Wikipedia:Teahouse

Is a comma always required between King and Jr. with Jr always followed by a period?2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of the Manual of Style is at MOS:JUNIOR.--David Biddulph (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No comma is needed, but often appears. The j should be lower case, but 99% of folks write it wrong. "John Smith, junior" is simply a designation of being younger, not a formal title. If you want to copy all the folks who write it incorrectly, go with a comma and capital J. I'm sure you know that in 10 or 20 years, no one will use a capital letter, except at the beginning of a sentence. This is the result of phone texting, where the initial capital is automatic, and it is too much trouble to add the extra tap to make a capital letter. Wikievil666 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While an unquestionably interesting look at the future of written English, the above IP should refer to the the Manual of Style, as to actually implement a world devoid of capitals would constitute a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so i was working on my first page for a firm called prestige economics and i think i messed up bad. i had an initial draft that i submitted for review, it got rejected. i then redrafted and submitted it for review again, but i thought the article was fine this time, so i moved it to article space on my own. and now it's nominated for deletion. please help me out and let me know how i can make this better.

i don't wnt my first article to get deleted. please help. :(SMJ 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs)

Hello Sarah312x and welcome (back, I think) to the Teahouse.

One thing you need to understand about Wikipedia is that your individual contributions are owned by you, but the pages you create belong to Wikipedia at large, in the sense that other editors are free to comment on, add or subtract content from, and judge whether they meet our policies. Your should not have moved Prestige Economics back to Draft:Prestige Economics once other editors made changes. I expect the article will probably be deleted once the AfD discussion has run its course.

Creating a new article from scratch is a pretty hard thing to do on Wikipedia. Based on this article and some of your other contributions, you should probably study up on what WP considers reliable sources and the somewhat peculiar way WP interprets the concept of notability. The Articles for Creation process provides an opportunity for new editors to get their efforts reviewed and the feedback should be taken seriously. Use the process for your next effort and don't short-circuit it.

Most Teahouse helpers will tell you that you need to spend a while improving other articles and learning the ropes before attempting to create a new article from scratch. If you haven't already gone over it, the your first article instructions should help you. The Teahouse is here to help! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah312x: Oops. Misspelling username is not good form, sorry. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah312x: I see that very little of Draft:Prestige Economics is about the company. It's almost all about things its president and employees have said. Such content should all be removed. If an employee corrected predicted a recession, that's irrelevant for Wikipedia. If an independent source, such as a respected journalist or a senior politician, praised the company or its employee for successfully predicting a recession (or criticised them for getting it wrong), that might be worthy of a place in the article. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can any of you help me improve it? SMJ 07:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs)

Some possibilities, but not holding out much help.

1. figure out what subject you are writing about - Prestige Economics or Jason Schenker
2. establish notability by finding several high-quality, independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject
3. rewrite the draft from scratch using only information from the sources, carefully citing each statement of fact
4. avoid promotional language, avoid writing a one-sided view of the subject

I don't see that the collective opinion at the AfD discussion was that PE or Schenker were definitely not notable, just that the draft did not adequately demonstrate notability. So whether there can be an article or not depends on finding those independent sources. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an okay way to start it? I'm trying to re-draft the article. :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prestige_Economics SMJ 05:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse helpers,

Newbie here.

I translated a page from English to Spanish and would like a proofreader. How do I find one? This is my first time collaborating with Wikipedia. Could anyone guide me through the process of translating articles and crediting the original article?

Thank you

Egalanti Egalanti (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Egalanti Your edit history shows only two edits which are to this page, can you tell us what the article is called? If you haven't created it yet I would recommend the WP:AFC process where it can be proof read by reviewers before being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The OP is presumably referring to es:Curling en las Olimpiadas de Invierno 2018 – Torneo femenino, though it looks from es:Anexo:Curling en los Juegos Olímpicos de Pyeongchang 2018 that they are expecting the article to be entitled es:Anexo:Curling en los Juegos Olímpicos de Pyeongchang 2018 – Femenino, and presumably they would expect it to be of similar format to es:Anexo:Curling en los Juegos Olímpicos de Pyeongchang 2018 – Masculino. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original name of the article is "Curling at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's tournament" (in English) The translated title is "Curling en las Olimpiadas de Invierno 2018 – Torneo femenino"

I hit publish thinking it would save the translation so I could review it and make changes to it later. Will all Wikipedia readers have access to it or does the translation need to be approved first?

Thank you! Egalanti (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused, we already have an article called Curling at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Women's tournament but you have made no edits to it unless you were logged out? Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Egalanti: The OP is looking for a proofreader for his Spanish version, not the English one. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...I must learn to read properly. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth looking at Category:Translators en-es. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it hasn't been published for everyone to see. I didn't create the article, I merely translated it and was hoping to find a proofreader. I will search a bit more and see if I can find one. Thank you for taking the time to help me, I really appreciate it

Egalanti (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been published for everyone to see. In the English Wikipedia we would recommend that new editors shouldn't try to publish an article directly to mainspace, but instead should produce a draft for review through the Article for creation process. The guidance is at WP:Your first article. As I am not a Spanish speaker I will leave you to read the equivalent page at es:Ayuda:Tu primer artículo to see whether it gives similar advice. Advice on translating from English to a foreign Wikipedia is at WP:Translate us. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David for the suggested page. I will look for a proofreader there.Egalanti (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egalanti, the word "publish" gets used in different senses. Most people think of "publishing" as meaning making a page part of Wikipedia's main set of articles: so you can develop a draft somewhere out of sight, and then 'publish' it. But in fact, every page on Wikipedia is visible to the entire world: articles, drafts, user pages, everything. As soon as you have saved it, it is visible, and so in a different sense "published" I assume that is why the Foundation recently changed "Save" to "Publish", to make this clear; but it has caused confusion instead. Pages outside the main article space are not usually indexed by search engines, and so will not come to people's attention casually, and in that sense, they haven't been published; but they are still visible if somebody goes looking for them. --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ColinFine for your message. I was under the impression that an article needed to be approved before it went public for the entire world to see. I have been reading the rules but may have missed that one. It makes sense... I will be more careful with the next one. In the meantime, I will look for a proofreader who can make the necessary changes so the article reads well in SpanishEgalanti (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to edit my user space and create some sort of table containing some of the templates that I find useful. But I don't know how to add them without them being displayed. I only want to show them like this Template:Disclamer, but without the spaces. Thanks. Onaxis^{TALK TO ME} 20:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I jsut sorted it out :) Onaxis^{TALK TO ME} 21:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Onaxis. I don't know if you know about the template {{tl}}, but that sounds as if you would find it useful. (What I wrote in the previous sentence was {{tl|tl}}, and as you see, it displays as {{tl}} with a link to the template definition). --ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks loads ColinFine! I found it really useful!. Onaxis^{TALK TO ME} 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i'm writing under a fake name for privacy, but i know about sock puppet rules. there's a bad-tempered user who's causing me stress, and i don't know what to do about it. i'm afraid if he finds out i'm asking or complaining about him, he'll show up here and go on an attack against me. i just want to ask for some advice anonymously before i do anything else, i hope it's ok. i've been editing for a couple of years but i never had to deal with such a hostile person before. there are so many rules, guidelines, noticeboards, etc., i've spent hours reading them but i can't make sense of it. probably i'm too sensitive but i even had some nightmares about it. i feel like i want to get out, maybe even to quit wikipedia, but then i'd feel bad that i let him bully me.

it started when he showed up in an article and made some changes that were not helpful. he reverts anyone who changes it back, or he makes a little different version so it's technically not a revert. he's an old-timer and knows all the rules. i started a discussion on the talk page, and he wrote some hostile things. it's not really personal attacks but it's hostile arguing and borderline "you know nothing" kind of insults. a few other people joined and they're all very nice and smart, and we all generally agree on things, so that's nice. but he won't listen to anyone or anything, he won't make any kind of compromise at all, and he attacks everyone's comments and writes these long things that twist reality and don't make sense. he keeps reverting or change everything anyone tries to do, and makes even bigger changes. after a couple of times i gave up trying to put things back to a reasonable state. now i can't figure out how to fix it.

everyone but him wants to put the article back the way it was. we're not stonewalling, we're all open to positive changes, but that's not what he's offering. i'm trying to follow the rules about consensus and content disputes but i don't get it. i feel like i'm being pulled into this pointless conflict and forced to provide counter-arguments for the nonsense he writes, everyone is spending time trying to explain why his arguments don't make any sense, but it's a farce, it's not a real discussion. it's just endless hostility and nonsense arguments from him. then he puts it back his way, saying that nobody has made a valid argument against it.

at what point can i say "everyone but you agrees to do it this way, so that's the consensus, so that's what we're going to do". how can we end this? or can one user block the consensus? is there no way to get him to stop? we've been stuck with his bad versions of the article for a long time now, and it's a major article. it's like he's holding it hostage.

