Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1034

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

I've imported several user scripts to my common.js page, including User:GregU/dashes.js, User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js, and Wikipedia:AutoEd/complete.js. However, none of these seem to work, ever. I use Google Chrome, but also tried in Edge but nothing is working. Couldn't find any tutorials either. I'm stumped. Any help would be much appreciated. (Please {{ping}} me in a reply.) Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bobbychan193: From the MOSNUM dates script, do you get the links ("DATES to dmy", etc.) added to the toolbox on the left side of the page under the Tools section? Which skin are you using (at the top of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering)?. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Vector. I think I did get those links in the past, but they're not appearing anymore. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I get the links after I enable AutoEd through the More drop-down. Regardless, none of them work. AutoEd and the dashes script both appear as dashes by the way, which seems like it could be a bug. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Bobbychan193: Try disabling all but the MOSNUM dates script (remove or commment out with // in front of the lines). If it works then, enable combinations until you find the offender. Also, assuming you're using a desktop (not mobile), go to your sandbox and edit it. Open the browser's Developer Tools window and switch to the Console tab (pressF12,Ctrl+⇧ Shift+K on Windows; or⌥ Option+⌘ Cmd+C,Control+4 on Mac Safari). Now reload the page. See anything relevant (you may have many unrelated warnings)? Copy (on Windows, right-click and choose Select All, thenCtrl+C) and paste it into a new section on my talk page if you like. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Stuck at step 2. I can't test it because the options no longer show up. Bobbychan193 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbychan193 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I get most of the same warnings in FireFox. Just to confirm, the links are not in the left-side toolbox when you go into edit mode, right? I'm stumped. As always, anyone else is welcome to chime in. You might find more capable technical help at WP:VPT (I'm pretty inexperienced at JS). Sorry I couldn't help. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the links aren't in the left-side toolbox in either visual or source editing. No worries, thanks anyway. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Bobbychan193, your script setup works correctly for me. Those scripts don't work if you have syntax highlighting on (there's a pencil icon to turn it off and on). The warning messages you're getting aren't important. Also note that these scripts don't work with the VisualEditor, does nothing show up under the Tools section in the side bar if you use the the wikitext editor? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: I didn't know syntax highlighting existed. I just checked; it's always been off. Right now, the scripts just aren't working, even in source editing mode. The MOS date links don't even show up. The only way I can get them to show up is when I enable AutoEd, but clicking any link has no effect. As a side note, the only script that works for me is the prose size script. Bobbychan193 (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Where should I request that an article be unprotected? I want to edit the Bigg Boss Tamil 1 page to help with copy editing, but the page is extended-confirmed protected. Thanks! --xRENEGADEx (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

​It is currently protected due to long-term disruption from sockpuppets, so it's unlikely that it will be unprotected soon. I'd recommend copying the article to your sandbox and then making an edit request at the article's talk page. But to answer your question about how to have an article unprotected: You discuss it with the admin that protected the page, and if they're no longer an active editor you can discuss it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level – Thjarkur (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I add a draft to WP:Afc? I have come up with a completed draft, but I cannot see a submit button on AfC. 數神 (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi 數神. I've added Template:Submit to Draft:Markov constant (Diophantine approximation) and submitted it for you. If you're not ready for it to be submitted, revert my edit and then add Template:AFC submission/draftnew to the top of the page instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. 數神 (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@數神: I would also like to add that if you choose to use that template, the template needs to be substituted like this {{subst:AFC submission/draftnew}} without the nowiki tags. Interstellarity (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Also, I have an extra question: What does 'subst' do anyway? 數神 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

數神, It means substitution. Please check out WP:SUBST to learn more about this. Interstellarity (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. 數神 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

On United_States_House_Permanent_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence

The latest edits are partisan; can these be re-evaluated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissyz123 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This should a) probably be a discussion for that article's Talk page, and b) be linked properly - you've just linked to the page, not a specific edit, so how do I know what you're on about? (Also - please sign your comments with four tildes when posting on the Teahouse. Thank you!) --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit my bosses's wikipedia page, per her request, and I'm having difficulty changing her title name. I'm able to change her name throughout the page but I can't find a way to change what her name says at the header. How can I do this? Thank you for any help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:1510:dba:1dc0:acd1:e1dd:e8c6 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Heads up. The article in question is Dipa Shah, there have been edits since October changing the name in the article to Ananyaa. There's a requested move on the talk page that was denied due to lack of evidence of the actress changing her name. Wikipedia goes on what is written in reliable sources. - X201 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

IMDB have changed her name. WP still needs a reliable source though. - X201 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, it isn't her Wikipedia page. It is Wikipedia's page about her. It may seem trivial, but keeping in mind that the page belongs to Wikipedia and only describes her may help you understand why things are done the way they are. If it were her page, ie a webpage that she owned and operated, her say-so would be enough to get it changed. As it is Wikipedia's page about her and Wikipedia articles must be supported by reliable sources, the page will not be changed until such sources are presented to us. And, no, your word that you are working for her and that she wants this is NOT a reliable source. --Khajidha (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

As a technical matter, you cannot move (rename) the article because you are not a registered editor. —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The software company Atonix Digital, a software tech startup under Black & Veatch: Black & Veatch

https://atonix.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdb296 (talk • contribs)

Jdb296 "Startups" rarely are notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. (Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages", a subtle but important distinction) In order for any company to merit a Wikipedia article, there must be significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources that show how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Those sources cannot be press releases, routine announcements, staff interviews, the company website, or any other primary source. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you have to ask, probably not. Is there a suitable place for it within the article Black & Veatch? —Tamfang (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello: What is the point of editing Wikipedia? What does an editor get out of making grammar corrections and adding content, other than good feelings from contributing to a cause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapmoshun (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's volunteering. We do this just for fun in our spare time. You know like how some kids play video games for fun. MenfesKidus40 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Some people enjoy gardening ... and then there's the impulse illustrated here. —Tamfang (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Making information readily available and accessible is fairly rewarding since you know other people are going to rely on your information. There's also a little bit of a videogame element to Wikipedia which makes it slightly addictive. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Stapmoshun, To me, its a much more productive form of procrastination. Instead of watching TV, I edit Wikipedia. Its fun, there's a cool community, and you're helping the world! I hope you find something you like about Wikipedia, and decide to stick around too. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Stapmoshun I love to learn. The best way to learn something is to edit the Wikipedia article until you understand it. Plus I like to help fix things. My favorite other pastime is Sudoko, but that's easier to fix. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 05:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Stapmoshun: Besides the Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Why to contribute, there are various reasons why editors edit Wikipedia. I approached your question the way a Wikipedia editor would approach a topic they were writing or expanding an article about, and looked for reliable sources discussing this question, and here's what I found: Editors contribute to Wikipedia for many reasons, including:

• altruism or wanting to contribute,
• blatant self-promotion,
• bragging rights,
• wanting to improve information on a given topic,
• pushing a particular point of view on a topic,
• and for fun!

I would also add another reason, from my own experience: in order to exercise my translation skills, by translating articles from other Wikipedias. I hope this helps answer your question. May I ask you one? I see you've been editing for a couple of years, now. Why do you edit Wikipedia? Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I edit because it bothers me when I see punctuation and grammar mistakes. Thank you :) Stapmoshun (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I put myself to social network— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanshaimran (talk • contribs)

Shanshaimran Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia only. Do you have a question about using Wikipedia? 331dot (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Your User page is not for social media content or promoting a website. David notMD (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you seek help in using social media, you might ask at WP:Reference desk/Computing. But ask a more specific question, please. —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

What do I do if someone has a draft in the user page (i.e. the user's main page), such as User:Njoyseon. Should I move it to the user sandbox or draft? Taewangkorea (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

hello, Taewangkorea. If the draft is a clear advertisement or promotional page, you can tag it with {{db-spam}}. Otherwise, you can move it to a more appropriate location. I would suggest a user page other than the user's sandbox, myself. If User:Example writes a draft about TOPIC, move it to User:Example/Topic. Then place {{Userspace draft}} at the top of the page, and then notify the user what you have done and why. That last is important, because a) the user may otherwise coem complaining about a disparaging page, or even be put off and just leave the project, and b) the user won't learn anything if s/he isn't told anything. You could alos move to a Draft space page, but then you had beter explain G13 to the user. That is my advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Thank you for that. I think I did everything correctly. I moved the draft and talk to a user subpage (User:Njoyseon/Jung Hanmo) and got rid of the redirect. For some reason it also moved the talk page (which had some stuff there) so I unmoved the talk page only and posted a note to the user's talk page. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Taewangkorea A move always moves the corresponding talk page along with a non-talk page, because in 99% of the cases that is the right thing to do. I should have mentioned moving that back. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: It is the first time I did a move like this so thank you for your help. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see #Drafting an article on a userpage below. I am now not as sure of the appropriateness of the actiuon i suggested above as I was yesterday. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

See WT:UP#Drafts on a users main user page for possible wider discussion of this issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

how can i upload my bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pep abala (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pep abala: I saw who you are writing about on your userpage. Please note it is not an appropriate place for a draft. Your draft was declined by David.moreno72 because the draft doesn't show notability. Read WP:NBIO for information about the criteria for a person to merit his/her article. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 18:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pep abala: I also saw that you wrote about the person in your sandbox, but you have not submitted it for review. I will help you the best I can, and please remove the content from your userpage. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 18:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Pep abala Just to clarify that, per WP:UPYES, it is perfectly acceptable to have a draft article on your user page, although most editors find it more convenient to create drafts on a user subpage. There is, however, no strict requirement to remove the content from your userpage if you do not wish to. Hug^syrup 23:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

... but what about WP:FAKEARTICLE? Dbfirs 07:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it depends whether or not the draft is about the user/username themself. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think WP:FAKEARTICLE is fairly clear that it is talking about the 'indefinite' hosting of 'pages that look like articles', and intentional fakes, not drafts in progress. Given that it specifically says 'when a userspace page reaches a point where it can be included as an article consider moving it into mainspace' the implication is clear that there is no issue with userspace drafts per se. And if WP:FAKEARTICLE did preclude userspace drafts, it would apply just as much to a subpage as to the main user page, so my point stands. Hug^syrup 17:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Technically, you may be correct but "drafts" which linger for too long on a user page run the risk of being deleted per WP:U5. If you come across such a draft, the thing to do might be to post a friendly notice on the user's talk page and let them know about FAKEARTICLE and WP:USD or WP:DRAFTS. Once they've been advised of such things, they would be wise to move the draft to another more suitable page if they intend to continue working on it before someone else does it for them or deletes the page altogether. Whether they move it an user subpage or the draft namespace is up to them, but things which are eventually going to end up submitted to WP:AFC should be moved to the draft namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

U5 specifically does not apply to 'plausible drafts' so the risk of deletion should really only be insofar as there is a risk of a user incorrectly tagging, and an admin incorrectly deleting. And if a page does look like a case of U5, it is still a U5 case whether it is a top level user page or a sub user page, so I don't really follow the argument. Hug^syrup 09:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The longer a "draft" stays on a user page, the greater the risk in my opinion that it may be deleted or tagged for deletion per U5, particularly if it seems to have been abandoned. Whether it would be proper to delete/blank the page may be suspect, but that will be up to the discretion of the administrator reviewing the tag. I left a legitimate USD go unedited for quite some period of time (I got involved in editing other things), someone came across it and wanted to know if I wanted it deleted. They were nice enough to ask, but there are others who tag or take such pages to WP:MfD when they come across them. Sometimes when an admin declines a U5 request for a page like this, they will suggest moving it or even move it themselves just to try and avoid any similar mistaken tagging; other times an admin will delete the page if they feel the tag is warranted. I agree that U5 applies the same way to all pages in the username space, but I think lots of editors see/treat user pages as being different from user subpages, perhaps because they’re easier to find since almost all signatures contain a link to them, and thus feel U5 is more of a concern for user pages than subpages; in other words, the former seemed to be more highly scrutinized/monitored than the latter. Anyway, this part of this discussion has probably already moved beyond the scope not only the original question, but also of that of the Teahouse, and it would probably be to continue somewhere else. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

See WT:UP#Drafts on a users main user page for possible wider discussion of this issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This may have been asked before but I couldn't find it. What can we do if a userpage looks like an article draft? I'm only showing WP:FAKEARTICLE but I think these are just good faith edits and just needs to be moved to a draft page.   Sub |_HMU  18:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You can move it to a subpage. Ruslik_Zero 20:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been having this discussion in another thread above (WP:TEAHOUSE#my article deleted) and my reading of the rules, and my opinion, is that there is nothing (least of all WP:FAKEARTICLE which clearly does not apply) to say someone cannot draft an article on their userpage, and we shouldn’t be in a rush to move these to either a subpage or draft space for no good reason. However, it seems that not everyone agrees with me and it’s certainly not a hill I’m inclined to die on. Hug^syrup 21:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Subwaymuncher, Ruslik0, and Hugsyrup: WP:UPYES includes in the list of things allowed in user space pages:Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future (usually on subpages). That (usually on subpages) is probably grounds to politely suggest to the user that such a page be moved to a sub-page as a user draft. Whether it justifies makign such a move preemptivly is not exactly clear.

