Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

[pending revision]

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:54, 20 November 2019

Shortcuts

GreenMeansGo, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240

(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.)

where to start

I am new here and very overwhelmed.I am so afraid of messing up that I dont even know where to begin! What is the easiest way to start helping here without it being too overwhelming? OhioGirl42986 07:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhioGirl42986 (talk • contribs)

Not so new, you've been through the Wikipedia Adventure tutorial and have interacted with some other editors on your and their talk pages. One way to find little tasks that should not be overwhelming is to go to the Community portal and look through the categories of tasks listed there. Pick something and see if you can do it. If the thing you pick is still overwhelming, ask a question about that specific thing here at the Teahouse. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to 'break' a Wikipedia article. At times, even experienced editors find that a change they made in good faith has been reverted (reversed) by the next editor. My suggestion is that you find articles on topics that you know something about. Look for ways to improve. If new content is needed, add it (with supporting reference(s) and explanation of what you did in the Edit summary. If reverted, consider going to the Talk page of the article to make your case for the changes. David notMD (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @OhioGirl42986:, would you be interested in improving the article, Women in Nepal. I consider this the quintessential problematic article in the English Wikipedia; there's something to do for editors of any experience level. In the first round, you can go through it fixing spelling mistakes and basic punctuation. In the second round, you can go through it fixing obvious grammatical errors. Then, you could get bolder and reword some of the sentences where it currently sounds like Nepal is the worst country for women in the world and treats women like no other country in the world does. You could then try to verify the extraordinary claims made in the article by reading the sources and correcting them if they are inaccurate. For example, in the first paragraph of the article, there is a factual error in a claim, claim of the kind that could be used for quiz. Can you find it? I have the article in the watchlist, so if you do decide to work on it, I can check your edits soon after. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging OhioGirl42986 just to be sure she sees this. ----valereee (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OhioGirl42986. Since you are starting, you can try making small changes first. For instance, you can work on entries in this list of articles that need copyediting. Doing small changes will not only keep you from making huge mistakes but also allow you to get a feel of what is accepted particularly in terms of article formatting, referencing, and tone. Good luck! Darwin Naz (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

editing

iam horrible at creating new pages so could someone please give me some things to write and clean-up? Thnx Baozon90 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baozon90: There is always something to do here! I recommend that you join a WP:WikiProject or patrol Recent changes to fight Vandalism. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 16:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baozon90:, Check out the community portal as well. Interstellarity (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baozon90, would you be interested in expanding this article using this source? Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about how to progress

Hello,

This article was declined on the basis of not being 'written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article' with comments about neutrality and such. Intended to compliment the animal testing article, it's quite literally just a list of quotes from about 40 peer-reviewed and published Systematic Reviews (SR's) and Meta-Studies (MS's). I see how it can come across as biased at face value, but to the best of my knowledge, there are no (publicly verifiable) SR's or MS's about animal testing that are not damning (e.g. 99.99% failure rate, poor standards of research, etc.). I believe the animal testing article itself barely mentions SR's and MS's for this reason.

As the subject is controversial, if I write it "wiki style" that would only likely lead to more accusations of bias. I think this information is extremely important for a more balanced and robust account of animal testing, but have absolutely no idea how to move forwards. Any advice would be appreciated. Carlduff (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlduff Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may first want to try visiting the talk page of the article on animal testing to discuss your concerns with other editors and perhaps in collaboration with them you can find the best way forward. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot What happens if I can't? Back here again? Carlduff (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean what happens if discussion does not resolve your concerns? Or do you mean you are unable to discuss the matter there? 331dot (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlduff, Your draft won't get passed as a list of quotes, as we are an encyclopedia, not a repository of quotes. Articles should have useful prose, and be presented neutrally. Such an article would require a total rewrite to get approved, and even then I'm not sure if it would, as I don't see a need to cover the topic on its own. The concerns you have could be added to Animal testing, although as 331dot points out, discuss it on the talkpage first. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek Perhaps on the talk page of the AT article you could advise how my prose could be considered useful and neutral? Carlduff (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The format you are proposing for content is not acceptable. You quote from a journal article, followed be the title of the article and the reference to the article. What is needed is text that represents (not quotes) the findings of articles, with the appropriate references, without the article titles. David notMD (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD Yes, that's a bit of a shame (I enjoy variety in writing styles and 'voices') but understand the point made; appreciate the advice (and help) given by editors, here. Carlduff (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akram Habib

Hi, should this AFD be closed early as the nominator has been blocked for 1 month as a blocked proxy? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: I don't think any of the speedy keep criteria apply. DannyS712 (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need feedback on whether I'm on the right track

Hi guys,

I'm really new to this and not that IT literate. I've read and tried following instructions on how to write a page and just would like feedback on whether I'm on the right track or not. I've added references and titles with the information provided. However it is still in a word doc, so am I able to let you have a look and give me feedback without it being on the site as a draft? If so, how do I attach a word doc to a response like this? Thank you kindly for any advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizmo1977 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizmo1977: I failed to find anything in your editing history. Would you please provide a link to it? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Schmidt mobil, please note that Lizmo1977 said However it is still in a word doc i.e. it has not yet been posted to Wikipedia at all. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Lizmo1977, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. I ahve placed a few useful links on your user talk page.

There is really no way for anyone here to review your draft while it is on your n device as a Word document. I suppose you could send private email to someone, who could hen look it over, but that is really a oor way to go, in my view.

Also, I or another advisor could edit a page posted here on Wikipedia to shoo examples of proper practice, if we find an issue.

Instead please post it to the site. Using "Topic" as the name of the subject of your draft, it could go to Draft:Topic, or to User:Lizmo1977/Topic, or even to User:Lizmo1977/Sandbox. Here are the differences: A page in draft space, that is one whose page name starts with "Draft:" invites others to work with you on the page, and declares an intent to develop it to article status if possible. A page in user space does not implicitly invite others to join in. A sandbox page is for editing practice. Many people do use sandbox pages to start articles, but it can cause some confusion when/if such a person starts a second article draft. I therefore advise against this practice.

I and the other regular responjders here at the nTeahouse, will be happy to advise and help with learing hoew to edit Wikipedia. Creating a new articel from a blank start is one of the harder tasks here, but it can be doen. Below are some steps which, when followed, often lead to success. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I've written the draft called Draft:Topic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Topic. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I've disclosed my affiliation as well but not sure if I did this correctly. Seem to have worked most things out except how to hyperlink the references to the research articles.Lizmo1977 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your paid disclosure belongs on your User page, and once the article is accepted, on the article Talk page - not the article itself. "Prebiotic" does not have a consensus definition, but my reading of the literature suggests it is evolving from bacterial nutrition, i.e., soluble fiber, etc., to include non-nutrient substances which impact microbiota. This would negate the need for modbiotic as a trademarked term. David notMD (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page to Draft:Modbiotics, an appropriate name for the article. I'll be doing some more nit-picking on it for a little while.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... which I'm now questioning at Draft talk:Modbiotics#Title. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to you both. Have shifted disclosure. Will work on more research papers to substantiate and explain better.Lizmo1977 (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to add a picture from Wikimedia Commons?

Hello, I would like to add this picture: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94_%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%9F#/media/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Prof._Moshe_Zviran.jpg From the Hebrew version to Prof. Mozhe Zviran Page on Wiki English. How do I do that? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiatTAU (talk • contribs) 06:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LiatTAU! Following your link, I would do this (I'm on a laptop): Click the blue button in the down-left corner. Click the "Use this file" link with a WP W on the left. Copy the "thumbnail code" and paste that in the draft where you think it should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, LiatTAU. That particular image is called "File:Prof. Moshe Zviran.jpg", and if you go to its page on Wikimedia Commons, you will see a horizontal menu bar at the top of the page with a choice that includes Wikipedia's "W", and the label, "Use this file". Click that link and two bits of wikicode will come up. The first referring to a "thumbnail" is the the one you want to copy into your browser. Now, go to the Wikipedia page and paste that wikicode into the part of the article where you want to display the photo. In this case, the image code would most likely be the first line of code, since you want to display the photo in the upper right corner of the article. If you have any trouble, I will add the image for you. But give it a try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys shut off wikipedia until people donate enough to keep it going?

and also it would help if people understood where the donations are going. b/c every year Wikipedia says "if you donate a small amount you can keep it going for years to come" - then why are we donating every year?

I wish there was a page we could see how much wikipedia needed to keep going

you could even advertise the people who donated. for example, during the fundraising season, allow people to buy/donate spots on a "Donation page" - you would get money super quickly. and that way you're not really giving into advertising, but allowing people to purchase space on wikipedia's page during the donation phase.

good luck and thanks for what you do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.253.239 (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is donated to keep it going, since it keeps going. I don't know exactly where but I'm sure there are pages with the information you are interested in. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. The people you are talking to here are the ones who edit English Wikipedia, and maintain its content: almost none of us have anything to do with fundraising or how the money is used. That is done by the Wikimedia Foundation: donations support 307 different-language Wikipedias, plus another twelve related projects, some of them in many languages. For more information about donations - where they go to, and why the Foundation does not allow advertising, even to the degree you've suggested, please look at meta:Donations, and some of the pages linked from there, especially the official donation page. --ColinFine (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that would be clearly counterproductive. I have no technical possibilities and no rights to shut it off. But I can tell you that if Wikipedia appeared switched off some day, that would certainly discourage me from any further donations. --CiaPan (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donors are usually private but there is a list of large public donors at https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/benefactors/. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia_Foundation#Finances may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Помогите.