i looked at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and the administrators noticeboard for incidents, but i can't figure out the right place to go, or what to ask for, or exactly what rules he's broken - if any. is this a content dispute, or a behavior dispute? what if it's both? who can make some kind of ruling? how can we make him stop and go away? i don't want to make a complaint and then have nothing come of it, to pointlessly kick the hornet's nest. i want to stand up to this person, but i don't know how. i'm very tired of it, wasting way too much time, and discouraged that i can't figure out the system to do something about it, and in the meantime having to hide behind a fake name and dreading looking at my watchlist. i really think after this i'll stop wikipedia, at least for a while. it's feeling like an unfriendly place, not only because of him, but all the complicated legalese. maybe someone can give some advice about how to proceed? StormyWhether (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine to just say "you're the only one who disagrees, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or whatever. If he doesn't stop, just try to ignore him, saying "this is the consensus" each time he reverts it. If he reverts enough people or breaks the three-revert rule you could report him to the edit-warring noticeboard. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he's careful not to break the three revert rule. what do you mean, "if he reverts enough people"? i looked at the edit-warring noticeboard and i can't understand how it would apply unless someone is breaking the 3RR. you have to provide diffs of where they have reverted to a previous version within 24 hours, but he waits until the next day, and usually makes some small changes so it's technically not a revert. also, i keep reading that i should never continue to revert someone, because it's edit warring even if it's not all on the same day. if we revert each other every day, then i'm just as guilty as him. you're supposed to stop reverting and discuss it. technically he's discussing it, but in reality not, because he has no intention of compromising at all. and he doesn't stop reverting, so it always ends up with his version because i'm following the rules and not edit warring. StormyWhether (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it could be considered a revert, even if there are small changes. And by "revert enough people", if you can show them clearly reverting against consensus, it should be reportable. You also might be able to report it to ANEW with diffs showing their hostile behavior. It seems that any reasonable person would construe this as problematic, even if it is not technically breaking 3RR (and there's something, somewhere, about 3RR circumvention, but I'm not sure where). Also, if an admin wants to weigh in on this, that'd be real nice. I'm not exactly highly experienced. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StormyWhether. The three revert rule is a narrow "bright line" rule, and it is entirely possible to engage in edit warring and get blocked for it without violating 3RR. This is sometimes called "slow motion edit warring". One editor cannot prevent consensus from being formed. Consistent editing against consensus is also a blockable offense. Your use of an alternate account seems valid, so do not worry about that. I think that you need an administrator to take a look at this and give you an independent evaluation of the situation. You can email any administrator who you trust to maintain confidentiality. If you do not know an administrator, please be aware that I am an administrator and I will give you my honest opinion if you contact me by email. I hope that you will stick with editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i'm having trouble understanding about consensus. in the consensus policy, at WP:TALKDONTREVERT it says "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines" etc. but who does the determining? everyone else in the discussion has basically agreed on what to do, but what he says is that it's not a vote, and he believes his arguments "destroy" everyone else's, so there's no consensus, or there's even consensus on his side. so he goes ahead and edits how he wants. how can i say he's editing against consensus, if there's no mechanism to determine it, like the way an admin closes a discussion on AfD? even if you go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, they won't make a determination. what is the next step then, if someone refuses to acknowledge what everyone else says is a consensus? ANI? but they say they won't do anything if it's a content dispute. Cullen328 i'll think about e-mailing you, thanks for the offer, but i don't know if i want to "out" this account to my regular one, even in e-mail. maybe i'll try to e-mail someone else. the edits are minor in a way, but high profile. it's more a matter of emphasis and weight, so he's not necessarily breaking rules like verifiability. i wish someone could point me to a clear procedure about what to do when someone makes hostile arguments and simply refuses to listen to anyone, and goes on making unhelpful edits. doesn't that happen a lot? StormyWhether (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StormyWhether, I do not know why you are reluctant to ask for help with this specific problem from an administrator, but I guess that you have your reasons. Another alternative is a formal Request for comment, which will draw in uninvolved editors. An uninvolved administrator can determine consensus after a discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, i didn't know i could email an administrator. i don't know any, should i just pick one at random? i appreciate your offer to email you, it's only that i've probably been over-sharing here, talking about feeling overwhelemed and bullied and having nightmares etc., and venting steam against this person, so i'd be embarassed to reveal my regular identity where i try to keep a stiff upper lip, i hope you understand. i looked at the rfc page, but it looks like something where there's a complex question and you need help to figure it out, but that's not what's going on here. this is a single editor who showed up recently and started pushing a personal preference, who can't back it up, attacks everyone's comments with hostile retorts and misinformation, and refuses to acknowledge consensus against his edits. if we did an rfc, i'm sure it would be a "snowball" close, but i'd feel bad about wasting more peoples' time reading and responding to his tirades. it wouldn't be right to legitimize it as a valid content issue that needs more debate. the issue is his behavior, hijacking the article, refusing to listen, repeatedly overwriting everyone else's edits, making false statements, and generally giving the impression of being a grumpy old man with an axe to grind. i hope i'm not giving a similar impression with my complaining about it! i do understand that from his perspective it's the other way around, nobody will listen to him which proves we don't know anything, our arguments are invalid, our facts are wrong, etc... except for the part about being rude; i think everyone has been exemplary in their politeness and trying to calmly explain how his edits are misguided. but we just get more hostility in return, and i for one am out of patience. StormyWhether (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited wikipedia articles before but can't find a way to correct a word spelling i.e. change "an" to "a" in the section on Native Americans.49.176.15.231 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. I corrected that typographical error for you. Jane Fonda is semi-protected until May because of persistent vandalism. This prevents unregistered and inexperienced editors from making changes to any such article. You could have made an edit request at Talk: Jane Fonda. Please consider setting up a Wikipedia account. After you have made at least ten edits and at least four days have passed, you will then be able to edit semi-protected articles yourself. Thank you for pointing out the typo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is it possible to create a wiki page for a business company? if so, what all has to be included? I tried adding a page mentioning its location and the service type but was declined approval. Any help is appreciated. ThanksFtintu (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ftintu. We have thousands of articles about truly notable companies so it is definitely possible. However, it is quite difficult for an inexperienced new editor to successfully write a new article. For example, your draft article is unreferenced. That is not acceptable. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Your first article. That will give you a better understanding of what is required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ftintu. I'm afraid that the wording of your question suggests that you may have a (very common) misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. We don't have "pages for" things: what we have is "articles about" things. This might seem a nit-picky difference, but I think it is important. If we ever have an article about your company, it will not belong to the company, the company will have no control over its content, and indeed will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly; hardly any of the content should come from the company, but almost all from what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish about the company in reliable sources. It may not be desirable for Wikipedia to have an article on you: see PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working with a friend to update the Bobby Locke page with details of his World War II record. To support this we have two pieces of information:

• A letter from the South African Defence Force, on their letterhead, that provides a record of Bobby Locke's War Record as a list of dates and locations. Each entry in the list consists of just one line and makes heavy use of acronyms.
• A paper (currently in MS Word format), from a Colonel Graham duToit, that expands on the letter by providing more detail and explanation of each entry in the list. Colonel Graham du Toit is a researcher at the South African Air Force Museum. He also offers a service to research war records see the South African Air Force contact page. He is an expert who has access to the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) archives.

We would like to refer to both of these documents in the update to the Bobby Locke page, however neither of the documents has been previously published.

I'm not sure what would be the best way of including these documents so that we can reference them as sources in the update and would appreciate any suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidburdett (talk • contribs) 10:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidburdett. Unfortunately, neither of these sources is acceptable to Wikipedia, unless you can get them published by reputable publishers. This also means that if they are the only sources for some information, then you should not put the information into the article.

The problem is that, because Wikipedia may be edited by anybody, you can never be sure that wrong information hasn't been inserted (by mistake, or by somebody who has an axe to grind, or by a vandal); so we require that everything be backed up by published references. They need to be published, because if somebody wants to check the facts in an article next week or next month or next year, they need to be able to get hold of the sources, at least in principle. See Verifiability for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning (though not with the conclusion). The real problem I see is that the documents have not been published by whoever holds the copyright to them, and it would be a copyvio to upload and link to them on a random hosting website. However, if (for instance) the author of the paper published it on the SA defense ministry site, or on their personal website, I would say it is an acceptable secondary source for not-too-much controversial purposes. The problem is "published" rather than "published by a reliable editor" - the author might make a source relatively reliable even if the publisher is not independent. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been overtaken by subsequent comments, Tigraan, but I do want to take issue with what you said. Even if the copyright question is satisfied, uploading a document to a random website does not create a reliable reference, because its provenance is unknown: somebody could have altered it before uploading. I suppose the author putting it on their own website would remove that objection, but it would then have the same status as a blog: if the author is a recognised authority, it could be taken as reliable, but otherwise it could establish only that that author made such and such a claim, nothing more. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ColinFine: Well, I would type a long answer, but it has already been made more eloquently before by someone else: It doesn't matter if [a] source is whatsupyourbutthurhurhur.com, looks like a mid '90's AOL user homepage and has a reputation for being run by a schizophrenic nazi child molester. If we have every reason to believe it would report on a particular claim accurately, it can be used for that claim. We do not assume uploaded documents have been tampered with, unless there is any indication to that effect or if they are used in support of controversial claims in which case attribution must be rock solid. For example, we routinely link to preprints of scientific articles on sharing websites even though they could (maybe) differ from the paywalled article version.

Of course, the lack of a proper publication may impact the source's reliability; for instance, it may indicate that it was a draft version, not fully vetted. You also are correct that (when there is a single author and no review) it is pretty much equivalent to a blog post as reliability goes, but that is not an automatic zero. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I understand and accept the importance of having references that are published and that copyright is not violated. That said I think there may be a way forward based on the principle, in copyright, of Fair Use in the US and/or Fair Dealing in countries in the Commonwealth of Nations including South Africa.

I think our intended use complies with the principle in Fair Dealing that Copyright shall not be infringed by any fair dealing with a literary or musical work ... for the purposes of criticism or review of that work or of another work ... Provided that ... the source shall be mentioned, as well as the name of the author if it appears on the work. Fair use factors also include the principle that The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The reason we want to add Bobby Locke's World War II record is because in his book [Bobby Locke on Golf] he states My stay in the Air Force lasted five years and three months, in which time I completed 1,800 hours on single-, twin- and four-engined aircraft. My last twelve months’ service was in the Middle East and Italy in a Liberator Squadron. The documents we want to reference show that this claim is false and, to quote Colonel Graham du Toit, Bobby Locke never flew on any operational mission over a hostile target. By the time he was posted onto an Operational Squadron, the War in Europe had already ended.

I would think our intended use meets the fair dealing/fair use requirement as it is providing a criticism of a work (Bobby Locke's book) as well as meeting other fair use requirements, i.e its use is non-commercial; the referenced documents record facts; the use would not affect the value of the referenced works.