WP:FAKEARTICLE never app;lies to something that is arguably a good0-faith attempt at a draft of a valid article -- it is primarily aimed at PoV forks of existing articles, copies of deleted articles, and pages so constructed as to attempt to deceive others into thinking that they are live articles. An extensive autobiography in the form of a fully developed article, but with promotional content, that might be linked to from outside, could be a FAKEARTICLE, but if it is honestly intended as a draft, it should not IMO be so classed. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Much the point I made in the thread above to which I have linked - but thanks. Hug^syrup 22:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A few days ago DESiegel suggested this. Taewangkorea (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes i did, and i have now rethought a bit. I think maybe there needs to be a discussion soemwhere , perhaps WT:UP, to clarify the proper choices in such a situation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

See WT:UP#Drafts on a users main user page for possible wider discussion of this issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I have just created an artist page for the first time and requested for review.

Can someone check this page Draft : Rinosh George and let me know if everything is in order as per the wiki guidelines so that it won't be rejected while being approved.

Thank you in advance.

Rienzie.

Can someone check this page Draft : Rinosh George and let me know if everything is in order as per the wiki guidelines so that it won't be rejected while being approved?

Rienzie06 (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Declined, edited subsequently by Rienzie, resubmitted. In my opinion will be declined again because of weakness of refs not establishing notability for musician/actor. David notMD (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Would ri (Ri_(administrative_division)) be allowed to have an article (notable) under the notability guideline for geographic features? Ri is an administrative subdivision for myeon (township) (List_of_townships_in_South_Korea). However, I noticed that hardly any of the myeon have article, let along ri, so I was wondering if I was allowed to create articles on ri that wont be deleted.205.175.106.30 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Ri (administrative division) currently exists as a page. Some individual Ri may be notable per WP:GEOLAND. But to be honest, if you were going to work on creating articles, you might wish to focus on the Townships first. Do you have a particular Ri you'd like to create, or were you just thinking of creating them in general? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just curious. Maybe I should create the articles on townships. Also, why do other people's contributions show up for my contributions and what happened to my old contributions? 205.175.106.30 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Howdy hello! Likely because your IP address has changed. You can fix that problem by creating an account which will allow you to hide your IP address and also have sole attribution for your edits. Your old contributions can be found at your old IP address, whatever that may have been. For the townships, yeah, that'd be very useful! The list of townships is a good place to start, as there are many redlinked pages there. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd think they'd probably pass provided that they are legally recognized entities; we have articles on all the townships in the U.S., for example. Although I agree with CaptainEek, myeon would probably be better to create first. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am a student at university of Edinburgh doing my Masters degree in Public Health. I wrote an article about Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Action Plans which was intended to be linked to the Global health page, however, I got a notification stating that the content is promotional and I have an obvious conflict of interest. I am an independent student trying to contribute to an open source knowledge base. Also, the content intended for posting is based on actions taken jointly by countries so far in achieving global health goals. There are no opinions but facts stated in a straightforward encyclopedic manner. Can anyone please help me understand this as I am finding it really difficult to wrap my head around this obvious conflict of interest bit and the content being promotional (of the World Health Organization??). Also, if this is promotional, then how does an entire page on World Health organization get published on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimanundy (talk • contribs)

Hello, Rimanundy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've had a frustrating experience. Unfortunately, this is quite common for people who plunge straight into the difficult task of creating new articles in Wikipedia without spending time learning about how it works.

The general answer is that if you think that the people who deleted your article and challenged you are wrong, you should engage with them in a discussion: either on their talk pages (User talk:CASSIOPEIA and User talk:Jimfbleak or continuing it on your own (but WP:ping those editors if you do).

I'm not an administrator, so I can't see the deleted article. But from the comments, my guess is that it was either not referenced, or referenced only to sources connected with the subject. That is (part of) what makes it promotional: Wikipedia isn't interested in what anybody or any organisation says about themselves, only in what people unconnected with the subject have published about it. (If you look at World Health Organization you will see that many of the sources are independent of WHO).

As for the COI: again, I can't tell for sure. Jimfbleak evidently thinks that you work for the organisation which behind the GHSA: if he is wrong, then you can explain - but you may need to address whatever it was that caused him to think so. That in itself won't address the question of promotional text: it may be that CASSIOPEIA will be willing to restore your text as a draft for you to work on, unless they think it is irredeemably promotional.

My suggestion would be that you read your first article, and then start again, creating a draft in Draft space. But do follow and read all the links in the messages on your user talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rimanundy. The draft was deleted as promotional. I don't know that I would have done that, but it was not, as writen, suitable as a Wikipedia article. It began:

In order to attain goals of global health security, eleven Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Action Packages were identified in May 2014 at the GHSA Commitment Development meeting ...

Wikipedia articles normally begin by identifying or defining the subject of the article:Joe Blow was an 18th century English artist. or {Harris Associates is a holding company specializing in transport firms. Here the draft should have started by identifying the Global Health Security Agenda, indicating who created the Agenda and why, and why it is significant. The tone should be descriptive, and all statements of opnion should be identifed as the opnions of specific people or entities, and cited to their sources. Statements such asThe Action packages aim to encourage member countries to take on leadership roles do not make it clear whose aim this is. Correcting these issues of format and tone might make it clearer that the draft is not intended to be, and is in fact not, promotional.

I could start a discussion aimed at overturning the deletion. But so little of the deleted draft would actually be useful in a new draft, that I don't think it is worth while. Perhaps Jimfbleak will comment here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel. Even the choice of article title shows that the editor has plunged straight in without reading anything about editing. No sources, and its basically regurgitating what the organisation says about itself in uncritical tones, aims and visions rather than facts. The article looks like a text dump, but since it seems to be based on a US federal page, not worth checking for copyright violation. Rimanundy, I'm prepared to AGF and accept that there isn't a COI here, but there's little worth keeping there, better to take time to read WP:YFA and WP:MOS and start from scratch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

i have submitted my company page eDelta enterprise solutions, but it was deleted. can anyone help me to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar.chopada (talk • contribs) 02:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sagar.chopada: The answer is in your Talk page — see the section Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:EDelta Enterprise Solutions there, and compare the speedy deletion criterion WP:G11 linked there. --CiaPan (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Sagar.chopada, and welcome to the Teahouse. The draft was speedy deleted under criterion G11 as promotional or advertising, and in my view this was an excellent call. Such language as{XXX} is a company founded by two young entrepreneurs with a peerless passion for software development. Our talents cover a vast array of fields, ranging from web development to mobile application development. is the purest form of marketing speech, and does not nbelong anywhere in Wikipedia. Also, if it is "your company" you have a conflict of interest are really should not be editing an article about the company at all, and if you do, it should be done only after openly declaring your conflict as explained in the guideline I just linked to. If you are editing Wikipedia as part of your employment, then you must disclose that in compliance with our guideline on paid editing.

Please read Your First Article and our guideline on the notability of buisnesses before trying again, and then seriously consider not trying to write about this particular company, please. Please understand that any Wikipedia articel or draft must be neutral, describing facts but not giving opnions or value judgements, unless they can be attributed and cited to named individuals or organizations. Articles must be based on independent published reliable sources. No sources were cited in the draft. But promotional language will not be accepted, even if supported by sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

My infobox image

is too large. Where do I put the word 'thumb' to reduce it? Sorry to be so simple and taking up so much space BFP1 (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done That template has a field that can control the image size. I've added | image_upright = 0.5 to the article (William Oliver (artist, born 1823)). the 0.5 part means "50% (half) of original size", 0.75 would be three quarters etc. Tweak it to the size you require. - X201 (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Begoon (talk · contribs) has just increased it to 80% - X201 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

To be precise, upright will scale it roughly relative to default thumbnail size (it does some 'rounding'), so if your thumb size in preferences is 220px then 0.5 = 110px wide. I altered it to 0.8 = 180px, because 0.5 seemed very small in comparison to most bio pics, and it's not such poor quality that you need to reduce it to lessen flaws, but you can adjust further if you like. -- Begoon 16:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll know how to reduce if there are any complaints BFP1 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@BFP1: This has already been resolved, but please remember that since the file is licensed as non-free content it can only be used ("displayed") in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. So, if you want to discuss/refer to the image on any talk pages, etc., please only provide a link for the image (see WP:TPG#Non-free images and WP:COLON) or a link to the article where it can be seen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and noted Marchjuly. BFP1 (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Problem: Hello all- I have been working on colonial period maps of Taiwan this week that I believe can help English-speaking readers have a better understanding of Taiwanese geographical concepts during Japanese occupation. However, I can't find one of the sheets of the map series I have been working on (from map series Formosa (Taiwan) 1:50,000 AMS Series L792). I previously encountered a similar problem with sheet suirembi-2418-iii of the map series which is not listed on the index of sheets of the map. I was able to blindly guess out what the url was.

Using my guessing method, I have previously found at least one other map sheet in The University of Texas' maps of China that is similarly already scanned and uploaded but not linked in their index of maps. Unfortunately, sending them my feedback has proved fruitless- they haven't corrected the problems yet.

I feel strongly that the map I am looking for (sheet 2115-iii) is probably already scanned and online, but I just can't guess out what the URL would be.

Sheet 2115-iii definitely exists in paper form- it is referenced in several places in the 1945 book "Gazetteer to Maps of Formosa (Taiwan) Map Series AMS L792, Scale 1:50,000" and it the area it covers is highlighted in yellow in the Index map to Series L792.

Question: Is there a tool that can show me a list of ALL of the urls that have ever existed that start with http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/formosa/? If I can find that list, then I could probably figure out if sheet 2115-iii was uploaded but not added to the index of sheets (similar to suirembi-2418-iii), or if sheet 2115-iii was never uploaded at all. If not, is there another way I could find this map without contacting the library directly? You can't email them, their feedback system gave me no results and calling them would be a little expensive for me. I have tried my guessing method (not yet exhaustively), but have yet to hit it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: The index page claims to have Saigaen as 2115-iii, but the link actually points to 2215-iii, which is the correct number for that Saigaen sheet according to the image, and 2215-iii does not appear elsewhere in the list.

Archive.org has archived 133 URLs in that series, and they don't have a 2115-iii. This may simply mean that they archived the ones that were present/referenced at Wikipedia, and didn't do 2115-iii because it wasn't. As you said, it would be worth reconciling that list with the UT list.

I found the following relevant sources, which may give a clue as to the name of the missing map. It might be useful to look at how other known map names from the UT list compare to get an idea of the types of differences to expect in the name transliterations.

