two of them. GeraldWL 14:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Wonderful Gerald Waldo Luis, thank you kindly for such a swift resolution! Much appreciated. Midnight713 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Midnight713, nevermore-- I mean never mind. GeraldWL 14:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Hi guys! I just set up a wiki artist page for my artist & got the basic information I want in there with all the right referencing etc. What’s the best way to get the page approved or reviewed!

I’m using it to add more awareness about my artists aswell as boost his social presence up and this will really help ! Itsyoungartz (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Itsyoungartz, welcome to the Teahouse. Your userpage is currently being marked for speedy deletion. You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is for; it is not a place to boost [an artist]'s social presence, and there are other sites that are geared more towards doing that. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong spelling of name[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Lydia Cappolicchio

I have managed to correct my name in text but not the headline. Why? Onion Island (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Onion Island, welcome to the Teahouse. I've gone ahead and moved the article to a different title (Lydia Cappolicchio → Lydia Capolicchio), as a cursory search for external sources and an unanswered discussion on the talk page from years ago strongly corroborates the correction. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Section link template inside hatnote template[edit]

I'm working on Nellah Massey Bailey § World War II women recruitment campaign, and I'd like to add a "See also" for that section and link to American women in World War II § In the military. I tried just putting the section link template directly inside the "see also" hatnote template but it's coming out a little wonky, with extra brackets as shown in the article. Any ideas here? DanCherek (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Related: the target article (American women in World War II) doesn't currently include any information about the original article (Nellah Massey Bailey) so should the "see also" link not be used in the first place? Regardless, for my own education I'd still be interested to see how the syntax should be written. DanCherek (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
DanCherek, It appears Zindor has fixed it — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 18:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Aha, seems like I was overthinking it. Thanks Zindor! DanCherek (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, DanCherek. Sometimes templates aren't compatible together and nesting one within a parameter of the other causes errors. In this case id guess both templates employ hidden wikilink syntax, that's why the extra set of square brackets appeared, and the colon was probably there to disable categories. See WP:ANCHOR for more about section links. Regards, Zindor (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Referencing query[edit]

Could someone explain what [1] is/does?

Thank you Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2021

@Maryanne Cunningham: Assuming you're talking about just [[s:]], it's a shortcut interwiki link to Wikipedia's sister project Wikisource. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you U:Tenryuu. All I want to do is continue using a referencing system in an article started by someone else, which doesn't seem to be possible. "Linking to Wikisource" means nothing to me: I don't know what it is and it doesn't seem to fulfil any of the (much publicised) need for independent verifiability, as it just takes you to another wikipedia page. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Which article are you referring to and where are you seeing it? It's possible that it could be linked for further reading on the subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The article is Vortimer. Thank you U:Tenryuu. (I don't know if this is the correct way of adding your username, I do apologise if I've got it wrong.) Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Maryanne Cunningham, I am not receiving pings from you because the software does not recognise U as a namespace. It's better to use something like {{Ping|Tenryuu}} or {{Re|Tenryuu}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you {{Re|Tenryuu}}. I'm slightly confused. Have you not just pinged me, using u (or was that U)? Or did I just use the wrong brackets? Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Tenryuu, {{Re|Tenryuu}}, {{Ping|Tenryuu}} The one with the U in it seems to work best, or didn't it ping you? Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Maryanne Cunningham, you were using square brackets (which create a link) instead of curly brackets (which create a template, which can be heavily customised to perform certain actions like notifying users). The two examples that I provided are meant to be copy-pasted when reading, not editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Maryanne Cunningham: it's not a Wikipedia page, but a Wikisource page; but otherwise you're quite right: most Wikis are user-generated, and so unacceptable as sources. What goes between the <ref> and </ref> should be a citation of an external source. However, if that source happens to be available in Wikisource, then it would be acceptable to include a link to the wikisources page (which would look something like [[:s:name-of-the-work]], but I'd have to look up how you specified a particular chapter or page) within the citation, just as you can include a link to a copy Google books. But that link does not replace the citation, it supplements it. And I'm not sure whether the citation templates (which are not mandatory, but most people use them) have a parameter for an interwiki link as opposed to a URL. --ColinFine (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Hi, Maryanne, Wikisource being a "sister project" to Wikipedia means that it's also hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, but functions separately from the encyclopedia. It's a repository for free books (and other documents). One of its major functions is that scanned/photographed pages are transcribed by volunteers to produce more usable text. In this view of page 404 from Six Old English Chronicles, you can see the image of the printed page side-by-side with the transcribed text. Hope that makes sense, Pelagicmessages ) – (07:35 Tue 19, AEDT) 20:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Pelagic! Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you ColinFine. Could you explain what <nowiki> means. Why does a reference begin with code? (the pages with advice on referencing, and there are many, all seem to advocate starting with either <ref> or some other combination of brackets and the word ref). Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The <nowiki>something special</nowiki> code tells the software to treat its contents as plain text and not interpret any special wiki markup. Compare ''italic'' versus italic. Pelagicmessages ) – (07:47 Tue 19, AEDT) 20:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Aha, thanks Pelagic Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Maryanne Cunningham: In help and discussion pages, when it discusses wikitext, it's usually intended that you copy it when reading the article. If you are in edit mode, you will see the things like <nowiki> tags and {{Tlx}} templates, which are used to format/link the code for viewing. You are meant to copy the code when viewing the page, not when editing it. For example, if I write that you should use <ref>{{Cite book|last=Smith|first=John}}</ref>, it means you should copy the code displayed when reading the page, from <ref> through </ref>, without all the <nowiki> and <code> tags and {{Tlx}} and {{=}} templates that you see when you edit this page. I hope that makes sense (it's hard to explain it without using the same techniques I'm writing about). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you AlanM1. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ s:

The Art Gallery of Calgary vs Valerie Cooper[edit]

Does this Lawsuit Merit a Wikipedia Article?

I am a Museum Studies student doing an assignment on on the Art Gallery of Calgary vs Valerie Cooper Lawsuit. I tried to look the case up on wikipedia and when I couldn't find it I thought of making it myself, but I wasn't sure it was appropriate content.