What do you think? DavidB (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidburdett. What you propose is clearly not allowed for several reasons already explained, but also because original research is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. This is a core content policy. The letters you describe are unpublished and unverified primary documents which are appropriate as raw material for research by historians. They are of no use at all to Wikipedia editors. Please understand this clearly: Wikipedia editors summarize what reliable, published sources say about the topic and it is contrary to well-established policy to go beyond that as you propose. You should submit an article on this matter to a journal of military history. If published there after professional editorial review, it may be acceptable to use a source on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidburdett: There are a lot of complex issues at play here. The first is whether the source you propose to use is an acceptable one for Wikipedia; to which the answer is it depends, but in any case not if it has not been published (i.e. made accessible to anyone ready to go to the library or pay an access fee).

The second is how to make the source published since it has not been already. You may not use Wikipedia in any shape or form for that; as said a couple of times, publishing new thought here is original research which is not allowed. If you intend to upload a file to use as a source, that is not possible here either; Wikipedia strives to be reusable by anyone anywhere with few conditions, and hence has stricter policies than "fair use" for the upload of material (see WP:NFCC for the full details, but I doubt you really need it). Also, if you intend to upload the thing on a third-party website, you will not be able to claim fair use if you upload the totality, and authenticity becomes sketchy if you just upload bits and pieces. I simply do not see a reasonable way to do this.

Finally, since you intend to use that source to contradict another, it is a controversial use and should certainly not be made based on what you say. I see that our article on Bobby Locke makes no claim about him having engaged in aircraft fights (and neither should it based solely on primary source claims). Also, "I was in the Air Force for X amount of time and flew Y hours" does not logically imply "I engaged the enemy", so I even fail to see how the claim you reference is false. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a spel(Game) in Wien Universitat?~

"not ANI" should be "not ANY" ~

-!

I appreciate that a title starts with a capital letter(character).

BDvEngers (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, BDvEngers. Which article are you talking about? I do not find Template:Boldmono in University of Vienna. Sam Sailor 12:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello teahouse hosts, lots of love from me, today i joined wikipedia , and i have ' 0 ' idea about anything. I want to know wiki easily, in easy way than reading all the guidelines or other pages. Now i want to know what is IP address and its importance ? Please explain simply. Thank you. STC (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse, STC. What a nice user page you have already created, congratulations! I have left you a welcome message, a TW invitation, and an invitation for WP:INDIA. We have an article about IP addresses that may answer your questions. Sam Sailor 12:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you respected sir Sam Sailor, i belive on humanity. And i think the differences between a university prof. or a beggar are in two points -

• Informational : the information they have in brain.

• Behaviour: who represents good behaviour.

Otherwise we all are same. Human. Being an Indian i firstly noted that there need some change in behaviour of a number of editors, not the host. There should be a place where you, the hosts, should teache them how to speak. However, your words and your help in my talkpage gave me ways to go long. Thank you. Have a nice day. And please save the climate. I choose this user name, because whenever i will be visible, people will get a message to save climate. STC (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone be so kind as to look at this edit of mine and tell me why my change does not show up in Preview or Saved: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlottesville,_Virginia&diff=826869591&oldid=826869051. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your edit to the caption for the second image does show up. Your edit for the next image put the exta words outside the brackets, so it doesn't show up in the caption but instead appears as extra text at the start of the section in which it was placed. All you need to do is move the text inside the brackets with the rest of the caption. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the title says it all. LampGenie01 (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, for example, at The Ghost of Hui Family which you recently edited, in the box at the top of the article there is a wikilink labelled "Learn how and when to remove these template messages", leading to Help:Maintenance template removal. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By change I mean for example changing to Canadian/US/UK English.

- What does changing the language setting do?

- What does changing the display language setting do?

Thank you.
Ned (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The different English variants have different spellings for certain words. Think, for instance, of colour, which my American brethren spell as color. The settings govern this aspect of language, and in general, the accepted variant relates to the subject of the article. An article about Queen Elizabeth II, for instance, uses British English, while Donald Trump's article uses American spellings (color). Stormy clouds (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stormy clouds: I know what the differences are but I don't know what changing the Wikipedia language setting (under preferences) actually does
Ned (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help:preferences says "Change[s] the language of user-interface messages. It does not affect articles and other pages made by editors. Note that many interface messages have been customized at the English Wikipedia but usually only for the default "en - English" which may for example add links to relevant help pages, processes and policies. It is therefore not recommended to select "en-GB - British English" or "en-CA - Canadian English" which make a few spelling changes but omit many useful customizations." Gandalf61 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have my FB set on en-Pirate. LOL!!!Kent K. Shepard (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't arrrrgue with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I am attempting to work out how I can practically apply the information available that wikipedia is host to. I have a lot to offer this knowledge base though the methods of input are not practical for me as I am not able to type as fast as my mind moves. I am also deprived of access to internet and technology due to my financial situation being a lot less than it should due to the greed of others. How can I achieve all that I strive to?

Thanks for you time to read. Have a nice day everyone in wikiworld

Lkskwlkr (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lkskwlkr and welcome to the Teahouse.

Yours is such a very general question that I fail to see how we at the Teahouse can help you. Editing Wikipedia is for most of us a volunteer activity, so our example can hardly help your financial situation. The edits that you've made so far seem competent enough that you could make constructive edits in whatever areas interest you. The Teahouse is here to help, but we're somewhat limited in our brief to answering questions from new editors about how to edit Wikipedia. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious to you guys, based on my edits on Heritage USA, what do you think about the article so far? I am happy to work on what is needed in the article. —LovelyGirl7 talk 16:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is coming along nicely, a few tips:

• Per WP:ELNO, you shouldn't put external links directly in the prose of the article, for example where you link externally to Flames-of-Fire Ministries of Fort Mill in the section titled "redevelopment efforts." If the subject has an article, you should use a wiki-link instead. If the subject does not yet have a Wikipedia article, but probably should, you can wiki-link it and leave it as a "redlink" (redlinks are good because they encourage the creation of needed articles). If the subject does not merit a Wikipedia article, just leave it in plain text. There are a few other examples of this in the article
• Needs a little proofread for spelling, typos, and stray characters (I spotted a few).
• A few sections need proper references (Broadcast Group for example).

Otherwise, it looks pretty good. --Jayron32 17:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I made some changes to the article, added a few citations, and removed the external links you told me. I have requested copyediting for the spelling, stray, and typo characters part. How does the rest look? --LovelyGirl7 talk 20:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better!--Jayron32 00:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I did saw some spelling changes on Heritage USA. Any other typos, strays or spelling I should fix? If so, feel free to list them down so I can fix them. Btw, how would you rank the article assessment wise once the issues are completed? --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, LovelyGirl7: I don't see any major spelling mistakes. I'm not much for using the Wikipedia rating system, but if I were to assess it, I think it would either be a high "Class C" or low "Class B" at this point, which is pretty good IMHO. --Jayron32 16:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make a colourful signature. How would i use colourful words in my signature place ? STC (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Signatures explains how. --Jayron32 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a post on FB that states that "AR", as in AR-15, does not stand for Assault Rifle. Is that true?Kent K. Shepard (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AR is a abbreviation of ArmaLite, the original manufacturer. Also this page is generally for questions about editing Wikipedia. For general questions you might have more luck in the future asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. GMG^talk 17:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. The article said it was the last name initials of a couple people. Just wanted to make sure it did NOT stand for assault rifle. Thank you very much.Kent K. Shepard (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the AFC Submission coding to the top of a biography draft stored on my account sandbox rather than on a separate draft page as I was previously advised by generous Teahouse responders was a viable option. I understand there may be a long waiting period for the new page to be reviewed. [1] When I look at the list of the many pages/articles waiting review, I see my draft on the list but it is listed as User:ElephantEar/sandbox whereas all the others there are listed as Draft:xxx [2]

The pending submissions seems to be submitted properly because when I click on it, it opens the correct page as a draft (outside of my sandbox). If anyone sees anything amiss with the submission or has other general comments or suggestions about the biographical content submitted, I'd be delighted to hear from you. Thank you, teahousers! ElephantEar (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has now moved it to Draft namespace. While you wait for it to be reviewed you ought to address the misplaced external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up David Biddulph! I've been reading the instructions at the external links you provided and as happens with some of these guidelines, some rules seem in opposition to others, so I'm not 100% sure which way to go with this. Am I on the right track in saying that the issue is how I've done the links in the As Contributor section of the Megan Devine biography? The Titles of the contributions should actually be the hyperlink rather than the link symbol that follows it? Or should I only link to the publisher's main website and not the article itself? (Now that I think of it, the articles themselves are not required reading to understand the topic/biography. I was adding them for the reader's convenience was my thinking. So perhaps not use external links at all?) Or perhaps the As Contributor section should be simply a list with each item on the list cited with its source? Or was your suggestion to address the misplaced external links something else entirely? Many thanks for any additional insights. ElephantEar (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That section (and any section other than the External links section) should not have external links. You may want to convert them to references. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the clarification David Biddulph. I've made additional changes throughout the page. ElephantEar (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for that. You will make life easier for reviewers, and improve the article, if you include the titles of the documents which you are using as references. It is better if you use a template such as {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} and fill in relevant parameters. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Background Information for a person, there is "Born" (a place) and "Origin" (a place). I'm sure origin is where someone or something begins, so how can a person originate at a place that is not their birthplace? Wikievil666 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikievil666: - Many people are not born in the country which they most associate with, and would consider to be their origin. For instance, if I am born in Canada, but both of my parents are from the United States, and I grow up in the United States, my birthplace would be in Canada, but my origin would be in the United States. The first example that springs to my mind is Saoirse Ronan, who was born in America but is considered by reliable sources to be Irish. I hope that this clarifies matters for you somewhat. Stormyclouds 19:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but surely that doesn't make sense. A different term could be used, such as "Most Associated Place", but "origin" definitely means the beginning, not some later place. No one reading "Origin" would think it can mean a place that someone's parents came from or a place the person later chose as a long-term residence. Wikipedia staff and the authors of articles are very stubborn and defensive. They are never open to the thought that they may need to change or improve anything.Wikievil666 (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may not make sense to you, and it doesn't have to, but it is not true that "no one" thinks that. Words can mean different things to different people in different parts of the world. What you might see as an improvement is not necessarily one to others. That is why Wikipedia relies on discussion, logical arguments, and consensus to reach decisions. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would appreciate an opinion on a verifiable source for an article I am writing since I have had some problems with that. There is an article at a verifiable source https://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2010/04/shout-out-eileen-tabios-poet-editor-issue-at-otoliths , that links to another article at an "e magazine" I would like to use, https://the-otolith.blogspot.com/2010/04/poet-editors-31-sandy-mcintosh.html It is listed on the World Cat at https://www.worldcat.org/title/otoliths/oclc/224749201 so I assume it is more than a self published blog and would be considered a good source. Your insight would be appreciated here. Thank you. Ogmany (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ogmany. You may want to consider posting at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which specializes in these kinds of questions. GMG^talk 22:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello How do I change a profile photo? I would like to change the photo on David Bergtein page. Someone removed the old photo and uploaded a new one that I would like to change please. 47.37.171.239 (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey anon. The photo wasn't just removed from the article, but was deleted for being a copyright violation. With only a few exceptions, content on Wikipedia needs to be licensed for unrestricted public use. If you happen to have a way to contact the subject, they can do this by following the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Otherwise you can check out our tutorial on finding images for tips on how to find images that are usable on the articles here. GMG^talk 21:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:OAuthManageMyGrants I have no idea what these "things" (I don't know what to call them) are and have tried to find out unsuccessfully. Help appreciated. deisenbe (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey deisenbe. These are just additional gadgets that don't come with automatic authorization, so you have to manually authorize them using mw:Help:OAuth. This keeps you from having to share your password with third parties to use their gadget, and ensures that the gadgets more or less only do what they're supposed to be doing using your account to make changes under your name. GMG^talk 20:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but you haven't answered my question. What do these gadgets do? They must each have at least a page. deisenbe (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well deisenbe., the only ones I believe I use personally are Commons Helper which uses OAuthUploader and makes it easier to transfer files between the various language Wikipedias and Wikimedia Commons, and Crop Tool which makes it easy to crop images without needing to download and reupload them. The account creator one (see Wikipedia:Request an account/Guide) allows you to answer requests for new accounts, and I did have access to it once, but I never really used it enough to really figure out how it works. GMG^talk 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the following are you talking about? OAuthUploader? Crop tool? Request an account? Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't tell.

