Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 582

I’m relatively new, but I believe the primary obstacle I’m encountering is experienced editors who misunderstand Wikipedia policies. How can I gain some support for getting the editors in question to follow the policies in question?

Specifically, the experienced editors seem to believe they are exempt from structuring their talk discussion around weighting rules (to be based on determining the proportion of reliable sources rather than proportion of editor opinion), rules for weeding out fringe theories (to be based on reliable sources regarding the respectability in their field of the theories proponents, rather than editors opinion about the theory), and in general exempt from needing to provide reliable sources to back assertions they make in the talk discussions.

I believe the over-all problem is a disagreement about the philosophy of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I believe those editorial guidelines are intended to allow an article to evolve to become meaningfully different from what a majority of the editors currently think the content should be based on their personal opinions. My understanding is that if a structured discussion of the available reliable sources points in a different direction than the editors’ opinion, the article should be allowed to differ from the editors’ opinion of what the article should be until such time as the editors can locate reliable sources to shift the article back.

Editors will not all have the time to deeply ponder complicated topics. For controversial topics, they may focus more on policing than on examining new source information. For those reasons and others, I believe Wikipedia is designed to allow changes to occur in advance of an eventual change in the gut feel of current or future editors.

Because I called out the specific policies I believe the editors are ignoring. I suspect that the editors understand them but believe that, for reasons of expediently protecting the article from improper edits, they are exempt from applying the policies to a controversial article. The editors seem to feel that if they follow those guidelines, they’ll get overwhelmed by people who propose things faster than editors can response to, or who erect a “wall of text.” I respect those issues and limit the discussion rate and try to focus on only one narrow discussion at a time, so things don’t get out of hand, but the editors seem to try to re-broaden the questions and to still not follow the policies.

I’m not confident in the resolution methods for this policy conflict. 1) The editors in question seem to be unwilling to discuss the policy dispute explicitly, 2) The content-dispute resolution methods seem prone to being derailed by the failure to follow the policies in question, as well as by unduly casual rendering of opinions. (so I can’t ignore the policy problem and just focus on content and expect to get good results) 3) the editorial rules resolution method seems to be ANI, but ANI seems subject getting derailed into something other than a resolution of the dispute over what rules should be followed and 4) Starting an ANI seems like a dangerous way to find out how serious Wikipedia is about the polices in question.

The ANI process seems to be the only one designed to focus on process issues like the above, but I get the impression that in practice ANI disputes are usually resolved to side against anyone who they believe has a content dispute, and side against anyone complaining of actions of a generally very respected and accomplished editor who is impeccably polite and informative in general.

ANI seems to be designed to address malicious or recklessly disruptive behavior, rather than well-intentioned misapplication of proper editorial discussion rules. It also seems that once an ANI is started, it will devolve into an over-all critique, unwilling to closely examine the evidence of the misapplication of guidelines (because at some point a few specifics are needed to show the an example of a policy not being followed.) I get the impression that the ANI will devolve into a person A against person B, losing sight of the specific editorial policy concerns. An editor expressed confidence that I’d get “hammered” if I brought an ANI, declining to offer details, but the above is my best guess for why based on all feedback I’ve received.

Are my concerns unwarranted? Again, how can I gain some support for getting the editors in question to follow the policies in question?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rob Young in New Hampshire. Which article are you referring to? Such a lengthy and complex presentation can only be addressed properly in the context of a specific debate. I recommend that you begin by a careful reading of how consensus works here on Wikipedia. If consensus is against you on one article, there are well over five million others to edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I’ll reach out to your talk page, but for the benefit of any readers here, consider this:

I think there is a misperception in an "answer" provided to the newer "consensus" teahouse question: (dif): "In an nutshell, with very^veryvery few exceptions, consensus is how basically everything on Wikipedia works. The community makes its own rules for articles…” That seems wrong because the community should not be able to waive “policy and sources” rules just because doing so makes it easier to police the content. Based on those rules, the article should reflect the “balanced truth” as defined by net of all available reliable sources, even if that differs from the balanced truth as defined by the gut feel of the editors. Those two definitions of truth should converge over time, but talk page says it is not the mechanism to do that, nor can most editors commit the time to let it do that even if you wanted to. Only when the editors can be reminded to follow the “policy and sources” and let the article and discussion evolve based on policy and sources, can opinion the article topic converge to better match the “balanced truth” as defined by net of all available reliable sources. That, rather than omniscience, is what Wikipedia promises.

