Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1023

Hi, I'm trying to update a wiki page as I have often done. However this one is entitled "Calendar reform" and people seem to be a lot more interested in and critical of changes. I am trying to separate out the old meaning of "Calendar reform" from the newer meanings, something the article seems to have neglected. Even the subscript of the Page title says it has more than one meaning "Calendar reform or calendrical reform, is any significant revision of a calendar system. The term sometimes is used instead for a proposal to switch to a different calendar design." It seems logical to explain what is meant by a "significant revision" as opposed to ones that could be called insignificant. Or whether the term is being used within the article to indicate a proposal instead of an actual reform. When I first read the article I had assumed it was only about proposals for reform as historic calendar reforms are far better covered and cited under the separate calendar pages already in Wikipedia.

In short, word definitions are important in this page to sort the confusion but other editors delete them as not properly referenced, whether I use dictionaries or quotes from original works for how words were used in the past (they say they are outdated). Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgru001 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You have done the right thing by discussing this on the talk page of the article. Consensus should be reached there. I see that some of your changes to the article have been accepted. Page numbers are very useful in citations. Dbfirs 09:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to keep my article on wikipedia and for that matter would edit it very well for the consumption of the public. Please educate me on what i need to do to make this article mature enough for wikipedia Abdulai Jamila (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC) thank you

Abdulai Jamila Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would suggest that you review the reason the article has been proposed for deletion, which can be found in the deletion discussion(linked to in the red box at the top of the article), and if you can address the concerns given, please do so. The main concern is that the school does not seem to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization and the sources do not seem to be there.

Based on your wording here, I would ask if you represent or work for this school; if so, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi guys, A new forum targeted at Kenyans was created early this year i have tried to create a page for it here on Wikipedia but its rejected kindly help the site is kenyans247.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skenconx (talk • contribs) 12:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Skenconx Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, we cannot help you with making this website(it it your website?) notable, as no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I suspect it is too soon for this website to merit an article. It will need to be significantly written about in independent reliable sources that show how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable website to merit an article. Saying it's the "most unique" website in Kenya, frankly, means little, as every website is 'unique' in some way. You may want to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about creating articles(which is the hardest task on Wikipedia) and using Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I just wanted to know whether a Wikipage I've written can be temporarily disabled so that I can correct the issues that others have pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psview (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Psview Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The page can be moved to Draft space where you can be more free to work on it; you can the submit it for a review using Articles for Creation before it is formally returned to the encyclopedia. If you wish, I can move the article for you. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of the adventures are not allowing me to finish them therefore i cannot get some of the badges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoborza99 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Nicoborza99. Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've not managed to get all 15 badges in one go. I see you've tried it twice now. Keep going - there are two common reasons for getting stuck. One is that there is a notice at the start of the Adventure that suggests it doesn't work best on mobile devices, or on older browsers. Might this include you? If you're able to try again on a desktop/laptop you might have more luck. The second problem I've encountered as that, mid-way through the Adventure, one needs to click some sort of 'next' button to complete that page and to move on. It was positioned very low down on the page and really took some looking for before I could continue. Do please try again, and let us know how you get on. You are, or course, free to remove all the duplicate Welcome to the Wikipedia Adventure messages from your talk page, as these can get rather annoying if you keep having multiple goes at it.

We're here to help and to point you towards any guidance you might need, so come back and seek further assistance if you'd like it. For a less 'interactive' guide to how things work around here, do visit Wikipedia:Tutorial or Help:Getting started, and check out the links in the welcome message I've just left on your user page. (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.) Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Nick. I will try again however i do not know where to find these again? how do i go back and complete the other 5? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoborza99 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nicoborza99: Just go to the main Adventure page (shortcut: WP:TWA). You'll see different "Missions" where you can join back in half way through. It's easy to get duplicate badges, but eventually you'll get 15 different ones. There are also the same mission links on the welcome on your talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please help with above query — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zexono (talk • contribs) 14:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are looking for articles to correct, try Category:Pages with reference errors, Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, and Category:All articles with unsourced statements for example. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

My uncle Don Clark was a first round draft pick of the Chicago Bears when he played for ohio state. He is listed in this wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chicago_Bears_first-round_draft_picks

When you click on his name for the 1959 draft year it does not bring you to the correct Don Clark:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Clark_(Canadian_football)

Instead it takes you to a different Don Clark:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Clark_(American_football)

Can you make the correction or teach me step by step how to do this myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acncan (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I replaced "American Football" with "Canadian Football". Check whether it is right and come back here either way. Britmax (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there!

I am a global editor at IWG and would like to update our (rather out of date) Wikipedia page. This is the first time I am updating a page on Wikipedia, so any advice and support would be great.

My questions are:

- Can I restructure the existing information to make the page easier to read? - If I remove any of the information currently on the page, will there be an issue?

Thanks, Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatherineBusby2019 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to read the advice about conflict of interest and you need to make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Starting 27 Sept, you have been repeatedly editing the article IWG plc. You have added references, deleted references, and some of the current references are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's criteria, including the company and brand websites, interviews, and press releases. STOP! As an employee, you are required to declare your paid status on your User page (what DB said), and you are required to request changes on the Talk page of the article, not make changes directly to the article. David notMD (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Kelsie, and I've submitted a couple edit requests at Talk:3M on behalf of my employer, 3M. Both of my requests to update text in the introduction and replace unsourced and inaccurate lists with sourced prose have been approved by another editor, but they are not sure how to update the article's markup on my behalf. I've posted a request for help at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Help_copying_over_markup_for_approved_edit_requests., but so far no one has replied. Perhaps someone here is able to help? I've tried to make the markup as easy to copy and paste as possible. Thanks! KM at 3M (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• @KM at 3M: Done (with a slight modification to include {{as of}} for easier future maintenance).

Your request was very good (decent edit, easy to copy, adequate sources). Next time, if you want action taken more quickly, I advise you to include the magic words {{request edit}} (click that link for more info). That will put your request into a backlog that gets regularly patrolled by editors accustomed to deal with COI/PAID edits. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Teahouse, I was wondering if you can help. Recently I created a page for an actor that has been in many theatre plays, TV shows and movies (international and national). I am not sure what went wrong but my 'entry' in Wiki was denied just now. The person I was writing about is Oscar Foronda (IMDB: Oscar Foronda)

I hope you can help?