[1] --Алёна Пескова (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Алёна Пескова. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so we can only really answer questions in English. Are you able to explain what you need help with in English? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуйте, Алёна Пескова. You have commented out a table in Violence, with the not-very-informative comment "check the numbers below". It would be much better to start a discussion at Talk:Violence, explaining what you think is wrong with the numbers. --ColinFine (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that Cordless Larry has corrected the date, but not restored the table to be visible in the page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand English well. I didn’t understand what was written due to the fact that we translated incorrectly. Sorry, thanks for watching. --Алёна Пескова (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really sure what was being highlighted as possibly incorrect, so while I spotted that the date was wrong, I didn't want to make the table visible again in case there were other errors. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Total

The problem is resolved. --Алёна Пескова (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

creating a wiki page?

hi So confused please can someone open dialogue with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susy211 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susy211 We can try! Creating a draft: go to WP:DRAFTS, scroll down to "Create a new draft" and follow instructions.

Now, making a WP-article that is accepted in mainspace is more complicated, actually quite difficult if you never done any WP-editing at all. Depending on your chosen topic, it may be impossible. Take the time to read Help:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using a Desmos-made picture

I am writing an article about math, and think that inserting a mathematical graph would be appropriate. I generated a graph using the software Desmos. I wrote the equations myself, but I'm not sure if a graph generated by Desmos (e.g. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/rdbtek3eor) can be considered free content or own work. 數神 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 數神, I read the terms of service and it can only be used for noncommercial purposes only. Wikipedia doesn't accept works that cannot be used for commercial purposes. So, I don't think this would be allowed on Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But if I decide to generate the same graph with a program (specifically Python (programming language)), is it okay then? 數神 (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

數神, Yes, that's OK. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@數神: I don't know what the exact situation is, but it would be more maintainable and style-consistent for the project if you would use an on-wiki tool to produce the graph, like {{Graph:Chart}} (there may be others – see the navbox at the bottom of the docs). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed and Extended confirmed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Using the Upload Wizard

I would like to upload a photo into a created article (William Oliver (artist, born 1823) using the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard on the basis of Fair Use. I have copied the following photograph from the web. https://thumbnail.myheritageimages.com/288/193/288193/500/500004_321803m8c23zy5h0g1ai82_C_398x570.jpg It derives from the web site https://www.myheritage.com/search-records?action=person&siteId=288193&indId=1000037&origin=profile

The stages are 1. Choosing the file/photo from my PC viz. William Oliver Williams.jpg

2a) Providing a descriptive name viz. William Oliver Williams (1823-1902).jpg 2b). Providing a brief description of the contents of this file viz. Photo of William Oliver Williams (1823-1901) Artist, professional name William Oliver

3. Provide source and copyright information. Then there are 3 options a)This is a free work b)This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use c)This file doesn't fit either of the categories above. I presume the third option (c) should be taken? I don't think the photo is copyrighted. It may be from a family album. Then I presumably get the opportunity to somehow attach the template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale_biog The trouble with the Wizard is that you don't know what to expect on the next page. Am I on the right track to getting the photo into an infobox?BFP1 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as this may be a more approprate location. BFP1 (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Action Learning in Schools

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1030#New_contribution ==

Bibliographer complains "what's new," that Action Learning for Schools is just good teaching, and found a similar example from the 1920S. I don't accept that reasoning.

    First of all, the first line of my edit ties the new text to the preceding text, particularly the steps by which actions (praxis) and answers are promoted. These, it states, obtain as well for Action Learning in Schools. I could have repeated those guidelines and certain other text from the original entry but seemed only to have so much space. They do stress the systematic "scaffolding" (of today's cognitive methods) and not just the importation, with the example in question, of class money, but its application to many current issues outside of the class, such as recession, bank runs, inflation, etc, and not just teaching arithmetic and making change.
    Secondly, the title is apt because the tie-in is apt. It is an extension of current business practice, already admitted entry to Wikipedia, to schooling. Thus it is not a 'wander-wonderfully' project, but one that goes where the scaffolding helps guide it.
    Third, Action Learning in School is a specific attempt to add relevance to classroom learning. It chooses real-world (e.g., from outside the classroom) topics for treatment, such that the results are evident to students in out-of-school terms.
    Fourth, with Action Learning in Schools, the benefits tend to come from its processual nature, not necessarily from any conclusions. As with the class money example, there will be few or no "what we learned" summaries possible. The learning has arisen from the processes of using the class money and some of the more typical money problems the everyday spender encounters.
    Finally, the 1920s example probably includes none of the above and very likely doesn't include multiple classes (say, all 3 5th grades in a building). Bibliographer omits comments about other applications mentioned and objects only to one. That one should not be excluded solely on the basis of an "activity" cited from 1920 that is updated as described above.15:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Regelski15:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Please give directions to this novice as to how to proceed through the filter that leads to Wikipedia publication. It is not clear to this beginner where and how to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas A. Regelski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thomas A. Regelski. There is no "filter", other than reaching consensus among interested editors. You have done the right thing by posting at Talk:Action learning; and Biogeographist (which is simply the name that an editor - like you or me - has chosen for themselves) has replied. The thing to do is to continue the discussion there, not bring it here. If you can't reach consensus, then WP:dispute resolution will tell you how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are articles accepted under these conditions?

Hi folks! I'm getting conflicting advice from different editors. First I'm told I need more reliable secondary sources, I put in about 20. Then I'm told the artist in the article has to have won some national award? "The page I'm working on appears to have almost all the criteria listed in the "Notability" page. 1. She has been the subject of many publications. a) Sayani, Fateema.https://www.pressreader.com/canada/ottawa-citizen/20080628/282557308966743 The Ottawa Citizen, June 28, 2008 b) Sayani, Fateema.https://ottawamagazine.com/arts-and-culture/scene-heard/sound-seekers-tara-holloway-nails-it-with-little-ghosts/ Ottawa Magazine, January 29, 2015 c) https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=621102 CTV News, Retrieved November 15 d) www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvKs1zSC5jk CTV Ottawa Morning Live, July 4, 2013 e) Sauvé, Christina.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuOXYkb_ad877 Seconds, October 5, 2009 f) "Tara Holloway from Vancouver BC". livevictoria.com.

4. Non-trivial coverage about a tour. a)Petrunick, Kostyn.http://www.brockpress.com/2017/01/music-and-more-with-tara-holloway-and-sammi-morelli/ The Brock Press, January 31, 2017

5. Released two records on a major record label, with independently notable musicians. a)Saxberg, Lynn.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-NG3moEXbE The Ottawa Citizen, July 6, 2013 b)Sayani, Fateema."Scene & Heard — Tara Holloway, Lisa Loeb, Souljazz's side project & more". February 17, 2017. Ottawa Magazine, February 17, 2017

10. Work on television or film a) Sons of Anarchy (2008) Seasons 1-4 b) "From Prada to Nada (2011) - IMDb" – via www.imdb.com. c) Detroit 1-8-7 (2010) d) Dallas (2012)

Seems wikiworthy to me. Barba eau (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)"

Cut and pasted from "talk." What am I missing here? Any help would be great. Thanks! Barbabeau (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barbabeau and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid you may be interpreting the notability criteria too much in the direction of favoring your subject. For instance, the Brock Press article is mostly an interview, so is not considered independent and therefore is discounted as far as notability is concerned. By mixing in sources not considered reliable, such as IMDB, you are making it harder for reviewers to ascertain whether Holloway actually meets the criteria. The fact that you offer these as your strongest evidence calls into question whether you understand what's required.

None of this is unusual, of course. On Wikipedia, creating a whole new article is one of the hardest tasks. It often helps (and, perhaps counter-intuitively, is faster) to spend considerable time improving other articles and learning the ropes. This will help tune up your sense of whether a subject is notable in the somewhat peculiar way that Wikipedia uses that term. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you have misunderstood the phrase "more reliable secondary sources"? I suspect that you were advised that your secondary sources weren't reliable enough, but you thought you were being asked for a greater number of sources. If you have some reliable independent published secondary sources with in-depth discussion of the subject, four of them should be ample, and I doubt any experienced editor would ask you for a greater number. Maproom (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently about Draft:Tara Holloway. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barbabeau. There is no such thing as "wikiworthy". Your draft includes the unreferenced phrase "soon offered a 'demo deal' from Nettwerk Records, to which she politely declined." That type of writing throws up red flags. How do you know about this and why did you add it without referencing it? Who says that she was polite when she declined it. Why does the word "politely" belong in an encylopedia article? This is the type of language often used by editors with a conflict of interest. If you have one, please follow the guudelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loomians

Are 'Loomians' a notable article? 'Loomians' are the creature name of a Roblox-Rip-Off of the Pokémon Franchise. As such, Loomians are very similar to Pokémon. Still, though, would it be a good contribution?

If you want to do your own research, Game Link: https://web.roblox.com/games/306964494/Loomian-Legacy?refPageId=b323e11a-af0e-4e2f-aa79-d4f97bfa041d Wiki Link: https://loomian-legacy.fandom.com/wiki/Loomian_Legacy_Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3003:6700:B90C:9FB2:9170:C921 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello! Thanks for asking. Unfortunately, they are not notable for their own article. They might be able to be noted in the Roblox article, but I don't see enough coverage for their own article. Generally, to have an article a subject needs at least 3 sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Things like Wikis, the subjects own webpage, blogs, etc are not reliable. Things need coverage in books, magazines, newspapers, or media outlets. For video game items, reviews in IGN or other gaming publications may do the trick. If you can find such coverage, you are welcome to draft an article by following the steps at WP:YFA. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a Maintenance tag discusses 'Verification', but you can find mostly contradiction.