UTRS Global OAuth Authenticator (Development Branches) [1.1] (revoke access)

Publisher: DeltaQuad

IABotManagementConsole [1.1] (manage access | revoke access)

Publisher: Cyberpower678

phabricator-production [1.1] (revoke access)

Publisher: MModell (WMF)

Dispenser [1.0] (manage access | revoke access)

Do you know if these are all enabled by default, or did I enable them myself? (Can't imágine why.) There should be a link to Help or explanations on that page. deisenbe (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah. Of course they're different for each user. Makes sense.) Well, deisenbe... I do know that Phabricator is the ticket system we use to track bugs in the software Wikipedia uses, so it would make sense that that would be enabled for everyone (also it's published by the Wikimedia Foundation). UTRS is the email system we use to send unblock requests, which I assume was enabled when you sent a request on the 12th of last month. As to IABotManagementConsole and Dispenser, I'm not really sure. Maybe someone more tech savvy like User:Primefac might know better than me. GMG^talk 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IABotManagementConsole would have been enabled when you manually used IABot on an article. Dispenser [1.0] is for using one of Dispenser's many tools. Presumably enabled when you used the dablinks tool here. Regards, Dairy {talk} 23:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of minutes ago I noticed a user made some changes to the Gretsch article, leaving this summary "The page is currently undergoing a major update by a Gretsch Company representative. More changes to come.". I undid the changes cause they had also removed all the references in that part of the article. Did I do right, or should I have asked someone more experienced first? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 21:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Miss Bono. I have left the user a warning regarding our policy on conflicts of interest. The changes were pretty promotional in tone, besides removing referenced (I'm a little surprised to find that it doesn't seem to be copy/pasted from online), and I'd say you were well within your rights to remove it. Just that it's usually good to drop some kind of note, so that people know why they were reverted, and not just that they were reverted. GMG^talk 21:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Miss Bono: No, it sounds like you acted in the right in this case. User:SATGC left a suspicious edit summary, as you noted, and his edits were unconstructive to the article. This may warrant further investigation, as it is a blatant WP:COI issue - if they are removing references, it is possibly something more, but either way, the firm does not own the Wikipedia page, despite its attempts to assert so as noted above. Whatever is added by the Gretsch Company representative will need thorough vetting. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, guys. I was worried, actually, because I felt like I should have left a kind message. I feel kind guilty now. I think I should leave a note now? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 13:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember being taught in school to use a semicolon in place of any comma that comes after a comma is used before a conjunction in that sentence. I know that this is a horrible explanation, so here's an example:

"I wanted to leave, but I had to stay; as no one else was ready to leave."

That always struck me as chopping sentences up unnecessarily, so I never did this myself. I didn't even think about it until editing wikipedia articles refreshed my memory. I see that this rule is followed in some articles, but not in others. Should I treat this semicolon usage in a similar fashion to the oxford comma, by leaving it be in articles that don't use it, and correcting it in articles that occasionally use it? Or, alternately, should I ignore its usage altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odd135 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Odd135. Semicolons are generally used in two major ways. The first is to separate lists of lists. So for example: "Steve had a blue cat and dog; red ball, oven, and watering can; and yellow ferret, cushion and suitcase" ...where each color represents an embedded list in a list-of-lists.

The other way is to separate two related independent clauses, which would otherwise be separated by a period, but which would not be spoken with a full stop. For example, "It's not about winning and losing; it's how you play the game."

The first instance acts like a second order comma, while the second acts like a second order period.

Although having said that, I generally try to avoid using semicolons all together when writing for Wikipedia. Ideally, Wikipedia articles should be written so that they are accessible to the largest audience possible. For me, this means that I try to write at about a secondary school level, so that a bright and inquisitive tenth grader can understand what's written. As your question illustrates, the proper use of semi colons is not well understood by the general public, and is a comparatively rarely used piece of punctuation. GMG^talk 22:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I want to say that I knew that, but I don't want to make an a-- out of myself and the refresher was genuinely helpful anyway. I asked because I remember that semicolon rule being hammered into me throughout high school, but now I'm searching for it and realizing that it isn't written down anywhere, I think that maybe I've just gone a little crazy. However, I will take to heart what you said about writing to be best understood, not most sophisticated. That makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. Odd135 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have another question, this time regarding David Meade (author). On several GA nominees, pages like this gets created. Do only reviewers create these pages or am I allowed to create it myself (even though I'm not a reviewer) so others can leave me comments? --LovelyGirl7 talk 22:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LovelyGirl7 and welcome back to the Teahouse.

That template will be filled out by the first reviewer and any later reviewers will add to it. There's nothing you need to do to create the GA review page. Your role is to be the nominator of the page. Detailed instructions appear at WP:Good article nominations/Instructions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: Thank you! But I am however supposed to receive comments when the review gets created by the review and I'm 100% prepared. I will address any comments I receive on the page when it gets created. --LovelyGirl7 talk 23:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the case to report, I create the article Mad Love (Sean Paul & David Guetta song) first, at 18:13 16 February 2018, then, the other user, name Hayman30, redirect my article deliberately and create his own article Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) at 14:05 21 February 2018. I can't stand at this. Please make it clear as soon as possible Giangkiefer (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giangkiefer: Your article was redirected because it fails WP:NSONG, which I clearly stated upon redirecting. Then you went ahead and undid my revision without any explanation, suggesting that you didn't read what I said, or you disagree my actions but refuse to discuss on the matter. Also, we do not use ampersands in article titles, as noted by Ss112 on your talk page here. I did not "deliberately" redirect your article, neither did I plan to create a new article when I redirect it. I created a new article at Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) as I don't think I should create content at Mad Love (Sean Paul & David Guetta song) and then request it to be moved over Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song). If you are upset because I "stole" your credit, you could request a histmerge if you feel like it. Hayman30 (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30: If the song did not meet WP:NSONG on 20 February when you first redirected it, how did it suddenly meet it on 21 February? And if something had happened in the meantime to make the song notable, it would have been reasonable to simply revert your redirect, move the article to a new title, and update it with the new information. --bonadea contributions talk 06:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So pretty obviously there are problems here, but why did you bring this to the Teahouse? I don't see a single "how do you do thus and such" from anyone. This isn't a noticeboard. You should discuss this on your respective talk pages and if you cannot work it out, seek dispute resolution or admin intervention. It does not belong here. John from Idegon (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: I never said that. It was the article that didn't meet NSONG. I didn't even plan on recreating the article until a saw it on Twitter, and I found more sources to help the song to establish notability. Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) was a redirect another editor created on 16 February, and I feel like I should create content there instead of the bad namespace and request it to be moved, since I could not move an article over a redirect somebody else created. Hayman30 (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayman30: You've been around long enough to have learned that notability applies to the subject, not to the article. It's a common enough misunderstanding, though. In this case, it was a bold redirect with a slightly wrong edit summary. Fixing it, once you realized that there were suitable sources for an article about the song, might have required some admin help to either get the history merged or get the article with the incorrect title moved to the correct title. Giangkiefer's right to attribution is worth supporting even if their efforts to create an article had some shortcomings. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no commonality between Hayman30's article at Mad Love (Sean Paul and David Guetta song) now and Giangkiefer's bare-bones version at this namespace: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mad_Love_(Sean_Paul_%26_David_Guetta_song)&oldid=827007507 They're two separate articles for the same topic. I think a histmerge would only really be appropriate here if Hayman had obviously copied Giangkiefer's text and copypasted it elsewhere without attribution. As Hayman said, I don't think users are obliged to create or "fix" others' content at an incorrect namespace and then request a move. Unfortunately, some editors' contributions end up disregarded in cases like this. I've pointed it out to admins before and they've said the same thing—there jut ends up being two separate histories for different articles for the same topic (perhaps because histmerges are a bit of work, so admins are reluctant to do them). Giangkiefer appears to have a bit of history creating articles in slightly incorrect namespaces—they created Man of The Woods for Justin Timberlake's most recent album, and there appears to have been a bit of back and forth to get that moved; a user requested a speedy deletion of the incorrect namespace, then another user declined that and instead got the other page deleted and moved the incorrect namespace over Man of the Woods. That just seems to be more trouble than it's worth. But, well, it's not up to me in the end. I'm quite sure I've seen other articles they've made redirected for being in the wrong place as well. Ss112 10:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: Sadly, I don't think so. Quote NSONG: "A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria." My interpretation would be the song is only notable if the article creator is able to provide enough material to meet the minimum requirement. Or else, we'd have a ton of stubs (usually comes with a link to the song's iTunes page as the only reference) about unreleased/extremely new songs recorded by notable artists created 2 seconds after they're released or announced. I don't want to waste my time by creating an article at a wrong place then request a page move just to help another editor to "preserve credit", life is too short. Hayman30 (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a misunderstanding, and the quote needs context (note also that the text you quote does not emphasise "article"). A subject is notable. An article should show that notability. WP:NMUSIC mentions criteria other than notability that makes an article about a song appropriate, which includes the availability of sources that make it possible to create a detailed article, but a song (or any other subject) is not made more or less notable by the activities of a Wikipedia editor. I'm afraid I don't understand your last comment at all, but that's beside the point. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it whatever you like, I don't give. I believe I did nothing wrong by redirecting the article in the first place, and notability isn't the matter here anyway. If it isn't clear by now, Giangkiefer "can't stand at this" and wants to retrieve their credit, and the reason they took it here but refused to take it to article talk pages, is to put pressure on me. We sort this out first. Hayman30 (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant that there may not have been anything strictly wrong about your actions, it just looked bad. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giangkiefer isn't any better at the moment: now they're making cut-and-paste moves to try to get their way: from here to here. Ss112 05:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HOW TO CREATE OFFICIALLY PAGE OF CRICKET LEAGUE I HAVE SOURCE ? Anniekanwar (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anniekanwar, please do not TYPE IN ALL CAPS as it makes it hard to read!