This court case occurred in 2012 and led to the 2019 the AGC amalgamated with two other institutions to form Contemporary Calgary. Because the case is old it is necessary to search Waybackmachine in order to track down some of the original reports. I'd like to write an article on the lawsuit. Permareperterra (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Permareperterra, and welcome to the Teahouse. As with any other subject, the crucial thing is whether the case meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability: principally that there is enough secondary material about it published in reliable sources. If so, you're welcome to take on the (quite difficult) task of writing an article. I suggest you read your first article, and use articles for creation to create a draft that you can work on in peace. --ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Rather than a stand-alone article, which would likely attract very little in the way of viewers, consider adding content to Contemporary Calgary. That way, the one ref you already have may be sufficient, or if you find more published stuff, cite that, too. David notMD (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)




Courtesy: Draft:97.5 FOR THE LA. And please do not type all capital letters, as that is considered shouting. David notMD (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

okey can you plase show me how to make a radio station wiki

FYI – Merging with above section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

i fixed what you say to fixed DJ JAYLON (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No references, no article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Every article has references to published stuff written about the topic. David notMD (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
e/c This is an encyclopedia, we have articles about notable topics, it's not a venue for promoting yours or anyone's radio station. If you can provide three reliable independent sources that cover the station in significant detail, it would be a helpful step in creating an article Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
See List of radio stations owned by Entercom. Each of those stations on the list is the subject of an existing article, with references. Consider those as examples of what is needed. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
AND, I am deeply confused. How is this "97.5 R&B for Los Angeles" if it is located in Missouri? David notMD (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

no not yet to be going to be on radio in st,Louis soon. i already paid and stuff. DJ JAYLON (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DJ JAYLON. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a fundamentally mistaken idea about Wikipedia: the idea that it has anything at all to do with telling the world about yourself and your endeavours. It does not, and people who try to use Wikipedia in that way generally have a frustrating and disappointing experience. If at some time Wikipedia has an article about you or your station, the article will not belong to you, you will not have any control over the contents, and it may very well contain material that you would prefer it did not. (You would be welcome to make suggestions for changes to the article, but those would not necessarily be carried out). Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates 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.. And promotion of any kind is forbidden. --ColinFine (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[edit]

Hi there, I keep seeing an issue regarding Would someone be able to help me with this? Edit544 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Edit544: It seems you are referring to the multiple issues template at the top of the article. Each issue contains a link to the appropriate policy and guideline to help you understand the issue. Since you have a conflict of interest, the best thing you can do is to post on Talk:Nick Monson to suggest additional secondary sources that are reliable and independent of Monson. I added {{WikiProject Record production}} to the talk page in the hopes of drawing other Wikipedians to the article to provide assistance. GoingBatty (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

question about an image[edit]

I ask to a photographer whit e-mail if i can use his image. He accepted but he says "Understood usage only permitted for Wikipedia regarding the Woodstock festival" and that i have to quote the photographer and the source. The image it's really important for the woodstock page. I have to use the "fair use" copyright? i have all the evidence of the conversation on mail. All the Best --TommasoRmndn (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC) TommasoRmndn (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TommasoRmndn. I'm afraid not. There is almost certainly no way you can use that photo on Wikipedia. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is that all material is to be freely available for anybody to reuse for any purpose. Unfortunately, if we followed that principle to the end, we would have many fewer picutres than we have, which is why the "fair use" exception exists in Wikipedia. But fair use images are allowed in Wikipedia only if a number of criteria are all met - and one of them is that there is no reasonable chance of a free image becoming available. If you can show that the image and the way you will be using it meet all of those criteria, then you may upload the image to Wikipedia itself, explaining how it meets the criteria (and the owner's permission is irrelevant in this case). If you cannot meet those criteria, then the only way it could be used in Wikipedia is if the copyright owner explicitly licensed it under a copyleft licence such as CC-BY-SA, which would allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose, as long as they gave attribution. From what you say of the photographer's email, he would not give such permission, so I'm afraid you cannot use it here. --ColinFine (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Rock Hendricks Submission[edit]

I've tried my first attempt at an article, then when it was held up pending various missing elements and references sections I went back and rewrote the sandbox version to improve various elements, then MOVED it from the sandbox. I think that move may have been a problem as I already had a contribution on the same subject pending.

I confess I'm lost as to where things stand now on my latest contribution effort including changes to make the listing 'notable'. Can someone help set me straight. I'm trying to learn through books, youtube and this site.


Mark D. Metoliusmark (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Metoliusmark: First, please be sure to read WP:PSCOI and declare any conflict of interest at your user page. It looks like you accidentally moved it incorrectly, and it was moved back to User:Metoliusmark/sandbox. As I'm writing this, I see that it's now been moved to Draft:Rock Hendricks. When you've removed the <big>...</big> tags and completed your draft, you can add {{subst:submit}} to submit your draft for review. GoingBatty (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Please note: I have done a history merge, as the content in the sandbox was developed through many edits after the AfC decline (including adding some references [such as they are; I have removed a circular one to another Wikipedia article]), and so appeared to be the preferred content for review. I have reformatted in various ways and returned the AfC decline and comments.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Metoliusmark. The issue with the move is taken care of; the draft, including all your edits is now integrated in one page. I have made it so your more recent edits appear but also the comments of the reviewer who declined it. Please see and follow GoingBatty's advice above about disclosure, and what to do when you are ready to re-submit. However, please do not re-submit it in anything like the state it is currently in. It will surely be declined for failing to cite sufficient reliable, secondary, independent sources, verifying the information content, and that treat the topic in substantive detail to demonstrate the subject's notability.