Looking at WP's Alpenglow article, I not only disagree with the article, but I find much contradiction with reliable sources like the OED and M-W (see references [3] and [4] in the article - reference [5] has a debatable 'especially' note). So I've modified the article noting the discrepancy between the photographic reference sources ([1] and [2], though note [1] is now 'Not Found') and dictionary sources, which I trust more, and think it's resolved not via verification, but by documented contradiction (read the now-modified 3rd paragraph and see the related top-right image). Can I therefore remove this maintenance tag, even though there is no verification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BrettA343, That tag is asking for more sources, and I think that more sources are still needed. Thank you for adding sources, but given that the sources you've added are contradictory to the original, more sources are needed to clarify the issue. Its possible too that Alpenglow is too loosely defined, and the article should have a section for both direct sunlight and reflected sunlight. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 1 recovered from archive.org. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decades are in properly listed

The first decade is years 1-9 which means it's given a year to the following decade, and needs to be years 1-10 and all subsequent decades need to be xx01-xx10 and all years need to be edited to say they are the correct year of that decade, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.248.143.63 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. This has been discussed to death, for example at Talk:List of decades. Put simply, Wikipedia uses the common name for its articles, rather than the "official" or "precise" name. You are at liberty to use "the 1980s" to mean "1981-1990" if you wish; but you are likely to be misunderstood, because that is not what English does, at least for most people. --ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the largely unresolvable "controversy" over what exactly "21st century" means. IMO, the key is that neither term means exactly anything – they are intentionally general. If the exact years matter, use them. In cases like music genres, [19]80s is just fine. I'm sure there are essays in the Wikipedia: namespace on the subject, and many discussions on talk pages.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People say the 1980s and not the 199th decade with an implicit numbering from 1 AD, so there is much less controversy about decades than centuries. Almost everybody agree that the 1980s are 1980–1989. The IP did not refer to specific articles but I guess they don't say "the nth decade". PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to get more independent editors to weigh in on a talk page discussion?

There's a dicussion at Talk:Pleioplectron which touches on WP:COI and WP:OUTTING, but seems to be going nowhere. How do I get input from more editors? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates: you could try WP:3O or a relevant Wikiproject. WP:DRR is also an option. Hug^syrup 23:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

danger of changing an article title

I would like to change the title situational analysis to "situational logic." Will that change interfere with links or anything else? If so, how avoid negative consequences? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TBR-qed. No, Moving a page leaves a redirect behind so that links don't get broken. But before doing something as potentially controversial as that, please discuss it on the talk page and get consensus for the move. --ColinFine (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TBR-qed, You can do this by following the instructions at WP:RM#CM. Interstellarity (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand a little, in addition to page titles often being hotly-contested subjects, among the cleanup issues noted in the links above is the problem of double-redirects that need to be resolved (edited), the number of which can be substantial with a page about a term (as opposed to a BLP or company). Follow WP:RM#CM to get others involved and you should be fine. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page getting too long

I know this might have been asked, and answered, before, but how do I file away my overly long Talk page. I've never learned how, despite the fact that I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)HIVE]].[reply]

Hi BeenAroundAWhile. I think you'll find the information you're looking for in WP:TALKARCHIVE. Be advised, however, that sometimes archiving an article talk page can be contentious; so, it can, particularly on highly watched pages, be a good idea to propose the idea first on the talk page to see what the consensus is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's my own Talk page. Heh heh. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can archive it, blank it or leave it as is if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a template, but what do I do with the actual stuff on the page? If anybody wants to head over there and make the fixes, I would be grateful. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, I have some clarifications to ask, and have done so at your talk page. When that's answered, we can proceed. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on a recently revised AfC draft

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gary Drostle

Hello everyone, I have had a go at writing an article on artist Gary Drostle which is in my sandbox. However I do know the artist so I am aware there maybe a conflict there. Perhaps someone could look at the sandbox draft and give some feedback - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Minacaboverde/sandbox> thank you Mina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minacaboverde (talk • contribs) 11:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Minacaboverde, and welcoem to the Teahouse. Not a bad start, really.

It could use one or two more independent sources cited that discuss Drostle in significant depth and perhaps fewer sourcws wher ethere is only a passing mention. This would help more clearly establish the notability in accord with our guideline on the notability of artists and the General notability guideline.
Remember that interviews with the subject are not independent and genewrally contribute little if anything to notability.
Please do not put citations into section headers. Instead cite specific text within the section.
Minor awards are not really encyclopedic. Limit an awards section to major or significant awards.
Please be careful about the authorship f images. Fore example File:Artist Gary Drostle.jpg was uploaded by Gary Drostle but is labelled "Own work". Did Drostle actually take this picture himself? if not it is not "own work", and the photographer must be credited and must release the image properly.
Please do not include external links (links to sites outside of Wikipe4dia) in the body of an article. They should all be in an "External links" section near the bottom, or else used as source citations. (Exception, one link to the subjects own web site may be used in the infobox, but not in article prose.)
The "Early Years and Education" section is completely uncited. This is the kind of uncontroversial content which can be cited to the subject's own web site or other non-independent sources.
As for a Conflict of Interest, just how close to the subject are you? Did he request you to create a Wikipedia article about him? Are ytou related or clsoe freinds? It might be well to declare your connection on the draft's talk page, or on an eventual article's talk page using {{connected contributor}}, but read the COI guideline for advice on that. Merely knowing s person casually is not generally a COI.
When you think this is ready for more formal review, please add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page, and it will be moved into draft space and placed in the Articles for Creation review pool.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How should I submit the wikipedia page

Hi,

I have a profile page here, I want to submit and check it google, what is the process, can you please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by B Danaiah kavi (talk • contribs) 11:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have profiles; it has articles on notable subjects. You have produced a sandbox draft but there would be no point in submitting it for AFC review until you have included references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. You also need to read the Manual of Style and (for example) get rid of the inappropriate bold text. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that your sandbox draft appears to be an attempt at an autobiography, so you need to read the advice against that, at WP:Autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@B Danaiah kavi: Just to summarize, Wikipedia is not a place to create a profile. If someone/something told you that, I'm afraid you've been led astray. This is an encyclopaedia, like Encyclopaedia Brittanica. See WP:NOT. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, they are actually editing User:Bandaru Danaiah kavi/sandbox, which is not their username (it's not registered, but this is still wrong). Their own User:B Danaiah kavi/sandbox is a redirect to the other one. Perhaps an admin can handle the move-over or ...? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(pinging DESiegel re above) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Moved back to User:B Danaiah kavi/sandbox. Thanks for the ping, AlanM1. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turning a draft translation into an accessible article

editː I believe this is called "moving it to mainspace".end edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Varnam (talk • contribs) 13:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've translated a Japanese article about a series of books by the Japanese author Koshu Tani.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation?title=Special:ContentTranslation&campaign=contributionsmenu&to=en&page=航空宇宙軍史&from=ja&targettitle=Draft%3AThe+AeroSpaceForce+Annals

I've pressed the "publish" button but it still remains invisible to anyone who doesn't know the URL. How do I get it "approved" for proper publication?

If there is a mentor available to answer more question about such details, I'd be glad to hear from them. Apart from proofreading for basic English or formatting errors, there are a few points within the article on which I would welcome some advice. For example, do I need to translate the titles of Tani's books which are not yet available in English? He has English subtitles for some but not all of his works, and some of those are questionable.

Also, I'd like to learn how to declare a Conflict Of Interest. Although these books are well known and have won prizes in the Japanese SF world, I am, I believe, the only person to have translated any of them into English. I intend to translate the whole "Annals" in due course.

"Questions should appear at the bottom of the page" it saysː I've pressed the "publish" button but it still remains invisible to anyone who doesn't know the URL. How do I get it "approved" for proper publication?

Simon Varnam SPV (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon. For legal reasons "publish" replaced "save" some time ago. When you "publish" your draft it still remains as a draft, but is publicly visible. You need to request that it be moved into mainspace. As regards COI, see WP:COI for the official guidance. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to {{subst:submit}} the draft for AFC review, but there is no point in doing that until you have provided references to published reliable sources independent of the subject. You'll find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response David Biddulph,

1) I've been unable to find the page by searching Wiki for it. It doesn't seem to be in the index yet, after several weeks wait. I can only get to it through the URL above, and that is the draft version with Japanese and English in parallel columns. How do I request that it be moved into mainspace?

2) I'm not sure what constitutes a "reference" or "source" since this is the translation of a Japanese page, which IS the source. (You can see both Eng and Jpn versions side by side at the URL above.) Should I list the same sources as on the original Japanese page? In Japanese?

3) As regards COI, I have seen WP:COI for the official guidance, but don't understand how to apply it since the page isn't yet published.

4) What does " You would need to {{subst:submit}} the draft for AFC review," mean? Do I need to paste {{subst:submit}} into the first line of the draft article?

No need to rush a response. It's bedtime here.

TIA Simon SPV (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simon Varnam. The draft is in Draft space, so you can find it by searching with that prefix. You can also find it by looking at your own contributions (top right of every screen, in the skin that I use). I looked at your contributions, to find Draft:The AeroSpaceForce Annals.