Next, if you want to start an article, I suggest you use WP:Article wizard and I would very much advise you read WP:Your first article before beginning.

A few questions though:

• Is this an amateur cricket league? Note that the vast majority of amateur sports clubs globally do not qualify for Wikipeda articles
• You say you have sources; are the sources to the League itself, or to blogs, etc? We only care about the sources if they are serious professional sources like newspapers, books, etc. And again, most amateur sports leagues do not get serious mention in books or newspapers (other than completely routine coverage in their immediate local area). Can you post here and tell us the name of the league so we can help you see if it might meet WP:Notabiity and need an article? MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Anniekanwar an "official page" for some organisation does not and cannot exist on Wikipedia. If your league meets the criteria for Notability (as MatthewVanitas says), then Wikipedia could have an article about it. This article will not belong to the league, the league will have no control whatever over its contents, people connected with the league will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly, and very little of content of the article should be derived from things the league or its associates say about it. If you are looking for somewhere where the league can have an on-line presence and tell things to its fans or to the world, you need to find a different kind of site from Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia community!

I had submitted my Skycop.com article for review, but it was nominated for deletion.. Need your opinion on the article I'm working on. I'll really appreciate any advice you can give. I try to stick to the rules, but there's still a chance that I've missed something important while editing the article.

Here's a link on the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Skycop.com

Jklmnopr (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jklmnopr: Sorry, that article had to go and apparently so did you. The draft remains, but still reads as promotional, so it may get deleted or it may wait until someone comes along to improve it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jklmnopr: (edit conflict) The user who reviewed your draft gave you good advice, which I agree with; the draft does not indicate with independent reliable sources that offer in depth coverage how the company meets the notability guidelines listed at WP:ORG. It is not enough to merely tell about a company and what it does. Third party, independent sources need to have extensively written about this company and why it is notable(as Wikipedia defines it) Not every company merits an article here. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear Wikipedia community,

A few months ago I asked here at the Teahouse if there was someone who could translate for me an article into Italian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Benzoni Very soon an Italian Wikipedian came into contact with me and promised me to translate the article. I am convinced that discussion can be found in the Archives pages here at the Teahouse.

He told me he did not have a lot of time, but he would do it. We agreed that I create the working page with all of the English text and he would translate one by one my text: See here: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Laramie1960/Juliette_Benzoni

He started to translate the introduction on 4 October 2017 - and then nothing happened anymore. Yesterday 21 February I wrote to him a friendly message and asked if he did not intent to do it anymore, in that case I would search help elsewhere.

He did so far not answer me! But a few hours after I had sent that message, all of a sudden someone created that Italian article https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Benzoni Since I do not believe in coincidences I suppose my former helper had asked someone else to do it for him . The facts had been taken either from my Italian working page or from the English Wikipedia article. There were no links and no references added!

One thing is certain, if I would have uploaded such an incomplete article, it would have been rejected on the English Wikipedia page. The truth is, I am glad that an article about that author exists now on the Italian Wikipedia and of course I can add the missing links - but I cannot translate the rest of my text, my written Italian is too weak. I ask myself why I was not contacted I would have gladly helped.

My question is: is that legal what has been done? Also, what happens now with my working page there? In my disappointment of how this was done, I wrote to those three Wikipdedians who created that article and who were in contact with each other as I was able to understand.

One of the contributers answered me, very cynical To me it sounded like: tough luck for you that someone was faster than you. He told me I had to be careful that I would not be expelled from the Italian Wikipedia. It was actually outragous to write that to me, I have never worked so far on the Italian Wikipedia and therefore never insulted anymone.

I would write this text on the Italian support page, but my Italian is no good at all. I came here because the Teahouse has never let me down with giving me good advices. I am looking forward to what your opinins are and what I must do now. Kindly Laramie1960 (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manut2018 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Laramie1960. As far as copyright goes, the content on Wikipedia is licensed so that anyone can remix and reuse it for any purpose. The one major caveat is that it should be attributed to the source, which in this case would be the English article that was originally translated into Italian. If it does not include this type of attribution, then it is indeed a violation of the license Wikipedia is published under.

Other than that sort of general advise, I'll go ahead and take the liberty of pinging a couple of active users who are Italian speakers (@Steinsplitter: @Salvio giuliano:) and maybe they can help more than I can. GMG^talk 13:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GreenMeansGo. Thanks very much for your competent answer concerning that problem. I am sure were we at high court a clever lawyer would now say: "No way did that user steal your work, he just translated some of your text into Italian - and of course he added all of the 86 book names, date of appearances included without having copied it from the English article! So actually the user who created the page yesterday should have had to contribute to the English article. Actually, and that is typical in cases like that, it was the second contributer just afterwards who added the text and so on. Yes, exactly that user who wrote me that cynical message and who also said it was not him who created the article.

In the meantime the creator of the article sent me a very short message an hour ago, asking if he had to delete the article. I replied to him in my meager Italian, that it was not necessary now, but explained that I had been very surprised. I told him it would help if he translated more and he could use my text from my work space and gave him again the link. I myself would add at least the links and some references, because I understand perfectly well Italian to work on the Italian Wikipedia. I suppose he will answer me soon.

Thank you also for giving me those two addresses of Italian speakers. I will get in contact with them. I know, once an article is accepted it does not belong to us anymore and everyone can work, add and correct on it. But since it was my very first article I have my heart on it. We have before been in contact and you know how serious I take everything to work correctly on Wikipeda. Have a lovely day, you were a great help once again, best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laramie1960: It's important to be aware that when you contribute anything to Wikipedia, you are releasing it for anyone to use and change as they see fit (as long as there's attribution). It doesn't matter if it's in your workspace, sandbox, a draftpage, etc. – as soon as you click publish changes, you "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". – Joe (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Laramie1960, can we try to get one thing clear: it isn't "your" article. You've made some large additions to it, but you don't own it or have any right in it other than the right to be attributed along with the many other editors who have also contributed to it. As a result of your additions, that page is now in a fairly dire state and seriously needs attention: it is written in very poor English, presumably by someone who does not have a good knowledge of the language (or by Google Translate?); it is inadequately sourced, with whole paragraphs devoid of any citation; and it links to various pages of www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch which carry materials (newspaper clippings and so on) that appear to violate copyrights. We can't link to those – see WP:LINKVIO. That is in any case somebody's website and so not a reliable source by our definition. Laramie1960, did you write all your text specifically for English Wikipedia, or are parts of it translated from somewhere? And if so, from where?

To answer your question: the translation to Italian is not a copyright violation, but is missing the attribution that is needed when copying within Wikipedia, as GreenMeansGo has said; I'll ask someone to fix that. Oh, and I speak Italian if you need help understanding stuff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers

I can assure you that I wrote that article all by myself and that I did not use Google translation for it. How dare you say that! You are actually the very first person who tells me that my English is poorly, thank you very much. As a matter of fact English is not my native tongue, and you probably noticed that and thought you had to give me a dressing down. I am from Switzerland. Maybe you do not know that we speak in my country four languages: Swiss-German, French, Italian and Romantsch. English we learn in School and in my case I lived a few years in English speaking Canada. So far nobody came and said the article was written poorly, you are the first one. Go ahead and look at the article when it was first created by someone else, then you can complain. I did everything with the best intention to write all about this French author, but I admit reading your very unfriendly message to me makes me almost regret all the hours I spent on Wikipedia.