• [1] has:
  • chikushiko
  • chikushiko-kei
  • kashiryo
  • kyukoko
  • midako
  • shinsekishi
• [2] has:
  • hsin-chiang-kou
  • shin-koko
  • kuang-ho-tsun
  • kaentei
• [3] and [4] have "mi-to"
• [5], [6], and [7] have "mida"

I'm surprised there is no way to reach the UT map collection people – it's a well-known map resource and I know I worked with them some years ago on some issues. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've emailed them. I'll use chat if I don't get a response in a week or so. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1:: Thanks for your incredible and information packed response! It was 'mida' after all [8] [9]. Thanks for offering to reach out to UT on this issue. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I request a bot to trim down the resolution of this fair use image? I know there are many bots who do this.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 08:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sit back and wait is the easy option. You can add {{Non-free reduce}} to hurry things along. - X201 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If I would like to be an extended confirmed user, I must make 500 edits and join Wikipedia for 30 days, and I know that. If I can’t make 500 edits in 30 days, will I be a extended confirmed user if I make 1,000 edits and join Wikipedia for 60 days? I just wan5ed to ask that, does the Wikipedia software work like this: if I can’t make 500 edits in 300 days, the software will wait until 60 days I’ve joined Wikipedia and see if I can make 1,000 edits, or does it simply see if you meet the requirements (they review all the time)? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 14:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery, You can request to be one at WP:PERM/EC. However, requests there are rarely accepted. Interstellarity (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery, the information about how extended confirmed protection works is here. It specifies "...registered users with at least 30 days tenure and 500 edits", which means that when an account is 30 days old, once it hits 500 edits it will be extended confirmed. It is not a check that runs every 30 days. If there is a particular article you would like to edit which has EC protection, you can always request edits on its talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery: Wikipedia doesn't play silly games, or make people jump through hoops for no reason. The purpose of Autoconfirmation and Extended Confirmation is to make sure that people editing the specified pages have been here long enough, and made enough edits, to be serious and (hopefully) understand what Wikipedia is about. So once you have been here 30 days (or more) and made 500 edits (or more) you will automatically have ECP rights. But I wonder, why does this matter to you? You haven't so far edited in any of the areas where ECP is applied; and if you do want to, you can always use an edit request. --ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@ColinFine: Of course I know Wikipedia doesn’t play silly games, but I just want to know how I get to edit pages that are under extended confirmed. This applies for service awards and ribbons as well, right? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 23:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, Bank Robbery. I have no interest in service awards or ribbosn, regarding them as an irritating distraction from the business of creating an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Would you please answer the question I have asked above? ColinFine couldn’t answer my question. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 14:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bank Robbery: I don't understand the question regarding service ribbons. They are entirely self-granted, and can be used by anyone. If that doesn't answer your question, perhaps you can be more specific. What we're all wondering, though, is what article(s) requiring ECP you are so intent to edit, and why. You have to realize that any such articles are generally very high-profile (watched closely and/or by a lot of people) and any kind of controversial edits can get you in hot water pretty quickly. It's best to discuss changes and make edit requests on the article's talk page, which you can do now. Why does it matter who performs the actual edit? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: I’m just asking anyway, and it does not matter me. What I really mean is not service ribbons but service awards like Novice Editor and Master Editor II. So now does it apply to service awards? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 02:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bank Robbery: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the question about these awards is. AFAIK, ECP and service awards are unrelated. The first award is for 1 day of service and 1 edit. See WP:SVC and WP:AWARDS if that helps. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Seems like you don't really understand what I mean. Of course I know the first award, Registered Editor is for 1 day of service and 1 edit, and that's why I posted it on my user page. Does the question I asked apply to ALL SERVICE AWARDS? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 07:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery, In theory, a service award is appropriate as soon as an editory has reached X edits and Y years of service. The edits may take significantly longer than the minimum time, or vice versa. This applies to all the service awards. But do remember tht unlike actual permissions such as ECP, no one and nothing monitors the placement of service award templates, and they have no consequences and grant no rights or privileges. An editor with 5 edits can place a service award claiming to have 100,000 edits and 20 years of service, if s/he cares to do so. It won't fool many people, nor matter at all. Has that clarified things a bit? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: So if a user reviews my user page, it will not be deleted even if I have put the award template for Master Editor III. So service awards don't really matter, and thank you for your help. If you see a problem in the first sentence (this reply), please tell me ASAP. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 07:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery Of course it's a problem. It's called honor. I can go buy a probably fake Silver Star medal at the local military surplus joint. What do you think happens if I wear it when I go visiting my friends at the local VA cemetery? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, could you please solve this question: is AlanM1 correct or DESiegel correct about the question I have asked above? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 10:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bank Robbery. Your original question was "If I can’t make 500 edits in 30 days, will I be a extended confirmed user if I make 1,000 edits and join Wikipedia for 60 days?" The answer is that, if you have not reached 500 edits in 30 days, then you will become an extended confirmed user when you reach 500 edits. It makes no difference if that takes 42 days, 78 days or any other number of days. The only numbers that matter are at least 30 days and at least 500 edits. I recommend that you concentrate on improving the encylopedia instead of worrying about such things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, thank you for your help. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am managing a page for my boss and I want to insert the box that appears on the right of some pages and has info like name, born, age, website, etc to her page that is already created. Is this an easy task for someone that does not know coding (I just try and wing it)? I just want to be able to list her website up and I tried doing that via a "Contact" section but that was taken down due to (from what I understand) "your edits give the apparence that you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you editing that involves being compensated by a person...". I am the editing on behalf of the person the wikipage is about and adding the website is just another bio about her- nothing is being sold on it? How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelVerwoerdPA (talk • contribs) 09::39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@MelVerwoerdPA:, welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that making a formal disclosure of your paid status is not optional, and you need to do that before making any other edits to any Wikipedia pages (unless you need more clarifications about how to make the formal disclosure – in that case you could post a {{helpme}} template to your user talk page and ask your questions there). Please read the information on your user talk page carefully. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 09:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MelVerwoerdPA (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. First, you should visit either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to make a request to change your username as soon as possible. Role accounts are not permitted; each account must be used by a single, specific individual as indicated by the username; your real name is not required, just something individualistic and specific to you.

After that, you must review and comply with the paid editing policy and the conflict of interest policy, as you say you are editing as the representative of your boss. You should also review how to make edit requests, as you should not edit about your boss directly.

Also please understand that while your and your boss' input is welcome, you have no more right to the article (not just "page") than any other editor. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added {{Infobox person}} to the article, which is what I think the OP was asking for. - X201 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Change your User name. Declare paid on your User page. A website for a person or organization can be added after the references in a section titled External links. David notMD (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I think entry on Jonathan McCollum may be publishable now. Please advise. Thank you! Here is link: Draft:Jonathan_McCollum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luresblow (talk • contribs)

@Luresblow: if you think the article is ready, you will need to submit it so it can be reviewed. However, I'm afraid I don't think it will be accepted. Almost none of your sources meet the standards of a reliable source - they are mostly a mix of primary sources, blogs, and non-independent content. What you need are good quality, independent, reliable sources: respected newspapers and journals, and published books are really the gold standard. Hug^syrup 14:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I added references to academic journals, a newspaper, some professional organizations. I would like to try to submit for review, but I am not sure how.

You can paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Hug^syrup 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I recently came across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Trafficking_Standards_Initiative_(HTSI), it has a few warnings and so I went fixing the issues. Doing a bit more research into the topic I noticed that the "Human Trafficking Standards Initiative" does not exist! Both looking through any mention of it on the internet other than this page and the non-profit linked. What is standard procedure? Thanks! Someguywithahat (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Someguywithahat, Mark it for CSD as a hoax. I have done so. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted it, but not as a hoax. I don't see any direct references to it, but I do see traces of it in third-party websites, and since the article is four-and-change years old, I don't see any reason not to assume that this was a legitimate sub-project of the NGO that has since been shuttered. Certainly not notable, and the article makes no claims of significance for the project itself, so it's eligible for speedy deletion under A7, but not G3. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Someguywithahat (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Specifically Cite web. Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 16:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

{{cite web}} Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

My appologies if this isn't the correct way to go about this but the previous section was archived before being resolved so I'm re-posting it. ImberAlacritas (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, As my first contribution to Wikipedia, I've made an attempt to resolve the remaining comments on the draft for the Draft:Water_Wall_Turbine page. I believe that I've resolved the tonal and reference issues reported by previous reviewers, but would very much appreciate feedback on whether some issues remain. Thank you for your time and expertise. ImberAlacritas (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Water Wall Turbine appears to be about a type of water wheel. It does not make it clear in the draft how a Water Wall Turbine differs from other water wheels - in one place it says that they can capture potential energy as well as kinetic energy from water, but in another it claims they are suitable for extracting power from currents. However, the consistent capitalisation of "Water Wall Turbine" suggests that it does not designate a type of water wheel at all, it is a brand name used by Water Wall Turbine Inc. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Declined four times. IA, the recent editor, is not the creator, and in a Talk page reply, declares does not have a COI. My advice to IA is to state no-COI on own User page, and if intending to continue, aim toward neutral point of view, as I agree this still has a promotional bias. I did some editing. David notMD (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback, especially to David notMD who made useful edits to the page directly. I believe that I've made some further improvements given the comments here and would appreciate it if you could take another look. I've also added a no-COI statement to my user page as suggested. ImberAlacritas (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Status is edited since last decline, not yet resubmitted. David notMD (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

David notMD - I was hoping to get some feedback and a sense of whether you think it has a chance of passing the review prior to changing the status since it was rejected immediately last time. Is this not a good practice? Thanks! ImberAlacritas (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not a reviewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I edited my rejected article and resubmitted it, at least I think I did. I can't find evidence that it is sitting in line waiting for acceptance/rejection. Online I find it up as Everybody wiki which apparently is only viewable by me. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolog10 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Makeda Cheatom has not been resubmitted. When you have addressed the problems identified in the previous review you can then use the blue "Resubmit" button. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I made a rather good contribution to "Psychiatrische Klinik"/Diskussion where I was attacked with deletions by WAH, further attempts to publish it back again resulted in the cancellation of my writing-rights by Regi51 in the whole German wikipedia.

Lutz Fehling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.237.220 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the German Wikipedia is separate to English Wikipedia, with different rules, processes and help boards so this isn't really the best place to ask for help. I am sure that there are similar help boards on the German Wikipedia and, if you are blocked there, I expect there is a way you can request an unblock - probably by posting on your talk page. Hug^syrup 14:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Lutz Fehling. As Hugsyrup wrote above, Wikipedias in different languages are separate projects and the community of enwiki can help little with issues at dewiki. Please try ask your question at German Wikipedia helpdesk at de:Wikipedia:Fragen von Neulingen. Regards, CiaPan (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Lutz Fehling

The questions I have don't exactly apply to Wikipedia but you might have the answers. I would like to use images from Wikimedia Commons and put them in another social platform which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. What I am asking is to know if this is allowed. If so, what do I need to do? Should I just copy and paste the image then place the name of the creator and license that owns it beneath the picture or something else?Prana1111 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Prana1111, Follow the rules of the license given on Commons. With CC BY SA 4.0, you just have to say the creator and license, yes. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Prana1111. The relevant guide is C:COM:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I am not sure this is the right place to ask this question but I could not find any other. So, if it is not, please direct me to the right place.

My question concerns a new website, EverybodyWiki, that has copied a draft of an article I submitted to Wikipedia, Draft: Virage Simulation, which is currently under review.

The poor spelling and grammar on the EverybodyWiki website raise my suspicions.

How can they simply copy my draft article from Wikipedia and use it? Is there some arrangement with Wikipedia?

DriverSafety (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

EverybodyWiki is one of countless mirrors of Wikipedia. Details are at WP:Mirrors and forks/DEF#EverybodyWiki. They do provide attribution, so it is in accordance with the licence under which you published the material to Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, DriverSafety and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia licenses its content under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License. Anyone may legally copy any or all of that content by complying with that license, which basically means providing attribution (credit) to the original author(s) and granting the same license to others. As a ptactical matter, anyone may copy form Wikipedia even without complying with the license, because the chance of anyone paying copyright registration fees, court costs, and hiring a lawyer to sue over a copied Wikipedia page is small. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for a list of sites known to copy content 9at least some content) from Wikipedia, some compying with the license, some not. Many other sites could be added, the list is rather out of date. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the information. DriverSafety (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

how do i talk to someone that leaves a message?B.Perrine (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

B.Perrine, you can use their talk page such as User talk:CAPTAIN MEDUSA or User talk:B.Perrine. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

If they've left a message on your user talk page you can reply by clicking the edit link at the top of that section. It's worth reading WP:Talk page guidelines if you haven't already done so. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

B.Perrine, be bold when leaving a user a message. Wikipedia:User pages this covers everything you need to know about userspace. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

B.Perrine You might want to consider giving them a ping, as I just did for you, so they get notified. Make sure you sign your post by typing four tildes, that triggers the ping notification. If it's me you're wanting to reply to, I always appreciate a ping, because my watchlist is too large to be useful in keeping track of a conversation. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this article notable? Henri_Vincent-Anglade I was going to nominate it for AfD after finding no sources that demonstrate SIGCOV through google, google books, google news, and google scholar, but this article (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.montmart.org%2Fvincent-anglade) said his works were published in "major magazines of the time" that I could not find. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The painting is notable, but I think it might need to become a drag unit more sources have been found. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Taewangkorea and Elijahandskip: I rather suspect this artist is notable, but i can't be sure. If you couldn't find online sources, it may be that offline ones are needed, such as could be found at a university or museum library with a good collection on art history. Or it may be that sources are in french, rather than english. Or both. It certainly could be moved to Draft, but it would be better if some specific editor agreed to make some effort on it, otherwise that might just be a slow deletion via WP:CSD#G13. Or it could just be left alone for the moment -- there is no rush. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

By "drag unit" do you mean "draft until"? —Tamfang (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I did a quick google on his name and find that his art is being sold at auction for $500 to over £1,200. To me that bespeaks notability: https://www.invaluable.com/artist/anglade-henri-vincent-6f2zajw7yk/sold-at-auction-prices/ perhaps there is mention of him in some early 20thCentury French Newspapers. Does France have an equivalent of newspapers.com?Oldperson (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen on multiple occasions symbols appearing on category pages with pages under them instead of the first letter of the page (As I assume they're supposed to be). For example, on Category:Lists of monarchs, the List of living former sovereign monarchs and Lists of monarchs are under no letter or symbol, it's just blank, and Template:Lists of historical monarchs of modern countries is under the symbol for the Bangladeshi taka.