You cannot "make" a subject notable by any amount of editing. You can only demonstrate that a subject is already notable by citing sources showing that the world has taken note of them by treating them substantively in the types of sources I mentioned. IMDB is user-generated content and has no value to do so. The Spotify link has no substantive content. As already noted, citing other Wikipedia article is of no value. I suggest reading WP:NERROR. In sum, you need to find and cite the right types of sources. If they don't exist, then don't waste your time; no acceptable article will be possible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

How do i center in visual edditor?[edit]

How do i center tiles in a table in the visual editor? Lionsleeps23 (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lionsleeps23, welcome to the Teahouse. You may find an answer in the 'Editing tables' section of the Visual Editor User Guide. Failing that, please describe in more detail what you'd like to achieve with the table and we may be able to help. Is there a specific page you are working on? Regards, Zindor (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Whattup, Zindor. Im editing the phonology section of Inuktitut. (I finishe it btw). The original was pretty badly made. There was a voiced section?? Like what. So some tiles are uncentered. Lionsleeps23 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Lionsleeps23, i went into the source and added 'text-align:center' to the style tag of the table. Did that resolve all the issues for you? Few of us here use Visual Editor, so I'll have to do some research and get back to you on that. Let us know if there's anything else we can help with. Zindor (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
aw thanks Zindor, your a real one. Lionsleeps23 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


I have 2 questions, I would like to ask about requests for adminship. 1. How do neutral votes effect the RFA vote percentage? 2. What sort of Users get adminship and how should you go about it? 20th anniversary (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

20th anniversary Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would start with the underlying premise of your questions in that you don't need to be an administrator to be a productive contributor here. You can do probably 95% of things here without being an administrator. Being an administrator just means you have extra buttons or functions that would be irresponsible for every user to have(such as being able to delete pages). If you can demonstrate a need for the administrator tools, such as performing work on Articles for Deletion discussions, reporting vandalism, or other actions, the community would discuss any nomination of you and if it agrees you merit having the tools, grant them to you. While there are few hard and fast qualifications to be an administrator, it is expected that you have a lengthy edit history of productive contributions that demonstrates that you understand most Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Typically this takes years and thousands of edits to accomplish- and seeking it out doesn't always work. It usually occurs naturally when other editors notice your work. I didn't seek out the toolset, others thought I merited it.
Neutral votes are just that- neutral- and do not impact the percentage. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you:)

The way to go about it involves making a large number of significant improvements to articles over a period of years. 20th anniversary, you may wish to make a start at this. -- Hoary (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20th anniversary (talkcontribs) 10:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

EasyTimeline fixing[edit]

Where can I go to learn more about "Easy"Timelines? I wanted to fix the timeline on Premier of Alberta but only found "Timeline of Alberta Premiers" in curly brackets there. Skimmedmilk62 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Skimmedmilk62: Fixed Template:Timeline of Alberta Premiers by changing "d/m/Y" to "m/d/Y". GoingBatty (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is a resubmitted AfC visible to multiple editors?[edit]

Hi Everyone, Just wondering when a reviewer declines an AfC and it is resubmitted after completing the improvements, is that resubmission visible to multiple reviewers or only the original reviewer that declined it?

My original draft was reviewed very quickly. I understand there is a backlog of AfC's but I'm just curious.

Many thanks, Midnight713 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Midnight713. Nice work on the draft. To answer your question, any reviewer can see and make a decision on your resubmission. I've removed the br tags from your post as mediawiki already parses the whitespace. Best of luck, Zindor (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Zindor: Thank you very much and thank you for the formatting advice. Learning as I go, little by little... Midnight713 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Midnight713: Given what a good job you did, posting here resulting in the draft being accepted (by me). (That is not the typical result of a post here about an AfC draft.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
@Fuhghettaboutit: That's wonderful! Thank you very much indeed! I will continue to work on some other editing work outside of my article (grammar, citations etc) to get more experience. I've learned a lot from doing my first article, not least the helpfulness of the community here. Many thanks! Midnight713 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

how to add external links[edit]

I'm editing this page:

I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong with the reference #4 for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Why does the the reference keep showing the whole URL? How do I get it to have that little external link icon? Somapsyche (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Somapsyche, it's probably because you didn't add http:// before the URL. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I see you added it for me, you're super! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somapsyche (talkcontribs) 12:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting a topic[edit]

Salsa. Not interested in creating/editing at my age. There is a superb salsa (dance) instructor way over in the UK by the name of Mario Hazarika aka Supermario. Several Youtube videos of him at different Salsa Conventions worldwide are posted. Just wanted to have him included on Wikipedia (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You can add your suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Performing arts#Dance people if you like, but that is no guarantee that someone will create the article (or that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, called notability. GoingBatty (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?[edit]

FYI – Separating from above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am AppleAKB (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)AppleAKBAppleAKB (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC). I was editing Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? article. Someone made comments on the page and had received -193. When I undone the edits, they undone them again. We have been going over the who is right or not. Can someone compare RYLELT7 edits and AppleAKB's. I really request you because she has made me a little nervous about being blocked. Please respond on my talk page. AppleAKB (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

AppleAKB, I strongly suggest you and RYLELT7 discuss this on the article's talk page, as both of you have passed three reverts in an article in 24 hours, which is a blockable offence. I also suggest you read WP:TONE, as fragments like This is the love story [...] and The 8 episode series recalls the events that are special for any Arshi (Arnav+Khushi) fan are not appropriate for Wikipedia's voice. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@AppleAKB: about your comment Someone made comments on the page and had received -193, I think that what you are referring to here is the edit history of the article where the figure "-193" appears after some of the edits. This is not a "score" or negative evaluation of the edit. It only means that each of those edits removed 193 bytes from the article. Similarly, numbers in green show the number of bytes added to the article, and are not an approval rating. More information here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted article[edit]

Note: This regards the deletion of User:TBrehautStudio21, under WP:CSD#G5.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted article

Dear Teahouse Readers,

I submitted a carefully prepared article which was verifiable and correct which was promptly sleighted for deletion. Please refer me to a good editor who can help me to resubmit my article. As each item was correct and notable. I don't understand why it was deleted.

Thank you.


Taisha (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. There's a bunch of issues here but I am dead tired and going to bed, so I leave it to others to explain more but, I just wanted to note that I was going to undelete and move the page to a draft location where you could work on it – given that much of the reason for the deletion was the unfortunate fact that the content was placed by you on your userpage, rather than in a more suitable location – but I cannot undelete it because it was a copyright violation of this site.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
To expand on what Fuhgettaboutit says above, we cannot accept text which has been published anywhere else, as a general rule. Even if it was "verifiable and correct" it would still put Wikipedia as a whole in legal jeopardy to host content which is essentially plagiarised. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia strongly advises against attempts at autobiography (see WP:AUTO). Also, please comment and edit only when logged in. Your account is User:TBrehautStudio21 but when you commented above while not logged in it appeared as from IP address

1776 Commission[edit]

Hi there. The Trump administration's 1776 Commission marked Martin Luther King Day by putting out a "report" that defends the Founding Fathers for owning slaves and attacks the Civil Rights Movement. The WP article needs some help. Can anyone here help? Or point authors in the direction of → 1776 Commission? -- (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What help do you think the article needs specifically? SenatorLEVI 06:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
If you have suggestions for improving an article, start a discussion on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

my miss anand[edit] (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

my miss anand too. GeraldWL 07:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Anand SenatorLEVI 07:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
& ← an "and" ... Pelagicmessages ) – (18:50 Tue 19, AEDT) 07:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What advice do you have for new, young editors?[edit]

I'm 17, and have only recently joined Wikipedia as an editor (though I haven't edited much – only translated a few pieces and made some minor lexical changes to articles for the sake of clarity). Most importantly, I'm interested in becoming more active and joining Wikipedia's community!