I have explained in other discussions that the author was 95 years old and her first bestsellers were written in the Sixties, therefore we cannot find on the Net proof like for example for the books of Diana Gabaldon! Those links I gave and sources are all clean, the webmaster got the material from the deceased author herself. Nothing was stolen, everything is correct, except that website is not done in the modern way like Worldpress, but the old fashion way - and it was with the consent of the author and her still living daughter. I do not know why you feel that you have to put me down in this manner. I only asked here this morning,if there was copyright infringment. And NO you do not have to write to me in Italian, that is not my native tongue. That should have been clear to you. I am from the German speaking part of Switzerland - and that is why I searched someone who would translate that article into Italian. And to come back to your amazing question, yes I wrote the whole article myself and did not go online and steal parts here or there. I knew that author Juliette Benzoni for many years personally and travelled always to Paris to talk with her. Just in case: I translated that article also for the German Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Benzoni where no one critizied it and it was uploaded without problem ! There is not more I need to say now Laramie1960 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joe I will have to keep this in mind from now on. Somehow we get very possesive of a work, especially if it was the first contribution on Wikipedia.I do hope that I can explain to the User that at least he will contribute to the English Wikipedia article. I have now an agreement with the new User/contributer that he/she will continue to translate so that at the end it will be a satisfactory nice work. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laramie1960: Yes, it definitely takes some getting used to. As somebody who writes for a living, I would be absolutely livid if somebody copied/translated/altered my work without permission. But on Wikipedia you have to adopt a very different mindset. I'm glad you've managed to find a solution. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Joe thank you for your kind reply, it just came at the right moment. I have been here today rudely insulted and accused as you can read above. What had started this morning looking for help - has ended now that my article which had been uploaded since July 2017, (corrected from time to time by other Users), called poor English by a User here and above all, accusing me of stealing and copying from the French Wikipedia article. I have never been so insulted in all my life. I am Swiss and in my country we know like the English what fairness signifies. The article has now a template where one could believe an non speaking English User had written it. But I can wash my hands now in innocent can I not - since I have been told today it is "not my article" anymore. With my best greeting a very disappointed Wikipedian Laramie1960 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laramie1960, I'm sorry that you were treated this way. I believe that Justlettersandnumbers meant well, but he was unnecessarily harsh. Unfortunately, it's best to have a thick skin to work on Wikipedia. Because of a find-and-replace typo I committed years ago in an article about a fish, someone left me a message on my talk page just the other day saying I might not be a native English speaker. That was pretty insulting given that I went to Stanford and Harvard and now work at one of the best law firms in the country! Nothing to do other than brush it off... It can be hard to read tone in written communications; I suppose they meant well too. Anyways, one of Justlettersandnumbers' broader points was a good one. Whatever you contribute here can be edited by anyone, and once you submit it you have no greater claim to it than any other editor. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Calliopejen1, I am sorry I answer your very kind encouraging message to me only today. I took yesterday a break from all this and that is why I saw it only now. It was really helpful for me to read that even a native English speaker can get such unkind remarks. I am sorry that this happened to you, especially considering that you went to Stanford and Harvard. Back to Justlettersandnumbers I suppose he meant well, but he had an odd way to show it. Fact is, I am now discouraged to contribute more to the English Wikipedia. This sentence "poorly English" is now imprinted in my head, since other Moderators confirmed it! I am thankful to you and all those Users who sent encouraging messages to me. Given what has happened since I wrote here to the Teahouse, I felt like I was on trial and had done a terrible crime. Well.. that is life, everyone is anonym on Wikipedia and as you said to me. best to brush it off... best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I came here to apologise for having upset Laramie1960 by speaking plainly, but I find that someone has already done that for me. Calliopejen1, if you ever want to make remarks about me, would you kindly have the courtesy to ping me when you do so? Thank you.

Further to my earlier post, I've provided attribution for the translation to Italian, and removed mainspace links to catherinedemontsalvy.ch per WP:LINKVIO; I'll try to do something about the links from other spaces too. The problems with the Benzoni article also extend to Catherine (1963 novel) and Catherine (1986 TV series), despite valiant efforts by several editors to remedy them. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justlettersandnumbers thank you for apologising to me. Also that you provided the attribution for the translation to the Italian page. Grazie. One word about the links to the to the Catherinedemontsalvy.ch you mention above. The late author authorized and approved of that website dedicated to her. There is enough proof of that on the site. When you land on the site you can hear the welcome voice of Juliette Benzoni which she shared with that website. The material concerning the Catherine books was provided by Juliette Benzoni herself. I added all those links because you will find nowhere any of that material. The author wrote her Catherine books in the sixties and seventies and at that time no Internet existed. That is the reason I chose to link to those newspaper article's. I was in the opinion that Wikipeda readers who are intereted in that article, would appreciate to see authentic material from the sixties. I will discuss with you all this on proper talk page. Best, Laramie1960 (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if its correct ettiquette to put a query here or start up a new section, but its regarding the above situation. I read WP:LINKVIO and I cant really see that linking to newspaper clippings is breaching it. I mean, the website isnt actually violating copyright; they are only hosting a very small newspaper article, which would be allowable under fair use surely. Its ok to link to a digitised newspaper article hosted at say the National library of Australia isnt it? (I ask, because I've actually done that myself). Curdle (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Curdle. (Forgive me a plain language explanation for any lawyers that might be about.) The issue of whether something is violating copyright doesn't just have to do with the volume of the content, but also with how much of the totality of the work it comprises. So for example, it may be perfectly fine under fair use to quote a multi-sentence passage from a book; however, it would probably not be okay to quote a whole poem. Even though the two passages might have the same raw word count, the poem is the entirety of the work, while the passage of the book is a very small portion of the work as whole. The poem quote is therefore more infringing as far as copyright goes, and so more unlikely to qualify under fair use.

So if it is a quote from a newspaper article (I'm not sure what the actual link was that was removed) then it may be alright, but if it is the entirety of a short article republished without permission then it is likely not. GMG^talk 18:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the article John R. Scott, Sr., I would like to use the following public domain images:newspaper

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/868 https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/154614

I have never done this before and would appreciate a link to the instructions on how to do so. deisenbe (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Working GMG^talk 13:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - deisenbe See c:Category:John R. Scott, Sr.. GMG^talk 13:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But how do I get an image in the article? deisenbe (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem deisenbe In order to insert the image into the article you would usually use this type of markup: [[File:FILENAME|thumb|CAPTION]]. So that if you wanted to use this image, you would do something like [[File:John S Scott (1) (cropped).jpg|thumb|Illustration of John R. Scott, Sr. from 1893]] Hopefully this helps. Further information on the many alternative options for using images can be found at Help:Pictures. GMG^talk 13:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: one image reads John S. Scott, Sr. deisenbe (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GMG^talk 14:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more public domain images to upload (since I still don’t know how to do it). There are I think a few thousand public domain images on this site (State Archives of Florida), if anyone has the time to upload more of them.

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/861 https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/154615 https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/137908 https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/869

Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Fæ: who is an expert on figuring out whether something like this could be automated to where we just batch upload everything. GMG^talk 18:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please direct me to the instructions about how to upload these images myself. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP is full of complications, and pictures are unfortunately one of the most complex things. We have an introduction at Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1. My own rough overview, first you determine who owns the copyright. If it's someone besides you, quit. If you own the copyright or nobody does, upload to Wikimedia Commons. After you upload, it will give vague instructions on how to put it in an article. Ask me or others who have answered here, if you can't figure it out. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I insert/replace/move certain images into textboxes? NoahGamer35 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)NoahGamer35NoahGamer35 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NoahGamer35. Assuming this is in reference to Blayre Turnbull, it has already been fixed. GMG^talk 15:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to reset the password for the users on our Wiki, yet everytime I ask Wiki to resend password confirmation email, nothing happens. Is there something I should do differently? 65.216.148.162 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you write "our Wiki", do you mean a specific Wikipedia article? If so, can I ask which one? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... or do you mean a Wiki of your own, as distinct from the English Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our final group assignment, in a univ seminar, is for students to collaborate on updating and significantly enhancing a Wiki page on a particular/recent scholar. Apart from having all of the students create an account and learn to use the editor, I'm wondering if there's any good advice here for ways to go about doing this--for example, we're developing our own in-house method for ensuring accuracy and editorial uniformity concerning structure/headings and content rather than just turning them all lose on the Wiki page, but sooner or later there will be a variety of editors tackling revisions to the page over the course of several weeks.