Any information on why this is happening would be appreciated because it's bothering me. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Helloimahumanbeing. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys. A space as sort key means no heading is shown. It's for the main article(s) of the category. The Bangladeshi taka '৳' should have been a Greek tau 'τ' for a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have a question regarding the New Albion infobox which you may find here: HERE.

I have just added the infobox as I realized that most wp:GOODARTICLEs contain such. And it does also, I believe, improve the article. Unfortunately I am having trouble with the line about the founder, Francis Drake. I am unable to arrange the word by on the same line as founded and Francis Drake--despite tinkering to properly manipulate the words. In short, I would like it to read all on one line as such: Founded by Francis Drake.

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to let me know my mistake or even perhaps correct the mistake. I truly appreciate any attention one may extend.Hu Nhu (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hu Nhu, and welcoem to the Teahouse. The problem turns out to be the length of the parameter value for |named for=. If that value is long enough to force word-wrapping, the width of the label names column is reduced, and "founded by" wraps. I have made an edit to correct this. It may be that there is a better solution. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)!~

Thank you DES. I appreciate your kind attention, and the correction is excellnt. I have been editing this article and believe it is suitable for recognition as a wp:GA. The information box is an item that I realized was lacking; an information box seems typical of of a Good Article.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I am glad to have been of help, Hu Nhu. I don't do much work on getting articles to GA, and cannot advise on that aspect of things. Good luck. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Two Wiki editors just did a wonderful job of upgrading my first Wikipedia post. On the history page I can see all the changes they made. Is it polite to thank them for each individual change they made? Or just thank once per batch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TateRay (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

​A single thank-you is enough, they show up as seperate messages in the inbox which makes multiple thank-yous a bit much. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It depends a bit on the number of edits involved. There's no hard-and-fast rule, but as a guide of thumb, once per batch/editor is generally quite sufficient. That said, if there's some specific edits in that batch that stand out to you that you really want them to know you especially appreciate, thanking twice or so is not generally an issue either. Thanks spamming, on the other hand, is generally less appreciated, especially when involving large amounts of thanks (results in notification spam) or giving the impression you're following an editor around (can cross into stalking/hounding/harassing behaviour or give that impression, even if not intended). (P.S. Remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes at the end. ) AddWittyNameHere 01:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated! TateRay (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Scarlet Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

I was asked to remove a defamatory statement in Wikipedia by the person who the page is about (Scarlet Rivera). One editor has nastily changed and falsely reworded a review in Wikipedia and cited the source. When I looked at the source, I found his review has been maliciously changed by this editor in order to degrade her work.

• I read anyone can remove a libellous statement without discussion, so I removed it as was asked to do by Scarlet.*

But the editor just kept changing it back (EVERYTIME) as soon as I remove it. Previously we had lodged a complaint against this person prior for this same exact thing, but this editor constantly reverts to their false statement, which is libel. They have changed the wording of a music reviewer's review, which no-one bothered to check. I checked and on my Talk page I quoted the reviewer's actual wording and provided the actual link to the review as reference - but that same editor has just changed it back again citing they took it directly from the source, which is not true.

Because I was paid by the subject to do their website, I've been told I'm not allowed to edit their page. But yet I read in Wikipedia's own Policy and Terms of Use, anyone finding a libellous statement, anyone can remove it immediately without discussion.

Everyone wants to constantly tell me what I'm doing wrong - but am not getting any help in getting either the statement removed or it added exactly as was written, so they're allowing this editor to change wording and created a libellous statement and leaving it on the page and nothing is being done about it!

I'm reading and being given conflicting information.

I was barred for 36 hours for "edit warring" when I was just removing the false information as was asked to do by the subject of the page. I'm not in Wikipedia to be an editor, just to remove the libellous statement, and was also asked to update her information. I do not get paid to do this. But this editor still continues to add their own wording instead of the actual review, making it defamatory - and no-one will help change it back, since I've been told I can not edit this person's page due to Conflict of Interest. Again - I DON'T get paid for this. Scarlet wanted the false libellous statement removed.

It appears any editor can say and write anything regardless of Wikipedia's own policies (and the law), and my removing a libellous statement is being ignored when I remove it as again I point out - Wikipedia states ANYONE can remove false and libellous statements immediately without discussion. This same editor also changed the lay out of Scarlet's page. It previously had different sections under "Career", and they removed all the different sections. It appears this editor has an issue with the subject and is using Wikipedia to try do her reputation harm.

What's the deal? Why is it acceptable for editors to deceive and nothing be done? If I try remove it - I get blocked and told I cannot edit this page. It appears editors do not follow policy nor the actual law and admins do not keep them in check, nor do they help when I ask the libellous statement be either removed or stated exactly as was written.

1. Can I remove this libellous statement?

2. If I can't remove it (which would be conflicting from Wikipedia's own Policy and Terms of Use in regards to removing libellous information), then how do I get it removed or written EXACTLY as was written by the reviewer?

3. How do I stop this nasty editor from constantly adding back their libellous statement EVERYTIME I remove it? And the fact they are lying saying they got it exactly from the source - when that's untrue and have proven that fact?

4. Can I add current information, eg: "Scarlet continues to record and perform extensively."

5. Do I really have to add a template saying I was paid to do Scarlet's website, when it has nothing to do with removing that libellous statement and for wanting to add "Scarlet continues to record and perform extensively"?

6. I also wanted to remove a previous statement I'd added as I believe it'll be used by this editor to try yet again add derogatory statements about her at some stage, so wanted something more basic (as in "5.").

Hoping someone with some sense, that knows the law and follows Wikipedia's policies can give me the correct information and help us get this sorted once and for all.

PickledPilot (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

PickledPilot Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I can answer some of your points: Yes, you must comply with Wikipedia's paid editing policy if you are a paid representative or employee of Scarlet Rivera. This is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory; you can be blocked if you are a paid editor and do not do this. Libelous statements in articles should be addressed by following the guidance at WP:LIBEL. Whether that occurs or not, you need to discuss your concerns on the article talk page to establish a consensus with other editors. Please understand that Wikipedia content is based on what published, independent reliable sources state. You cannot just add current information for the sake of doing so; information must be found in independent sources.

You were blocked because you edit warred to keep your preferred version of an article. Please review edit warring. This is not permitted, even if you are correct in your edits. There are dispute resolution procedures that can be used instead of disruptive edit warring. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You should also review conflict of interest. As Scarlet Rivera's representative, you have a conflict of interest(COI). This does not mean you cannot make contributions, but you should not do so directly, instead making edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. How do I add this, what do I have to add and where? Again, I'm reading you have to disclose if you are being paid to edit in Wikipedia, of which I am not. It's not part of my having done Scarlet's website.

Also, why wasn't the other editor not also blocked for edit warring? PickledPilot (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding the statement: Robert Christgau wrote in Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies that the album was regarded by some as "the worst record of the year" and that the session musicians on the recording "stretch out one or two acceptable melodies and some should-be rejects into an instrumental LP." The source is critical of the album but speaks around it: Those who call this the worst record of the year (I've met two) must only listen to sidepeople's albums when the sidepeople are Dylan's (or "his," as the notes here would have it.) In fact, many sidepeople stretch out one or two acceptable melodies and some should-be rejects into an instrumental LP. Although come to think of it most of them come up with eight cuts, not six. And most of them can improvise some. The review does imply all of the points (that it is bad or that it is stretched out) but does not say it directly. I'm personally not quite sure whether this implied statement is direct enough that it should be included, but I don't feel it's quite libellous either. One of the bad things about having an article about yourself is that negative reviews will also be included. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. The ACTUAL review states: "Scarlet Rivera

Scarlet Rivera [Warner Bros., 1977] D- Consumer Guide Reviews:

Scarlet Rivera [Warner Bros., 1977] Those who call this the worst record of the year (I've met two) must only listen to sidepeople's albums when the sidepeople are Dylan's (or "his," as the notes here would have it.) In fact, many sidepeople stretch out one or two acceptable melodies and some should-be rejects into an instrumental LP. Although come to think of it most of them come up with eight cuts, not six. And most of them can improvise some. Hmm. D- "

It DOES in fact constitute libel when changing wording. Also Wikipedia states: “Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or defamation; With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;...” [1] PickledPilot (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a major reference work so their negative review does warrant an inclusion, maybe someone else here has a suggestion for how we can summarize a negative yet hypotheticalized review. One thing you could do would be to find other reviews in reliable sources about this album to add to the article. You can suggest edits on the article's talk page using {{request edit}}, citing reliable sources of course. Since this isn't blatantly defamatory (from my point of view) I'd recommend taking more care in wording your posts in a calm and concise manner, it is much more likely to be fruitful than calling other editors nasty. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

PickledPilot The paid editing policy requires you to disclose any paid relationship you have with a subject that you are editing about; you don't have to be specifically paid to edit Wikipedia. You put such a notice on your user page(User:PickledPilot); the paid editing policy has some suggested ways of doing this, but a simple statement is enough. As to other editors edit warring, a variety of editors reverted your edits from what I can see, not a single editor. It's also irrelevant, as only you can control your own behavior. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No-one seems to understand the definition of Libel: "a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation" Nowhere does Robert Christgau's review state it is critics or other reviewers and simply states he's met TWO people - (who didn't like the album). They could be his neighbours for all we know. I was asked to remove it by Scarlet. It is mainly one editor that keeps changing it back since June and claiming they got it directly from the source. Robert Christgau's review also does NOT state "THIS ALBUM". Can the REAL unedited review please be added in its place? I'm kind of over all this, it's very frustrating, I asked it to be simply changed to the actual unedited correct review. I'll get Scarlet's people deal with this. PickledPilot (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems this has moved (or perhaps started) past what the Teahouse is for, which is basic help with editing Wikipedia, right 331dot? It also seems like a good time to mention WP:NLT. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I stumbled on the following:

Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week#Translation machines and dictionaries

I tried unsuccessfully to find a similar list that was not language-specific. Does one exist?