The fact that there is an article about this in ja-wiki does not guarantee that en-wiki will accept it. At present, the article has no references at all. References are citations of reliable published works, independent of the subject: "reliable" excludes any wiki, including any Wikipedia, because it is user-generated. See verifiability and referencing for beginners The ja-wiki article appears to have no references at all: some of our older articles here have the same property, but we are more careful now, and articles which do not have enough reliable independent sources to establish notability are not accepted. Basically, Wikipedia is not interested in what you know, or what I know, or what a random guy on the internet knows (such as whoever created the ja-wiki article). Being an encyclopaedia, it is only interested in what people who have no connection to the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, in reliable, editorially respectable places. Note that sources do not have to be in English, though English ones are preferred if they exist.

If you have a COI (which I guess you do, from your reply above) you should declare it on your user page, and on the talk page of the draft Draft tak:The AeroSpaceForce Annals - this is a red-link because the talk page does not yet exist, but you can create it.

To submit the draft for review, yes you paste {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article - what you paste into the source is what you see in the displayed version of this reply, not what we have put in the source.

I suspect you thought that translating an article from another Wikipedia would be a quick and easy way of creating an article; unfortunately this is not the case when (as here) the original article does not meet the standards of en-wiki.

I am not a reviewer, but personally I think there is far too much detail in the draft. If you can find independent published sources which talk at that level of detail, then maybe it may stay; but I suspect you won't. --ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ColinFine I'll look into what else is already on wiki and what other sources could be referred to outside Wiki. Re:I suspect you thought that translating an article from another Wikipedia would be a quick and easy way of creating an article; Not quite, but I thought that maintaining the format of the ja page would make sure I did't create an abomination that would need cleaning up by someone more experienced in the format. There are other Wiki articles on related topics such as that about the author but I thought it was better to translate the article which links the others first.

BTW, this is REAL translation, not in the least dependent on Google translate or the like.

I'll back. Simon SPV (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

additions: How do your ColinFine's comments apply to the references at the wiki article about the author himself? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kōshū_Tani

Are they valid? Reliable? Are the referred articles (Such as the "Seiun Award") better linked to superscript numbers or directly linked to the articles mentioned in the text? Or should links to wiki articles be in the text and those elsewhere in the references? Sorry for all the questions. I'm still getting used to the principles.

And how does this article compare with other literature articles, especially those which have not yet been translated into English?

SPV (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Simon. Some elements of page formatting (the use of headings and wikilinks, for example) are universal in en-wiki, and I think across other Wikipedias; but other aspects vary between subjects, as well as Wikipedias. I suggest you have a look at WikiProject Science Fiction for information about how SF-related articles are structured in en-wiki.

It's good that it's a real translation, not a machine translation; but as I say that does not guarantee that all the content is appropriate in en-wiki.

As for Kōshū Tani (note: it's more helpful to use a Wikilink than a URL): the way the references are used is the recommended way. The numbering and links are automatic if you use the <ref>...</ref> mechanism. But I have tagged the article as needing references, because judging from their titles and origins, not one of the references there is independent of Tani. --ColinFine (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--- That's very helpful, ColinFine. I'll take a look at the link you offered. And I'll take a look at some examples of similar articles about other authors' works to see how they are structured. Things like "the <ref>...</ref> mechanism" are still a mystery to me, so thanks for the pointer. Let me check: What references might there be that are independent of Tani since they are his books, and the whole world he describes exists only in his books? Would Japanese book reviews of the works concerned be of any value (in Japanese), or citations/quotations from the organizations that awarded the prizes he has won? Note that I've altered the links to parts of the real world to the appropriate articles in en-Wiki.

best regards SimonSPV (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Simon. WP:REFB (that I linked above) explains how to do the references. As for Tani: Wikipedia is not interested in what Tani has said, done or published, or what people or organisations associated with him have said about him, except as discussed by people unconnected with him. Book reviews are good, if published in reliable organs (eg not user-generated sites or somebody's personal blog); but unless the review contains material about the author as well as the book, it doesn't help for an article about the author. Citations from the prize-giving organisations are useful additional sources, but not enough on their own. What is needed is places where people unconnected with him have chosen to write about him, at some length, and been published in reliable sources, such as books from reputable publishers, or major magazines.If there aren't any such, then at present the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's definition of notable, and no acceptable article is possible. --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine I would disagree with your comment that unless the review contains material about the author as well as the book, it doesn't help for an article about the author. WP:NAUTHOR point 3 says:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

I take this to mean that independent reviews of multiple books or other creative works, preferably more than one review per book, that discuss the creative works in some detail, establish the notability of the author even if not one word about the author (or artist) apart from the author's works is included in the sources. This has been sustained at several AfDs. Sourced content about the author is always better, of course. Simon Varnam you may want to take note. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that reviews can establish notability, DESiegel; but if all you've got is reviews which don't talk about the author, what is there that you can put in an article about the author? --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine the result may be something like David Bret. The article is primarily about the totality of the author's work and the critical response to it, plus non-controversial details about the author which can be sourced from self-published sources such as the author's web site and the the non-independent sources, and sources that support info but do not have discussion in depth. Significant coverage of the author directly is better of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in here, DESiegel. N.B. The article I've translated is only about the book series. That's why I'm stumped as to what makes a good reference for this series of books. There is already an en-Wiki article about the author. I had not intended to add to that, though several topics raised there would usefully link to the translated article I'm offering. There are also en-Wiki articles about the prizes he has won. I will search out Japanese reviews of the originals though the stories set in this fictional world were not available as a set (4 volumes) until recently. The original stories came out piecemeal in SF magazines and anthologies as well as in sets of his stories in the 80s and 90s. The fact that his works (both old and new) still sell is surely a sign of his notability.

More later when I've done some more research. Simon SPV (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Varnam: if they started coming out in the 80s, then not all the sources will be online. Sources online are more convenient, but they are not required: as long as the sources cited have been published, so they are in principle obtainable by readers, that is enough. --ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{+{U|Simon Varnam}} I quite agree with ColinFine about off-line sources. Reviews of individual works in the series, or of the series as a whole, from reliable sources, would be good for such an article, i would think. That would build up a comprehensive view of the series in a real-world perspective. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adhiyaman Matric Hr Sec School

Why I can't add this article to main page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abishek Mahi 1 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find an FAQ about the main page at WP:FAQ/Main Page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages

How do I make my pages look good?

And how do I add an image that I downloaded off the internet?

Thank you , MrMR143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMR143 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrMR143, as a general answer to your very general query, I'd say:

You make pages look good by following the examples of other good pages on similar subjects.
You can't add any old image you download off the internet, you have to be mindful of the copyright restrictions. More at WP:Uploading images.

Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need to know my offence on why my account was blocked from editing

I need to know why my account was blocked from editing despite not committing any offence .

How did I become a vandal for editing an article that really needs improvement and editing?

Who reported me as a vandal?

How do I secure my password or protect my account information?

Lastly, how do I get pardon to continue my work as one of the young editors on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakinrinlola (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oakinrinola If your account was blocked, you would not have been able to edit this page. If you created this account after an original account was blocked, that is block evasion and sockpuppetry. In that case you should return to your original account and request unblock per the instructions that are in the block notice on the original account's user talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakinrinlola: According to the block log your account is not blocked. --CiaPan (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

request unblock per the instructions I have copied the section below from the Teahouse Talk page, as it is clearly a follow-up to this section Hug^syrup 15:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, the issue is that I have been stripped of my power to edit. I had wanted to edit article on the history of Ilaje Local Government of Ondo State in Nigeria to improve the use of English but I discovered I do no longer have such a power and I was told I committed an offence (vandal).

So I need more explanation on what happened and how to get my account fixed. Am really very young on Wikipedia and so, I am just learning and needed to be put through and guided. Oakinrinlola (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakinrinlola: Are you referring to this page: Ondo_State? If so, you are the last person to edit it. No one appears to have reverted you or called you a vandal, and the account you are posting from is, as you have been told several times, not blocked. Can you point out exactly where someone told you that you committed an offence? Hug^syrup 15:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oakinrinlola The article Ondo State is not specially protected, and any normal user can edit it. As others have told you, the account User:Oakinrinlola is not blocked, and never has been blocked. The block log for that account is empty, i checked it just now. As of a minute ago, you had made two edits to Ondo State, one of them with the summary "English mordernised". Those changes are live in the article just now. If you are referring to some other article, please link to it so that we can check it out.

As to account security, see Wikipedia:User account security for various ways in which you can improve the security of your account. If you have not registered an emil with Wikipedia, please do so -- it is the only way to regain access should you forget you password. If you still have an isuse here, please clarify exactly what you saw or were told and where. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@hugsyrup

Thanks.I appreciate you sir and everyone who educated me. I think it is clear now and I now understood I did not understand. I am grateful for all the responses so far — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakinrinlola (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your User page was deleted because you put stuff on it that Wikipedia does not allow. This does not mean you were blocked. David notMD (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is my next step or place in this process of clarifying my contribution for two doubting editors?

Two editors, whose profiles or words indicate little or no experience with the content of educational philosophy, research, or praxis, need to be answered. But I don't know where that should be in this puzzling process.