Thank you, Eva (Ivory Production) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivory Production (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"... no reason ..."?? There are feedback boxes on your draft and on your user talk page which tell you the reasons, and give you wikilinks (the words in blue) to more detailed advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Minimally, you provided no references. David notMD (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

it would appear Oscar Foronda is doing some work with a company called Ivory Production. I also suggest that you please read WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a scholarly article on Estolides I would like to publish on Wikipedia. How do I do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biosynthetic technologies (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hello, Biosynthetic technologies. I see that you created a page at User:Biosynthetic technologies but that it was deleted for "misuse of Wikipedia as a web host".

Wikipedia does not publish original research, so it cannot be a venture for you to publish a research paper.

However, I see that "estolides" is a well-known term in chemical research, so what you could do is create a page about it. Read "your first article" for a few pointers to do that; the most important thing will be to cite sources (such as this one). Submit your draft to "articles for creation" once done, and the reviewer will take care of the technical details (in particular estolides is currently a redirect to something else entirely). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Biosynthetic technologies, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read carefully all the messages that have been left on your user talk page, and note the following:

• Writing a new article in Wikipedia is one of the hardest tasks for editors, and I always recommend new editors to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it.
• Anybody who comes here to tell the world about something has misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia, and is likely to have a frustrating time. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects that have already been written about, in reliably published sources, by people wholly unconnected with the subject or the originators of the subject.
• I observe that Biosynthetic Technologies LLC is one of the companies involved in the creation of estolides. This means that a Wikipedia article about estolides should contain essentially no information which comes from Biosynthetic or any of its staff or associates. Essentially everything in the article should be based on reliably published sources in which BT and its people had no involvement. If few or no such sources exist, then the subject is not notable (in Wikipedia's special sense of the word), and no article on it will be accepted at present.
• If there are such sources, then we can have an article, based on those sources. You are discouraged from writing it, but not forbidden. If you choose to do so, besides changing your user name to something personal to you (as per the message on your user talk page), you will need to declare your conflict of interest, and (if appropriate) make the mandatory declaration as as paid editor. Your first article will tell you how to go about it.

My suggestion is that if you wish to help us create Wikipedia, you give up on estolides, and find other areas to contribute. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Two years ago I made up a table of members of ˝la komitato˝, let me call ik the Esperanto ParliamentBecauce the table would be too big, to contain all members from 1986 up to 2018, I split it into seven subtables. • Komitatanoj A-C 1986-2018 • Komitatanoj D-G 1986-2018 • Komitatanoj H-J 1986-2018 • Komitatanoj K-L 1986-2018 • Komitatanoj M-P 1986-2018 • Komitatanoj R-S 1986-2018 • Komitatanoj T-Z 1986-2018 I added to each of the lists the new members of 2019 and .................. I tried • to change the titels into Komitatanoj A-C 1986-2020 and so on.for each subtable. That was a bad idea, because in such a way I have to change all seven titles each year and I do not succeed to change even one title! Could anybody help me? May be the year numbers should disappear at all from the titles. Look for

[]

Excuse me for my dilettantism. I am almost 80 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papalagus (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for questions about editing the English language Wikipedia. If you have questions about the Esperanto Wikipedia you'll need to ask there. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can anyone create a Wikipedia page? Or does it have to get reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L-O-A-D-I-N-G **Toronto** (talk • contribs)

Hi L-O-A-D-I-N-G **Toronto**. Anybody can edit Wikipedia, and anybody can create a new article. However, if you have not already made a certain number of edits to Wikipedia, any new articles will first have to be reviewed. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article for more information. – Joe (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

L-O-A-D-I-N-G **Toronto** Anyone can create an article(not just "page"), but it is more challenging than most people realize. It is good to get some experience editing existing articles first, to get a feel for how things work. Using the new user tutorial is also helpful. If you are interested in creating an article, you should first read Your First Article and use Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to add our business to the Washington State convention locations but I have NO IDEA what to do. Can you please help me with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocean Shores Convention Center (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ocean Shores Convention Center. I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a directory or a means of promoting your business. Please see the message on your talk page if you wish to continue editing. – Joe (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for this helpful forum! I'm writing to make sure that the article for Katharina Stenbeck is set up correctly. The article used to have the title "Galleriet", but the title was appropriately changed to "Katharina Stenbeck" back in March. However, when one begins typing in the name "Katharina Stenbeck" into the search bar of a Safari browser, the suggested Wikipedia article that pops up still has the title "Galleriet" (but, when clicked on, it takes you to the Wikipedia article correctly titled "Katharina Stenbeck"). When "Katharina Stenbeck" is searched for in a search engine, the Wikipedia article comes up correctly in the search results, so this problem only relates to that "auto-suggestion" function that Safari has when you type a name directly into the search bar. Will this eventually update on its own, or is there a reason that the Safari search bar is still pulling up the old article title?

Here's hoping you'll be able to test this out in a Safari search bar on your end to see what I mean (I don't believe old cookies on my devices could be the culprit, but perhaps it's possible).

