Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 911

Hello,

I've been working on a 'draft article' User:LorriBrown/sandbox1 and a warning appeared

. I am not understanding why it appeared and how to remove it. I've reviewed other living person (artist) biographies and they are formatted in a variety of ways. Some have a list of 'select exhibitions' and others have tables. I removed the list (assuming that was the issue) and changed the heading from biography to career (not clear if that matters). For now, can I just delete that edit from page?

Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello LorriBrown and welcome to the Teahouse.

An IP editor left that tag on your sandbox. This tag is normally applied to articles main space and is somewhat out of place on your draft, but I suppose the editor thought they were giving you helpful advice. When you believe you have addressed the issue raised by the tag, you are free to remove it.

I hope you're looking at some good examples of articles on artists - articles with classifications like good article or featured article are best; nearly any other article is liable to not be a good model, since only GA and FA articles have been subjected to any sort of rigorous review.

At first glance, your draft presents a somewhat forbidding wall of text and does indeed read more like a biography that would appear in a gallery catalog than an encyclopedia article (you need to strive for a more neutral tone in your writing). Please keep working on it and submit it for review when you think it's ready. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you jmcgnh Hope this reply is correct. Not sure how to respond to your reply. LorriBrown (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed the tag, as the content is in your Sandbox. I agree with jmcgnh that the content needs trimming (WAY TOO MUCH DESCRIPTION OF SHOWS), and creation of sections. Model after other artist biographies that C-class or better (shown at top of Talk). Best wishes for submitting this to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Understand that what is in WP is in all likelihood despite wherever it may be saved, viewable by others although you may be under the impression that it is private and restricted to your eyes only. People can comment on it and sometimes they will converse in "TEMPLATES" or on automatic which may not convey in the appropriate nuance what is needed in a particular situation. It may come across too strongly or too passively. Just like the in-law that attempts to easy your way into the new family, they may not have realized how crossing over the line has just happened. The internet does not provide the best was of conveying nuances such as body language when explaining. You cannot control how others communicate in writing with you but you can in future control how you communicate with others. This basically shows how cavernous WP can be in every aspect of its functioning. Just thank thre person for their suggestion and reminding them that you will when ready ask of their opinions.104.35.236.49 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello David David notMD. Thank you for your input and for removing that tag! I apologize but I do not understand how to navigate to the "Model after other artist biographies that C-class or better (shown at top of Talk)" that you've referred to. @David notMD and David notMD:Question, How can an editor solicit other editors for help and input into their article(s). Also, how are people notified in this platform? I apologize if it is improper to 'ping' you. I noticed this on the sandbox revision history - not in the notifications. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What I meant is go to artists' articles, and at the top of each Talk page there should be a rating (Stub, Start, C-class, B-class). The Start and C-class are models to emulate. See List of contemporary artists for examples. Pinging is appropriate (even though I don't do it). David notMD (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a misspelled (transliterated) word in Wikipedia article Congregation Beth Israel (Milwaukee). The wikipedia article mentions the "Rabbi Solomon I. Scheinfeld Moath Chitim Fund", clearly taken from a Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle article date April 11, 2003: https://web.archive.org/web/20110716215155/http://www.jewishchronicle.org/article.php?article_id=2202

The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, though, should have spelled it "Maoth", with the 'a' and 'o' transposed. Does this warrant a " [sic]" notation, or does this qualify as what MOS:QUOTE calls a trivial typographic error that should simply be corrected without comment? Or something else? Jkgree (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jkgree: If it's part of a quote included in the article, use a [sic] tag. If it's freeform text, just fix it, perhaps with another reference to back up the correct spelling. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Does this mean that WP is using "sic" in its text as there seemed to be a time that when a misspelling was contained in a quote there was no attempt made in WP to acknowledge it so that people would stop continually changing what was thought a mistake? I notice many times in WP coding that notes will be left to advise a potential contributor not to change the text as it appears in publication form. It may be a good idea to direct people to these coding rules.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

in schools there are lots of kids who get told don't use Wikipedia because its just probably a 40 year old man living in his parents basement writing lies....well I want to change that I say you update Wikipedia were before your things can get published Wikipedia has to verify it to see if its appropriate kid friendly real true makes since…. this.....is happening for children to not use this very useful site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videogamerwriter (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Videogamerwriter: "Publishing" happens more-or-less in real time.

Whenever Wikipedia came up while I was in school, I would point out that while Wikipedia is unstable, it cites reliable sources (and so a good place to find sources) and Wikipedia is both more accurate and expansive than the Encyclopedia Britannica (making it a good starting point for getting a general idea about a topic). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a new contributor and am looking for advice on adding a section to an existing article. The article is scientific, and contains a References section that list technical books the reader can refer to. I feel the article could benefit from another section at the end of the article titled "Readings for a General Audience".