I think the problem I’m running into is experienced editors’ apparent misconception about WP:Consensus, particularly this phrase: ”Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense.” It seems perhaps “and common sense” ends up meaning, in practice, that the talk page instruction really is “This is a forum for general discussion of the article's subject,” rather what it really says, which is the opposite. In other words, they act as if the consensus is supposed to be regarding the articles subject rather than regarding how “policy and sources, when applied with common sense”, say the article should read. By failing to follow policy, they prevent such consensus from properly being formed.

It’s just so tempting to look at the specifics of the article without keeping the above in mind that I think is why the editors feel that the ANI process will not side with my concerns. Also, based on WP: consensus defined, there is nothing resembling consensus on the article in question, but something much close to gut-feel voting. I want to focus energy on articles with such problems, rather than just look for pages to edit.

Am I misinterpreting WP:consensus? Can ANI drive proper interpretation of it?Rob Young in New Hampshire (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello guys Can I know how can I completely Make a article in wikipedia and in how much time ?? I'm really pissed off of the page issue Guyss can you look at the Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawOnGam (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SawOnGam! I'm sorry to hear you're having a diffricult time -- let's see if I can point you toward some useful resources. First, consider going on the Wikipedia Adventure. It's a fun tutorial that can get you started on editing. Second, see WP:FIRSTARTICLE to learn about creating a brand new article from scratch. Finally, I'm not really sure what the problem you have with Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh . Could you tell me a bit more about that issue? Thanks! —Non-Dropframe _talk 05:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello SawOnGam and welcome to Wikipedia! I looked at Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh as requested, and found many more issues than just the orphan problem. I added some tags to the page which may help you improve the article. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guyss I was out of wikipedia for couplr of days How can i make the page Jai Prithvi Bahadur Singh a complete page on wikipedia ??

Hello, I posted a new article a few days ago called the Battle of Rejaf, which has since been properly reviewed, added to wiki-projects, and categorized. However, in a simple google search for "Battle of Rejaf", the article is not even in the search results. An article I made weeks ago, however, the Battle of Gawakuke, became the top search result the day after it was published. Could someone explain why this is happening?

Thanks, Washoe the Wise (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Washoe the Wise. Due to changes made a few months ago, new articles are not indexed for a Google search until they are reviewed by a New pages patroller, or are over 30 days old. There is a big backlog at New pages patrol. It seems that one article has been patrolled but the other hasn't yet been. If you achieve the Autopatrolled user right, your articles will all be indexed by Google promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to move OS X on tagalog wikipedia (https://tl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X) to a new page, macOS, but there is no option. Why isn't the move option appearing and how do I move it without the option? Thank you. Itsquietuptown (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Itsquietuptown. We only provide advice about editing the English language Wikipedia here at the Teahouse and have no expertise regarding the Tagalog version which is administered separately . I suggest asking at a help desk at Tagalog Wikipedia. It may be that you are not yet autoconfirmed on that Wikipedia. You may possibly need more time and more edits to move articles there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen

Itsquietuptown (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

what kind of article can i write? Denniserribal (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Denniserribal, and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no restrictions on what kind of article, as long as you comply with Wikipedia's policies. However, I would strongly suggest building some experience first by editing existing articles to improve them, before attempting a new article - it might seem like the obvious thing to do, but creating a new article from scratch is one of the more difficult tasks at Wikipedia. Find a topic area that interests you, and where you have good access to reference materials, and build from there. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I am creating a new page and have found an image off the internet that I think explains my concept quite well and would therefore like to use it. However, I do not own the image. Can I still use it if I credit where the image came from. I have had a look on the FAQs but am still unsure.

Thanks

JIvory96 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JIvory96, and welcome to the Teahouse. Most likely not. Most images you would find on the internet are not okay. The three exceptions to this rule are: a) images in the public domain (rare, and does not mean somebody released it on the internet); b) images under an acceptable free license (also rare, and requires familiarity with such licenses), and c) fair use (extremely limited use on Wikipedia). You can read more about images here: Wikipedia:Uploading images#Determine copyright status – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I create my user page? Vladi 11:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimirrizov20 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Vladimirrizov20. Sure you can! Click on your name in the top right of the screen. From there, it'll take you to make your page. Feel free to ask me if you have any more questions! MereTechnicality ⚙ 16:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Though it seems you already have made it. MereTechnicality ⚙ 16:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The history of User:Vladimirrizov20 shows that you created it on 10 January 2017‎, Vladimirrizov20. What you do need to do is fix your signature. Do you have the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box ticked in the signature section of your preferences? If so, you need to untick it. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was initially rejected as the picture of the subject of the article (my grandfather, now deceased) was a copy of a portrait by an artist (my great grandfather, now deceased), and I do not what the copyright is on that. My family owns the picture, do we hold the copyright?