If not, what can I do to make this more accessible to people not interested just in Spanish translations? deisenbe (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Deisenbe, and welcome to the Teahouse. I wasn't aware of that page, which is the work of a particular collaborative project. If you look at the categories at the bottom, you will see Category:Wikipedia translation by language, which has some similar projects. (It's a redlink because nobody has written any descriptive text for the category; but it still contains several pages). But each of these was created and maintained by a particular group of Wikipedia editors interested in that particular language. I doubt if there is any such resource more generally. If you can see a need for such, and have the interest, perhaps you could start as WP:WikiProject? --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Corrected spelling in redlink. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe - it's also worth noting that the list was created for a particular activity which now seems to be inactive and hasn't really been touched in a couple of years. Not that that should stop you creating your own list if you think it would be useful, but just something to keep in mind. Hug^syrup 11:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

But where would such a list go? deisenbe (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

On a side note: we have pages for translation which is in dire need of people dealing with the backlog there. Regarding your specific question: I for one am not too fond of translation machines; for Wikipedia-purposes, machine translated texts need so much work that they are nearly useless in producing viable articles. Lectonar (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a WP policy that a machine-translated article is worse than nothing. Where they are useful are circumstances when the goal is not a published translation but a general sense of what a piece of writing is about ("jisting"). deisenbe (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't change my status. The pages that are related are User:Bank Robbery/skin.js, User:Bank Robbery/Status, and User:Bank Robbery/sandbox (go to testcase 2). It always displays somewhere. How? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

​Try renaming skin.js to common.js. It should then automatically update to the correct value when you click on the buttons (you previously wrote "on" when the template only regognizes "online", the available values can be seen here) – Thjarkur (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Right (I think). Somehow, the user was able to create an actual User:Bank Robbery/skin.js. If you try to go to your own Special:MyPage/skin.js, it's supposed to take you to the correct page for your skin. I.e., because I am using the Vector skin, when I click on User:AlanM1/skin.js, it takes me to User:AlanM1/vector.js (which, in my case, doesn't exist because I put everything in common.js instead). So, moving that skin.js to common.js (or, e.g., vector.js if you use the Vector skin), without leaving a redirect, should work. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

​ ​ So how can I move the page without making a redirect? or is there another way to do that? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 06:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ordinary users (as distinct from admins) can't prevent a redirect from being generated by the move process, but you can tag it as U1 to get an admin to delete it. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

​ I found the thread. It works now. Once I update it, {{StatusTemplate}} works. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 13:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been editing/updating some wikitables. I know how to align text in the whole table as well as in an individual cel. Is there a way I can align text differently in a whole column in 1 go? Dutchy45 (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dutchy45. Help:Table#Column_operations doesn't mention alignment as a possibility at the column level. As far as I can remember, CSS does not provide a way of doing this directly, so I would be surprised if WikiMarkup did. I think you just have to set it for the cell in each column. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Dutchy45 (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

So Ive found an image I want to upload to the commons of a US Army tank from 1937, since its do so old do I need the permission from the uploader??(http://ftr-wot.blogspot.com/2013/04/revised-american-tank-destroyer-branch.html First image on article). Id imagine its public domain by now right?--Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The question is one for Commons, rather than for us here at enwiki, but you may find the table in WP:Public domain useful. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the copyright law definition of "old" is "before 1924". If the picture was taken in 1937, you'll need to find the date of death of the photographer. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Texas-Dude1914: as Maproom said, the magic date is (this year - 95 years) = 1924. However, If the picture was taken by an Army photographer it is in the public domain anyway, since "publications" (including photograph) by US government personnel are in the public domain. -Arch dude (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Arch dude: So I'd need to figure out that it was taken by an Army photographer or do you belive it would be safe to upload now? Because when reverse image searching I cant find anyone claiming responsibility for the photo.--Texas-Dude1914 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Texas-Dude1914: Sorry, but you cannot upload it to commons. We are obliged to follow the law, even in a case like this were the law leads to a ridiculous result. I personally think copyright law is in such a mess that it should be repealed and replaced, but I'm not in congress. -Arch dude (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

An article I found says that the images are from "Wikipedia commons" and "French Wikipedia". I know there is something about the CC license that means that this isn't the right way to credit the images. What should I do next? Is there a page about "how to use images from Wikipedia" that I can link to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.107.218 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. Here's a guideline that might help: WP:IMAGES. Interstellarity (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, not all images are under CC. You will need to check the license on each image to determine how to credit it correctly. RudolfRed (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You can for example link them to this page [10] or [11]. You can also just give them a friendly pointer that they need to give the name of the author (or a link to the original page on Commons) and a link to the CC license. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I found some new links pertaining to this topic, which came across as being more reliable than the previous ones that were mostly interviews. So, I removed all the old references, barring the University degree, and added these new links - there are about 4 and one picture gallery of the event. Before I re-submit, I would like an opinion on whether these new references are valid and if they would count. Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 05:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tycheana: if you think you have sufficient reliable sources, you should submit the article for review. It's not really the role of editors at the Teahouse to provide a 'pre-review review' of your article. What I will tell you is that (based on the source numbering as the draft stands at this time) source 2 is not independent as the article subject is one of the authors, and source 4 is in no way a reliable source and should be removed. The assessment otherwise hinges on whether we consider 'glamafrica', 'glitzafrica', 'tmghlive' and 'gistreel' to be reliable sources. I personally am very skeptical that they have adequate editorial standards and are not simply regurgitating press releases, but I am also not an expert on either African journalism or fashion journalism so I would probably choose not to review this article and to leave it to someone who might be more familiar with the sources. Hug^syrup 10:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Hugsyrup:, thanks for reviewing. The 2nd source is a University degree, and yes, he is the co-author who wrote on the topic related to pharmacology. This reference has been used to prove that the subject attended the University and did a course on pharmacy to become a qualified pharmacist. 4th source is a collection of pics related to the event published by an unrelated source, so it is independent. These sources mostly pertain to Africa, but then the person in question is a Nigerian, so might be that he has received coverage in his own country, something that I have realized about other Nigerians too. I hope my clarifications are satisfactory, thanks once again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC).

Good morning. I would like to add one more name to the list of noteworthy recipients of the CIA's Medal of Merit. The site in question is: Intelligence_Medal_of_Merit

I took a look at the "edit" link, and found all the machine language to be daunting. Can you help me make an addition to this page. The name to be added, and the caption, are: William Gregory, former Commander of the CIA’s U-2 detachment, for his service during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Very much appreciate your help. Robert Richardson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.242.107 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Robert Richardson can you supply a reliable source, showing that Gregory has received this honor? Also, we list not all recipients, but only notable recipients, that is those who have, or readily could have, a Wikipedia article about them. See our guideline on the notability of individual people. Thank you for wanting to help uupdate Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

So I had the idea to write an article on a song called "Keep it 100" by the band 3For3. The band has a Wikipedia article but the song doesn't. Before I spend hours working on the article I want to get opinions if it will be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to expand it. See WP:NSONG for notability requirements for songs. If it fits, follow WP:YFA to start on the article draft. RudolfRed (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed as indicated below that LENI WYLLIAMS has been included in the category AMERICAN WOMEN CHOREOGRAPHERS . . .

18 November 2019‎ Vycl1994 talk contribs‎ 16,369 bytes +86‎ +Category:American women choreographers;

LENI WYLLIAMS was a MALE African-American dancer/choreographer. Hoping the ultimate categorizing will reflect this! THANKS!

Paynethymaya (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Paynethymaya

 Done by Icarusgeek. Thank you for pointing out the error. Maproom (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Victoria and I am a representative of Expedia Group. I am a paid employee of the company and therefore have a financial conflict of interest. I've submitted a new article draft for Expedia Group CEO Mark Okerstrom and it was declined, with the editor commenting that there was a lack of reliable sourcing. This confused me as in the draft I was careful to properly cite all statements with quality sourcing such as The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph, The Seattle Times and Financial Times. (Also, I did make a mistake in missing my COI disclosure but I've added that now.) I've responded to the feedback on my AfC request, but I have not heard anything back. As a new editor, I'm not quite sure if it is best for me to resubmit the draft or get other input first? Can Teahouse editors advise? Thanks! Victoria at ExpediaGroup (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Victoria at ExpediaGroup Welcome to The Teahouse. I tend to agree that the sourcing in the draft looks adequate, and if I were reviewing it, I would probably accept it. However, I'd be interested to know if @Robert McClenon: sees an issue with the sourcing that I have missed, or has a different perspective. For future reference, adding a comment on the draft isn't necessarily the best place to discuss this sort of thing as reviewers don't always watch a draft once they have declined it, and usually the same reviewer won't review a draft twice. If you want to query a decision, you're better off going to the reviewer's talk page, or the AFC helpdesk. But in this case, unless Robert or another user offers a wildly different viewpoint to mine, I would probably just resubmit your draft in a day or two. Hug^syrup 16:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Victoria at ExpediaGroup. I'm not convinced that I'm seeing the multiple reliable independent sources that are needed to establish that Okerstrom is notable. Source 1 is based on what a colleague said, so not independent. Sources 2, 4 and 6 are based on what he said himself, so not independent. Sources 3 and 7 are behind paywalls, and so I haven't been able to check them; maybe they're acceptable. Source 5 looks good. Source 8 is based on what a company spokesperson said, so not independent. That's a total of one "yes", five "no", and two "maybe". Maproom (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The FT one is decent, although like most such business profiles it has some quotes from the subject mixed in. I don't see that as fully undermining the source though, particularly insofar as it's being used to establish basic notability. If the FT or WSJ does a profile on someone, that goes a long way to establishing notability, regardless of whether the profile includes quotes from the source. I completely agree, of course, that specific facts should not be sourced to parts of an article that are simply quotes by the subject, and this may need work. However, bear in mind that the core criteria when reviewing a draft is not whether it is flawless, but would it pass an AFD. I would be very surprised if this article, given its sources, would fail an AFD. Hug^syrup 16:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears that User:Maproom and User:Hugsyrup have done more detailed reviews than I did, and I thank them. In hindsight, it appears that I didn't do a detailed review because I was annoyed at the lack of a conflict of interest declaration, and because I know that I have a difficult time giving a neutral review to a draft by a paid editor, so I don't always try. As to how to get comments on a draft, I agree that adding them to the draft is not usually the best way, but would add that one of the best ways is this, to ask for advice at the Teahouse. I agree that it should pass AFD, because I won't vote to Delete, and I am something of a deletionist. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now approved the draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I felt there was enough there for notability as well, but entirely understood the original decision. We at the various helpdesks are, sadly, deluged by promotion; being human, it's hard not to paint a contribution with the same brush if they don't follow all the rules. Glad it worked out in this case.

Is there a discussion/study going on anywhere as to how to reduce the unreasonably large percentage of bad article attempts? Are we somehow not putting up enough red flags along the way? Maybe a quick 10-question multiple-choice test that demonstrates an author's understanding of the rules before they create? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia use British English or American English? I have seen instances where users are in dispute over whether British or American spellings should be used, such as here and here. I would like to know, so that I can avoid getting into such disputes myself. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiWarrior9919, It's complicated. Essentially, use whichever the article you're editing uses. If you're making a new article, use whichever you prefer. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf Alright. Thank you. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiWarrior9919, There are exceptions to this. For example, an article on New York City uses American English because it has strong national ties to the article. London is written in British English for the same reasons. Please read: MOS:ENGVAR for more info on this. Interstellarity (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Interstellarity Got it. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 18:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If you find an article where both varieties are used (and there is no obvious choice as described above), then the one to choose is the one that was first used in the history of the article. This might require a bit of research to determine. See WP:ENGVAR for details. Dbfirs 19:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to lean towards WP:TIES in toss-up cases. If someone creates an Indian placename stub with AmE, and there is signficant addition in InE since, I would make it InE consistenly. Note that English variety changes are often controversial, but particularly so when they are to the non-WP:TIES variety. Date formats have similar issues. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the TIES test should come first, but there are many articles that have no ties to any particular country. In the case cited above, the British spelling programme should be used under both tests. Dbfirs 07:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi y'all!

When there's been ambiguity between the name of a rapper and something else, I've generally seen the article on the rapper be moved to <rapper>_(rapper) (e.g. Eminem_(rapper)), but today I encountered Face_(rap_artist). Assuming Face_(rapper) would is the de-facto correct title for the article, is it worth moving? And if not, is there some sort of standard on what words should be used in parenthetical disambiguation?

Tiraboschi (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Tiraboschi, the title policy for articles is at WP:TITLE. WP:DAB also has valuable information. And, it's not as simple as putting a rapper's biography at "Name (rapper)". As you'll note, Eminem doesn't have a (rapper) after his name. That said, I do agree with your observation and reasoning in this particular case. I managed to reach WP:SINGERDAB starting at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, and it specifically recommends your choice. Hence, I endorse your proposal to move the page, and of course, also recommend you read/bookmark the policy/guidelines pages I just linked, for future reference. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks}, I wasn't aware of WP:SINGERDAB. I'll keep it in mind! I've also moved the page :) Tiraboschi (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear all- I have just now deleted a large section of material on the Voynich manuscript page which was comprised of three paragraphs and an image which were nothing but unsourced claims about alleged connections between Asiatic languages and the Voynich manuscript. The content had been on the website essentially unchallenged since 2004.

I invite you to take a look at my triage work on that page ([12]).