I disagree with the content put forward by Biogeographer and ColinF. They contend that Action Learning in School is nothing new that good school teachers are not doing regularly. I find this content--that Action Learning is old hat--to be wrong. Action Learning in School is a very contemporary topic, especially in Australia and at many places in the US, and certainly worth a mention in extending the original Action Learning article to public and university schooling. If I dared leave this page, I could provide ample citations.

As it turned out, my contribution made a point about the "exemplars" in Action Learning that used an example from music. To my knowledge, I am the only researcher in music education engaged with Action Learning, thus the quotation to my textbook, used with hundreds of budding music teachers in the US and abroad.

Their confusion of "hands-on" learning, the "project method," and Dewey's child-centered experimentalism is simply wrong-headed. Dewey's "learning by doing" has been out of favor in education for roughly 100 years. Action Learning is rooted in praxis (Aristotle). Praxis is translated as action, and in the social sciences "action" is distinguished from "activity" by the presence of "intentionality," what an action is about, its governing goal. The realism of the Action Learning process establishes strong intentionality. It is a natural fit for the arts, and any processual kinds of learning. The learning is not of propositional knowledge, like arithmetic, but of the use (praxis) in which the learner is engaged. In the banking example (though I could use another, since that example seems to elicit negatives), going broke and having no money to spend is "an" experience (in the sense of Dewey's 'Art as Experience' distinguishing "an" experience from "to" experience on the basis of intentionality), as is learning that the bank has no more money, or that you're in debt and paying interest on it, and similar learnings that go beyond simply playing with imitation money.

Action Learning experiences often transcend individual classrooms and engage the cooperative efforts of several teachers, even whole schools. One middle school had a mini-world "real-life" morning of banking, commerce, etc., and afternoons of regular subjects, during which the US farmer's rebellion against taxes could be placed in the context children were experiencing with money and taxes in their morning world.

In sum, I could and maybe should write more, but the objections so far to my content are misplaced. I have visited schools in Japan, Canada, the US, and Finland, and am up to date on what is really going on in contemporary schools, and it is not the projects of 1910--a claim which is, I think, insulting to Action Learning teachers today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas A. Regelski (talk • contribs)

Thomas A. Regalski The solution to this appears to be simple: Use reliable sources and give citations for your claims. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas A. Regelski: Not to be flippant, but no, you should not write more. Remember we're all volunteers here, trying to make the most of our time. It was clear to me from the first few sentences that you are engaged in original research, which is great and I wish you all due speed and luck in improving the process of educating people; however, ~~it's~~ OR is not what we do here. If you are the only person engaged in this particular research area (Action Learning in music), it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Once you have published and independent sources have found your research noteworthy enough to write about it with some depth, it can be added to the article by an un-involved editor. Since you have a conflict of interest, you should make edit requests on the article talk page for such editors to review and make (which you may very well be doing – there are no links in your post, so I can't easily find the relevant material, and have run out of time). Indeed, the entire issue is a content dispute, and belongs on the article talk page. If you need additional resources, consider those at WP:DR. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(clarifications above in orange) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this matter was discussed yesterday in Talk:Action learning where these points were brought out. Our new editor is perhaps mistaking the Teahouse for an appeals court, which indeed it sometimes can be. However, in this case the appeal is doomed far as I can see, and the only way out is to take to heart the wise advice already given. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thomas A. Regalski I am going to slightly disagree with AlanM1's comments just above, having read the article and talk page from your previous Teahouse post. While it may well be that the specifically music-oriented aspects of Action Learning may be your original research, and should therefore be avoided in any article, but it seems that in general Action Learning (AL) is being used by various people who are publishing results in reliable sources. Have I understood this correctly? If so, to soem extent it doesn't matter how simialr or different this is from older techniques. If multiple reliable sources are discussing AL, and it is within the mainstream of current educational theory, we can and should have articles about it, whether it is a completely new thing or very similar to an old thing -- we follow the sources. As per WP:SELFCITE, citing yoiur own work is often discouraged. and as per WP:V you must not base article content on your personal knowledge -- article content must be supported or supportable by citations from reliable sources, and in this case it has better be directly supported from the start, since this content is being challenged. So the key will be to find independant and highly relaible sources tht discuss the use of AL in detail, and write the article clearly based on what those sources say, citing them properly. I wouold urge avoiding citing your own work. At most give cites on the talk page for others to use or not use. AlanM1 is write that posting large statements on the talk page is likley to cause other editors to skip them and reject your arguments unread. Be clear and succinct. If that does not work, you may nbeed to follow the steps at dispute resolution as suggested above, but try hard for a talk-page solution first. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rivka Keren - Adding a book to my entry in Wikipedia

Please add the following text to my entry in English:

Ha Rega Ha Amiti The True Moment (Collection of Short Stories) Mendele Mocher Sfarim Publisher, 2018 (Hebrew) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C1C4:7300:78C5:1B0:A7DC:B26F (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, unregisterd editor ...A7DC:B26F], and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not made any edit to any page in Wikipedia besides the above using this address, so we have no way to know which of our over 6 million articles you refer to. Please provide a link to the article you are talking about, or use {{Request edit}} on the talk page of the article, along with a specific suggested edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The best place for this to receive attention from involved editors is the article's talk page Talk:Rivka Keren, maybe with a mention at WT:WikiProject Israel or maybe WT:WikiProject Women writers. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

formatting chemical equations

How do I format "H2O" of temperature "10 degrees centigrade"? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TBR-qed: The usual best practice is to look in the MoS (like MOS:CHEM, MOS:NUM) or, perhaps better, relevant existing articles to see how they do it. H<sub>2</sub>O at 10{{nbsp}}°C produces "H₂O at 10 °C". There may be a template usable for the compound, but this should work. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TBR-qed: Though there are plenty of examples done plainly as above, there is also the {{Chem}} and related templates (click to see the docs). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source of info

This is regarding article 2019–20 I-League, section Stadiums and locations, of East Bengal F.C.'s stadium. As per the official FB page of the club, an announcement was done for home stadium change. Its the verified fb page of the club, and the post has a stamp on it. So, its 100% correct and not questionable source, but still why it can't be used as a source. Its not just a simple post from any unofficial handle, or anything like that. Official page, along with club stamp on it. S A H A 18:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arnabsaha2212, welcome to the Teahouse! I like your argument and I didn't care for their demeaning remarks toward you in their edit summary. That said, the place to take this is the article's talk page, where editors actually interested in and knowledgeable about the subject can weigh in. WP:DR might help. For now, ping the reverting editor on the article's talk page and make your argument there again, linking WP:Facebook might help. Make sure that it is an actual official handle of the subject though. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool:ok. thank you very much. S A H A 19:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

my article deleted

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Action Learning in schools is too frequent to need to cite references

DES offered that my original research using Action Learning (AL) in music should not disqualify it from its wider adoption to other school subjects and that the model, if I can call it that, if widespread would justify its inclusion.

A Google survey of "Action Learning school" produces a serious wealth of citations to the model (see some below), as used around the world, and particularly in Australia, it seems. That being the case, the model is simple, already stated in the lead-in article, and should require not much more than I've added to suggest the relevance of modifying the AL business model to the goals and processes of schools. If anything, I'm in a scholarly position to quickly summarize a lot of findings that only describe on-the-ground examples (all sharing the same similarities), and doesn't require much in-depth citation of sources as evidence of the fecundity of the model at work, not just in the boardrooms of business, but in the collective efforts of teachers and its applications to students. If anything, I could generalize a little bit more but already have been scolded for proposing adding to the article and thus to the workload.

Some rough annotated citations: <Using an Action Learning Model-Teacher

Sep 15, 2017 - Campbelltown Performing Arts High School (CPAHS) has implemented a highly successful whole school innovation and improvement agenda through the strategic and comprehensive implementation of action learning (AL) projects over 10 years.>

<(PDF) Action Learning in education – ResearchGate

Jan 31, 2014 - PDF | This approach to the development of individuals does not focus on what people need to learn, but on solutions to real problems. The main objective method of action learning is that our everyday life is an endless source of possibilities and opportunities for learning. The fastest and most effective way of learning is to take some action which later could be used to draw conclusions. This approach to learning can be a starting point in effective and efficient process-oriented quality education activities undertaken by the students of today and tomorrow.>

Action Learning Action Research Association, Ltd. <Action Learning, Action Research Association Ltd (ALARA) is a global network of ... and action to advance social change and to transform workplaces, schools, . .> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas A. Regelski (talk • contribs) 14:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not write any more. I'm not even going to bother reading what you just said, because my time is valuable too. To put it simply: EVERYTHING needs to cite references. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good example: The article on fingers has several citations proving that yes, humans have 5 fingers. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Blue mentions that as one of the more extreme cases of excessive, unneeded citations. I am tempted to go remove it. However, i did not and do not say that Action Learning in schools does not need citations, it surely does. Nor does a google search ever constitute a citaiton in itself, or a reasonable substitute for such a citation. An editor must asses each potential source, and decide what it says, what statements in an article it supports, and cite it ijn a way that conforms with Wikipedia policy and is helpful to readers of the article. The statement "Action Learning in schools is too frequent to need to cite references" is simply and blatantly incorrect. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Regelski, please do not take me to have said more than I did, nor to have taken "your side" in a battle here -- there should not be anu sort of battle. If there is in fact a serious wealth of citations on this topic, your time would be better spent adding some to the article than arguing that there is no need to do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to the truth then blocked.