Would it be appropriate to use the article's Talk Page to ask if others agree that this new section is warranted?

Thank you very much.

Evan2184 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Evan2184. When you edit, you can either be WP:BOLD or be WP:CAUTIOUS. If you're bold and somebody reverts the changes you made (and the revert is not a clearcut case of vandalism), then you're going to be expected to follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) and try to establish a consensus for the changes. Sometimes when you're bold, especially on articles which don't attract lots of attention, your edit might go unchallenged for quite a bit of time; however, when it is challenge (regardless of how much time has passed), you're going to be expected to still follow BRD. Generally, Wikipedia wants editors to be bold; sometimes, however, when you're planning on making a major change to an article, or you want to edit an article with lots of activity (maybe because it's perhaps about a controversial subject or something recently in the news, etc.), it can be a good idea to be a bit CAUTOUS to avoid any issues with others working on the article which might lead to edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thank you for explaining bold vs cautious. It is much appreciated! Evan2184 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Evan2184: Which article are you talking about? References are used to support statements in an article, but "Further reading" is for material not referred to, but nevertheless helpful to readers. If it doesnt already have one, I'd advise adding a new section with that title so as to follow the format of all other pages in this encyclopaedia. Although I dont remember ever seeing it done, I dont see why you couldn't split that into two - Introductory and Technical. Or simply put a comment in brackets after the source's details to indicate its technical level. See Wikipedia:Further reading. One other thing to say is that, yes, if you are ever worried about making a change to an article, you could, indeed, always post your proposal on its Talk Page and see what response you get from other editors. You should leave it a few days to a week to give peole a chance to reply. But organising a 'Further reading' section doesn't sound very contentious to me. It all depends on what article you're referring to. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes. Thank you for your advice. "Further Reading" is a better title for the section than "Readings for a General Audience", and follows the format used in other articles. I appreciate your help! Evan2184 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

When will my page be visible for public — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monte Carlo studios (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Never because I've deleted the page and blocked OP. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The subject of this article has been covered in cited in multiple "reliable secondary sources" and also has received significant coverage in some prominent English newspapers whose online copies are also on the internet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushrut_Badhe

3 reliable sources for verifying: http://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/health/2018/may/20/the-vedic-healer-1816044.html

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/puducherry/attempting-to-take-gita-to-the-young-generation/article7925935.ece

http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2016/apr/23/Versatile-Verve-for-Divine-Verses-928166.html

Despite repeated attempts to establish the notability of this subject, this tag has been remained. This tag was removed by an independent wiki editor earlier. Can this tag be removed or is it likely to be a permanent feature on the article?

It is a little disappointing to raise this query in the teahouse for the 4th time, especially for me as article creator as I had identified 5 articles for creation of notable persons and organizations last year but am still stuck on my first article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pavankum: Seems alright to me (and Milowent, the person who tagged it in the first place, OK'd it on their talk page). I've gone ahead and removed the tag. Gaelan 💬✏️ 05:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm involved in a POV discussion on Talk:Rent regulation. I believe that the article should "fairly represent all prominent viewpoints" on rent controls "in proportion to their prominence," but I don't know how to adjudicate what that means for an article about a social issue.

I created a subsection with my proposal for how to organize the viewpoints of economists, sociologists, tenants'-rights activists, etc. It seems that everyone likes my proposal, but I still feel like reaching out to the broader community to reach a consensus on what it means for the article to be "neutral" on rent control. I particularly want to invite editors from WikiProjects like Econ and Sociology to join the discussion. How would doing that help us reach consensus? Also, what's the best way to do this? Qzekrom (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:TEAHOUSE is definitely not the place for some general outreach efforts.  You can try WP:VP (village pump), or you can figure out how to get some kind of RFC (request for comments) on WP:CENT (centralized discussions). On Commons the latter would boil down to editing a CENT template, on enwiki I'm not sure if it has or had CENT (but if I don't get a red link in the edit preview it should exist.) –84.46.52.182 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't going to ask at Teahouse. We do have {{centralized discussion}} but this is too specific for that. Although I'm mostly concerned about a single article, I do believe that a more general consensus on what counts as neutrality in the social sciences might be warranted. WikiProject Econ has a content guideline that's relevant to this article, but I don't see anything similar for the other social sciences.