Thanks for any input. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Appears you deleted three paragraphs in the Natural Languages section that have been in the article for a very long time, but without references. I suggest you create a new section on the Talk page to concisely describe what you did. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Geographyinitiative, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your edit. It actually looks like you have found and removed a 15 year-old copyright violation from the page. In your edit summary you noted that the same material exists at [13] - I had a look and our article is a verbatim copy of the link you provided. Copyright violations are very serious and should be removed whenever they are found, so thank you. Having had a brief look at the article and the website you provided, I would guess that there are more copyright violations in the article. I will report the article at the copyright problems noticeboard and put a note on the article's talk page. WJ94 (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

because the weird people cut everything away

Lutz Fehling 89.15.238.121 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Lutz Fehling, do you have a question about editing English Wikipedia? If so, feel free to ask it here in this section (don't start a new section, just click the "Edit" next to the heading "There is no "happy editing", I'm afraid", and add your text below.) As stated when your previous section was closed, people here are not able to help with questions about German Wikipedia. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project. --bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

We English-speakers have no more control, or influence, over German Wikipedia than German speakers do over English Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to contact an editor to discuss a revision to an article. I have gone to his/her talk page to ask a question, but it just seems a list of interests. There does not appear a space to to ask a question. How do I do it? BFP1 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

While I can't say for sure without seeing the page in question, I suspect you visited their user page rather than user talk page. Clicking on someone's name on a revision of a page leads to their userpage. You can navigate from there to their talk page by clicking the tab "Talk" near the top left of the page. Alternatively, you can navigate directly to someone's user talk page by clicking the link 'talk' after their user name from the revision history of a page. (Most signatures also include links to one's user and/or user talk page: in the standard signature format (like yours), the username leads to the user page and the (talk) link to the talk page. In custom signatures, the links may be more hidden. See for example my own: the first half of my signature (yellow text on purple background) links to my user page; the second half (purple text on yellow) to my talk page.) AddWittyNameHere 18:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks that is helpful. BFP1 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Soon after creating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Oliver_(artist,_born_1823) I received a message as follows When creating draft articles please could you start with a fresh page, it is very confusing to find that looking at the history of William Oliver (artist, born 1823) the article began life as a draft for another article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I therefore investigated this problem further. When I clicked 'sandbox' On my User:BFP1/sandbox page it said Draft William Oliver. I then went to 2 other articles that I either created or extensively edited, namely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_James_Wilson and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul-L%C3%A9on_Jazet. When clicking 'sandbox' on both these articles I again got Draft William Oliver on the User:BFP1/sandbox pages. It was the same for another three articles that I had edited.

This is presumably why the resultant history was a confusing composite of previously edted articles. I think it was caused by using the same sandbox page (writing and deleting drafts) for all the articles. Obviously this should stop. So how do I start a fresh page (with its new associated sandbox) if I want to draft a new article? Also, if I want to extensively edit an existing article do I do a preparatory draft on the User:BFP1 page (rather than a sandbox) before copying and pasting into the article? I apologise for inadvertently continuing what, for many, was such a basic error. BFP1 (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

BFP1, hi. If you search for the title you want to create, you will get a message saying the page doesn't exist, and asking if you would like to create it; if you follow the link, you'll be asked if you want to create a userspace draft - that's how I always create new articles. When it's ready to publish, just move it into article space, as you have been doing with your sandbox. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BFP1, thanks for your question. It looks like you are a little confused about what the sandbox is. When you say that you are clicking the sandbox link on different articles, do you mean the one at the top, which appears along with a link to your talk page, preferences, etc? This link is not specific to the article you are on - it directs you to your own sandbox, rather than the sandbox of a particular article. This means that it will always direct you to the same place, whatever page you click it from. Articles do not have their own sandboxes - feel free to make your edits directly to articles. If you want to check what you have written before you publish it, click the "Show preview" button - it is good advice to preview your edits every time.

If you want to create a new article and would like to draft it before you publish it into the main article space, you can create a draft in your user space. Your user space is any page which begins with "User:BFP1/". So if you wanted to draft an article called "New page", you would create it at User:BFP1/New page. To create this page, type it into the search bar - if the page does not already exist, you will be given a link to create it. I hope that helps with some of your questions; let me know if you need further help. WJ94 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello again, BFP1. You don't need an "associated sandbox" for a draft, and in fact there isn't an "associated sandbox with these various article drafts. When a draft is started in your user sandbox and later moved to a draft page, a redirect is left behind in the sandbox, so that clicking on the sandbox link takes you to the draft. Doing a copy&paste (which i strongly advise against) leaves the history of the former draft in the sandbox. In my view, the better practice is to start each draft on its own fresh page. There are several ways to do that. One is to decide on the desires name of the page and to use Special:Search to look for it. When the results start with "ou may create the page ..." click on the red link and start editing, and save (publish changes) to create the new page. Another is to type the desired new name into the "Search Wikipedia " box near the top of every Wikipedia page, and again click the resulting red link and edit. A third is to edit some page, such as your snad box, and create a linbk to the desired new name, such as [[User:BFP1/NewTopic]] or [[Draft:NewTopic]]. You don't even have to save this, just preview. Then click the red link and start editing as above. Any of these will get you a new draft page without a prior history. When/if you want AfC review, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. Or just move the draft to article space directly. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everybody BFP1 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC) That helps with starting a fresh page. What if I want to greatly expand a named stub article? I would like a suitable space for large scale preparatory editing with no retention of history. Then that draft can be pasted into the article and recorded as history relating to the article. BFP1 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

BFP1 It is often (albeit not always) better to do such improvements incrementally in the article itself. But if you don't want to do that, you can use a user page for it. Say you want to improve the stub XYZ. Then create User:BFP1/XYZ-Revisions (say) by any of the methods described above. Do your edits there, and when you are ready, paste them back into XYZ. As long as no other editor edits yiur work page, you don't need to do anything about the history. (However if anyone else does edit your work page, you will need to preserve attributions, at least by linking in the edit summary when you do the paste, and preferably by using {{Copied}}. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC) However, BFP1, it would probably be wise to announce your intent on the talk page of the stub, Talk:XYZ in the example above, and when you do the paste, to post an explanation of your changes to that same talk page. This lets other interested editors (if there are any) know what is going on, and makes a reveert for "unexplained major changes" less likely. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks DESiegel BFP1 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In America, immigrants direct from Japan are called, Issei (ichi=1=first)( generation), Children born to the Issei in America are called Nissei (Ni =2=second) not Nikkei as in your article. The grandchild of a direct Japanese immigrant is called a Sansei (san=3=third), and so on by the japaneses numeric yomikata (number tablet) so, the forth generation of a direct immigrant from Japan is a Yonsei. That is how Japanese Americans count thier generation from the direct imigrant. I am a forth generation descendant of an England Imigrant, from Scothern England, Ishmael Scothern is my Great great Grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.69.34 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you post this to the relevant article talk page, and then correct the article. If some editor reverts, do not edit war, rather discuss on the talk page, as per Bold, revert, discuss. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The article in question is Topaz War Relocation Center. The word nikkei means "Japanese diaspora" and is used correctly in that article. It means people of Japanese ancestry living outside of Japan, without regard to the number of generations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

How could I get access to locked pages to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyplayer (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tommyplayer, and welcome to the Teahouse. Some pages are semi-protected, and can only be edited by autoconfirmed users Some are EC protected and can only be edited by Extended-confirmed users Some are fully protected and can only be edited by admins. Some have other levels of protection. The vast majority of pages are not protected at all. Please see Wikipedia:Protection policy for more details. Please add a link below to the page you would like to edit and more specific advice can be given. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tommyplayer. You can make an edit request on the talk page of the locked article. Please read Wikipedia:Edit requests for the details about how to do that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, My inline citations are no longer numbering properly in my References, nor are they visible. I noticed that they began to disappear and the numbers became jumbled when I began making changes to the citations. I refreshed the page, removed all text and tried to essentially start over with a blank slate and as I added my first citation, which should have auto-populated as [1], it's showing up as [5]. Any ideas as to why this is happening and how I can get past this?

Thank you for your assistance. Dawnpalmyra (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dawnpalmyra, what article or draft is this about? Your list of contributions does not show any page where you've been using references. Maproom (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Dawnpalmyra, you need to include your citations between <ref> and </ref> tags. Generally, it is preferable to use a {{cite web}} template (or other "cite" template) so that the citation can include more that just the url. BTW, "less than"/"greater than"/"less than or equal"/"greater than or equal" are not the way to "wikify" your links. Look at the source of other pages ("edit" them but don't save) for examples of citations and urls in general, you shouldn't have to look too hard. Fabrickator (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am editing the released removal draft for Carmen Gentile. The issue seems to have resolved itself. Thank you.

Dawnpalmyra, unless you've got a lot more than is at Draft:Carmen Gentile, this fella doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NCREATIVE. In short, it doesn't look like this guy qualifies for a biography. John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I am a little confused. Is my page deleted or shall I do corrections and keep going? Dr. Loriaux received an email from Wiki person offering to finish my page about him if he pays them money? I am feeling my toes have been stepped on completely. Is this accepted from a Wiki editor?

Patricia Hastrich Hasttago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasttago (talk • contribs) 18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hasttago, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, that is not acceptable. It is quite likely to be a scam. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. There has been a history of people trying to get payments in such cases, or even people claiming that they can get articles deleted if they are not paid off. Do not pay any such people. I haven't yet looked t the page you have been working on, but I will. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hasttago, Draft:Lynn Loriaux has not been deleted, and you absolutely may continue to work on it. There are some formatting issue. For example section headers should be in sentence case, not title case or all caps.The citation formatting could use work, see referencing for Beginners. But most important, additional Independent, published reliable sources are needed to celarly demonstrate the notability of the subject. See our guideline on the notability of individuals and [[Wikipedia:Notability (academics)|our guideline on the notability of academics. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and please WP:SIGN your talk and discussion page posts (but never contributions in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature plus a timestamp. This helps both people and script recognize separate contributions to threads, and keep track of who said what. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That scam is famous enough that it has an article on Wikipedia, Hasttago. See Orangemoody. John from Idegon (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hasttago. Just going to add some things to the comments you've received so far. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project that basically anyone from anywhere in the world can participate in without even having to register an account or pay a fee; so, in that sense of the word it's really a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". This means that anyone asking you for money to edit on your behalf is basically asking yu to pay for something that anyone can do for free; of course, what they're trying to charge you for is their time, effort and knowledge/experience, but all editors are really only WP:VOLUNTEERs and there are plenty of editors who are here for the right reasons without looking for some kind of personal gain. Most things on Wikipedia tend to be decided through WP:CONSENSUS; articles are being constantly created and improved, and disagreements about how to best do those things are often resolved through discussion. For sure, there are Wikipedia administrators chosen by the WP:COMMUNITY to make sure things run smoothly and an administrator may take action to prevent disruption or serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but for the most part they will just monitor things and try to keep them track. So, if anyone is promising that they can guarantee a certain result (e.g. creating an article, preventing an article from being deleted), they are either not very familiar with how Wikipedia works or not being very honest with you. Nobody has any real ownership of any Wikipedia page; so, nobody can really guarantee that the page will end up a certain way or stay a certain way. Anything you or I change in a Wikipedia article, can be undone or improved upon by someone else at anytime. We agree as part of Wikipedia's licensing and meta:Terms of Use to give up any claim of ownership over the edits we make as soon as we click on the "Publish changes" button.

It's OK for you to continue to work on the draft; when you think it's ready, I suggest you submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. However, as pointed out above by DESiegel (DES), it's not really ready to be published as an article just. There are formatting errors such as DES pointed out (I suggest you also take a look at MOS:DOCTOR and WP:SURNAME for some other minor issues that I noticed), but the most important problem is that it's not clear how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Everything cited in the article is a WP:PRIMARY source which proves that the person you're trying to write about is an actual person, but does not establish how they are Wikipedia notable. The word "notability" as a very specific meaning in a Wikipedia context and what determines whether the draft you're working on is ultimately accepted is going to depend on assessing the subject's Wikipedia notability.

In the end, it's your money (or Dr. Loriaux's money) and you (they) can spend it as you (they) see fit; however, whatever contract you enter in with someone to edit on Wikipedia is going to be between you and them, not you an Wikipedia; in other words, they are a private contractor, not an employee or representative of Wikipedia. If you feel the emails being received are suspicious in nature, perhaps the best thing to do would be to take a look at Wikipedia:Contact us or Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors and contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly by email to ensure privacy. You need to be very careful about posting too much real world personal information about the person or persons sending you the above emails as explained in "Posting of personal information" even if you truly believe this person is doing something inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings,

I own a Trademarked name of a Wikipedia page and I would like to know my options for protecting the page? I have just joined the Wikipedia family and therefore I am not an administrator. The page that I am inquiring about was not created by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It would help if we knew which article you are referring to. - X201 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Earlborgert: just so I'm clear, you are the owner of a Trademark - presumably a company or organisation of some kind? - about which there is a Wikipedia article? And what do you mean exactly by 'protecting' the page?