What tips and advice might you have for new and young editors like me? What are some of the best ways to integrate quickly into the community? What are some little-known tips about contributing to Wikipedia's trove of knowledge?

Thanks very much! - An interested member (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC), everyone has their own way of getting started. The best advice is to look around and see what interests you. I personally started in counter-vandalism, however if you want you could try content creation, clearing out backlogs and many more, see WP:DASH for everything you can do. I think a lot of new users miss out how useful some scripts and gadgets are, Twinkle is a must have. Simply going through the "Gadgets" section of preferences will do you good. A good thing for new editors is the adoption program, where expereinced users mentor newer users and help them into the community, teaching them the basics for what they need to know. However, others may have a different opinion, and I'm sure others would like to reply. — Yours, Berrely • TalkContribs 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to Wikipedia! You may be out of the intended age range by now, but this essay addresses our younger editors to remind them to do things like not give out personal data. If you're new to editing wikis in general, you may benefit from taking the interactive tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure. This cheatsheet is a nice document to refer to when you want to use some of the basic formatting tools on here. I also suggest taking the time to learn how templates work, as it can help cut down time on typing out code.
As far as starting out goes, experienced editors recommend contributing to pre-existing articles (as creating a new article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on here). If you would like ideas as to what articles to improve, you can check out the community portal's "Help out" section, or get suggestions at User:SuggestBot/Requests.
An important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors will have different perspectives which will clash with each other. When you get into a conflict or dispute like this, always try and discuss it first politely on the article's talk page (it can be accessed by clicking the "Talk" tab somewhere at the top of the article).
Shameless plug: If you're interested in copy editing, you may be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC), we get this question relatively often, and so I've written an essay on some interesting ways to start which you can find here Also, welcome to Wikipedia! Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 08:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for all these responses! I'll explore the Adopt-a-user program, the Guild of Copy Editors (@Tenryuu:, thanks for the plug!), and read your essay, @Giraffer:! What a great way to be welcomed to the community! (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Certification for linguistic proficiency?[edit]


I've noticed that some people, such as @Rosguill: have certification for linguistic proficiency on their User Pages. Are these given by Wikipedia itself, do users who have these upload official certificates for approval from Oversight, or are these self-reported?

Thanks! (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC) (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Userboxes indicating language skills are based on the user's self-evaluation of their proficiency. They are not certifications, and the levels in the userboxes don't correspond to any official language proficiency test scale. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, good to know. Thanks very much! (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
It can be helpful to know that a user is proficient in a particular language, for instance if you need help evaluating whether a source is good, but mainly, these userboxes serve to give other editors a bit of information about yourself. It makes us all look less like faceless anonymous Internet strangers, without adding any information that could serve to identify the person outside Wikipedia! More information about language user boxes here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
As an addition to Bonadea's comment, adding those userboxes to a user page also categorises them. If you're looking for someone who's a native German speaker, you can go to Category:User de-N to find an index of all the user pages that have had {{Babel|de}} added on them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Question by Techvaness[edit]

How do I successfully publish a biography of a media personality Techvaness (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Techvaness: I assume this refers to Draft:Abena Kyei Boakye. Unfortunally, I am not an admin and therefore cannot see the deleted revisions. In general, the steps to create a new article are as follows:
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request here or at the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.

Maybe some of the admin folks could have a look at the deleted draft and tell you more precisley. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Victor Schmidt mobil, their talk page shows the deletion as being a speedy G11. Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 11:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The text was extremely promotional in nature, with much glowing language about the subject and no sources at all. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
What I meant by that is that, at least IMO, still differences in content deleted under g11. Some things are the worst of the worst, while others are in a way "So, while it is promotional, one could invest a few hours recuing this. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Change.Org petition as supporting reference within the body of an article.[edit]

Change.Org Petition as additional reference? Hi there. Quick question. Say I want to edit an article about a subject that people are debating: Can a petition on Change.Org be linked to as an additional reference (to show public backing), in support of the published academic and subject expert views on the matter that precede it within the body of that article? I'm not asking whether such a petition would merit an article of its own. Many thanks in advance. Sandwidgiz (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandwidgiz Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It would be better to have a secondary reliable source that discusses this petition, instead of the petition itself. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
331dot Thanks for your quick reply. I do have a published article, by a well-respected business journalist that discusses the problem in general and references the academic and expert support, but the article does not reference the petition (rather, I felt, that petition is an artefact in itself). I just felt it added some weight to the other references, as it clearly shows public support (with countless public comments akin to a newspaper article). But thanks for the advice! Much appreciated :)
Sandwidgiz, can you share the link to the article so that a more accurate comment can be made? Also, it is not required to have the petition link. It's not encouraged to, especially if the link is still active. If the petition has ended, it can maybe be included. GeraldWL 12:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis Thank you for your feedback. I'll leave the edit for now and see what happens in the future with further articles, etc. It's nothing major, I just wanted to know whether it was allowed. Cheers! Sandwidgiz (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


After working on the article, I nominated Doraemon for WP:GAN. I just wished to ask the Teahouse editors to give their opinion on possible edits to further improve the article.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


Hello there, I have been trying to create pages for my son and daughter for a while and really finding it difficult. Can you help me with this please?

My Son is the current Mr World, Jack Heslewood and my daughter is a former Miss England & UK, Kirsty Heslewood.