Thank you! Agnes1984 (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to clear your browser cache, and flush your DNS. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply, Thegooduser, I'll give that a go in the morning! Did you by chance try it out on your end? Did the correct article title come up in the Safari search bar auto-suggestion for you? It would give me some lovely peace of mind to know that it did! Thanks a bunch! Agnes1984 (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, I was too eager to wait until the morning so I went ahead and cleared my Safari browser cache (under the Develop menu) and flushed my DNS (using the Terminal) now. However, I'm afraid the old Wiki article title is still appearing when I begin typing the name into my Safari search bar. It would mean a lot if someone from Wiki could test this out on their end. I'd love to confirm if this is only a problem on my devices or not. Thanks! Agnes1984 (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Agnes1984: I tried on my iPhone using Safari and Katharina Stenbeck came up. Out of curiosity, I also tried on my laptop (using Firefox browser though), and got the same result. S0091 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for checking on this, that's really helpful @S0091: And just to make sure, your test was in relation to the auto-suggestion feature that "pops up" as you type into the search bar, and not in relation to the actual search results that come up after hitting enter (those have always been correct)? Thanks so much! Agnes1984 (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Agnes1984: Yes, when I type Katharina, Katharina Stenback comes up in the list (about the 5th down or so). When I add the S after, she is the top hit. S0091 (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@S0091: Thank you for clarifying and for taking the time to look into this. Just to confirm, are you by any chance only referring to the auto-suggestions that come up as words/other names? If so, what I'm referring to is a bit different. As you type into Safari's search bar (I'm not sure if any other browser has this, but Safari does), Safari auto-suggests the corresponding Wikipedia article to what you're entering (if what you're entering has a Wikipedia article). This Wikipedia suggestion pops up and is shown right above the words/other names suggestions in Safari's search bar. It's in this spot that the suggested Wikipedia article title is still showing as "Galleriet" and not as "Katharina Stenbeck" for me. Here's hoping that makes sense? Pardon if this is complicated, it's a bit tricky to describe! Thanks for the help! Agnes1984 (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@S0091: If it's of any additional help, I've found that the feature is called Safari Suggestions. The following link concerns how to disable the feature (which is not of importance, as I wish to keep the feature enabled), but it also does a good job of describing what the feature is and how it goes about suggesting a Wikipedia article: http://osxdaily.com/2018/04/02/disable-safari-suggestions-mac/. It's in my Safari Suggestions that the Wikipedia article comes up with the old title, "Galleriet". Agnes1984 (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Agnes1984: I'm not in a position to test anything for you, but it seems that names of frequently used pages are stored locally by your browser as part of its history, so you'd need to edit that list. Take a look at this Q&A or maybe this blog. Let us know if this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks a bunch for the tip, I wish I could report that it helped, but alas, no such luck. I don't believe this quirk is only limited to my devices, seeing as no amount of emptying the cache, flushing the DNS and deleting the search history is having any effect. The same problem is also appearing on both my iPhone and my laptop. If anyone out there is using Safari and has their Safari Suggestions enabled (whether on your iPhone or computer), could you please check this out? When typing in "Katharina Stenbeck" in your Safari search bar, look for the suggested Wikipedia article that pops up (before you hit enter). Is that suggested Wikipedia article appearing with the old title, "Galleriet", on your end as well? Thanks! Agnes1984 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Agnes1984: OK, well on my iPhone 5S with Safari browser, if I type as far as "katherina stenbe" I then see these three Google search suggestions: 1) katherina stenb 2) katherina stenbeck then 3) galleriet katherina stenbeck ...I had absolutely no idea whether or not I had Safari Suggestions enabled on this phone, but now I've investigated, I find that I did have. I'm confident this is a Safari/Google thing and nothing you can control. When I turned off Safari Suggestions, I got nothing else offered me at all in the browser bar - just the letters I actually type. As Galleriet is associated with Katherina Stenbeck, I don't really see what the problem is. Surely, this is just Google offering you search words that it rightly thinks might be relevant? I turned Suggestions back on again, then realised I'd misspelled her name, typed "katharina stenbe" and before I finished typing, was immediately offered "Wikipedia, Galleriet, Katharina Alice Hilda Stenbeck is a Swedish artist...." Bearing in mind that the Infobox includes 'Galleriet' as her 'other name', I see nothing surprising about these search results at all. Just roll with it, I think. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks a ton for taking the time to look into this. That confirms that the article is still appearing with the old title in Safari Suggestions everywhere, and not just an issue relating to my devices. Yes, she does use Galleriet as an alias for her work in music, but I feel the article should have its proper title, Katharina Stenbeck, everywhere for consistency and clarity, especially as the artist currently doesn't seem to be producing much new work under the alias. I find it a bit odd that the article is still stuck with the old title in the Safari Suggestions, seeing as the title was changed all the way back in March. Wonder if it'll ever update on its own, or if one should expect it to be stuck like that in perpetuity? Agnes1984 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I started with minor editing on different topics for which I have got a preparation. My English level is not bad, but I am not a native speaker. For this reason, I would like my English language editing to be reviewed. Is it possible to ask somebody for the review or it comes automatically with the main "tutors" of the page I am editing?

I am planning to create a new wikipage about a mathematical fact and I have understood that I cannot do it until I have made at least 10 editings and be registered in wikipedia for at least 4 days. Is this correct? Is there a nice and synthetic guide for creating a wikipage?

Thanks and Best Regards;

Dario — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario Pellegrinetti (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You should follow WP:YFA for guidance on creating a new article. There is a wizard there you can use to create a draft article for review. RudolfRed (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dario Pellegrinetti. I'm not sure what you mean about by mathematical fact, but you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:No original research as well as item 1 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought to make sure the article you want to create is suitable for Wikipedia. You might also want to ask for feed back at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics since that's where your likely to find editors experienced in creating and editing articles about mathematics. No disrespect is intended, but I'd imagine that most "mathematical facts" which meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for an article most likely already have Wikipedia articles written about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Dear Marchjuly, thanks for your points. I would like to write a wikipedia article about a mathematical fact which has been recently published in a Journal (so not original). I doubt there is already a wikipedia page about it. I am then looking for an adopter, English native speaker and with a background in mathematics. I will follow your suggestion to ask a feed back at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. About the notability I am not really sure: the argument is interesting and the source is reliable, but the paper did not received "significant" coverage yet probably. Dario Pellegrinetti (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I uploaded two images to Commons. I cannot get them into the appropriate pages in Commons, nor can I load them into the wiki article in the "image box", or whatever its called, to replace two outdated images. What is the procedure for image updating, or replacing outdated images? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachlan 1796 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Commons uploads [] (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)} 20:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lachlan 1796: Here's info about embedding images from Commons Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Commons#Embedding_Commons'_media_in_Wikipedia_articles TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lachlan 1796. The pictures you have uploaded are at commons:File:MacTavish Crest Badge B&W PNG (1).png and commons:File:Arms Chief MacTavish.png. To use them in an article you need the whole name, with spaces and case right. But looking at {{infobox clan}}, you'll see that, like many infoboxes, the notes for parameters image badge and image arms say "use just the text of the file name and type, e.g. Clancampbellcrest.jpg. Warning: do not use the "File:" label that is usually attached before the file name." So when you edit the article Clan MacTavish, the relevant lines will read

image badge = MacTavish Crest Badge B&W PNG (1).png
image arms = Arms Chief MacTavish.png