I can tell you that as the owner of the company, you should avoid editing the page directly, but if you wish to make changes you can request them on the talk page of the article. You cannot, however, prevent other editors from editing the article - this is an encyclopedia and if your organisation is notable, Wikipedia can have an article about it, your Trademark does not give you any rights over the content on Wikipedia. If the article is being vandalised or otherwise damaged, don't worry as other editors will be very happy to prevent this. Hug^syrup 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ivan the Gorilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_(gorilla) is a trademarked name & some of the information contained in the page is inaccurate.

Earl

@Earlborgert: Alright. Please suggest changes on the talk page, not all of us have the time to go through the page in its entirety hunting issues. The trademark does not affect wikipedia in any way, and while you are here, you should simply forget about it. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know it was possible to trademark the name of a deceased gorilla. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

331dot, Me neither, I'm just going with it, because they clearly think they can. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess it could be done in order to sell things with the gorilla's image or name on it. Maybe. In any event, it's immaterial to protecting the article, which won't be done for this reason. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

331dot, And that indeed appears to be the case. See trademark 86913298, which happens to be owned by this guy. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback & the inaccurate content is not harmful, I just wanted to inquire about my rights in general since Ivan was my family member. Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs)

EarlborgertWhat info about Ivan is inaccurate?, please discuss on the talk page. I remember Ivan well, saw him each time I visited your family's World Famous B&I Circus Store.Three painted concrete walls and a large plate glass window for customers to view him.Always felt pity for him.Oldperson (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Earlborgert: You have the right to request changes to the page at any time if you find any issues. You can also edit it directly like any other editor, but it may be reverted for Conflict Of Interest related reasons. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again for the advice but one last question. Why would the truth be reverted for a Conflict of Interest reason? Earl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlborgert (talk • contribs)

@Earlborgert: Generally, if you abide by wikipedia policy, it won't happen. The problem is people with a COI have trouble adhering to policy like Neutral point of view. I recommend you read one of our essays on these policies, Verifiability, not truth. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood and thank you for the clarification. I will review the article. Earl

@Earlborgert: It might also be reverted if your source is merely your own personal knowledge. For example, you might know that Ivan's favorite fruit was mangoes, but unless that is mentioned in some sort of publication we can't say it. In most cases the source should also be independent of the subject. --Khajidha (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

For transparency, you should post on your User page the nature of your connection to Ivan. And as Khajidha stated, Wikipedia requires verification. Truth without verification is not sufficient. David notMD (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you clearly consider your trademark a valuable asset, the you certainly stand to derive financial benefits by having your say on the content of the article. Earlborgert, because of that you are considered a WP:PAID editor. There are numerous restrictions placed on PAID editors, and you are expected to learn about these and follow them. One of those restrictions requires you to post a disclosure on your user page. It is in no way optional. You also need to add a notice to the article's talk page, and except for indisputable vandalism reverts, are forbidden from directly editing the article. We are not here to tell your version of this story. We derive content from what reliable sources say. (WP:RS is our definition of reliable.) John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and you trademarked the name Ivan the Gorilla for use in marketing certain items. That doesn't give you any say whatsoever about what anyone says about said gorilla. All it means is no one else can use use the name in conjunction with marketing kids toys. That's all. So, by all means, read PAID, comply with its requirements and make edit requests on the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I wrote about this before at the Help Desk and at the Village Pump, but got no response.

As of 13 November, I can not access Wikipedia from Google Chrome. I get an error message that reads

If there is anything I can do on my side that will address this issue, please let me know. I am using Microsoft Edge right now, but I really would prefer to use Chrome. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I am using Chrome now and I am having no problems. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable, Hi. Have you tried en.wikipedia.org instead? Basic things to try when browsing error occurs that doesn't make sense (which in this case would be because you're already signed in to the router and your ISP, and you are trying the actual address of the website and haven't made a typo in there), would be to check that the computer's calendar is up to date (both date and time, may be even the timezone), update the browser, turn off VPN, clear browser cache, restart the computer, etc. Which of these have you tried and hasn't worked? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It's obviously not a Wikipedia problem, but a problem with your Chrome settings. You could ask at WP:RD/C, or there are plenty of results if you do a Google search. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Puzzledvegetable IOW, does it work when you use this link: en.wikipedia.org? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: HSTS remembers the "correct" certificate and prevents connection when somebody substitutes a different one. Are you on a corporate network or somehere like that, where they may have valid reason to decrypt and inspect your web traffic (TLS inspection)? If they have changed something in your environment then you should also be seeing problems with sites like Google Search, if you had used them before Nov 13. Could you view the certificate and report back whom it's issued by? (Include the root CA and all intermediate CAs, please.) Please ping me in replies. –Pelagic (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

What is this box called that contains bio info, pic, occupation, years active, etc.? I am a wiki rookie and attempting to add this to a draft I am working on. Should I insert an image and write out the bio, etc info in the description space?

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnpalmyra (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dawnpalmyra and welcome to the TeaHouse. That would be what Wikipedia calls an "Infobox". Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for information about infoboxes. The most common infobox in an articel about a person is {{infobox person}} but ther are quite a few more specific infobox templates. See the instructions on the template page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

If you would link to the page you are interested in, we could give more specific advice. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and please WP:SIGN your talk and discussion page posts (but never contributions in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert this to your default or custom signature plus a timestamp. This helps both people and script recognize separate contributions to threads, and keep track of who said what. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Dawnpalmyra (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am a newcomer to Wikipedia who has been trying to contribute to this wonderful platform in the proper way. I made a few edits to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India I tried to make several edits to my post based on user suggestions, so that they complied with the paraphrasing guidelines "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text" under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing However my edits were deemed so illegal that they were permanently deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India&oldid=927507375 I need advise whether the violation was serious enough to merit revision deletion and whether I can dispute this or not? Is this the correct forum to ask this question? Regards Guglusharma (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guglusharma: welcome to the Teahouse. Only an administrator (which I am not) will be able to see the revision deleted text, but since you have already been clearly informed here and here that your edits were copyright violations, I can say with some confidence that they merited revision deletion. Close paraphrasing is a lot more difficult than writing original prose, so why not simply use your own words to describe the issue? --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your Quick reply. I reported 3 separate incidents. I edited the text quite a lot in all 3 reports after first intimation by User MPS 1992. You cancheck the word count difference to see that it was not a simple redo. The second user El C instantly Revision deleted my text without giving me an opportunity to correct the text. Regards Guglusharma (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The word count does not tell us anything at all, I'm afraid. And copyrighted text must be revision deleted, it would not be allowed to remain in order to be "corrected". --bonadea contributions talk 21:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, but I feel that since you can't see the deleted text, you can't be certain whether its copyrighted or not. I have messaged the 2nd editor El C to clarify, but is there a forum on Wikipedia where another Admin may be able to see the edits and judge? Regards Guglusharma (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

As an admin, Guglusharma I can see deleted content, and I will take a look. Such a thing could be reported at The admin notice board but that forum will often examine the conduct of the reporting editor quite thoroughly, and is not likely to fault a RevDel for even a merely probable copyvio. Really it is better to just start over with original text. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the help DESiegel, My edits had language similar to the news reports because Cow lynching cases are complex cases where there is difference in narrative between 2 sides. The killers try to portray the victims as Cow smugglers for Beef whereas the Victims families portray them as traders or transporters. So the language of edits had been kept similar to what was reported in news to maintain neutrality. Guglusharma (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Guglusharma I looked over the most recent deleted revision in that article which was created by an edit of yours. In at least two of the incidents you added, you included specific wording from the source with no acknowledgement. This is enough for revision deletion in my view. I have done over 80 RevDels myself. It is true that statements of facts (such as news reports) have less protection than creative works. But specific wording still must not be copied, and Wikipedia is very strict about this, perhaps stricter than the law requires. It is better to either completely rewrite the passage, using the facts but none of the wording from mthe source, or else to explicitly quote the source, marking it as a quote, and introducing it with an attribution such asThe Hindu reported that: "{Quote from news story here}"{cite to sourer here}. This was not revenge, El_C was in my view acting quite properly, as I would have expected from that editor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that you wish to portray the source accounts accurately, but copying specific adjectives such as "mercilessly" is likely to cause problems. Report the same facts, in detail if that is relevant, but in different words in future, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification DESiegel. I did not accuse the user El C of revenge, but I admit I had accused another user because he kept undoing my edits without giving me a little more reason. Now that I understand the concerns of Wikipedia, I would try to act accordingly in the future. Regards Guglusharma (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Guglusharma . You should know by the way, that doing this kind of reveiw is more than a bit tedious. The reviewing admin must find the deleted revision in the history, open it, find the relevant passage, find the allegedly copied sources, open them, and manually compare the text. This is just FYI. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate you doing this for a newbie. Guglusharma (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Guglusharma: While I can't see the deleted content, the above mention of "mercilessly" leads me to think that, in addition to the copyvio issue, the text also may not have been encyclopedic in its tone or neutral in its point of view. Please keep those in mind as well. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Fatoumata Sow and I am currently a student at Northern Kentucky University. For my class project, I added a paragraph to the Wikipedia article entitled "Haitian Mythology" and I would love to receive feedback because it is part of the assignment. Help me with any comments you have about the article or ways to improve the paragraph please.

Here is the link to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_mythology The title of my paragraph is: History and Origins of Voodooism in Haiti

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timsha54 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Your paragraph is pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Timsha54, and welcome to the Teahouse. That section (it contains three paragraphs) needs additional sources. Most of the first paragraph is uncited. So is most of the 2nd paragraph. The Americas citation in the 2nd paragraph uses a non-standard |date= value and the URL doesn't work -- I think it includes your personal session data. The National Catholic Reporter. citation in the third paragraph uses a URL that is a search, not a document. This is not acceptable, and I have commented it out.

You wrote... that is till today the main source of misery, poverty and natural disaster. Did you mean "still today" or "until today"?

You wrotethe Haitian Voodoo practitioners invoke these same spirits that in return will possess their bodies and dictate to the people the solution to their social preoccupations. As written this implies that the spirit possession actually takes place. If you meant only that this is the belief of the practitioners, this should be made clear.

In short, while not a bad start, there are significant issues with this section as a part of a Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: Duplicate request here, with additional response(s) here. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comments at your Talk page, in response to your question to Wiki Ed content expert Shalor. One important issue is whether that paragraph belongs in the article at all, per article title policy, as it seems more appropriate to Haitian Vodou to me. Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

When editing an article and using the "templates" to insert a citation ("cite web", "cite news" and "cite book") and selecting the "show extra fields" option, there is an "archive url" field displayed. For "cite web", the "url-status" field is also displayed, but it is not displayed for "cite news" or "cite book". I presume that this is an oversight.

Please suggest where this should be reported (or perhaps "the teahouse" is good enough). (ex post facto edit) Fabrickator (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fabrickator. If you do not receive a good answer here, please try Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, I am not sure what the criteria is for what is displayed there. I am guessing it is either the most relevant ones (in which case there would be a room for an oversight) or the most used ones. Of course, for cite web, what's most relevant would be the url and the status of it, while that's not at all true for news or book, for both of which url isn't one of the primary requirements. Indeed, I imagine in a perfect world, we'd have more cites to offline books and newspapers than online ones. At any rate, there are dozens of other fields which may be relevant but can't be displayed on the drop down (when I click the show more on the cite news template, it shows about three fields and below it says "show 93 more fields"). That's why there is a blank text-field where you can type "url", and no matter whether it is a book cite or a news cite, you'll get all the relevant fields associated with citing and maintaining an online book or news reference. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, my point is that if you have the archiveurl parameter, you should be able to specify url-status, which determines how the two urls are displayed, i.e. if url-status=dead (this is the default), then the main link displayed is archiveurl and the url link is displayed as the "original" link, if url-status=live, then the main link displayed is url, and if url-status=usurped, then the main link displayed is archiveurl, but the url link is not displayed at all. To reiterate, if you're going to have the option to specify archiveurl, then you ought to be able to also specify url-status. FWIW, there isn't really much difference between "web" and "news" citations, and I expect editors will generally try and identify urls for newspaper citations. Fabrickator (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, when I try to cite news as a template from the insert menu, it has more than 90 available fields, only a few of them displayed by default. When I click "Add more information" at the bottom of that list, I get a blank textbox, followed by three fields listed and 93 more available but not listed. I can simply type "url" on the blank textbox, and it displays all fields related with URLs, which include "archive-url" and "url-status" fields. So, your contention that "url-status" isn't available doesn't make sense to me. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm clicking on "cite" at the top of the editing area, then click on the "templates" selection list, which offers four difference "cite" templates. This initially displays around a dozen fields, then I can click on "show/hide extra fields", and it displays about 25 fields. Of course, these are merely "tools" so I can pretend they don't exist without any loss of functionality, but using these specialized interfaces helps to remind me which fields I might want to enter and helps to produce a more standardized result. Fabrickator (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, when I click "cite" at the top of the editing area, I get three choices, "Automatic" which takes only the url and generates a cite automatically, "Manual" which gives options for "web", "news", "book" and "journal" cites as well as an option at the bottom to type in the whole citation manually, and "Re-use" which gives me a list of citations already in the article to choose from. When I click one of the template options offered in the "Manual" tab, it opens the window for the template of that citation as discussed previously, which has a few fields by default but about 96 more available for news and about 185 available for book, any one of which I can get to by clicking "Add more information" followed by "show xxx more fields" or using the blank textbox to type in the field related keywords. Perhaps we are using different editors? I am out of ideas. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

And if we are using different editors, I am guessing that's what the answer would be. To simply switch to an editor which doesn't have the limitations. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 09:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidently, you are using "visual" editing, while I am using "source" editing. Source editing has not been deprecated. Please do not be dismissive of my choice. Fabrickator (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, I was actually thinking of the various customisations to the editing experience available in the preferences menu. FWIW, I use source editing too, but I checked with both source and visual editing when formulating my response here. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will drop by shortly. I am sorry my last response came off as dismissive and apologise for wasting your time. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

What is the best way to clear a backlog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@!matt2446: To which backlog are you referring? Please provide a link to the page. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@!matt2446: It seems you are going through articles that are marked as being underlinked, adding wikilinks to them. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of those are unnecessary. Please see WP:OVERLINK for what shouldn't be linked, as well as the surrounding section for what should be. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@!matt2446: More specifically, links like music (common term), 1892 (date), and domestic (dab page) should not be made.