Quick question. I edited a portion of a film narrative upon which I was an expert witness on the court case. The narrative is wrong. I have the files from the court case. Someone changed them and then blocked me. Does anyone need to see proof and correct the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthalawaysspeaks (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thetruthalwaysspeaks Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are blocked, you should not have created your current account as that is block evasion and it will need to be blocked as well. You need to first request unblock under your original account before addressing this matter. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add these just for references purposes for Thetruthalwaysspeaks or any other new users who might have a similar question. The answer is that court files or any other types of official documents are considered to be primary sources and are things that can only be used for verification purposes of Wikipedia content under certain limited circumstances. In general, Wikipedia prefers secondary reliable sources, particularly when it involves the interpretation of things. As for showing people "proof" and "correct information" or the "truth", Wikipedia's purpose is not to right some great wrong or set the record straight and it requires that content be verifiable no matter how true one person feels their version of events may be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - account has been blocked for sockpuppetry. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page creation

Do you create wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septimiusthegreat (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Septimiusthegreat: Anyone can create a Wikipedia page, but it's not advisable to use Wikipedia as a means of promoting yourself. Content like User:Septimiusthegreat/sandbox is not going to be accepted because it's about you, the promotional tone isn't right for Wikipedia, and there are no sources cited. You're better off using Facebook or other social media to promote yourself. Also, you should read WP:COI and WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE, specifically Help:Your_first_article#Things_to_avoid. (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) 23:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can use a draft first. I myself would like to create one soon. MenfesKidus40 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In search of help regarding: explaining a block warning left on my talk page

Hello. Editor Diannaa 🍁 has left a warning on my talk page ending with "This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing." Any explanation regarding what type of blocking this warning usually refers to and/or further assistance in helping me understand what copyright violation is being discussed as well as any suggestions as to what actions would be helpful to wikipedia in order to address the concerns. Thank you. If it could be more helpful to address these questions as a reply to the warning on my talk page, I will consider taking that approach if it is suggested. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC))_[reply]

Flagrant hysterical curious Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. "Blocking" means that you would be prohibited from editing Wikipedia until you convinced an administrator to unblock you. The exact copyright violation is detailed in the message that Diannaa posted on your user talk page; please review it, as I think it might answer some of your questions. I'm sure the message probably seems heavy handed, but we must take copyright issues seriously, as copyright violations could put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying to my questions and for the explanation of blocking. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I will say, you have been given many suggestions on seriously improving your editing before this. If nothing else, you're a pretty active Wikipedia volunteer, but you have to take the approach of vetting your edits for accuracy, clarity, and against the manual of style, before saving them. You've improved on leaving edit summaries - but WP:CIR still stands. Please consider it and take your editing skills further. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft in user page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Help!

I thought I publish a page in the name space but I published it in the main space. Now I can't move it. It is Arrested Mayors in Turkey I`d be really thankful to have it in my user page. It is just a start. Best, Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, It has been moved to Draft:List of arrested Mayors in Turkey. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, thank you! To the whole Wikipedia in general and to the one who made it possible in specifically.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review my draft please

hi. i have created a draft article and i would like someone to review. here it is. Draft:Squidward (series) thanks.Bill cage (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill cage, Your draft is not currently submitted for review. You will need to click the blue "Submit your draft for review!". However, your draft will be declined because there are no sources. Wikipedia articles need to have independent, reliable sources. Interstellarity (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill cage In addition to needing independent published reliable sources cited, Draft:Squidward (series) would need significantly more content to be a viable article, which should be content derived from those same sources.

Moreover, things that have not yet happened need particularly good sourcing to establish notability , as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I urge you to read Your First Article, referencing for beginners, Wikipedia's Golden Rule, and all the other links in this thread. Bellow are some steps to creating a valid article that often work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it's a draft. i just made it so that it's there once the show comes out. i'm not planning on publishing it untill anymore information arrives, then i'll do all of that stuff. Bill cage (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good start Bill cage! As someone who accepts/declines new articles, I appreciate you waiting until it gets closer to submit your draft. Reminder that if a draft isn't edited for 6 months, it might be deleted. Otherwise, go ahead and start stockpiling some reliably sourced articles about the show, and I'll look forward to seeing it when it's ready! Bkissin (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to be honest, i have no idea how to cite sources. perhaps someone can help me with it? Bill cage (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Bill cage! Take a look at WP:CITE for more information. How do you normally edit Wikipedia, through the visual editor or the code? One of the easiest ways of starting out with citing and referencing is with <ref></ref> this reference code and {{reflist}}. If you put the URL of what you are citing into that code (Like this: <ref>https://thesource.com/2019/11/18/squidward-spinoff/</ref>) then it will populate at the bottom of the page where you put the reflist information. But to make formal citations, you can follow citation templates and fill in the relevant information. I wish there was an easier way to explain. Usually there is an automated script that can help put together the references for you. DESiegel, did I do OK in explaining? Bkissin (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkissin and Bill cage: Citations can be made with or without using citation templates, but please do not use just a URL, it simply makes cleanup work for oterhs later. Supply at least the title of the article or work being cited, the name of the larger work it is contained in (say the name of a magazine or newspaper or website in which an article is published, and the author and publication date if these are known. This makes it easier for a reader to look at the references and evaluate what sort of sources are being used, and how recent or old they are. It also makes it easier to find the source again if a web link goes dead. Referencing for Beginners explains all this and more, and is aimed at new editors.

There are automated tools to generate citations - one is built into the Visual Editor. But they depend on making assumptions about what is where in a web page, and since there is nothing close to a standard format for a web page, they often get it badly wrong. I have seen the date stuck into the slot for the author's name, for example, and the name of the web site is often stuck into the title of an article. You must always check the output of such a tool, and correct it when it is wrong, which means you need to learn how it should be constructed. "Named references" allow you to use a citaiton several tiems without needing to retype the whole thing, and without it appearing multiple times in the reference list. You just use <ref name=ABCD> (where ABCD is a short name that identifies the citation. I like to use Work-date, so say "NYT-12Nov2019" for a New York Times source dated 12 November2019. But that is just a convention, any name works as long as it is unique in the article.) Then when you want to reuse the cite, place <ref name="ABCD" /> (note the matching name, and the closing / character) in the text.

I hope all that helps. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Albion Infobox question

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)[reply]

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)!~[reply]

Entry is almost word-for-word from another source- not sure what to do (new editor)

I started editing the "Rhiannon/Stevie Nicks" entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_mythology_in_popular_culture. I added a citation and rewrote a bit then discovered that the whole thing is almost word-for-word from another book. "Witch Daze" https://www.amazon.com/Witch-Daze-Patricia-Della-Piana/dp/0557763339/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=witch+daze&qid=1574137318&sr=8-1 is not a reliable source. The first part about Stevie Nicks can be traced back to the source I added, but the rest is from Della=Piana with no support. I'm not sure what to do- remove the part about Welsh Triads and rewrite the rest? Thanks for any suggestions. Gwen the Cat (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gwen the Cat If the content can be sourced elsewhere, rewrite so it isn't a copyvio or close parody of the Witch Daze book. If it can't, or you have good reason to believe it is incorrect (not correct but unsourced), simply remove it. We can't leave copied text in place in any case. In either case, make it clear what you are doing in your edit summary, and a mention on Talk:Welsh mythology in popular culture would be a good idea also, DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gwen the Cat and welcome to the Teahouse.

One thing to be aware of in these situations is that many people copy content from Wikipedia and publish it, sometimes as if it were their own writing and in violation of the requirement to provide attribution. It appears that may be the case with the Witch Daze book. When you find copyright violations that go in this direction, you can safely leave the Wikipedia content alone, it's not in violation. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you suspect copying FROM Wikipedia, sometimes this can be confirmed if the content in question has a date, and the date is newer than the Wikipedia article. David notMD (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, jmcgnh I should have mentioend that above. If it seems clear that this occurs {{backwards copy}} can be used to mark the article so that later editors are not fooled or confused. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to Welsh mythology in popular culture, Gwen the Cat and especially than you for providing a needed source. A couple of minor points: when providing a citation to a book, only supply |url= if the link goes to an online copy of the book (that is not a copyright infringement). If |oclc= is supplied, a link to the World Cat entry will be provided. Please use |last= for the last name or family name of the author, and |first= for the given name. Please provide a page number in the book if at all possible. |page= can be used for this. See my edit for an example. Again, thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of fAgent Orange

Anyone aware of the use of Agent Orange or other Herbicides at Osan Air Base S. Korea from 1968 to 1969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.160.56 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse is for asking questions about Wikipedia editing. This question might possibly be on topic at the reference desk but i am not sure of that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another person to a category

Hello,

I am new here also and seeking some desperate advice! I just want to add a singer to a 'category' but can't for the life of me work out how to. I have been madly reading all of the help pages to no avail. Any advice you could give me would be so greatly appreciated :) It seems like something that should be relatively straight forward but I am stumped.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMOB88 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMOB88. You can find out more at Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles, but it't pretty much the same as adding a WP:WIKILINK to an article. Instead of adding a link to another article, you'll be adding a link to a category page. The easiest way to see how it's done, it probably click on the "Edit" tag of the "External link" section of the article you want to add the category to, and then just format the link same way as the other categories are formatted. If there's no "External link" section then just click on the "Edit" tag of the very last section of the article; if there are no other categories as all in the article, just add the one you want to add using the syntax [[Category:(Category name)]] where "Category name" is just the name of the category. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia User

To whom it may concern,

I hope you are fine. I am new to wikipedia and I would like to create a page, however, I am not confident of the content and even username I will choose. I would like to create a page about a company that deals with interesting stuffs like arts, exhibitions etc which I think may contribute to wiki a bit. I would like to put articles etc etc.