Thoughts? Rtmccutch (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtmccutch: - please ensure that they reference the articles correctly (something which your previous edits did not achieve), as failure to do so will necessitate other editors, not related to your assignment, to step in, perhaps defeating the purpose. Make sure that they are familiar with the policy regarding reverting the article, as this (hopefully) will prevent content disputes from arising. Furthermore, while anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is a project built on consensus. If disputes arise between the students, take the issue to the talk page of the article, where a discussion can occur. Please ensure that your own in-house method for ensuring accuracy complies with Wikipedia's guidelines in full, or else it will be unlikely to fly. You should probably notify the relevant WikiProjects of the initiative, so that they are aware of it. Finally, all students should be particularly familiar with the policies regarding biographies and neutrality before making edits. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you want to do is called Wikipedia:Workshop. Ruslik_Zero 20:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Rtmccutch. I agree with Stormy clouds about the importance of talk page discussion if edits are reverted, but Stormy linked to the request for comment process, which is a dispute resolution mechanism that is only needed if initial discussion does not result in consensus. Just posting and engaging on the talk page is often enough to resolve disputes. I also strongly suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Education program. There is also Wikipedia:Education noticeboard for any detailed questions you might have. Good luck - I hope it goes well. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NB - I would urge the user to become more acquainted with referencing guidelines, as their previous edits suggest that this may be a problem area. It has also been raised at my talk page that the user may have a potential conflict of interest that must be addressed, though this needs clarification. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get the conflict of interest policy straight: since I was the one who wrote the In Memoriam piece I can't refer to that, as a Wiki editor, in an edit on the page...? Strikes me as odd, to be honest--if I said it was the best thing since sliced bread, well, sure, that's a problem, but simply linking to it as the actual obituary of the main professional association in the field is something I can't do...? Rtmccutch (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can cite your own work if you are careful about it, Rtmccutch. See WP:SELFCITE. If you have a personal or professional relationship with the subject of an article, then you should read and follow the advice at WP:COI. Wherever you are uncertain about anything in this regard, it is best to post requests on the talk page of the article rather than editing it directly. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your only link to the subject of the article, and if the source which you wrote for is considered to be reputable (I'll ask here)), then there is no conflict. Any other connections would have to be disclosed (e.g. if you knew Smith), and, regardless, the obituary was oddly placed, added with an external link (frowned upon), and poorly formatted, which were my primary issues with it, and must be improved upon when the uni project begins. Hope this clarifies things. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to rethink going anywhere near having my seminar students venture into these seemingly public waters, to be honest.... We're reading this scholar, I'm a scholar, they'll largely be listing descriptive/factual material and citing it, but if much of what they do prompts revisions and the need to keep diving deeper into Wiki policy...., it will likely be a rather frustrating experience. Rtmccutch (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Groups that have done this well tend to work out content, discussion, referencing, etc., in one student's sandbox. and only when satisfied drop the content into the article. Working in sandbox keeps errors and stumbles out of the public eye. You don't say how many students, but if you want them working in small groups, then assign different parts of the article to each group. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rtmccutch. Are you working in conjuction with m:Wiki Education Foundation or did you just decide to do this on your own? If the latter is the case, then you might want to consider setting up something via Wiki Ed since the editors helping out with that project have lots of experience dealing with these kinds of things and have developed special resources for projects such as this. You're likely going to find trying to do this all on your own because most of the experienced editors encounter are here for Wikipedia and are not here to help out your group per se. Most editors are friendly and will do what they can to help you out, but they will defer to relevant policies and guidelines whenever necessary to make sure article content is appropriate. Every edit you are I make is done in accordance with Wikipedia's wmf:Terms of Use; in other words, we don't own articles we edit and whatever changes we make can be undone/revised just as quickly as we make them. Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which literally build upon the "mistakes" made by others to try and improve articles. When we disagree over content, etc. we are expected to try and resolve things through discussion and consensus. Personally, I don't think asking your students to edit/create articles in the "live" encyclopedia is a wise approach for this very reason since you might be actually grading "another" editors work instead of one of your students, or you might be grading something that shouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. I'm going to ask a Wiki Ed volunteer I know to take a look at this thread. She might be able to provide with some more specific advice on how to best proceed with your project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Marchjuly! I'm going to respond in detail on the educator's page, but from what I can see of the specific COI edit, it looks like the memorial itself should be reliable since it was published by the American Academy of Religion via their web magazine, which does have a good editorial process. It's just that it was added in a way that doesn't fit Wikipedia's guidelines, which I can address more specifically on Rtmccutch's talk page. At this time he isn't teaching with us, but I'll definitely get in touch with him about working with us. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the Article "Canadian Premier Soccer League" there is information about Potential teams. It talks about Edmonton Rumored to be a Team and them not, But it is still a large possibility. There are 2 groups of people pushing for the team to go Can-PL, that have been having success. Yeg4CPL.ca which is largely a Volunteer Group, meeting and discussing how to make this happen and RallyRabbit.cawhich is FC Edmonton ownership asking for Fan commitment to be made in the form of refundable deposit for Season tickets.

I have literally no idea on how to edit the page to add any of this information or how cite any of it once I could add that. Would anyone be willing to take a look at that page and even just take off the part about Edmonton not being part of the league.199.188.60.241 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing is to find reliable sources that include information about the updates you reference. I see there is an article here that might be a good candidate. You can press the "edit" button to revise the article, but only include information in the reliable sources you cite (not rumors or things you know from you-don't-know-where). If you are in the visual editor, there is a "cite" button at the top of the page (after you click "edit") that will let you generate references. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK for an expert in a field to edit Wikipedia, adding their own research (theses, journal articles) to an article in the form of a relevant citation, or in Further Reading? On the one hand, this person could be seen as genuinely wanting to contribute their findings to an article. On the other hand, it may be seen as self-promotion. Thoughts?203.19.81.250 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Anyone contemplating this should register an account and declare their intentions and connections on their user page. Any such editor would have a clear conflict of interest and should always defer to experienced, uninvolved editors. One positive extreme would be a Nobel Prize winner universally acknowledged as a research pioneer on a given topic. Of course, we would welcome participation from such an expert, but they would still need to comply with our policies and guidelines. Another negative extreme would be a mid-level academic involved with arguing contending theories with rival academics. Someone in that position who is here on Wikipedia to repeatedly cite their own work and shape technical articles to conform with their own theories will not be treated kindly. Many academics (and other pushers of specific points of view) have been blocked from editing for such unethical conduct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if medical/health related, no in vitro, no animal, no clinical trials. This annoys researchers who are experts in their field and want to cite their own research. Only reviews allowed (includes systematic reviews and meta-analyses). David notMD (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys, I have added scans of the new philippine 5 peso coin, as seen here

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

now that i wanted to updated the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coins_of_the_Philippine_peso to reflect the new images, only to be interrupted by my lack of knowledge on how to add another column to a table,

Non native speaker, i hope the messages goes through. Tanker0921 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tanker0921! Please describe what exactly you need.

• Do you actually want to add another column to an existing table? If so, which table it is (which section of he article), and what column would you like to add (minimum: which position should it take in the table and what title should it have)?
• May be you mean adding a new row?
• Or possibly you mean adding a new table?

Please add as much detail as you can, so that someone can explain appropriate technical aspects, or do the job for you. --CiaPan (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion I could offer, Tanker0921, is to edit the page via "edit source" and temporarily copy the relevant markup for the entire table you want to modify into your sandbox. This lets you experiment with formatting until you get it right. Then you can paste the final, working markup back in to the proper article. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tables are tricky, Tanker0921, and Nicks's suggestion is a good one. You might also want to consult Help:Table. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted the image column to have 2 additional subcolumns for "obverse" and "reverse" images, much like the table above the said article.

Tanker0921 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this table "New Generation Currency Coin Series" in particular Tanker0921 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what the advisable administrative process is for when a vandal reverts an edit to restore vandalized content 3 or more times after attempting to revert the vandalism within that edit time frame. How to bring it to light and do something to potentially stop it. Thanks. Reixus [Talk] [Contribs] 07:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Reixus. I think the page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thank you :) Reixus [Talk] [Contribs] 07:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, if it's an obvious case of vandalism, then Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism might be a better place to report, Reixus. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Reixus. When you notice disruptive editing that falls under the purview of two noticeboards, pick one and report it there. Use your best judgement as to which noticeboard is most applicable to the specific case. Do not report to two noticeboards. All are actively monitored by administrators, although you may not get an instant answer. Be patient and prepared to answer follow-up questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! So, I want to write an article on this new RPG mobile game (MU Origin) that I am playing since it first got released and I’m a game master on official Europe’s server. I know everything about its roots, game play, story-line, characters etc. And I think it would be a solid article. But the only problem is that there’s not much information and guides on this game anywhere outside the game itself, so there are no reliable sources that Wikipedia would approve of. I would love to help people learn about this game and write a reliable article on what it is. Can I post the article without linking sources? Because there are none, this Wikipedia article would be the first reliable source on this subject. Gintsgints (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gintsgints, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, I think it is WP:Too soon for your Wikipedia article. Perhaps you could get your review published in a reputable magazine, then that review could be used as a WP:Reliable source. Dbfirs 08:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Gintsgints we must have independent reliable sources to support an article. I would add that Wikipedia is not a reliable source as we just summarize what third parties write about subjects. If you just want to tell the world about the history of the game as you see it, a blog or other personal website would be better suited to that. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. How can i use a picture of a person if i want to create an article/ bioabout them. I tried asking for permission through email, but i didnt get any response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaniquedarville (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaniquedarville: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think you might be getting ahead of yourself in that successfully creating an article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. It takes time, practice and effort. In the case of people, in order to merit an article, they must be written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how they meet the notability guidelines for biographies at WP:BIO. There are also more specific guidelines for various professions like athletes, musicians, politicians, etc. Not every person merits an article here. You should probably read Your First Article, and then use Articles for Creation to submit a draft article for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you will get feedback on the draft before it is in the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards where it will be judged more critically.

I am not completely knowledgeable in images, but I do know that quite often the person in the image does not actually own the copyright to it, it is quite often the photographer. Information about uploading images can be found at WP:UPIMAGE. I would add that your account must be autoconfirmed to upload images(meaning it is at least 4 days old and has at least 10 edits) 331dot (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I am indeed ahead of myself. I have never done this before, however it is an requirement for one of my masters degree courses.108.60.227.24 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then it might be easier for you than other new users. Again, using Articles for Creation should help you. Also, remember to be logged in when you edit so you get proper attribution for your contributions. Good luck 331dot (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you please tell your professor/supervisor to have a look at Wikipedia:Education program/Educators, if they have not done so yet? Student assignments on Wikipedia are much more likely to be successful for everyone involved (students, professors and Wikipedians) when coordinated with the project. You might also want to read the page for students (Wikipedia:Education program/Students). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please have a look at List of lynching victims in the United States and tell me why the references are ahead of the table instead of after. I can't figure it out. Thank you deisenbe (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usual reason. Malformatted table. See this correction. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My question is that what does this text: Category:Films scored by ARTIST, mean? Is it that the films' background score is composed by ARTIST or tracks on films' soundtrack album are composed by ARTIST? This is so much confusing! 🤔 Harsh Rathod 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good evening and welcome to the Teahouse, Harshrathod50. I can't find any such category myself; would you mind linking to what you found? Ravenswing 01:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Films scored by X is a subcategory of Category:Film_scores_by_composer where X is the composer of the score. Mduvekot (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I got my answer. Harsh Rathod 03:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys, I have created a French page for 'Château de La Ferté-Imbault'...however I'm keen to make it available in English also? Anyone know how? Hope to hear from you! 195.171.102.121 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. The English Wikipedia recently changed our policies so that unregistered users and very new accounts cannot directly create articles. What you can do is log into your registered account (I'm assuming you are one of the registered users who worked heavily on the French article) and create your translation as a draft by clicking here: Draft:Château de La Ferté-Imbault, or create it in your sandbox by clicking "sandbox" at the top right of your screen (on PC). You should use Template:Translated page on the associated talk page to attribute the source of the text, and when you are done, you can submit it for our Articles for Creation project, where it can be reviewed by an experienced volunteer who can offer feedback prior to publishing. GMG^talk 16:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add to that advice that you read translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Translate us is for translating from English to another language Wikipedia. For translating from French to English you want Wikipedia:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I knew that. Thanks David Biddulph. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In several articles I've been editing, people have made WP:POV deletions by claiming that the material was "off-topic". This is a regular occurrence. You can delete anything you disagree with, or anything embarassing to the subject, by claiming it's off-topic.