Also note that there is a special way to link a plural form of an article without using the "pipe trick"; e.g, the plural ownership rights is formed with [[ownership right]]s. The software automatically includes characters immediately following the link (without a space) in the link to allow easy use of the different forms of a word (plurals, participles, etc.).

Please also see MOS:DUPLINK, which describes another form of overlinking. As you've seen, there are sometimes pages that are adequately linked, yet nobody has removed the underlinking tag from them.

I hope this helps. It would be appreciated if you would self-revert or correct the overlinking that you did. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

P.P.S. Your contributions can be seen at Special:Contributions/!matt2446. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I will try I am sorry that I over linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I am trying to add my first article on wikipedia about a new form of martial art - Kungchido. Wikipedia is so huge that I am feeling I am already lost. I did my 10 edits and now I think I have a confirmed wikipedia account. I thought I could first publish some information about Kungchido and then keep on editing afterwards and get someothers to add more information about too. My article was rejected unfortunately due to sources as it says. I have added those information in references and also the weblink. Can I please know what else should I need to do in order to get my article available to public to view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajra 2019 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You should add third party sources such as books, journal articles, news articles or publications on the well-known websites devoted to martial arts. Ruslik_Zero 13:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You deleted the previous feedback, but apparently hadn't read it. It gave you useful links, including to Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, This is concerning the entry for "Luna de Xelaju". The account given is correct except that the song was actually written in 1942 and dedicated to another woman, born and raised in Xela. While i have not seen the actual letter, La Morena de Dulce Mirrar's daughters found the letter from Perez, the composer, to their mother, with the lyrics and a dedication. For reasons of privacy, and La Morena's sense of discretion concerning the 1944 dedication to Sra. Cohen, the family never did and, to this day, won't talk about it. I was a very close friend of the son of La Morena, whom i met 40yrs ago in La Antigua, and knew the whole family, including La Morena, who was every bit the delightful and beautiful woman to whom Perez wrote his song. My friend also passed away but i'm still in contact with La Morena's daughters, granddaughters and great grandchildren. Is there a way i can offer an alternative version to that presently on the Wiki page without documentation? Thanks very much. Best, Jeffrey Haptas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.131.76 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Luna de Xelajú

No, Jeffery you can't. This is an encyclopedia, which are composed of material paraphrased from reliable secondary sources. You cannot use what you know personally, nor could you even use the letter if you could access it - it would be a primary source. John from Idegon (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey. I looked at the existing page and found a problem. There are no reliable sourced citations to support the lead of the article. In fact the lead,which claims that the song was dedicated to Sra cohen, is not even mentioned in the body of the article. John from Idegonis absolutely correct, however the article as it exists does not conform to the standards of Eikiepeidia Policy and Guidance. It might as well have been written as you stated, as is currently written since neither has a reliable source to back up the claim.Oldperson (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello there, I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I need some advice. I work in the contemporary art field and I see a lot of artists who are notable for their work in my field, but do not have wikipedia pages. I would like to begin adding some of these online, but I need help selecting the ones considered noteworthy.

I wanted to ask, if an artist had verifiably been exhibited in a gallery such as the Royal Academy, Tate Modern or Somerset House for example, and there were articles about this artist's work in chronicles such as Art Monthly, The Verge, Timeout, or Frieze Magazine, then would this be considered noteworthy for this platform?

Hoping to upload some knowledge of the art world in 2019 :D

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contemporaryartlover1 (talk • contribs)

Hi Contemporaryartlover1, thanks for your question. The general notability guidelines are that a subject is notable if they are the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The examples of sources you suggest would appear to meet this standard. If you are unsure about whether an artist meets our notability guidelines, you can always try creating your article as a draft and having another editor review it for you - let me know if you need help with this process. WJ94 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

See List of contemporary artists for examples. However, while all of those articles exist, it does not mean they should all exist - sometimes articles are created with inadequate referencing, and either need to be improved or else nominated at Articles for deletion. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello there WJ94, thank you so much for your reply. Yes, I would love to get some advice on this process. I am particularly unsure of how much detail I can/should go into about each artist. I have begun an article already (working my way through alphabetically).

Hi Contemporaryartlover1, the best way to create a draft is to create it in your userspace. You userspace is any page which begins "User:Contemporaryartlover1/" - so if you wanted to create a page called New Page, you would create you draft at "User:Contemporaryartlover1/New Page". To create it, just type the title into the search bar and the option will appear to create a new page. I see you have already worked out how to use {{userspace draft}} - that should go at the very top of the article. There is much more advice on how to write an article at Your first article which I would recommend having a look through. The main thing I would suggest is that you get your sources together before you start - it is important to make sure you do actually have the sources to support an article you want to write (it can be frustrating to put a lot of time into an article and then find that it is not notable). The minimum is two, though I would recommend having three or four sources ready to go before you start; once these are in place, you can work from there. WJ94 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Contemporaryartlover1It will help if you preview some biographies of artists first, before you create your own article, get a feel for how to construct, how to cite a reference, what is an acceptable reliable source, etc. You can start by checking out categories of artists here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories?from=Artists, click on a blue link it will take you to subcategores, then click on selected links.Oldperson (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Many new editors think the first thing they should do is write new biographies of living people. This is one of the most difficult things to do correctly; the rules on notability and citation are strictly enforced. Better usually, to start with easier tasks. Try improving existing articles. For example, find an article to which your subject is important, and add a sentence with citation. A day or three later, check to see what happened to it. If good, expand to a paragraph, also well cited. It may eventually become a full article (it has happened to me) even without your further help. Another idea is to add a Wikidata item. Much easier; you can put certain kinds of information about your subject there, and other editors can pick up your citations and perhaps make an article of it. In sum, if other editors are interested in the subject, you don't have to do the whole job yourself. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice. I read everything I could on the topic and then wrote my first draft entry. If you have any feedback please let me know. Thanks so much. I saved it as a draft so hopefully I can correct any errors before it gets deleted. Here it is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexander_Augustus

Hello,

Can someone explain to me what are the proper steps to add a company's logo to its Wikipedia page? I attempted this by uploading the image to WikiCommons, but I did it incorrectly because I got a notice that the image doesn't satisfy copyright policies.

Thanks!

DaniaAlrehaili (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello DaniaAlrehaili and welcome to the Teahouse. Company logos are pretty much always protected by copyright. As such, they cannot be uploaded to commons, which hosts only public domain and freely licensed content, availalbe for use legally anywhere in the world. Logos on Wikipedia are mostly used under a claim of fair use, and are uploaded directly to the en.Wikipedia site, using Wikipedia:Files for upload or Special:Upload. Such logos may only be used in compliance with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. A detailed fair use rationale is needed, normally using {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. The source (usually a URL) must be clearly specified. A copyright tag, usually {{non-free logo}}, must be used on the file description page created by the upload. See Wikipedia:Logos for detailed information about Logos and how to uploadf and use them, including details I have not covered here. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I followed the process you outlined and it seems to have worked out. Best.

DaniaAlrehaili (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

HI My English is still in constructing and still learning. I would like to keep in touch with you and your team. From now on, I will do an update of my page more and I might need your help furthermore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moenwayoo (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Moenwayoo: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your note. In the future, when starting a new section on a talk page (such as this one), please be sure to enter a short description of your posting in the "Subject/headline" field so that a new section is created. Please also remember to sign your posts by putting four tildes at the end like this: ~~~~. Thanks, and happy editing. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've just uploaded a photo file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acor_Ivor_Salter.jpg ; and in my haste I've left out the letter 't' in 'actor'. Is there any way I can correct this, please? Beryl reid fan (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Beryl reid fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Only an Admin or a File mover can move (rename) files on Wikipedia. Often it is best to simply upload a new copy to the correct name, an tag the old name with {{db-author}}. However, in this case, since the file was recently uploaded, and used on only one page, I have moved it to File:Actor Ivor Salter.jpg. The old name remains as a redirect to the new name for the image file. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that files on Wikimedia commons cannot be moved (renamed) in this way. For those one must get the name correct or else re-upload. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much DES, I appreciate your help. Beryl reid fan (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to add the 2019 contest winner to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Prize

I was trying to note the name and title according to format, and then add a footnote for confirmation. Here's what it I wrote for the "Sandbox:"

·2019: Rebecca Makkai for "The Great Believers" https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/ct-books-heartland-believers-rebecca-makkai-1020-20191012-i4k2gcy6wfcvvktxa33rqoqf6i-story.html

What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etayloretayor (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Etayloretayor. It doesn't appear that any one has edited the article Heartland Prize since back in September. From checking the page's history, you did edit it a few times back in 2016, but have made no edits since then. If, by chance, you are working on an improvement in your userbox sandbox, then you will need to add that directly to the article yourself; the Wikipedia software doesn't automatically transfer content from user sandboxes to articles. What might be the case here is that you're confused by the "Publish changes" button; that basically means "Save changes" (the name of the button was actually changed awhile back from "Save changes") and it only saves the content on the page you're editing. If this is not the problem you're having, please clarify further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

​You can edit almost any page here just by clicking "Edit", you don't need to submit additions through your sandbox. For example, click here to edit the article directly yourself. By clicking on "Cite" and pasting your URL you can insert a correctly formatted citation. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Etayloretayor you edited User:Etayloretayor/sandbox and apparently cliked the blue "submit" button that a sandbox has by default. This had the effect of submitting a "draft" which consisted only of the one line you intended to add to Heartland Prize. This draft was rejected as it didn't make any sense.

I have edited the Heartland Prize article here to add the 2019 winner using the source you linked to above, but with a fuller citation. I hope this was helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Removed section header to merge two threads. John from Idegon (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

..don't know what I was doing wrong! I was trying to put the 2019 title and author in for this prize. I tried to attach a link that could be in footnotes and show that I was on the right track.Etayloretayor (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Etayloretayor Please see the answers in the section above #Rejected Addition to page. When you have a followup or addition to a question here at the Teahouse (or the Help desk) please add it to the existing section (thread) rather than starting a new section. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

How can I port over the record charts infobox from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_Berling to the English-language localization of it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_Berling)? I'm unable to successfully do the port because I can't find the best template to use for that purpose. The purpose of the port is to make it so one can find a better deal of information about Ute Berling in the latter version than they can as of the sending of this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childishbeat (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Childishbeat and welcoem to the Teahouse. I looked in Category:Music infobox templates but the closest I found was {{Singles}} which is for use in {{Infobox album}}. You could simply create a table to hold this information, of course. See Help:Table for more information. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Childishbeat: Not sure if I've seen infoboxes for this here. I think we use tables (e.g., Joan Baez discography), though having just the one chart entry makes neither seem necessary. You might look at other musician articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)