You don't need to move anything in commons: you could possibly have uploaded those images as new versions of the existing ones; but since you didn't, they are entirely separate items in Commons. The only way you could make an image already in Commons replace another one would be by asking an admin to move it over the top of the existing one. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I need a new infobox similar to the Infobox NRHP for articles I am writing on historic homes of notable people, homes that are not listed as a national historic site. Where would I go to find help with this or find someone who could write the code for the new infobox? MauraWen (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You might try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes, but you'd need to be clear as to what differences you want compared with Template:Infobox NRHP. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@MauraWen: Would not Template:Infobox building work? Many of the parameters would be appropriate for a house, and you can just ignore the inapplicable ones. Deor (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Deor and David Biddulph: Thanks Deor, I will take a look. Thanks David, I have already posted a request on the infofox talk page. MauraWen (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@MauraWen: Also see {{Infobox historic site}} and WikiProject Historic sites. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Can please tell me how to add references I.e. sources of web links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppch83 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ppch83: And if you get stuck, here's an alternative help page I've created: User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. Let us know how you get on. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

hello. i have a minor problem i'd like to discuss. i went to the article for regular show and in the, well, i don't know what they are called, so i'll just call information boxes there to links to articles about the show's characters but when i click on them it sends me to the list of characters article. it has always annoyed me when blue links are giving to pages that don't exist. so please, someone, ethier get rid of the links or actually start writing the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 22:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Bill cage Such links may exist for a variety of reasons; they are a placeholder until an article is written by a volunteer (we're all volunteers here who do what we can when we can), or the subject does not meet the criteria for a standalone article. If you feel a redirect is not needed, you are free to propose its deletion at Redirects for discussion.331dot (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

i don't want to delete it though. i actually do want someone to write those articles. heck, iv'e been waiting 9 years for someone to make those articles. i tried to once, but my article was declined. and i myself am not particualarly great at writing articles. i don't even know how to cite sources. Bill cage (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bill cage: Are you referring to the character links in {{Regular Show}}? It's called a navbox or navigation template. An infobox is something else. In a navbox it does look dumb to have a whole list where every item is a redirect to the link in the group name "Characters". Some of them were once brief articles like but were redirected to List of Regular Show characters. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bill cage. Regarding your comment iv'e been waiting 9 years for someone to make those articles. i tried to once, but my article was declined. and i myself am not particualarly great at writing articles, articles are reallyrarely declined because they're poorly written (at least they shouldn't be); they tend to be declined because the subject is considered not to be Wikipedia notable. Fictional characters, in particular, can be tricky to write about per WP:NFICT because they are not usually themselves the subject of much significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, which is one reason these "articles" often end up being redirected to list articles or the primary article about the show. It's possible that it was simply WP:TOOSOON the first time you tried to write the article, but if no article has been created in nine years then perhaps the "character" is never going to really be Wikipedia notable to support a stand-alone article. You can try asking at WT:TV; perhaps a member of that WikiProject can do a quick assessment of notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC); [Note:Post edited by Marchjuly to change "really" to "rarely" per the below comment. -- 07:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)]

Marchjuly, did you mean "rarely declined"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did. Thanks for catching that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Bill cage, I took a look at List of Regular Show characters, and my opinion is, no, these characters should not have separate articles on WP (but I haven't actually looked for sources). Actually, considering the sources cited in that article, I think it's bloated as it is, even if I think that citing the series itself is to some extent justified in cases like this. IMO, what you're after is something like this, which probably doesn't have WP-rules like WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

i understand. it still makes me upset though, and i mean, there has to be atleast one character that warrants an article. Bill cage (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Need help stopping 99.73.39.211 — see here and other political pages. (Not familiar with the appropriate tools.) Humanengr (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Humanengr, user warned - if they continue in the same vein, escalate to level 4, and if it persists then report to AIV with Twinkle. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Humanengr, I agree with Girth Summit, if that IP continues to vandalize after receiving upto a level 4 warning please report them to WP:AIV and also consider warning a user when revert you revert their changes. Andrew Base (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

i want to create a page for my organization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirmalgehlotjodhpur (talk • contribs) 08:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Nirmalgehlot Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please do not attempt to do that, as Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where we write articles (not just "page") that summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable organization). Wikipedia has no interest in what an organization wants to say about itself. You have a conflict of interest and are a paid editor(two policies you must comply with). If you just want to tell the world about your organization, you should use social media, your own website, or other alternative forum. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

See your Talk page for detailed explanations. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Hello! To reiterate, please do not do that unless your organization is substantial. Wikipedia is not an advertising playground! So unless your organization meets these requirements, please see other forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartGlow30797 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

How to i can unblock myself from editing?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaravi ojha (talk • contribs) 11:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your account is not blocked (and if you were blocked you wouldn't have been able to post here), and it never has been blocked. Why do you ask the question? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The meaning of this — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaStakelum (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the page: "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." --David Biddulph (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to publish the article "planetary roller extruder" on wiki. Please check this article. Find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Entex/sandbox The article already exists in the German Wiki. I look forward to your support.Entex (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It wouldn't be acceptable as an article as it has no references. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello ,[David Biddulph| Unfortunately I can not quite follow you. The article is not intended for promotional purposes. It is an extrusion machine, which is not yet so widely available on the market, but still has technological advantages over a double or a single screw. I just want to explain this. It is also not entirely true that there are no references. There is already a textbook by the Hanserverlag, which is currently still in the English translation and will be published in the next half of the year. Link to the german textbook: https://www.hanser-fachbuch.de/buch/Polymer+Aufbereitung+und+Kunststoff+Compoundierung/9783446458321 If my username is the only problem, I would not have any problems changing it. Entex (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

And this isn't a promotional purpose? Lectonar (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What can be done if some editor is citing essay as policy? Actually, one editor had removed all of my recent edits in which I had added controversy section by citing reliable policies. One user had removed by citing it as WP:CSECTION and said that controversy is not allowed. Discussion can be found on my talk page. What can be done to such users if some one is citing essays as if they are policies and purposefully reverting all of my edits? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there are two questions here. Firstly, what can be done in dealing with the dispute itself - the answer is, as with most disputes: first discuss it on the article talk page, and consider reaching out to related wikiprojects or WP:3O if required. Ultimately, you could start a WP:RFC, but there are plenty of other steps before then.