If I just want to talk about the one article, I should probably just post {{please see}} messages on relevant WikiProject talk pages. But if I want a discussion of the broader issue, WP:Village pump like you said would be more appropriate. Qzekrom (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And yeah, an RFC might be a good idea. Qzekrom (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to move the page downhere and capitalise the first letter, because the names of Wikipedia articles should not be stylised. Although, when I tried to move it, it said that the title was the same. In the page, it displays the title as "downhere", and I don't know how to fix it. Catinthedogs (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Catinthedogs: MediaWiki (the software powering Wikipedia) doesn't actually allow articles that start with a lowercase letter. However, there are tricks in the wikitext that force the page to be displayed with a lowercase title. Therefore, you can't move the article (because, technically, its current title is already Downhere). Instead, edit the article, and look for {{lowercase title}} or {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and remove that. Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCLOWERCASEFIRST is specifically intended for subjects which are normally styled with a lowercase first letter, so I don't know why you say "the names of Wikipedia articles should not be stylised"? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You can just edit the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to display the correct title.
Sincerely,
Masum Reza^talk 08:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: Unless you are doing one of the few things allowed by Template:DISPLAYTITLE#Description, there is no point in using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. If it is decided by consensus that the first character of the subject's name is not normally styled in lower case, the correct action would indeed be to remove the {{lowercase title}} template as Gaelan suggested. To put in a {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template but with an upper case first letter would be pointless and confusing. The sources do, however, seem to confirm the lowercase styling. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My movie is called VIYCE. Everybody knows this movie exists because it's free to watch and for sale on DVD. It's not the best movie ever, but it's a movie. It has a trailer and an original song. It is about the Bush administration. I play four early 2000s politicians and voice four pieces of paper. I cannot provide any links to outside newspaper articles because no big newspapers know this movie exists. Neither do any small newspapers. It exists nonetheless. i don't have the means to get this movie out. Anybody can buy it or watch it, and if people do, that's not my fault. I did not make an article about this movie for advertising. I made it because I believe it should have an article since it doesn't have one. I have been blocked and accused of spam. Explain why this is. I have no idea. This is wrong. Therealspiel (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Therealspiel: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promoting your movie. Articles are required to be on topics that are notable (WP:N). If there are no sources that have written about your movie, then it is not something we can have an article about. RudolfRed (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

More pecisely, Wikipedia:Notability (films) says how movies can be notable. This item does not seem to fit. Sometimes I nutshell it as, no publicity for those who need it. Only if they have already succeeded. Everypedia doesn't have that rule; maybe it's possible there. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be dwindling into a purposeless jumble that helps no one. WP has a particular purpose what some would call an encyclopia. It is not thr end all source of existence for everything in the world or in the part of the world that uses that particular language. It is by nature of those that financially and intellectually support it contain what is notable--again for that particular part of the world that the language is used. As long as there are a particular group of people in control of WP and its intentions and they have a qualification of notability and they get to decide what is notable then what you might find in a newspaper or magazine might nit be qualified to appear in WP. Yes, there may be people of distinction and repute that a=know of something or have read or seen something but what is suppose to be the assessment of notability is there being from record of quality sources why something is notable and not just the creator of the thing saying so. That is the difference. from being a publicity piece. Of course the problem with this strategy is that if something is notable, i.e. significant and it is not in the language of those that decide then it has less likelihood of being included in WP English if it is not part of the world of WP English readers. But that is another subject.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• OP blocked as a sockpuppet by TonyBallioni. I knew I'd seen this before. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

WP article on the "Ramadan" has a matter of divergence from WP standards and when this has been pointed out, it was eliminated from the record and the previous incomplete statement was reintroduced. What is the correct way of going about this. The presence of something that is not WP stantdard has been pointed out on the talk page:

"==Hadith== In Islamic eschatology:

• Abu Hurairah said that the Prophet said:^{[clarification needed]}

  There will be an Ayah (sign) in (the month of) Ramadan. Then, there will 'isabah (splitting into groups) in Shawwal. Then, there will be fighting in (the month of) Dhu al-Qi'dah. Then, the pilgrim will be robbed in (the month of) Dhu al-Hijjah. Then, the prohibitions will be violated in (the month of) al-Muharram. Then, there will be sound in (the month of) Safar, then the tribes will conflict with each other in the two months of Rabi' al-awwal & Rabi' al-thani. Then, the most amazing thing will happen between (the months of) Jumada and Rajab. Then, a well-fed she-camel will be better than a fortress (castle) sheltering a thousand (people).^[1]

  "

As as been pointed out in the talk page the parts that stand for a CI of source ar to other parts of WP and are also redirects. This is not an appropriate level of responsibility for WP. there neds to be a [age number otherwise it becomes the responsibility of the reader to determine where this is suppose to come.