I hope you can help. Best Wishes, Kerry Heslewood - Mum Kerry Heslewood (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Kerry Heslewood Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may not be aware of it, but you have been given some good advice on your user talk page, User talk:Kerry Heslewood, that I would recommend that you read and review the policies linked to therein(if you haven't already). The main issue I see with your draft is that you provided no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not social media to merely tell about someone. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is the absolute hardest thing to do here, and most people fail in their first attempts, especially if they have not edited existing articles first. It's harder to do when one has a conflict of interest, as well. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
You could take an existing article on a Mister World, such as that for Rohit Khandelwal as a template for a new article. However, as you have been advised, the main problem when writing about someone close to you is to be neutral (see WP:NPOV) and only include material in well-known reliable sources such a newspapers that are independent of the subject: which means, usually, that the source is not just based on interviews. If you can find, say, four such sources than you should be OK. The initial draft doesn't need to be long, it just needs to show that WP:NOTABILITY. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Your draft User:Kerry Heslewood/sandbox has no references, and it also has hyperlinks in the body of the draft, which are not allowed. David notMD (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Aprove for my draft Álvaro Coutinho Aguirre[edit]

Hi, I am creating a page for my grandfather. He was the first to create a non private reserv for animals in Brazil (!), and had no Wikipedia page. I created one in Portuguese, he is already in wikidata, and created one in Spanish, not linked, because who created the wikidata, didnt add the Spanish language, and I dont have permission to do it. And I have my draft in English waiting since september for the second revision. It is very important to disseminate his work, mainly at these times, when nature in general is not respected. I´ve been to #wikipedia-en-help, some of the volunteers took the name of the draft, but I had no answer so far. So I am writting to see if I have to complete anything, data, references, etc. I trully appreciate any help, thank you very much. Alexandra

ÞÞ Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra Aguirr Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Waiting since September is a long time, but there is unfortunately no way to speed up the process; drafts are reviewed by volunteers who do what they can when they can, in no particular order. Wikipedia is not concerned with disseminating your grandfather's work, but in getting the draft right. You will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to The Teahouse Alexandra Aguirr. It needs a complete re-write to make any sense, it looks like it has been machine translated? Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi 331dot thank for your message, and yes I am waiting! :) Hi Theroadislong thank you for your message here and at may gandfathers draft. I did the translation from portuguese. with the help of a distant relative from England. A complete re-write to make any sense looks a bit offensive, as it doesnt has any sense at all, what I dont believe. But anyway, thanks for your contribution, anyone is always welcome! :) Alexandra Aguirr (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Embarrassing question[edit]

I am fairly experienced on wikipedia and I have recently written a new article in Draft:Hydrogenated MDI (H12MDI). I cant remember or workout how to submit it for review - please help. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello GRALISTAIR, that's not something to be embarrassed about. Next time you want to submit a draft for review just insert {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. I have already inserted this at the top of your draft. SenatorLEVI 14:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The article has been accepted and is now live. GRALISTAIR, do you need a chemical drawing for the compound? I can put an .svg file on Commons if you're not going to do that yourself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The required code is {{subst:submit}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou very much indeed. Yes please a drawing of the chemical compound would be great thank you. GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


If a article consists of lines like- "This is a popular book" or "This is a popular Tv channel" then would it be violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view? (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, popularity is subjective and that sort of language should be reserved for either direct quotes or statements such as "this book sold x copies in its first edition" with a source for that information. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism Revert?[edit]

Hi, I recently had an edit reverted on the friendlyjordies article, with vandalism being the reason. I presume in good faith that the reason for the revert was simply that it was tagged with "possible BLP issue or vandalism" rather than an implication of intentional wrongdoing, though I asked the editor who reverted it and haven't gotten a response. Having a look at the actual tag on Special:Tags it seems any edit on a biography of a living person with a word such as "corruption", among others, will get the tag (do I have that correct?). I redid the edit thinking it was a possible typo I made that triggered the tag/reversion, but it wasn't as the tag remains, so I do assume it was just the word "corruption".

What is the correct thing to do here? (Assuming I interpreted what happened correctly) should I just not add any edits to biographies of living persons that contain words like "corruption", "fraud", "fired", etc lest it gets instantly reverted? Thanks. Volteer1 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Volteer1. No, you should not modify anything you are doing as a result of this. This was patently an incorrect and improper revert by the user in question, who should never have tagged your edit as "vandalism", even if there could have been some valid reason to revert you (though I can't see any). There may be a good explanation (we all make mistakes – a few weeks ago, I rolled back another user's edit with a misclick without even realizing I had done it; just postulating: maybe the user had multiple tabs open, and had a moment of confusion between your edit, and another user's addition of "fart" to our article on Beethoven; who knows). But we reserve the use of "vandalism" for edits that are obviously intended to harm. We don't use it even for incredibly poor and misplaced edits, which, though they should properly be reverted, might have been made in good faith. We all take responsibility for our own edits. This is on them, not you. Chalk this one up to the inexplicable, until you get an explanation by the user. As I have linked his or her username in this post, they will be pinged here, and maybe can explain. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Addressing something else in your post: the fact that an automated process tagged your edit as possible vandalism to a BLP, when it was not—though it potentially prompted the ensuing revert—is no vindication of it. If that is the case, then the result should be for the user to slow down and be more careful. I think that is likely to play out here, as the user's talk page has another user complaining about a nearly identical improper revert, with the automated tag as the reason for reverting as "vandalism", as if that's at all a valid excuse.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, thanks Fuhghettaboutit. Definitely a little bit frustrating but it's good to know it's nothing I should be having to worry about. Volteer1 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Volteer1: You're welcome. I'll note that upon investigating, I discovered that this was a far wider issue than it appeared at first glance – a pattern of these vandalism reverts and warnings for good faith edits was revealed. I have followed-up here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Obtaining Advice[edit]