As to what can be done 'to such users'? Initially, I would say nothing. Disagreeing with you about an article is not against wiki policy, and even being 'wrong' about a policy is not in itself a reason to take action against a user other than politely advising them. If they become disruptive, breach WP:3RR, make personal attacks, etc then you can report them to WP:ANI or the 3RR noticeboard for action.

For what it's worth, this looks to me like a simple content dispute, and a disagreement about how much weight should be placed on a fairly well-established and long-standing essay, so I would advise you to engage with the other editors and attempt to discuss it and reach an agreement. Hug^syrup 14:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there I recently created a page (Ben Dabbs) and believe that I have found a second page on the same subject (Benjamin Dabbs). what do I do about it?

REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2019 (GMT)

The 2 articles could be merged, but as you are the only editor of your recent version the easy option would be for you to include any appropriate content into the existing article and then you can tag your version for deletion with {{Db-author}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

What is autoconfirmed and how do you know if you are autoconfirmed? If an article can only be edited by autoconfirmed editors does that mean it should probably be left alone?Not Wilkins (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)NotWilkins

The criteria to be autoconfirmed are that you have an account for more than 4 days and have made at least 10 edits, so you're way over those minima. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

And it doesn't mean that, but it can mean people have tried to edit the article in unhelpful ways. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I am the main editor for the sports teams Sporting Kansas City and Swope Park Rangers. Recently, they announced that the Swope Park Rangers would be changing their name to Sporting Kansas City II beginning the 2020 season. How would I go about re-naming the main page for the Swope Park Rangers and when should I most likely do that. Should I wait until the last game of the 2019 season has been played and then change it or wait until later on in the winter? Thanks, Gatorinator (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Gatorinator, Wait until the rename has been performed then move it to the new title. Interstellarity (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Can IP addresses be blocked because of edit wars? Main CentralTime301 page and talk 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CentralTime301. Simple answer: yes they can - just like registered users can be. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I Added reference on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudhakar_Tukaram_Shrangare cause I found there no references but still showing message like “ This article is about a living person and appears to have no references.....” can anybody can help me on that how to remove that message? Also please check my syntax of references (l learn this on references for beginners article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppch83 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ppch83: It looks like David Biddulph removed the message for you so you should be good. Interstellarity (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

In this edit I've improved the formatting of the ref, added a references section and reflist tag, & removed the prod blp tag. Note also that when you are referring to a Wikipedia article it is better to use a wikilink like Sudhakar Tukaram Shrangare, rather than a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudhakar_Tukaram_Shrangare --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone. While doing some research I was looking at the vertical farming article and, well, as the warning box at the top of the page says it has problems. I added a little bit on current usage of containerised farms in northern Canada and Alaska, but I feel like what it really needs is a complete rewrite, probably keeping a fair bit of what is already there, but re-structuring it to make it more readable and putting current practical applications ahead of aspirations. This is not something I've ever done though (and I'm a bit nervous about taking on such a task) so I'm wondering if anyone has some advice. Thanks. Physdragon (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Physdragon, I know nothing about this topic. But my advice is, take it a bit slow. Work on one section/subsection at a time until you are happy with it, then wait a day or two to see is there's any reaction. Repeat. Starting at the bottom section is as good way as any. Lastly see what you have and write a new WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You may also want to post your comments on the Talk page of the article, to facilitate collaboration and to give a heads-up to other editors who may be watching the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I did leave a comment on the Talk page with some of my thoughts, so maybe leave it a few days to see if that brings in any other comments and then start working through it slowly one section at a time? Physdragon (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can give it up to a week.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to delete the full section Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Cost-sharing_Reductions as part of an agreement with user:Newslinger on how the article is to be handled.

I am trying to do it using the visual editor, as this is the only automatic way to deal with multiply-used references. I thought it would work, based on my early experience with the visual editor. But now, in visual edit mode, when I select the section or a part of the section, and click "cut", the editor seems to get all mixed up, and no "publish" option appears.

Has something gone wrong with the visual editor? Am I doing something wrong? What should I do? Thanks.NormSpier (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@NormSpier: The visual editor has its limitations. In your particular scenario, I would recommend that you use the source editor to make your changes. Interstellarity (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I tried to write an article but it was declined 2 days ago. Today I reviewed the article, can anyone tell me if I have to change something else? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roberta_Rosca/sandbox Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberta Rosca (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Roberta Rosca Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You appear to have just added your associations with others to the article. I would ask if you have read the notability criteria for musicians? You would need to show that you meet at least one of the criteria and also have significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit a Wikipedia article. I'm not clear on which of the criteria you would meet- and no amount of editing can confer notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is interested in what third parties state about article subjects, not in what the subject wants to say about themselves. This is why autobiographical articles are highly discouraged. It is very difficult for people to write about themselves in the neutral point of view required by Wikipedia, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media or other alternative outlet where doing that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

NOT autobiography, as the Sandbox draft is about Alberto Braida. However, I agree the draft does not establish notability. David notMD (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please pardon my error. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The entire Music career section is useless, as none of the references are to articles ABOUT Alberto Braida. David notMD (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In climate change research (I have learned), researchers analyze changes in "temperature anomalies" over time. The term, "temperature anomaly" is uncommon for most readers. I added a small link to a (very good) definition on a U.S. government website (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). I think my link is fabulous, but one person's fabulous might be most persons' "too much". What do you think? The article is Scientific consensus on climate change and here is the diff for my edit. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your edit. Incorrect to add hyperlinks to text or image captions. Instead, create a reference. As you want to define a term, I suggest you find a place in the body of the article where it will be appropriate to describe what "temperature anomaly" means, with your reference, properly formated, there. In brief, right idea, wrong place. In general, the place to discuss a change to an article is on the talk page of that article. David notMD (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks David notMD. I didn't post on the Talk page b/c I wanted to see if it was appropriate first.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Note that there is already an article for temperature anomaly (actually a redirect to Instrumental temperature record), so you should prefer to simply wikilink the term (i.e. change it to [[temperature anomaly]]), versus an external source. If you feel the target article could be improved with reference to that site, you should work it into that (Instrumental temperature record) article per WP:CITE, WP:EL, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh cool. I didn't know about that article. I shall cite accordingly. Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

... Although, that article is very technical. I didn't understand most of the first several paragraphs. Just FYI.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 02:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

hello, I'm here regarding a question about the James Charles "spill the tea" phrase. I'm wondering if anyone could make a page on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindagart (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Lindagart. If you would like to make a page on it, feel free to do so, if you are able to find independent, published, WP:Reliable sources which discuss the topic in depth.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

My name is John Daniels and I need someone write a Wiki Page for my video game, it is on IMDB but not Wiki. I can give a free voucher to the game, so far is it released on the PS4 for North America but will be released in Europe on October the 25.