2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The same "CI" is in WP 12 times.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've swapped the "clarify" tag for {{Nonspecific}} since that seems to be the issue. If it's a book, it has publisher details that should be cited. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that certainly is very specific for what was the initial situation of a reported CI that was folding back onto itself and not providing an answer. But then when this was pointed it, another "contributor" supplied an explanation that n paraphrase included a link but that was not the solution or the intent, then erased the record that there was something wrong and re-imposing the previously paraphrased explanation--which did not solve the situation. WP contributors, especially those that imply they should know the rules of conduct, should not be attempting to thwart and censor the record. That is not acceptable. By the actions that followed after the talk page opening discussion, I am not clear if the other contributor was aware of what was the problem as they did not contribute to any better understanding as to why a CI without any direction to source was better than nothing being cited or the whole episode being retracted from the article (and all the other times used). The quality of a plastered wall does not improve when all you have doe is just increased the amount of plaster on the wall. And a string of words or works or links is not going to make a CI suitable or better because of it, or ignoring it.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C39:927C:54DA:93BC (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have been editing for nearly ten years and am an administrator, but I do not recognize what "CI" is. Use acronyms sparingly and only when readers worldwide will understand the acronym. I have looked at the talk pages of Ramadan and Hadith and Islamic eschatology, and see no discussion of any such issues. So, what does "CI" mean and precisely which article are we talking about? Accusations of censorship are rarely persuasive on Wikipedia because no government controls our content with force of law, except in very narrow cases like child pornography. If one Wikipedia editor wants to remove content and another editor disagrees and wants to restore it, then we have established dispute resolution processes in place, which should be utilized before hollering "censorship". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, what is CI? I can't find anyhing like this in WP: namespace pages except WP:CI → Wikipedia:Category intersection, which doesn't seem to have anything to do here. --CiaPan (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan and cullen328 could the editor be meaning CI = "citation" ? If I insert citation for CI in their posts, it seems to work, especially in this post: " the parts that stand for a CI of source ar to other parts of WP and are also redirects." Are they saying that we're citing WP in a WP article? valereee (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Could you, please, specify where you have swapped something, so that the discussion will make some sense for not involved readers, too?
(failed to ping properly, hopefully this one will work. --CiaPan (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC))

@CiaPan:: Ramadan (calendar month)#Hadith – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Oh, I see. I looked at Ramadan, but couldn't find anything relevant enough to this talk. Thank you! --CiaPan (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

CiaPan, I think maybe the editor is pointing out that the reference for that section is a deadlink? valereee (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

To go straight to the point,

My father is a political Figure in Africa and thus, when his name is googled, the initial result shown in the link below (Yemi Akinseye George https://g.co/kgs/3F9TrB ) reports that he is from " EKITI STATE " Where as he is from " ONDO STATE ".

The Google Result alone, is enough to damage his political career and insight violence against him.

Please any help on subject would be greatly appreciated.

I have been able to edit his actual wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemi_Akinseye_George ) to show his real state of origin "ONDO STATE" Which is situate in NIGERIA. However i cannot figure out how to edit the Initial Google Result Thumb Nail owing to my inadequate computer skills.

PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.56.108.23 (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It takes time for Google to index pages, this includes Wikipedia articles. We cannot do anything about their processes; you would need to contact Google, but I don't think there is much that can be done to speed it up. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. – Teratix ₵ 13:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Google's Knowledge Graph does not specify the source of data fields but they may be getting it from us. Yemi Akinseye George is in Category:People from Ekiti State, and Yemi Akinseye George (Q18719254) says Ekiti State, imported from English Wikipedia. He was bon in 1963, long before Ekiti State was split off from Ondo State in 1996. I haven't found where in Ondo State he was born but even if it was the present Ekiti State, I guess we should say Ondo State. Our alleged reference for birth year and state is archived at [1] and doesn't mention any year or state. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I know how to access my 'User Talk Page'. Is the 'Article Talk Page' the same as that article's View History Page?- AWCzarnik (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@AWCzarnik: No—each article has a page for discussing changes to that article. It's visible as a "Talk" tab at the top left of each article. For instance, here's the talk page for the Apple article. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AWCzarnik. No, those two things are not the same. An article talk page is for human editors to discuss possible improvements to a specific article. So it is oriented to the future, and is mostly created by human editors, though bots may sometimes post notices. A view history page for an article is a chronological list of every single edit that has been made to that article, and is generated automatically by the software. It is a log of past activity, not a discussion page. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Roger that, friends. Hadn't seen that in the upper left corner. Cheers.- AWCzarnik (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Pings go here.) Hello, everybody! Shouldn't Help:Talk pages be mentioned in this thread...? --CiaPan (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Well a simpler explanation would be the talk page is for discussion matters of the subject/it's corresponding main page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What do I need to enter into an Infobox to add some pushpin images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdyKaiExpo (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, NerdyKaiExpo. Your question is rather unclear. I'm not sure what you mean by "pushpin images"—are you referring to pushpin maps? If so, the answer depends on what infobox the article uses. For example, the relevant fields in {{Infobox settlement}} are listed at Template:Infobox settlement#Maps, coordinates. The fields for some other infoboxes are similar, but some infoboxes, even for geolocatable things, don't allow for the inclusion of pushpin maps. In any case, you can look at the infobox template's documentation to see what fields are available.