In the discussion following rejection of my article Draft:Direction Finding by Amplitude Comparison for the first time, it was suggested that a better introduction to the topic would help. However, a second editor, in rejecting the article, suggests the problem is more basic than that! My aim in the article is to show, specifically, how to obtain the bearing of a transmitter from the signals received by an array of microwave antennas. It was not my aim to write a general or woolly article on microwave direction finding. In any case, a general description of RF direction finding already exists. I know that the techniques described will only be of interest to a few, but even though established many years ago they are still in use today. The article does contain mathematics, but many articles already on Wiki are more complicated. Is there anything I can do to make my article acceptable to Wiki editors, or should I abandon it altogether. Please advise. D1ofBerks (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, D1ofBerks. I can see you've put a lot of work into that draft. What concerns me is whether it might be original research. Is each derivation present in a single one of your sources? If not, that would be Synthesis. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for replying to my query. The content of the article has been well established for a number of years, so I don’t think it could be called original research. However, it is true that I refer to a number of sources, but as these cover much the same material and are not contradictory at all (they just say the same thing in slightly different ways), I don’t think its synthesis. I aim is to present the basic concepts on how a bearing value is derived in what I hope is a clear manner and give enough references for those who wish to pursue the matter further. D1ofBerks (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources (Non-Google News / Google Books)[edit]

I'm looking into improving Slidecasting, but the word "slidecast" and "slidecasting" is basically never used. I nominated the article to have it moved to "Enhanced podcast", but I was curious whether some less official sources were considered reliable or not. I mentioned some sources on Talk:Slidecasting that are from blogs and other non-news sources and I was curious how I would determine if the source is reliable. I'm pretty sure I've seen some guidelines on this, but I don't remember what they are so if you could point me in the right direction that'd be really helpful. I know I've seen people use blog posts, dictionary entries, company websites, and other less official sources but I've always been unsure about using them so I've shied away from it in the past, but I was hoping to learn how and when to use them now that I've got a bit of experience. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Slidecasting article was already mostly relying on blog posts and non-news sources before I started editing it. Should I remove those sources or are they considered reliable in some way? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Pages on Other language wikis[edit]

In advanced settings we see a logo on which if we tap we get to see that article on other language wikis, but I know an article which is on other language wikipedia but is not shown in that list, Therefore how do I add that article from other language wikipedia to that list. (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Underneath the list of Languages, it says 'edit links', click there and it'll take you to the Wikidata item where you can add other language wikipedias. --Paultalk❭ 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I see you asked from the mobile version of Wikipedia. It doesn't appear to have a link for unregistered users. Logged in users can enable "Advanced mode" in Settings to get a "More" link on the top right of articles. This includes a "Wikidata item" link where links to other languages can be edited. Unregistered mobile users can switch to the desktop version by clicking "Desktop" at the bottom. Then you get the option Paul mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding persons or institutions[edit]

I'd like to add some people and institutions to the free fund of knowledge. How do I become a contributor? (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can, at least in theory, yust give it a go. I do need to say however, that sucessfully creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks one can start on Wikipedia. There are guides available here here or here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia!
Creating a new article is one of most difficult tasks at Wikipedia (and some users consider it the most difficult). Based on my own experience, I would strongly recommend you not to hurry. It's better to stay here for some time and read, read and once again read to grasp a feeling of what an article should contain and what it should look like. Then start doing minor fixes, updates and expansions. In the meantime talk to other users to get comments and comment yourself on what you and others are doing. And only then you may hope you're ready to write a new article from scratch successfully.
Of course you need to know about the most important rules and policies of Wikipedia, starting from Five pillars through Verifiability, Notability (with its specific subsections for people and for organizations and companies, at least), WP:COPYVIO, WP:COI & WP:PAID, and others, like WP:OWN. These, and many more, are listed at Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines.
You don't have to learn them all by heart - but you need to know they exist and remember they apply also to you.
And the simplest way to learn them is by assimilation, which requires time.
Meanwhile you can try to take the The Wikipedia Adventure to learn Wikipedia basic features.
Good luck! Face-smile.svg CiaPan (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Trying to get help creating an (English) Biography page that already exists in German[edit]

A German Wiki page exists for my grandfather Josef Fraenkel (, but I wondered how I can flag this to Wiki editors that it should be in English Wiki too? The instructions for this are unbelievably complicated! And I do not speak German so I cannot even work out how to tag that article that it needs translating. Does anyone have any simple advice please? NB Josef was a British citizen from about 1940 - 1987 when he died, was published in England, and all his direct living relatives are in the UK, so it only seems logical. Thanks.

There are even a perfect categories for him... Bubbeles (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bubbeles. Unfortunately, since Wikipedia is entirely created by volunteers who work on what they want to work on, when they choose to work on it, flagging that an article should exist often achieves nothing, unless you happen to catch the attention of an editor who might be interested. There is a formal place to request articles - requested articles - but that often seems more like a graveyard of ideas. Possibly the best place would be to try and find an appropriate WikiProject, and ask there, since the members are more likely to have some interest in the subject. You could also try looking through the category Category:Translators de-en; but that will only identify the editors who have at some time said they were available to translate. You would probably need to look at each one: at their user page, to see if they have said anything about their availability, and at their user contributions, so see if they appear to be currently active (and also to get an idea of the kinds of subject they have translated articles on). If you find some suitable candidates, you could ask on their User talk pages. I don't know a way to shorten or automate this task, though.
Looking at de:Josef Fraenkel, I see there may be a problem, in that the sources given may not be enough to satisfy en-wiki's criteria for notability. There are only two given. The Adunka appears to be a nine-page paper in a volume from Edinburgh University Press, a reliable publisher: that is almost certainly a good source; but one source is not usually enough to establish notability. The other source is an entry in a biographical handbook: that could mean anything from a two-line listing to a three page essay: the latter would work for notability, but the former would not. (The titles in the Schriften are all presumably by Fraenkel, and so cannot contribute to notability). And indeed anybody who translated should see those sources rather than just copy the citations across. --ColinFine (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia[edit]

Edit and add titles and subtitles I am responsible to update some school's Wikipedia pages. They have a huge change in the content and also their title and subtitles. I want to update them somehow that looks natural and is not violent of Wikipedia rules. Could you help me with this? Ninasaas (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ninasaas Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you say you are "responsible to update", I take that to mean you work for or represent the school. If that is true, you must read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies, for information on formal disclosures you are required to make. You are welcome to propose edit requests on article talk pages, detailing changes you feel are needed, if those changes are sourced to reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Ninasaas, and welcome to the Teahouse. The thing that you and the school must understand is that you do not own Wikipedia's article about your school: it should summarise only what independent sources say about it. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates 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.. So, by all means make edit requests, but information you give will probably not be added unless it can be found in such an independent source. That is why the edits you have so far made to Nagoya International School have all been reverted: they were promotional, saying what the school wants to say, not what independent commentators have said. Your own website is the place for promotional text, not Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Donations Alternative[edit]