I would love to have the game on Wiki but do not know how to get it on here. I tried to make a page but failed and need someone who know what they are doing to kick this into gear.

Whatever information you need I can supply.

The game name is NEXTGEN SANDBOX.

You can reply to this but I am not for sure if it will notify me, or contact me at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadaniels (talk • contribs) 13:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadaniels (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I deleted your email address, the YouTube link and the Playstation link. The answer you got when your draft was declined is correct - your game does not meet Wikipedia's concept of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability. Only when a topic is written ABOUT in published articles by people who have no connection to the topic does it happen. Wikipedia is not social media - it is an encyclopedia. David notMD (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I would add that one does not "write a wiki", one writes a Wikipedia article. A wiki is a general type of website. Wikipedia has no interest in helping you promote or tell the world about your game. If someone takes you up on your offer of a free copy, they would need to comply with the paid editing policy. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnadaniels: You might consider using Wikia for that purpose. You will probably find a place for it there. ––Handroid7 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

hi. i have a pretty straightforward question. where do i find sources and how do i cite them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bill cage, welcome back to the Teahouse. Finding reliable sources should be easy. You look for good quality, independent sources (books, magazines, journals, websites, newspapers etc) which contain factual statements that you can use as evidence to allow people to verify what has been added to an article. They can be online, or published in paper format. The best way is add a reference is to insert an 'inline citation' immediately after the statement in the Wikipedia page that you want to support. To learn how to do that, either work through the instructions at Help:Referencing for beginners, or take a look at some instructions I wrote myself at User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. You will need to put the effort in to understand these instructions, but correctly adding good quality references is really essential to being a good editor of articles. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

thanks. Bill cage (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia! I'm Jessica, an employee of JLL. I have posted on the article's talk page to hopefully get in touch with editors that are interested in reviewing some proposed changes to the article. I've posted at all of the associated WikiProjects to no avail. It would be fantastic to receive some feedback about how to find interested editors to review my request. Can someone give me some guidance? Thanks! JKatJLL (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@JKatJLL: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for being open with your conflict of interest. You should place {{edit request}} when you post a request for COI assistance on the talk page. Remember that all the editors here are volunteers, so it can take some time before an interested editor takes up your request. RudolfRed (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have long thought that we (English Wikipedia) should display an article's quality assessment, e.g., "stub" or "B-class", to all visitors. If I understand it correctly, we currently display an article's quality only to registered users who have specifically requested it via Preferences > Gadgets > Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header. // If you are familiar with past discussions of this topic and can explain why we don't display an article quality's assessment to all visitors, that would be awesome. But that might take too long, and I know y'all (Teahouse volunteers) are very busy. Therefore, as an alternative, if you know how I can find past discussions of this topic that would be great. In that case, I can go read up on the whys and wherefores. (I searched through Help but could not find anything on this topic.) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Markworthen: First of all, don't apologize for asking a question: that's what the page is for.

The pages to search would be MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-metadata.js and the links from there but I did not find much of interest in my limited search.

Good articles do have an indicator of that assessment status (not a very visible one though), but GA is an ironclad rating (need some in-depth review and discussion) whereas most other levels of assessment are just "someone passed by and rated it". I think it would be risky to give that status for other articles, especially since lower-tier assessments can be significantly outdated. (Also, on the technical side, the gadget has a couple of known bugs which would need fixing before going live to readers.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tigraan for your (quite helpful) answer to my question, and for identifying my unnecessary apology (an "old tape" that still runs from time to time).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: adding to what Tigraan says, most editors here are concerned with improving content so, for them, having the choice to enable the gadget to display assessment via their Preference setting may assist them in their desire to check and improve articles, and update the quality assessment, if they wish. I certainly have it enabled. But by far the largest proportion of our visitors to this encyclopaedia are not editors - but ordinary users and seekers of information, with no interest in editing whatsoever. As was stated, the quality assessment (apart from FA/GA) is very prone to misjudgement, malicious alteration, or simply being left unchanged for many years, long after major improvements have been made. Showing 'quality' information by default to every single user would, I feel, be incredibly misleading and not at all helpful. Users would be fooled into thinking it is reliable indicator of completeness, when it isn't. But if you happen to visit any of our numerous 'WikiProjects' you'll find most have a table of article numbers by 'quality' and by 'importance' - (see this example). They can be incredibly useful to help editors prioritise their work on related articles. Just click the hyperlinked numbers in the table to see a list of articles ostensibly fitting that quality and importance rating. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Markworthen, according to WP:STUB, "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." I routinely encounter articles rated as stubs which obviously are no longer stubs because they have been significantly improved and expanded over the years. I re-rate them as start-class, but there are a massive number of incorrectly rated stubs. Assessment of articles below Good and Featured is inconsistent and wrong way too frequently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Great points all of you. I understand now! I have "Display an assessment ..." enabled and I too find it very helpful since, as you all point out, the quality assessments are often inaccurate. I was thinking that for purposes of transparency, and to help students (and teachers) determine the potential value of an article, it would help to display quality assessments. But all that presupposes that the assessments are accurate. Since they often aren't, the current policy makes good sense. I appreciate you helping me understand the rationale. :O)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Glad this was helpful. One last thing: There's a useful script you might be interested in which you can install to quickly help you make quality assessment changes. See WP:RATER. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a formating problem with the line with "cryonics" in it. I have no idea how to fix it. Keith Henson (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It just needed a new line after the section heading. Thanks for letting us know. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

When I thank using using Special:Thanks, the version history of the target page still shows the “thank” option as if I hadn't already thanked.