It only takes two or three editors to WP:TAGTEAM and WP:OWN the article.

I'm sure that a broader consensus of objective editors would usually agree that these edits are on topic. How do I get uninvolved editors involved to give their opinions on the edits? Is there an "Off-Topic" notice board? Is there a list of Wikipedia projects where I can leave a notice? --Nbauman (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nbauman, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you pointed out, you could leave a message on the talk page of Wikiprojects concerned. You can usually find them listed at the top of the talk page of the article in question. If not, the complete list is here Wikipedia:WikiProject# Finding a project.

There are also many Wikipedia:Dispute resolution mechanism. Perhaps Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard are the most relevant ones here. I favor WP:3O because it's a light process, but it's only applicable if the dispute is between just two editors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try that. --Nbauman (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all

I've been looking at the equivalents to the Teahouse on other language Wikipedias for an event I'm running for new users in several languages. It seems like some of the links between the languages are a bit strange (the About page on en.wiki links to the main page on many other Teahouses. One I can't find is the Spanish language Teahouse, doesn anyone know if it exists?

Thanks very much

John Cummings, (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Cummings I think only a few Wikipedias have a Teahouse equivalent, in the sense that it's a help messageboard specifically meant for new users. The Spanish Wikipedia has es:Wikipedia:Café but it's organized more like our Village Pump. Its es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual seems to be like our Help desk. I think it makes sense to distinguish Help desk from the Teahouse, like we have done, only if there are too many queries or a problem with WP:BITE. I think you could post an advance notice on Help desks of other language Wikipedias to give them the heads up about new users heading their way soon. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

How does the Ask a question button work? Is it FormWizard or something else?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John Cummings, and welcome to the Teahouse. If I am correct in assuming you are asking about the code, it can be found at MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @NotTheFakeJTP:, OK, it looks like something specially written. John Cummings (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is JavaScript written for the English Wikipedia. It starts at MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.js. If you are at the Teahouse then it loads MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse/content.js. The gadget is enabled by default at 'Enable the Teahouse "Ask a question" feature' at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It also uses MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time writing as a creator. I would like to create a page for the organization I work for as we are referenced in another article but there is not link to learn more about us. How do I submit a new page once I have drafted the copy? (PRCSF (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, PRCSF. Writing an article from scratch is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, and we usually recommend that new editors gain some experience by making smaller contributions to existing articles first. Creating an acceptable article about your employer is even harder and will attract lots of scrutiny. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and if you are determined to go ahead, you will need to make a formal declaration of who your employer is, as explained at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we edited our friends/clients page to be accurate per the person who's page it is. And some User Red something wrote saying we'd been deleted for not proper summary? Tried to talk/message back and it says User doesn't exist. We just want to correct what is wrong, including her birthdate and remove middle name and history on family adding sisters, and edit mom and dad info la la la... I have read and read and still do not get how this works??64.183.37.46 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are editing for a client, you need to review the paid editing policy, which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use for paid editors. You should also read the conflict of interest policy. The edit history of your address has no other edits aside from your post here, so you must have been under a different one, please link to the page in question.331dot (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that advice, information on Wikipedia needs to be sourced to a published reliable, independent, third-party source such as a newspaper article, a biography or suchlike. Having personal knowledge of such information isn't enough; a source that other editors can review is necessary. Ravenswing 01:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! I made an article about Fellowship Baptist College and it was denied. How can I recover the contents?

Thank you very much!

ClaydeRicochetClaydeRicochet (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaydeRicochet: Did you make this article in mainspace or as a draft? If it is a draft article, the contents should still be there for you. However, if your article was in mainspace and deleted via the Articles for Deletion process or speedily deleted, its contents are likely lost. I would contact whichever admin deleted the article via their talk page to ask what they did with the contents of the article whn it was deleted. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 07:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@ClaydeRicochet: The article in question is currently tagged for speedy deletion. If you are worried about losing the contents of the article, you can always replicate the article in your sandbox or as a draft before it is removed, and work on referencing while it is removed from article space. Then, once an improved draft is created, you can apply it to the Articles for Creation process to ask other editors if the draft is of sufficient quality and notability to be moved in mainspace. However, if the article is deleted, do not attempt to recreate it in mainspace before working on it as a draft, as it is likely to undergo speedy deletion again, as is occurring now. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question keeps getting deleted because it's a blatant copyright violation and consists entirely of text copied from the organization's website. All deletions have nothing to do with notability etc, just pure copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I just joined Wikipedia because I want to fight vandals and be a admin. I been on Wikipedia before and I think admin is a cool guy. Eh fights vandalism and doesn’t afraid of anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarsusie (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to join the wp:Counter-Vandalism Unit and increase your edit count and revert vandalism. Also you have to report vandals at wp:aiv and get them blocked. Once you get to like 100,000 edits you go to wp:rfa and they decide if you can be an admin. If you’re an admin you can block people by yourself. Also you have to sign your posts or you get blocked. TeaHost (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Assuming the references to 4chan and past experience here aren't anything beyond a joke. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TeaHost: I see you have a history of reverting edits you regard as "vandalism", where no vandalism has occurred. You should read the definition given at Wikipedia:Vandalism before you advise others on the subject. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TeaHost has been blocked as a sock, so we won't be seeing any more of his misleading advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how can i rename an article which has already submittedDesupline (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Desupline: You can move the article. To do so, click the item which is labelled "More" when editing on desktop (it is beside the View History tab), and the option to move will present itself for you. You need to supply a reason for your move, and should set the existing article name as a redirect to the new article title, so that links are not broken. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve moved your userpage to the Draft namespace, so you can work on it without worrying about immediate deletion. You will also need to attend to the photo at Commons because it is the subject of a deletion request. Green Giant (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Desupline. Having looked at Draft:Andrew X. Tang, I have a couple of concerns. Your username is that of Tang's company. This suggests that you have a conflict of interest, and should be very cautious in writing about him. It also suggests that you may be be an employee: if you are in any way paid for doing this, you must declare this: see PAID. Also, you need to change your username: names that suggest that they are editing on behalf of a company are not acceptable. Please see ISU and CHU.

My other concern is your sources. I haven't looked at them closely, but it seems to me that most of them are not independent of Tang. Please be aware that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article has said, done, or published except insofar as independent commentators have written about it; qand no interest at all in how the subject wishes to be portrayed. An article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. Please see WP:IRS. --ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Desupline. Having looked at Draft:Andrew X. Tang, I have a couple of concerns. Your username is that of Tang's company. This suggests that you have a conflict of interest, and should be very cautious in writing about him. It also suggests that you may be be an employee: if you are in any way paid for doing this, you must declare this: see PAID. Also, you need to change your username: names that suggest that they are editing on behalf of a company are not acceptable. Please see ISU and CHU.

My other concern is your sources. I haven't looked at them closely, but it seems to me that most of them are not independent of Tang. Please be aware that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article has said, done, or published except insofar as independent commentators have written about it; qand no interest at all in how the subject wishes to be portrayed. An article should be based almost entirely on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. Please see WP:IRS. --ColinFine (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day!

@Stormy clouds I just recreated the article about a Philippine college. After I did though, I received a notification asking for its speedy deletion.

I wonder why it has so be deleted, it has reliable sources and I even asked permission from the school personally to make one for them and they gave me their consent. This article I created (Fellowship Baptist College) will be useful to students who want to know about the school, even just by using Free Basics.

Thank you for your response

ClaydeRicochet11:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaydeRicochet (talk • contribs)

Hi ClaydeRicochet, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is not much point in recreating an article that has been deleted before without adding independent WP:Reliable sources. So far, all of your sources are the same and they are to the institution's website, so they are not independent. Wikipedia must not be used for advertising. Sorry to disappoint you, but you need to do some research to find independent sources. Have you read the good advice given by StormyClouds earlier? Dbfirs 11:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wanted to to create article on wikipedia. But, after reviewing by admin they told 'title has been backlist' what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standardwikis (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• New sock blocked, this disruption has been going on for far too long. —SpacemanSpiff 11:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering if charting at position 98 for 1 week is really enough to pass notability as per WP:BAND criteria 2, or should this really be limited to Top 50, Top 20 or even Top 10? Considering all the other criteria seem much higher requirements that such a minimal charting. This is in reference to Draft:One Lady Owner (band) that the author VincentBlack contacted me about on my talk page. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KylieTastic: My inkling would be that 98th for a week is not enough but it would probably depend on the artist. A better forum to ask at would be the guidelines' talk page, WT:BAND. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, done that here if anyone has an opinion to add. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all.

I'm a newly registered user, although I've done some edits anonymously over the years.

I'm a totally blind trans woman, so I'm wondering if there are any tips specific to screen reader users that I should know. I have been on the Wikipedia Adventure, which is an extremely useful resource, but now I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do next.

Also, I think it would be helpful to get to know other blind Wikipedians and join any projects aiming to improve Wikipedia's accessibility.

Thanks in advance

KaraLG84 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KaraLG84: and welcome to Wikipedia! I don't know anything about screen readers I'm afraid, but hopefully some other editor who knows more will be along and respond to that question. However, I do know that there is a project that might be relevant for you: WikiProject Accessibility, which mentions among its aims "actively assisting editors with disabilities or other characteristics which inhibit their ability to contribute to the encyclopedia." Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Bonadea:. I'll have a look at that project.

KaraLG84 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that my accounts aren't getting deleted, I just keep having to sign in everytime it says "Not Logged In", but today I realized that all my Teahouse questions keep vanishing. Is this because I'm inexperienced, or is it happening because of the "Not Logged In" thing? One more thing. Does anyone know why it keeps saying "Not Logged In", or is it because Wikipedia is trying to kick me off?

ConnallES (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously logged in now. Your previous Teahouse messages, and the answers to them, were archived at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 725#Why do my accounts keep getting deleted?. All messages are archived after a few days, as otherwise the page would get impracticably large. To find them you can look input your name in the archive search box at the top of the Teahouse page. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]