Hello. I love this website a lot and feel very bad every time I am asked or want to donate. I am still in high school and have no credit card to donate with. I know many other readers have the same problem so I thought of a solution! Wikipedia is nom-profit right? So they don't use ads to get money and depend on donation. But what if Wikipedia did make money threw sponsorships? My idea is that if reader can't donate threw credit card or other electronic currency, then Wikipedia can ask to redirect them to a different Wikipedia owned website that shows the viewer an AD or some other sort of sponsorship thing, and boom, Wikipedia now gets money there sponsorships on a different website and viewers can OPTIONALLY donate without using online currency! I think its a good idea but there are probably more things to it that you guys have to do or reasons I don't know why you can't but know that many people want to donate but can't because they have no form of online currency. Thanks! 2600:1700:4940:1E80:A045:E8AC:F252:B2F8 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to donate: but do not worry. There is absolutely no requirement on you (or anyone) to donate; and at present, the Wikimedia Foundation is not struggling to find enough money to keep the servers running. Please continue to enjoy Wikipedia and the other wikis that the Foundation runs. If you really want to donate, there are other ways than credit cards: see WMF:Ways to Give/en. --ColinFine (talk)
Ads for Wikipedia is a perennial proposal that is usually rejected because advertising is non-neutral. I'll just be more specific in that you can mail a check to Wikipedia if you wish(and as you may not have a checking account, perhaps a parent, guardian, or other adult friend could donate for you). Again, though, donating is not required, be it now or when you are an adult with a credit card. Though Wikipedia runs on donations, and is looking to create an endowment so future donations are of reduced necessity, its finances are stable and Wikipedia is not in jeopardy. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"CentralAuth token expired"[edit]

I logged in and it gave me a page that can't make me go back to in red text that CentralAuth token has expired. What does that mean and am I compromised? 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: it means that your central login session expired or got lost. Please check if you are blocking cookies for the wiki you are trying to login on and Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Victor Schmidt, I don't know what that is 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@LightningComplexFire: "central login" or "central auth" refers to a feature in the software behind Wikipedia that you can login on one Wiki (for example, and are simultaneously logged on on other Wikis of the same Wikifarm (for example, For that purpose, the software behind Wikipedia uses short-lived tokens and cookies on the domain Those tokens have a limited lifetime of I think 10 seconds. The error message means that the token had expired when the software attempted to use it. There are two reasons why this message could appear: 1) network failures or 2) blocked cookies/cross-origin-scripts/etc. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Victor Schmidt, Ok, I thought someone hacked me or something 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 19:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with a disruptive user[edit]

Hi, I'm having trouble dealing with a disruptive user: They've been reverting edits by loads of people, including myself, providing very little justification or reasoning if any at all, accusing me of vandalism even though my edits were based on a primary source included as a reference in my edits, had an edit summary explaining the changes, and had a discussion on the talk page.

When I asked them to stop behaving this way on their talk page they first deleted my comments with no response twice, and when I restored them, they basically said that unregistered users don't matter, and accused me of vandalism again.

Hey dude they like to control the narrative. Facts are just a framework to mold their view of how people should see the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not an isolated case for this user: Other people have pointed out their disruptive behaviour, and been met with similar responses: Accusations of being a bot, continued accusations of vandalism even when it is clearly not the case, more "you're not even a registered user" type comments, and deletions of entire comment threads and warnings whenever they feel like it.

The thing is, I don't think this person is a vandal, so I'm not sure if a block request would be appropriate at this stage. They do seem to want to help in some way. It's just that they're doing it very badly and being very disruptive as a result. But while things would have been fine if it was just a new user who needed guidance, this user is being very hostile towards any attempts to correct their behaviour, with warnings having no effect at all.

Despite all my explanations, and another user trying to engage them as well, the user has persevered in accusing me of vandalism, and though he has not done so yet, stated that he intends to revert my edits again. I'm really at my wit's end here, how do you deal with a user like this? (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. When it's a content dispute, then DR tells you how to proceed. But it sounds as if it's a behavioural issue. If you have tried to discuss it with the editor in question, and they're still doing it, then WP:ANI is the place to report it. Note that 1) you should provide links to the postings/diffs that you are unhappy with; 2) you must notify the other party; and 3) admins will look into your behaviour as well: see WP:BOOMERANG. --ColinFine (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to point out here that users, with the exception of a few things, are allowed to remove content from their talk pages; it is considered an acknowledgement that they have read the warning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I did intially consider WP:ANI but thought it to be an overreaction, at least at this point - They seem to have good intentions, it's just that they're seemingly very new and misguided.
Regarding removing content/warnings: It appears that I was mistaken, but also - What about discussions that are in progress between other parties? I replied to another user who was commenting on this person's disruptive editing, and before they could reply the person just removed the entire section from the talk page.
Also, what about when the user first replies to the warnings, saying that they don't matter because they're coming from IP users, before they remove them? They've certainly seen the warnings, but they are literally saying that they are refusing to acknowledge them.
In any case I'm currently trying to reason with them, but they're still justifying their "anti-vandal" activities with statements like "95% of my edits are responsible which is good for a beginner almost seven editors thanked me until now". Is there some guideline that I can direct them to? Someone else already requested that they see WP:VAND and WP:NOTVAND but it's seemingly had no effect. (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Oxforder has been blocked for 31 hours, but given how argumentative and disruptive this editor has been (as evidenced on talk page and what has been deleted from Talk page, including Warnings from long-time editors), I imagine once the block is over, will continue behavior. David notMD (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


I need help fixing the table under List of Jewish American politicians. For those who served in the Trump administration, in the Cabinet, the table is not formatted properly and Steve Mnuchin is on the outside of the table. Can someone please help format this correctly? Thank you. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done, Pennsylvania2. I have no idea what happened there, and I'm no table expert, but I think I've fixed it. Regards, Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 19:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!! Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Giraffer (Happy·Wikipedia Day!) 20:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Birthday[edit] (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Arthur Chagn

Do you have a question for the Teahouse? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you allowed to reply to discussions at ANI?[edit]