My question is:

  1. Can I use the company name as the username?
  2. Can I create a page about it?
  3. Will I get blocked or banned in wikipedia for creating a page and posting articles about a company?

Let me know please, thank you so much in advance for the answer :)

This is Maureen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.120.12 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the teahouse. I think you may have slightly misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Unlike social media sites, we don't have 'pages' where people can place whatever content they like. We have articles about specific, notable, topics. It doesn't sound, from what you are saying, as if your company is notable yet so I would advise against this. And to answer your specific questions:

- No, we do not allow usernames that imply shared usage, which a company name as username does.
- Probably not, unless the company has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources.
- Not immediately, but inappropriate content will be swiftly removed, and if you persist in posting it or appear to be here only for the purposes of promotion, you may be blocked or banned.

I hope this helps. Hug^syrup 10:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, Unregistered editor 120.12, and welcome to the Teahouse.

No, we have a policy agaisnt usernames that are the same as buisness names, so one cannot be User:IBM, say. However, User:Maureen at IBM is permitted. All accounts must be for an individual person, and user names must not imply shared use.
Yes, provided that it is written neutrally. See WP:SPAM. If you are in fact associted with the company, see conflict of interst, and if you are an employee, or hired by the company, see WP:PAID
No, not if you write within Wikipedia policy to the best of your ability, and disclose any conflict of interest or payment as shown in the links in the previous point.

I hope this is helpful. Do please read our guideline for notability of a business and Your First Article. referencing for Beginners is also very helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Source Verification page

Hello

A couple of years back, a colleague of my company had created a page on Primary Source Verification which got published but later after a month got deleted. May I ask the reason for wiki deleting the page?

Thanks Karishma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataflow1234 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has already been answered elsewhere. Please just ask in one place. Wikipedia requires secondary sources to establish WP:Notability. Dbfirs 10:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie's first article was removed

Thanks for the work you are doing.

I recently posted some additional sections to an article and it was removed. I found the edits and saw the user who removed them, but not much else. I completed the interactive training. I don't think it violated any copyrights and I had lots of references.

Is there a way to find the reason the article was removed? Could you look at the content and give me some constructive feedback? Have you ever gone through the appeal process? I saw a user could click a button and get articles to review. Is there a way I could get my article on the "articles to review" list?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Shenaw2016 (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shenaw2016 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best way to find out would be to ask the user who removed it directly; but from looking at it, the text you added seemed more promotional or like a how-to guide than encyclopedic. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Article is Sacred Heart. Shenaw2016 added a section "Enthronement of the Sacred Heart of Jesus" which a subsequent editor removed. David notMD (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty developing Wikipedia page

A good day to all the folks at the Teahouse! I'd welcome any tips on how to improve a Wikipedia page with a C-class rating and not a lot of information on the whole. I have added requests to Wikiprojects, issued a RfC, and provided editors with online sources that present facts about the topic in question. Not much has happened. Are there any other ways I could try to get support? Am I doing something wrong? --KatherineBusby2019 (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KatherineBusby2019: For additional context, I assume that we are talking about IWG plc, with which you have a declared COI, and that is why you are not making the changes yourself? That is significant information to help people answer your question, as really your question is not about how to improve the page, but how to get other editors to implement the edit requests you are making - right? It looks to me as if you have been regularly making content suggestions, and these have been fairly reliably answered, most recently Dormskirk seems to have been engaging with you on the talk page and either implementing your changes or explaining why they have not been implemented. You seem to be quite impatient to get changes made, a GAN pushed through, etc, but you have to understand that other editors here are volunteers, and there is WP:NORUSH to make changes to articles, so all I can suggest is that you slow down a bit, keep on engaging with editors at the talk page, and proposing specific changes that they can evaluate. Hug^syrup 11:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings & Creating new pages

Hello all, First of all thank you for the TeaHouse invitation and glad to connect with experts wiki contributors.

I've created a new page and apparently it is under review, which might take at least 8 weeks (which sounds like a lot of time!). The page is for a rising actress I know (Jacynthe Cauvier). Is there anything I did wrong, or it is the standard processing time until a page is published?

Meanwhile, can I create other new pages or should I wait until the page is accepted and posted online before creating a new page again? There are three other rising artists profile I would like to create a page for, and also creating pages on some red links that I've seen in some pages related to Indian Ayurveda and other topics.

Few years ago, I contributed to many pages, though I have since changed my email ID and can't remember the previous password. Is there another way to access my previous wiki account ?

I'm really excited about contributing more to Wiki shortly!

Thanks a lot for any clarity you may bring to my questions.

Maplekalari0888--Maplekalari0888 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maplekalari0888, First off, please do remember that wikipedia is run by volunteers, and there is no rush to review a new article. Also please read Your First Article. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk), Thanks for the reply and the link.

Hello, Maplekalari0888, and welcome to the Teahouse.

To answer your other questions: The only thing you did wrong in creating your draft was to create it in both your sandbox, and your sandbox's Talk page (Talk:Maplekalari0888/sandbox). Talk pages are for editors to talk about articles, so I suggest you simply blank your sandbox talk page. (Alternatively you could ask an admin to delete it, by inserting {{db-user}} - with the double curly brackets - but since there may at some time be discussion there about the draft, you might as well leave it there, blank).

You haven't in fact submitted your draft for review, and until you do, nobody will consider it for publication. I have added a box at the top with a "submit" button. The weeks don't start counting until you actually submit it.

But there is no point in submitting at present, as it will certainly be rejected, since there are no sources cited. Reliably published sources are essential to a Wikipedia article, especially one about a living person.

You can create other drafts while that is waiting (though I would suggest you put more work into that one, after reading the link Moony gave you). It's best to use the article wizard, and you can create them either in your user space, as User:Maplekalari0888/Some other topic or in draft space, as Draft:Some other topic.

Finally: if you no longer have your password or the mail address you used with your previous account, then there is no way of recovering the account. You may, if you wish, put a note on either or both User pages linking to the other, so that editors can see that they are the same person, and why you have two accounts.

One more point: are you associated with Cauvier in some way? If you are, it is essential that you read about conflict of interest before you go any further. --ColinFine (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: at User:Maplekalari0888/sandbox. No references. David notMD (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need support

So I need to begin with a backstory. I was watching the article “James Bond Film List” after a person removed 15k characters. Me and him undid/redid each other’s undo a bunch until he explained to me it was a duplicate table. He posted a point of the undo/redo on my talk page. While I was apologizing for the undo, he edited his post with a threat to me. I quickly posted “Please don’t threaten me” on his talk page with “I am sorry for the edits.” He quickly deleted that comment. I would like to report him for the original threat against me. It was clear he did not want this to be seen by others, hence why He quickly deleted my apology from his talk page, but I think an administrator should know.

Please give feedback on if I should report him for a threat against my Wikipedia account and if yes, how do I make the report. Thanks for any help given.Elijahandskip (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elijahandskip, I have warned them. Please wait for further advice from other editors. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moonythedwarf, don't leave patonising dross on my page again. Whan an editor accuses me of vandalism while edit warring, I will not hesitate to tell them that a trip to ANI awaits. That is a WP:BADFAITH accusation (accusing someone of vandalism when there is no vandalism is seen on a par as a personal attack, which would be the grounds of the complaint: Elijahandskip, please learn NOT to accuse other editors of valdalism unless you are damned sure of your grounds). Moonythedwarf, do NOT editwar on my talk page or I will be happy to take you to an appropriate venue too. - SchroCat (talk)

I requested a response from you in the edit summary. I did not plan to continue if you reverted again, and would like to remind you that WP:AGF applies to you, too, and also request you keep a civil tone. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: Sorry for your poor experience with the other editor. I would just let it go, unless the threats or uncivil behavior continues. Also, remember to never engage in an edit war. If someone reverts one of your edits, don't immediately put it back, instead start a discussion on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elijahandskip, Moonythedwarf, DO NOT edit war on my talk page, as you have both done here and here. Per WP:OWNTALK and WP:UOWN I am allowed to remove what I wish. If such harassment continues, you can guess what is likely to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, and I will not continue the edit war, just for a reference, you just threatened again. Just some advice, threatening never leads down a good road. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I did not make any further changes to your talk page, and do not wish to be further involved in this nonsense. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: So you accused an experienced editor of vandalism, twice, and was appropriately told off for doing so. No threats involved, just a warning that was worded a bit sharply, but to be honest I don't blame them for that. One thing to take away from this would be to stop using the word "vandalism" in edit summaries when there's actually no vandalism involved; it looks like that is your default edit summary when reverting any edits, which is probably a bad idea. --bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, you are correct, except SchroCat threatened my Wikipedia account (Which was the “told off” message). Now I understand I was wrong and SchroCat understands also. Let’s let this be archived.Elijahandskip (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip and MoonyTheDwarf: You both edit warred on another editor's talk page. Do not reinstate warnings or messages if the user addressed deletes them from his or her own talk page. Such deletion (or archiving) is taken as acknowledgement that the user has read the message. It remains in the talk page history, if there is ever need to demonstrate that it was sent. You do not have the right to insist that an editor reposd to your message or warning. If a user is refusing to engage on an article talk page, it may be that this is disruptive editing, in which case the matte can be raised at ANI, but refusing to respond to a talk page notice when ther is no outstanding article issue does not constitute "refusing to engage". Moony, I would have thought you would know better. Elijahandskip, this is two separate edit wars on two different pages over the same incidient. Please do not make edit warring your first resort -- or even your last. and as Bonadea said, be careful with the word "vandalism". Disagreement in a content dispute, even if your position seems obvious to you, is not vandalism. Mind you, ANI is not likely to take any serious action over such a thing unless it is done persistantly, so the "threat" was not, in fact, much of a threat. Perhaps you did not know that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, I should have known better, yes. I'm going to take a minute to brush up on policy again, and try and keep my nerve better in the future. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Moonythedwarf we all get overheated at times -- I certainly have. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel, you misplaced your message. I moved it back up to the correct section, hope you don't mind. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moonythedwarf DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing...