If I haven't understood your question correctly, please try to clarify it. Deor (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Will all edits be reviewed before approval? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarthaKings (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarthaKings: That depends on the page. Many pages are unprotected and update in real-time. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new editor and there are certain things that I find to be incorrect. Especially on the page titled 'Meme' in the Anthropology section. The internet culture section of 'Meme' is so incorrect I could hardly call it true. Anyway I can edit it? ---- Epic game fixer

@Epic game fixer: You can make edit requests at Talk:Meme. Try to put the edit request in one of the following formats:

• 'please change (X text) to (Y text) because of (Z source or policy)'
• 'please add (B text) between (A text) and (C text) because of (Z source)'
• 'please remove (B text) between (A text) and (C text) because of (Z source or policy)'

...Or something else along those lines. Edit requests are not tickets to get to edit the page, they're where you ask someone who can edit the page to do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I am currently adding to a article about a recent incident and I want to cite something from the involved company's website. The incident was a shooting so there is a message from the company's CEO offering condolences on the company website front page. How should I cite the statement as a source if the statement will likely be removed from the website after a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koalafied1 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Koalafied1: Wikipedia tries to stick to lasting coverage and so avoids temporary sources (at least those that don't end up on the Internet Archive). A shooting would likely be covered by at least local news and news coverage would be a more preferable source to a temporary company statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have made an edit to the page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%22Anything%27s_Possible%22_Quarterback,_bronze_sculpture_installation_by_Levi%27s_Stadium.jpg and when I sign my name it says that that my user page does not exist, yet it does link to my talk page. Please Help. Wisteriagarden (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Wisteriagarden

Hi Wisteriagarden, that's because you haven't created a user page on Commons. Commons and English Wikipedia are separate projects. —teb728 t c 22:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

What teb728 has said above is true, but if you generate a user page in meta:, it will be used anywhere (including Commons) that you don't have a specific user page, see meta:Global user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. After I read User:teb728's response, I created a user page on Commons, which gave me the blue link that I was missing. Then I saw User:David Biddulph's response and I went and created a page on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. Phew! It's a good thing there are so many helpful Wikipedians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisteriagarden (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

how to make a article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey088 (talk • contribs)

I've left instructions on OP's user talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

how do i make a aritcle about something someone else has allready made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey088 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Petey088: If we already have an article about a topic, we don't have a second, redundant, duplicate article on the exact same topic. You edit the existing article instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey088 (talk • contribs)

@Petey088: Stop making new sections for every question, just edit the existing sections you've made. Scroll down to the section, look for a button next to the section title, and click the button next to the section title. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Petey088: How long is a piece of string? If you create a new page on a clearly notable topic, and obviously based on good references, it could get through Articles for Creation quite quickly, maybe in a few days. But there is a huge backlog, and it can take our volunteers up to 5 weeks to review it. If it clearly fails our criteria, you are quite likely to get feedback on why your draft article has been rejected much sooner than that. You then have as much time as you need to address the issues raised in that rejection. Any new article put into the encyclopaedia still has to go through New Page Review. This means that, whilst a new article is visible immediately on Wikipedia, we dont permit Google to index it until we've done the NPP review. This stops people from abusing Wikipedia to promote their pet band, wrestler, company, product or whatever. Were you to try to put a new article directly into the encylopaedia without going through the AFC review process, it would be visible within Wikipedia immediately, but equally would be liable to be speedily deleted - even within minutes if it were seen to be flagrantly breaching our page creation criteria. (So, the 'Articles for Creation' route is the way to go.) Does that answer your question? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk),

can u review my draft??????????? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Debasmita_Bhattacharya

please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhikhurathee (talk • contribs) 15:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bhikhurathee: Another editor has reviewed your draft. See the comments on your talk page and on the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

How do you become an administrator on Wikipedia?