I was just wondering so I don't get in any trouble wit dicussion there. SoyokoAnis 22:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you are allowed to contribute to discussion at ANI even if you're not an administrator; just make sure that it's constructive. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Tenryuu, thanks! Are you also allowed to contribute to discussion on the Teahouse or only Teahouse hosts? SoyokoAnis 00:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
SoyokoAnis, if you believe you have an answer that solves whatever problem the asker has, you may add your input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

uploading an image to an existing page[edit]

I am working on editing this page: I have permission to use an image which I uploaded to this page: How do I get that image to show on the main page? It's a picture of the person, obviously... Somapsyche (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somapsyche: It looks like the image was deleted because the permission wasn't given properly. Please see this for info about the permission that you need to grant to Wikipedia when uploading images. A suitable license would be Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

So it looks like only the person holding the copyright is able to upload? When I read the instructions, it includes and option for my having been given permission to use the image. So I don't understand how it works. If I have permission, how do I get it on the webpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somapsyche (talkcontribs) 00:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somapsyche: Copyright is pretty confusing. You shouldn't upload on behalf of the copyright holder! Like what the response above says, follow the steps at WP:CONSENT, and read WP:DCM for more info.
Alternatively, we encourage media uploads to be done at Wikimedia Commons instead. Over there, there's a helpful copyright release tool at Commons:Commons:Wikimedia OTRS release generator, which streamlines the process (see Commons:Commons:OTRS for more info). The difference between uploading to the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons is that uploads to Commons can be used on any Wikimedia project, while uploads to the English Wikipedia can only be used on the English Wikipedia.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What is going on at Carmel Convent School?[edit]

The article history looks really really weird to me, I've got no clue what to do here. Can someone more experienced take a look at it? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Skarmory: Many school articles see a lot of vandalism from students in the school themselves. Many also contain information that is not properly sourced to reliable sources. This one's history does not look too strange for a school to me; you could improve it by looking for reliable sources yourself and editing the text for grammar, flow, etc.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Position of the Contents[edit]

How do I move the Contents below the Top Introduction? Ggae1885 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Rita Asfour
@Ggae1885: The table of contents automatically appears beneath the introduction and above the first header. In your case, you have a header above your first paragraph, so the table of contents appears above that. You'll need to remove the header for it to appear where you want.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Kerwin Walton Wiki Page[edit]

Can someone help with Kerwin Walton the basketball player from North Carolina wiki page he's a very humble kid but he should have a page think he's leading all time scorer at his former high school Valid773 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valid773: Any subject must fulfill the notability guidelines to have an article: either the general notability guideline or the basketball-specific notability guideline. In both cases, you must have sufficient reliable sources to back up any information in the article. High school/college athletes rarely hit the notability guideline, so I'd make sure you have enough sources to demonstrate notability.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would you change something back from an edit that is widely known without checking your resources that something is not correct. Chris Stirewalt was Laid of and that's all there is to it.[edit] (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Every content addition you make in articles should be accompanied with a reliable source, so the information can be verified. If you need help adding references, check out this guide. SK2242 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Chris Stirewalt was laid of by Fox News. It is being reported by the Washington Examiner, The Los Angeles Times went as far as to say fired, The Daily Mail,The Washington Post, Fox News and many other news outlets.[edit]

FYI – Section merged by Tenryuu.

Chris Stirewalt was laid of by Fox News. It is being reported by the Washington Examiner, The Los Angeles Times went as far as to say fired, The Daily Mail,The Washington Post, Fox News and many other news outlets.

In response I was told

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia Yada Yada Yada. This is important information that people should know. If the student maintaining this record is hurt by this development the student should be reassigned to a new subject that the student can maintain impartially.

Otherwise this Wikipedia is the last place you will find out facts because it will be the last place to update them. (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Cropping images[edit]

Hello could somebody please give me a step by step process of how to crop an image? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie, check out Commons:CropTool if you're interested in cropping an image on Wikimedia commons. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 02:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How to manage edits to a controversial article? Peer-reviewed cites being deleted as 'bullshit'.[edit]

Having personally experienced the oral health benefits of the ancient practice of Oil pulling, I wondered what Wikipedia had to say on the subject. I was disappointed to see the article appeared to have a strongly negative bias towards the matter.

Curious, I took to the internet to see if there was any peer-reviewed studies that verified the benefits I had experienced. I immediately found two: One, from The NCBI, and the other, The Indian Journal of Dental Research. I posted a small edit to the article, indicating that there were studies which show benefits to oral health, and cited my sources. It seemed a simple, yet useful contribution to the subject.

Knowing the subject is controversial, and sensing the tone of the existing content, I popped back a few hours later to see if any further discussion was taking place. Instead, what I found was that my edits had been reverted, and the reason given was "Unreliable quackery journal; far from WP:MEDRS". No attempt was made by the editor who revered the changes to discuss them with me.

I took a day or so to think about this, and did a bit of reading on how Wikipedia recommends handing such things. I feel that the article deserves to have sources cited which show demonstrated benefits. My edit simply clarified a single sentence, and provided two valid sources. I restored the edit I had made, and noted that both sources cited can hardly be considered 'unreliable quackery'.

What happened next was twofold:

  1. A different editor again reverted my edit, but this time the reason given was 'Remove bullshit'
  2. The following post appeared on my personal talk page:

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Oil pulling, you may be blocked from editing. Don't add content nonsense and unreliable Ayurveda quackery sources to the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This troubled me greatly.

I'm by no means some hero-level editor. I pop in from time to time and contribute where I can. I am grateful that Wikipedia has a strong contingent of editors looking out for nonsense, but when that becomes overzealous, and a subject becomes policed by a biased mindset, we all lose.

So, I'm somewhat at a loss here, and would appreciate some advice:

  • Part of me figures just drop it. It's oil pulling. The world will not end.
  • Part of me, however, feels that what has happened here is something people need to stand up to, lest it drive away the very folks (namely, all of us) who make Wikipedia what it is. The additions I made to the article are not "quackery", nor are they "bullshit". If those are acceptable standards for deletion of edits, then folks, Wikipedia is kinda sunk.

Well, thanks for reading my long tale. I would appreciate any and all perspectives. Jimvanm (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


hello everyone, can someone improve my page? you are welcome Ali banu sistani (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)