Is it just me, or has anyone else observed it? ––Handroid7 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's one of the logs. Use Special:Log/thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Handroid7: I think that happens sometimes. I thanked someone yesterday, and in the page history the thank link is still there. From Help:Notifications/Thanks#How_this_feature_works "You can only thank someone for a given edit once. After you have thanked someone for an edit, the "thank" link[2] is replaced by the word "thanked".[5] The "thank" link may reappear later but using it again will not send a new thanks. " RudolfRed (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It was me who added 'The "thank" link may reappear later but using it again will not send a new thanks'. I don't work on the software and don't actually know how it's supposed to work. I just described how it does work. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

How to edit image on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntazir M Rizvi (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rizvi and welcome to the Teahouse. If you download the image to your hard drive, you can edit it there using any software you have available, then upload the new version to wherever you downloaded it from. Dbfirs 15:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Muntazir M Rizvi: Which type of edit do you want to make to which image? The above applies to the most common situation but there are many other possible situations. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daya_Reddy - this is the draft of my article? I have reviewed and edited it twice, please can you advise whether it will be published or not? Nataliembent (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nataliembent: Hello. The draft was never resubmitted for review. In the meantime, work on it and address the issues with it. The, submit, but it will take some time as there are thousands of drafts awaiting review. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 12:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nataliembent: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. If you feel you addressed the reasons why the article was declined in the first place, you need to resubmit it for review by clicking the "Resubmit" button on the review banner. Regards SoWhy 12:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Appears you have resubmitted, having made changes after it was declined. In my opinion, it will be declined again. Whole sections, and paragraphs within sections, do not have references. Reddy's list of publications should be deleted - think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia - academics are written about by citing what other people have written about them, not by listing what they have written. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nataliembent: Please don't be discouraged. I actually disagree with David notMD's assessment. I think your article has great potential, and that the WP:AFC rejection of your work by a new reviewer was wholly flawed. I think the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC, but will still need a little more work before being ready for the main encyclopaedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes please can you tell me how much more work (in a bit more detail) the article requires? I am a total newbie and need some guidance, thank you Nataliembent (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nataliembent: First off - there's no rush. You can keep working on a draft for as long as you like. Abandoned drafts (ie completely unedited ones) might get deleted after 6 months. So you've plenty of time! The work you need to do now is mostly to cut out anything which you cannot verify with an independent reference. All other factual statements need either a new reference, or for you to reuse an existing one (see WP:REFNAME for how to do that). Read WP:NACADEMIC and try to assess whether an independent person would feel your article clearly demonstrates or proves that he meets the criteria listed there. Providing you can assure me you haven't been asked, or paid, to create this article, I'd be happy to help you further once you've addressed those issues. I am presuming from your username that you are a new female editor and I'm keen to encourage more women to become good editors here. I suggest you contact me on my own talk page when you want further input. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: I'm pleased to say this article's notability has now been recognised by one of our newest admins, Barkeep49, and they have moved it into mainspace. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Would just like to note that I made these actions as an editor - being an administrator (or as I like to say sysop) gives me no special powers in this case. As an editor I felt that the article met our notability standards and would be likely to survive at AfD. As a New Page Reviewer, I felt the article was ready for inclusion in the Google Search engine and so marked it reviewed. Now there were actions I did as a sysop that brought this article to my attention but think it's important to remind everyone, new, old, and myself, what privileges sysops have over content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I just composed and edited an article, hit "publish" but don't know what happens next. I see it in my user page, but not when I search Wikipedia. Am I missing atep or is there a delay while the editors approve etc? THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelfeuer (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your question has been asked and answered at WP:HD#when will article be reviewed and accepted. Please don't ask the same question in multiple locations, as it is a waste of volunteers' time to answer a question which has already been answered elsewhere. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• zoominfo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I notice in the current revision of American Automobile Association, zoominfo has been used as a reference citation for the AAA headquarters address. Although I see there are a lot of Wikipedia pages that cite zoominfo, I am wondering whether zoominfo should be considered a reliable source. Wouldn't it generally be preferable to use a page from the company's own website to cite information such as the headquarters address, assuming they provide that info on their website? (I'm not bothering to mention the multiple things wrong with this specific citation... those would be moot if it's agreed that zoominfo is not a preferred source for this info.) Fabrickator (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, you know, it's funny you should ask that. I've noticed a few new accounts recently whose only purpose has appeared to be spamming links to zoominfo into various articles disguised as "references". I've been reverting those additions which are clearly just WP:REFSPAM, but I'm also aware we have lots of existing links. I'm going to ping Beetstra as the "go to" expert in all things spammy, to see if they have any comment on this. -- Begoon 03:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Fabrickator, current headquarters location is a classic example of the type of routine, non-controversial information that can be cited to a company website, assuming that the company is otherwise notable. I have no reason to believe that Zoominfo is particularly unreliable in the sense of being overtly inaccurate. Their business model is based on use of proprietary web crawlers to scrape data about corporations and executives off the internet to assemble a database, and they sell access to the full details of that database. But it seems that they lack routine human editorial control, and this is the type of situation where the company website is the best source, in my view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: as per your edit and User:Cullen, I agree that that is information which is perfectly fine, and probably even best, when served with a primary source. (the whole of the article should not depend on primary sourcing only, but that does not mean that some specific information cannot or should not be referenced primary).

Zoominfo is selling access to their database with information about business people and companies to sales, marketing and recruiting professionals. That does suggest that they need to be 'correct' and likely reliable. That does not mean that they are the best source of that information (as the example of an address of a headquarter, or for example numbers from company records - these are (IMHO) way better primary sourced even if other sources are reliable). Here I do worry that some of the information is not freely accessible (??, you need to pay for access?), and other sources, including primary sourcing, may be freely accessible, and data may become outdated (depending on how active they refresh their data).

The typical place to discuss specific (one reference) or general reliability of a source is at the reliable sourcing noticeboard. If there are cases of active spamming (Begoon) they should go to the spam wikiproject (or escalated if they are uncontrollable). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: @Beetstra: @Cullen328: Thanks for your feedback. I'm kind of wary of the Zoominfo data. It didn't help that the zoominfo link displayed the name as "AAA Club Alliance" rather than "AAA" (even though the linked page showed the same street address, though it displayed an alternate name for the post office), but I think we need to be wary of adding links on thousands of pages to some third-party service that can be here today and gone tomorrow. I'd rather see a template that could be generic (and whether that would be an appropriate use of Wikidata as a way to implement that, though my knowledge of such things is surely minuscule).