Thanks, Badsaad10 (talk

@Badsaad10: Once an editor has demonstrated that their competence and trustworthiness over many years and thousands of edits, someone can nominate them for adminship. Then the community discusses the nomination and the Arbitration Committee decides on the community's consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Oh, I see. Thank you very much!

@Ian.thomson and Badsaad10: This is mostly correct. The Arbitration Committee has nothing to do with RFAs, which are closed by Bureaucrats. 100.2.120.74 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Badsaad10: You can read all about it here: Wikipedia:Administrators. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind saying that the process of how to find suitable Categories for an article bewilders me. Normally I try copying them from similar articles, changing as necessary - sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. But is there some way to search for suitable Categories? For example, I just published Marcello Costa. Most of my Category guesses were okay, but not Category:Fellows of the Australasian Academy of Science and Category:Alumni of the University of Turin. Those were modelled on categories used for other universities and follows of societies, but I just don't know how to find our what the right names are - if they indeed exist. Is there a searchable list of categories somewhere? Or some other way to find out what to use?--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: You can go to Special:Search, clear all the namespaces selected by default, add 'Category' instead, and insert 'University Turin' in the search box. Result: Special:Search/Category:University Turin.

Similary Special:Search/Category:fellows academy science or Special:Search/Category:australasian fellows.

HTH. :) CiaPan (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: that is just brilliant, thank you - it is exactly what I need!   Now I can easily see that the one I want is Category:University of Turin alumni, and it's so easy. Thanks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Another method is to use HotCat, a gadget you enable in your preferences (Preferences --> Gadgets --> Enable HotCat). I find it quite useful. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Glad to help, Gronk Oz. Have a nice day. Or night ...well, have a nice time, whichever time it is at your side now.   --CiaPan (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I've also found this helpful: Special:CategoryTree valereee (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all - I will put these to good use.--Gronk Oz (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this where I can inquire about making an edit to an article? I have some information to add to in the Wikipedia "tennis" page and would like to add some information to the section talking about tennis balls and racket dampeners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chambersbrand (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chambersbrand: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! This is a place for newer or inexperienced users to ask any questions they have about using or editing Wikipedia. That includes questions about editing articles; feel free to pose your question and others (not necessarily me) will do their best to help. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You also may not be aware that every article has an associated 'talk page', which is meant for discussing changes to or the makeup of the article. In the case of tennis that would be Talk:Tennis. You may also ask your question there; it is likely that many editors follow the tennis article and will see your question. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Which is consonant with Wiki usage: 'Inc' or 'Inc.'?- AWCzarnik (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In an article title, usually neither, see WP:Naming conventions (companies). --David Biddulph (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That generates another question. The title of Czarnik v. Illumina is given as, 'Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc'. Based on WP:Naming conventions (companies), the 'Inc' should not be in the title. I don't know how to edit the title. Would appreciate advice.- AWCzarnik (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@AWCzarnik: Legal cases are different—in that case, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#In_the_United_States applies. I'm not sure what the "Bluebook" style referred to is, but it seems from the examples and other articles about legal cases that we do include the "Inc." For future reference, if you hover over the "More" text (next to Read, Edit, etc) there should be a "Move" link. Click that to rename an article. Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AWCzarnik. The problem with your analysis is that Czarnik v. Illumina, Inc is not an article about a company, but rather an article about a court case involving that company. Therefore, a guideline about naming articles about companies is not relevant and is off point. Instead, we name articles about court cases the way that the preponderance of reliable sources about the court case (not the company) refer to the case. And almost all reliable sources describing the court case use "Inc" as discussed by the court itself. And therefore, Wikipedia will title its article about the case that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. If the suffix is to remain, I assume it should be, "Inc.". Are either of you able to help me edit the title to add the period?- AWCzarnik (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I figured out the solution to my own question, thanks to the advice of Gaelan. Appreciate both of your assistance.- AWCzarnik (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia so I don't think I should be responsible for editing this article. Rather, I should have someone else fix the article, and then I observe how it was fixed and I'll learn from that. The article is Tyler Morris and it is so biased that it seems like it was written by a publicist. I posted on the Talk Page but I'm not sure if anyone will ever see my post.