I have submitted a page for my friend who was cast in the High School Musical Series that is new on Disney+. I fear I have lost a lot of my coding skills over the years. How does the process work? Will people be able to help fill in the page? I should make mention that he is a rising star, it's not like I just made it because he was my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voller82 (talk • contribs)

Courtesy link - This is presumably the page in question: Draft:Joe Serefini Hug^syrup 18:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! I wasn't sure how it needed to be set up and tried to follow another page.

@Voller82: - The way the process works is that at some point a reviewer will look at your page and either accept it or decline it. Both while it is in draft, and if/when it is moved to mainspace, other users can edit it to improve it, although whether or not they will largely depends on whether someone comes across it and wishes to contribute. I am afraid that if someone reviews your draft right now it is unlikely it will be accepted as it does not contain sufficient reliable sources. IMDB is not a reliable source, nor is the Disney+ Wiki, and the Broadway World page doesn't seem to be an article about him, though maybe some of the articles linked within that listing page are about the subject. If so, link directly to them. Finally, you have a WP:COI so you need to just review that policy and ensure you abide by it. Hug^syrup 18:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. I looked at the 2 top ones at broadwayworld, but they were just passing mentions and don't "count" here. More on what you need at WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Also check out WP:BLP and Help:Referencing for beginners. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugsyrup Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voller82 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Welcome to the Teahouse, Voller82. I am sure you are acting with the best of intentions, but I fear you have embarked on a path of struggle and disappointment. Writing a new article in Wikipedia is one of the harder tasks. Writing about somebody you know makes it even harder, because what you need to do is to forget everything you know about the subject, and just report what the reliable published sources say. And writing an article about a "rising star" is often (though not always) impossible, because sometimes it is just too soon. I wish you well in your Wikipedia journey, but my advice would be that you drop this for the moment. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, then choose another topic - or, better still, choose some of the thousands of existing articles which need some TLC. If you find you're not really interested in Wikipedia, but just want to tell the world about your friend, then please do it somewhere else than Wikipedia. What you are doing is then promotion, which is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to Follow-up to Creating a page for John Grossman biography

Hello Teahouse. I want to submit a DRAFT of a JOHN GROSSMAN biography, a list of 36 sources, and a list of 22 Authored,Co-Authored,Collection exclusivity books with IBSN'S. This is not formatted yet, as I am not sure if this DRAFT is the first stage to get 'notability' recognition to then create a page? Do I just cut and paste all of this information for a review to answer the notability issue? If so, please let me know. Thank you in advance--MrsJohnGrossman (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC) MrsJohnGrossman (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again MrsJohnGrossman A Wikipedia article (and therefore a finished draft) must be more than a list of sources and works created. It should be prose summarizing the sources, and citing them, to describe what has been written about the subject. A list of sources is a good place to start, but then someone needs to read those sources, confirm that they are reliable and independent, extract the significant facts, write those facts up into a neutrally phrased body of well-organized prose, citing the sources to support the statements mad in the article, and format it in accord with wikipedia's manual of style. If the sources are not online, they must be found and accessed.

Also, 36 is a large number of sources. Often fewer high0quality source produces a better result, although that depends on the specifics of the article and the sources.

It might be that given the list of sources, an editor would be willing to format thaem into an article draft, which could then be approved as an article. Or you might be able and willing to do this yourself.

You could certainly start by creating Draft:John Grossman and pasting your list of sources and works into it. Much furthe work would be needed, but it would be a beginning.

I know you have already been cautioned about a conflict of interest, which can make it hard to write in an unbiased fashion about a topic. Note also that your personal knowledge of John Grossman is not a verifiable source; Wikipedia must depend on published sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI in case anyone is interested (as I was) in understanding who John Grossman was. [[2]] It almost seems an article about the ephemera collection to include a brief bio of him would make more sense. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting to an existing page from a page/term that is not available

Hello,

There is an existing page on Extrachromosomal DNA, which has a section on 'Role of ecDNA in cancer'. ecDNA is a sub-type of extrachromosomal DNA. One day I think it would be useful to have a page on ecDNA. However, in the interim, how can I make it so that a user searching on the term 'ecDNA' (which does not have a page) gets redirected to the existing Extrachromosomal DNA page?

Thank you, Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC203760 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JC203760, Look into WP:REDIRECT MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JC203760 would not Extrachromosomal circular DNA make a better target for a redirect from ecDNA? It seems to ahve more on the topic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Acarlson25

how do I create my sandbox?Acarlson25 (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Acarlson25[reply]

Hello, Acarlson25, and welcoe,m to the teahosue. Simply go to User:Acarlson25/Sandbox and start editing. There should also be a link "Sandbox" near the top of every Wikipedia page, although that may depend on options and customizations. A sandbox is most often used to prqactice editing tasks, from the basic to the complex. Some also use it to start a new article draft, but i think a userspace draft or a draftspace draft is better for that. if you wanted to start a draft about SomeTopic, you could put it atUser:Acarlson25/SomeTopic or Draft:SomeTopic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What CSD do these articles fall under?

I found a bunch of pages created by the same user that I think would qualify for speedy deletion (Wikipedia:Accuracy matters, Wikipedia:Brand insight, Wikipedia:The line, and Wikipedia:Big Idea), but I don't know what criteria they would fall under. Am I right in thinking they qualify for speedy deletion, and if so what criteria should I use? Merlin04 (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about Wikipedia:Consumer insight. Merlin04 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Merlin04: G6 I assume. GMG ^talk 23:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are somewhat marginal, Merlin04. If they had been in article space I might have draftified. In draft or user space I would probably not have done any speedy deletion at all. But in Wikipedia space -- well I tagged them with G2 Test page as they don't hold anythign of value to the project. We will see if another admin agrees. I would personally not use G6, but some would. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though these are in Wikipedia space, how does an editor who started editing only today create five (empty) articles? David notMD (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably G2. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of editing

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Best way to do wikilinks.

What is the best way to use Wikilinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@!matt2446: That is a very broad question. WP:LINK has information on how to best use links in a variety of cases. If you have a more specific question, you may post it here. RudolfRed (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed link. RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@!matt2446: There is also the tutorial, which has a section on linking, which is probably what you want to start with instead of the other link. RudolfRed (talk)

The meaning of my question is there a good and/ or a effective way to help clear the backlog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You.

@@ Line 860: / Line 860: @@
 ::: {{re|!matt2446}} There is also the tutorial, which has a section on linking, which is probably what you want to start with instead of the other link.  [[User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed]] ([[User talk:RudolfRed|talk]])
 The meaning of my question is there a good and/ or a effective way to help clear the backlog.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:!matt2446|!matt2446]] ([[User talk:!matt2446#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/!matt2446|contribs]]) 02:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+Thank You.

Revision as of 02:54, 20 November 2019

where to start

editing

Confused about how to progress

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akram Habib

Need feedback on whether I'm on the right track

How to add a picture from Wikimedia Commons?

Why don't you guys shut off wikipedia until people donate enough to keep it going?

Помогите.

Total

creating a wiki page?

Using a Desmos-made picture

Autoconfirmed and Extended confirmed

Using the Upload Wizard

Action Learning in Schools

How are articles accepted under these conditions?

Loomians

When a Maintenance tag discusses 'Verification', but you can find mostly contradiction.

Decades are in properly listed

How to get more independent editors to weigh in on a talk page discussion?

danger of changing an article title

Talk page getting too long

Advice on a recently revised AfC draft

Gary Drostle

How should I submit the wikipedia page

Turning a draft translation into an accessible article

Adhiyaman Matric Hr Sec School

Pages

Need to know my offence on why my account was blocked from editing

Categories

What is my next step or place in this process of clarifying my contribution for two doubting editors?

Rivka Keren - Adding a book to my entry in Wikipedia

formatting chemical equations

Source of info

my article deleted

Action Learning in schools is too frequent to need to cite references

Changed to the truth then blocked.

Wiki page creation

In search of help regarding: explaining a block warning left on my talk page

Draft in user page

Help!

Review my draft please

New Albion Infobox question

Entry is almost word-for-word from another source- not sure what to do (new editor)

Use of fAgent Orange

Adding another person to a category

New Wikipedia User

Primary Source Verification page

Newbie's first article was removed

Difficulty developing Wikipedia page

Greetings & Creating new pages

I need support

Editing...

Follow-up to Follow-up to Creating a page for John Grossman biography

redirecting to an existing page from a page/term that is not available

A message from Acarlson25

What CSD do these articles fall under?

Purpose of editing

Best way to do wikilinks.