That said, it doesn't appear to me that on most pages for corporations or other sorts of organizations, that we normally provide a source for the headquarters, and it does not really seem such a good use of resources to add citations for the headquarters location (and of course, the same expectation would apply to all the other infobox information).

If it were up to me, I would advocate to continue reverting this mass addition of zoominfo links. I took the trouble to add a (primary) citation for AAA, I felt this was warranted given the potential confusion due to AAA's organizational structure as well as its name, but I'm not suggesting that there should be a mandate or major effort to add such citations generally. Fabrickator (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

As you can probably see from my contributions, i enjoy cleaning up articles with the advertisement tag, but i can't find a list of articles with the tag. I vaguely remember seeing a list of them, but now I cant find it. any help would be appreciated! ArkayusMako (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ArkayusMako: Tags like the advertisement template automatically add the article to hidden maintenance categories. You can find lists of those categories at places like Template:Category tracker#Cleanup or Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. In particular, you'd be interested in Category:Articles with a promotional tone :) Sam Walton (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Category:All articles with a promotional tone has nearly 24 thousand to keep you busy! --David Biddulph (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! ArkayusMako (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone could help point out areas I could improve my article on fraud orchestration. This is the first article I have ever attempted to publish.

Best Brettq888 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettq888 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Brettq888: - Welcome to The Teahouse. I see a few substantial problems with your draft as it stands.

Firstly, the tone varies somewhere between an academic paper and a promotional website. I've read the page several times and I don't believe I am any clearer on what, actually 'fraud orchestration' is. Articles need to be written in an encyclopedic manner: clear, succinct, free of jargon and promotional language.

Secondly, and this is linked to the first point, it is full of original research and claims that do not appear to be objective, factual, and backed by sources. For example: "However, fraud and any associated security must be adaptive." Says who? Why? And this is just one example - the whole article is like this.

Finally, the biggest problem, there are a lack of reliable sources that establish this as a notable term. As the notice at the top of your draft states, neologisms are not included unless they have received substantial use and independent press coverage. Your sources either do not use the term, or are not independent because they exist specifically to promote it.

My personal view is that this term is simply not ready for an article yet, and you are unlikely to be able to improve the article enough to get it accepted. However, if you wish to keep working on it, you will need to address the three points above, and in particular the third one. Hug^syrup 09:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brettq888, thank you very much for asking. I would like to thank Hugsyrup for the excellent answer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I made a submission to an article by copying and pasting a paragraph from an online article, then linking to it and citing it. It was subsequently deleted, with a note that said something about copyright. Is this correct? If I paraphrase the paragraph, then do I still need to cite the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peshkai (talk • contribs) 11:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peshkai and welcome to the Teahouse. It was correctly deleted. Articles on-line are still copyright. You need to express the facts in your own words, not a close paraphrase, to avoid copyright issues. You do need to cite a WP:Reliable source for any facts that you add to an article. It is also possible to quote short parts of a paragraph if you think that helps, but it is not required to quote any of it. The reader can check for themselves when the reference is provided. Dbfirs 12:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Peshkai: to elaborate a bit: there are three related issues here.

The first is that distributing (such as by posting on Wikipedia) something that is a copy-paste or a close paraphrase of something you found online is in almost all cases a copyright violation, which is illegal. That is not a Wikipedia-specific thing, even if other community-based websites are (to put it mildly) less zealous in policing the community's postings. That is why Wikipedia deletes those on-sight with no questions asked, because it must be taken down as soon as possible to avoid legal liability.

The second is that taking someone else's idea and presenting it as your own is plagiarism, which is by itself not illegal, but still unethical. Again, that is not Wikipedia-specific: if you do that as a journalist or academic and get caught, it has serious adverse consequences.

The third is that Wikipedia requires articles to be verifiable and contain no original research. That allows readers to evaluate for themselves the strength of evidence the articles rest on. It turns out that it counters plagiarism as well, because you cannot pass original material for your own if original material is disallowed entirely. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i am trying to update the page with some information on dr naik ie. he is no longer a member of iera and many of his awards and books but whenever i make changes it keeps restoring it back to the original even after i have provided links. Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutowriter123 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

As explained on your user talk page, the reason that your edits were reverted is that without any explanation you were removing existing sourced text. If you believe that something should be removed you need to discuss it on the article talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi- New user here. I am tasked with writing two new articles, and one draft I have already submitted for review via my Sandbox. I am starting work on a second article in a newly created sandbox in my userspace, but when I "Publish Changes" to save my work, I do not see the option to submit it as a draft for review. Does it stand to reason that only one draft can be sent for review at any given time? Or am I missing some obvious step? Thanks for any guidance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcollinsycc (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jcollinsycc: You should now have the option. To add the header used to submit a page you need to add {{subst:AFC submission/draft}} to the top of the page. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 14:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got one draft awaiting review at Draft:Charles S. Fuchs. When your sandbox draft at User:Jcollinsycc/sandbox/Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD is ready for submission you would use the blue "Submit" button, but obviously it isn't ready for submission yet as it has no references and no wikilinks. If you want to create another sandbox draft you could call it User:Jcollinsycc/sandbox/whatever new article title you like. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"I am tasked..." is problematic. The two academics you are writing about are at the Yale Cancer Center, and you have also edited the Yale Cancer Center article. Are you an employee of YCC? As such, you are required to comply with WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Quick and easy question. Where do I find the blank template for a TV shows navbox? Danstarr69 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Danstarr69. TV shows use the same general Template:Navbox as other topics, e.g. in Template:Oz (TV series) or Template:CSI: Miami. If you mean the box at the top right of articles like Oz (TV series) then it's called an infobox. TV shows use Template:Infobox television. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

PrimeHunter infobox is what I was looking for. I'm pretty sure I have it bookmarked or saved somewhere, but couldn't remember what it was called. It's most likely bookmarked on my old computer. Danstarr69 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I retrieve my user name? It has been a while since I signed into Wikipedia and I do not remember my user name.

I have sent in a password reset request but have not received an answer.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:71C2:7D00:ED24:903F:776E:A0B0 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you remember the names of any articles you once edited, and roughly when? If so, you could go to that article, click the View History tab and scroll through the edits to try and spot your old username. If you didn't associate an email with that account, then I don't think you'll be able to get a password sent to you, and won't ever be able to access that account without remembering that password. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

A more efficient course of action is probably to just get a new account, if all else fails. Mgasparin (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)