To get the article improved, what would be my best move here? Jasongarb (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jasongarb: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I kind of see what you are saying, some of the language could be toned down a bit. If you don't feel comfortable doing it yourself, you can make your talk page comment into a formal edit request (click that link for more information) which will eventually draw the attention of another editor. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Article shortened by more than half. Separate problem is that the first ref goes nowhere related to TM and the other two are to his website. David notMD (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jasongarb:The article has now been nominated for deletion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me but I am not good at adding images in wikipedia,So I need step by step instructions on how will I add the twilight zone (2019) logo in the wikipedia article ? : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Twilight_zone_2019_logo.jpg --Belrien12 (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Belrien12. That image is already in use at The Twilight Zone (2019 TV series). Are you thinking of using the image in another article? Please understand that because that logo is being used under a claim of fair use, it can only be used in very specific locations, and the image page would have to be changed to make out a fair use rationale for any separate, additonal display. Can you provide some details on where you wanted to use this?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I am new to the english Wikipedia and I drew a picture on Gandhi's Satyagraha. A german version is already used in the german Article w:de:Satyagraha. You can also look on the Talk page of the article for my reasons Talk:Satyagraha#Picture_on_Satyagraha.

My question is: Is the picture good enough for the english article? :-)

Friendly greetings, Quark48 (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Quark48 and a friendly welcome to the Teahouse to you, too. The answer I was just about to give you has already been supplied to you on the talk page of that article. There you were advised by Ronz to raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, which I think was a good suggestion. Instead you chose to ask here, and my view is that, assuming you translated it into English, there would probably be far too much original research inherent within your flow diagram that it probably would be rejected as unacceptable. (Neither my knowledge of the topic, nor knowledge of the German language are sufficient for me to give firm advice). If you were to proceed, you should ensure that any chart followed content given in cited references, and not just your own personal understanding and interpretation of this particular concept of non-violent resistance. But, you are to be applauded for taking the initiative to ask first, so thank you for your concerns to ensure that English wikipedia stays as neutral and unbiased as is possible. I hope you get the results you seek at the Image use forum. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask there! Thank you. :-) Quark48 (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

i have come across mistakes and factually wrong information. tell me how to correct and edit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spmenon33 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Spmenon33: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Does this refer to your attempts to edit Shweta Menon? If yes, your changes were reverted because they were made without explanation. When you make an edit, it is helpful to briefly explain your changes in the edit summary(a bar below the edit window when you are typing your edit) or on the article talk page(in this case Talk:Shweta Menon). You will also need to have reliable sources to support your changes. As you are a new user, I would suggest that you use the new user tutorial which will help you to learn about how Wikipedia operates. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Spmenon33, if you come across those, I would say check the reliability of the sources, if there is any, and verify them (i.e. to check whether the content is properly established in the source). If you think it fails, feel free to tag beside the inline citation {{unreliable source?}}. Also, whenever you tag anything, it is important to say your reasoning on the talk page, even if it's obvious.

If there is no inline citation that is supporting the content that you think is controversial, tag {{citation needed}} and follow the same procedure. And of course, you can alter/remove the content if you are able to justify properly. I hope this helps. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I have recently edited two person's personal details. One is under talk. What is the procedure you do next? Is it review? Thanks /JV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Jyovijay (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

All of your edits (to one article, to another article's Talk Talk:Sukumari) were published right after you clicked on Publish changes. Is there more you wanted to accomplish? David notMD (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there anyone who could mentor me on being an effective editor for a controversial subject (one prone to edit warring because neither side can ever see the other's viewpoint)? One side is making pages that are (a) not notable and (b) criticisms only; adding citations that are either not English or are irrelevant to the page-topic (in order to introduce yet more controversial information to any potential reader); changing back things that are edited (and well documented as to why things were changed that way and how it matches WP editor guidelines). In other words, they are engaging in a propaganda war using Wikipedia. They started it; I'm trying to fix it. I've tried everything "by the book" and I'm losing the war. What's a newbie to do? I've read a heap of Wiki editor policies and it's so much information with no sense of how to go about this. (Every article is equal to every other article with no heirarchy or sequence.) Is there anyone willing to mentor through email to help me understand the framework where I need to start and a path to travel? I need the "crash course"! Nomopbs (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nomopbs, check out this list of mentors. Here, you will find experienced editors who are looking for mentees and are willing to effortlessly train them. At the bottom of that page, there is a box where you can click to request one for yourself with preferences. I hope this helps. If you have any specific queestions, you can ask anyone. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, ImmortalWizard. That was a tool I didn't know was available until you mentioned it. Thanks! Nomopbs (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be editing at Dogsbite.org and Talk:Dogsbite.org. Is this where you are finding conflict? From a quick look, appears you and other editors are correctly discussing differences of opinion (and perhaps of fact) at the Talk page. Keep calm, and carry on. David notMD (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pat on the back, David notMD. I'm trying. The others aren't playing per guidelines. Nomopbs (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Question 1:
MsFredd said this on my talk page. I don't quite understand what this editor is saying. Could you clarify what they said and how I should reply to it?
Question 2:
I understand that signatures on Wikipedia have the timestamp in UTC format. However, my local time in Eastern Time in North America. It causes ambiguity when converting between time zones. Is it possible to change the Wikipedia timestamps to my local time zone instead of UTC or should I change the time zone on my computer to match Wikipedia's time even though it is not my local time? Mstrojny (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Q2: Go to your Preferences (upper right, right after the link to your Sandbox), click Gadgets, scroll down to Appearance, and select Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time, then save. For Q1, it sounds like MsFredd is inviting you to work on improving an article together. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding a ping @Mstrojny: Schazjmd (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Company: Cognitiv Cognitivlabs.com

Not looking to get a full page, but rather a snippet.

Notability:

Cover story in Adweek's printed publication about how they run IBM Watson's advertising technology.

https://www.adweek.com/digital/ibm-is-bringing-next-level-ai-technology-to-marketers/

Note: The web page for all their writers, including their editor in chief, is designated as adweek.com/contributor/name, which can be confusing as it seems like it designates them as a contributor. This is a printed cover story. Adweek also has a Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adweek

IBM Watson has a Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)

Since you can't read it in full, being in the printed publication, here is another source documenting the IBM Watson stuff:

https://adexchanger.com/data-exchanges/marketers-guide-ai-marketing-advertising/

Digiday Best Mobile Marketing Platform 2018 -

https://digiday.com/awards/chartbeat-amobee-and-adobe-are-the-top-winners-in-the-digiday-technology-awards/

DigiDay has a Wikipedia page as well, for notability checking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digiday

Here are some less notable sources that might allow for some secondary content. I designated them being staff and contributing writers in parenthesis:

https://www.exchangewire.com/blog/2017/12/12/experts-predict-will-artificial-intelligence-become-less-talk-action-2018/ (staff writer) https://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/09/27/beeswax-four-partners-form-new-adtech-platform-programmatic-cloud (staff writer) https://www.inc.com/jeremy-goldman/how-companies-like-amazon-google-turn-data-into-a-competitive-advantage-how-you-can-too.html (contributor) https://geomarketing.com/cognitiv-labs-neural-net-programmatic (staff writer) CIO Applications Top 25 AI Service Providers 2018 - https://artificial-intelligence.cioapplications.com/vendor/cognitiv-selftrained-deep-neural-networks-to-transform-marketing-cid-2043-mid-112.html (staff writer)

I'm new to Wikipedia and I want to see if I'm doing this right. Do the notable sources I listed at the top of this inquiry qualify for a snippet page? If not, what do I need? Also, do the less notable sources have any use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interpellation89 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Interpellation89: The sources really need to be primarily and specifically about Cognitiv to establish notability. The sources also need to be completely independent of Cognitiv (not press releases or other marketing pieces ultimately paid for by Cognitiv). For these reasons, I'm not seeing the sources you've cited as sufficiently demonstrating notability. Here is my guide on how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted, part of this larger guide on a variety of matters. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I have found an issue on the page "War on Terror". Mujahideen is misspelled as Mujahadeen. However the page is protected so I cannot fix the issue. Is there anywhere to add a comment so someone else can fix it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

Under background, Precursor to the September 11 attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GvnRich (talk • contribs) 03:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @GvnRich: - I was able to make the change that you requested. Here is a little more about the process for requesting edits to protected pages: Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Making_requests. Have a good evening! Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

New editor here My primary mission is to edit a page title that includes a geographical reference that is no longer valid. It appears that this is the one thing off limits to editing. Please advise. Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leestanleyjones (talk • contribs) 03:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Leestanleyjones, welcome to the Teahouse. Moving a page requires autoconfirmed rights most of the time—these only take 10 edits and 4 days to acquire, but in the mean time you can request that a page be moved here. Eman235/talk 03:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm a new user. My User id is DrumLessons. I tried to start a personal page called Greg Dana (Drummer, Instructor) for my business accomplishments. I did write it out but I can't find it in the search mode. It appears that the name Greg Dana (...) is titled DrumLessons/sandbox. How do I change this? Confused as frick! Can you kindly help? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrumLessons (talk • contribs) 07:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DrumLessons. Your draft is located at User:DrumLessons/sandbox but you should not try to move it into the main space of the encyclopedia because it would be deleted almost immediately. It is written in a joking style inappropriate for an encyclopedia article and is completely unreferenced. It also appears to be an autobiography, and this type of article is strongly discouraged. Please read and study Your first article to develop an understanding of what is required for an acceptable Wikipedia biography. Take a look at Ringo Starr to see what a really good article about a drummer looks like. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)