I then let too much time pass and the submission had been deleted or something like that. I tried re-submitting the article with another picture of the subject, this time taken from a published source that could reference. I have not had any luck.

I have asked for clarification from 'editors' who approve my article but I really do not understand the advice they are giving. It seems they always refer to another set of abstract rules and I cannot get a straight answer. I have been trying to get this small article on wikipedia for over a year. Can somebody guide me to a successful conclusion? Benito Cartero (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Benito Cartero, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't tell whether your (draft) article has been deleted before, but I do find it here: Draft:Harold Burnell Carter. If this is the article you're referring to, it still exists. As to the concerns expressed by the reviewing editor, it boils down to this: everything you add to any article must be verifiable, by adding a proper citing independent, third party, reliable sources. The reviewing editor, in fact, even added indications of where s/he thinks a reference to a secondary, reliable source is required. So, for example, the fact (?) that Harold Burnell Carter has received the "Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1960)" has to be proven/verified by refering to a source.
Finally, given your relationship to the subject of the draft article, please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Hope this helps.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 12:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Talk2Chun. Your advice is helpful and appreciated. The 'citation needed' bits I can hopefully clear up by referring to the bibliography in the article, is that right?

The key barrier to publication seems to refer to the picture that I wanted to upload. See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Portrait_of_Harold_Burnell_Carter_by_Norman_Sinclair_Carter.jpg

I have since tried to use another picture from a verifiable source but I don't seem to have cracked it. How can I swap the picture that has been rejected with the new picture and then resubmit for approval? Benito Cartero (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The lack of an image isn't what is preventing your draft from being accepted, Benito Cartero. Articles don't need to have images to be accepted. You need to resolve the issues mentioned in the message at the top of the page in order to have the draft accepted, and I would worry about those before trying to replace the image. Talk2chun, the deletion log for the draft is here. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I edited a wikipedia page 2 week ago and it still doesn t appear on google seach ,do you know what is the problem?

thank you,paola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolamont (talk • contribs) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Paolamont. New articles aren't indexed by search engines until they have been reviewed by a volunteer from the New Pages Patrol or persisted for 30 days. TimothyJosephWood 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paolamont: Your account is only one week old and created Roberta Tirrito 11 February. It's currently the third result for me in a Google search on the name, but probably only because an editor patrolled it after your post. If you refer to a page you edited before creating the account then which page is it? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I need some help with categories. I've understanded that for add categories to a page I need to place the template of the refering project (it's that so or I'm thinking wrong?) So, there is a page where all the templates are toghether? Thanks. Justmeonhere (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Justmeonhere. Some templates automatically place categories when added to a page, but that is not the chief way categories are added to a page. Categories are added by placing this markup (typically at the very bottom of the page, after all other content):

[[Category:Name of 1st category]]
[[Category:Name of 2nd category]]
[[Category:Name of 3rd category]]
[[Category:Etc.]]

You should also know about sorting. The name the page you add a category to will be sorted by default by its first letter. We don't always want this to happen. For example, articles on people are usually titled first name then last name, but are usually properly sorted in categories by the last name. You can change the sorting by "piping" (this is a pipe "|") the category to something other than its direct name. For example:

[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics|Einstein, Albert]]

However, for many pages, you want all the categories to sort in the same way. For this, you can use the template {{DEFAULTSORT}}, which added once, sorts all the categories below it, without needing to pipe each one, viz:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Einstein, Albert}}
[[Category:Name of 1st category]]
[[Category:Name of 2nd category]]
[[Category:Name of 3rd category]]
[[Category:Etc.]]

For more information, please see Wikipedia:Categorization, Help:Category, Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts. Best regards Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Justmeonhere, welcome to the Teahouse. Categories can be added directly by placing [[Category:...]] on the page you want to add (see more at Help:Category#Putting pages in categories), or indirectly by placing a template which adds a category. There are thousands of templates which add categories for various purposes and there is no common list with all of them, but some of the purposes have partial lists. Which category do you want added to which page? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@ PrimeHunter I hadn't nothing particular in mind. I wanted only to know something more on categories in general. Many thanks to you and Fuhghettaboutit for the answers! :) Justmeonhere (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Anytime Justmeonhere.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking whether IMDb is a reliable source, not for movie casts however, but for finding out the birthplaces of people. Depthburg (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Depthburg. You can take a look at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb to see when it's appropriate and when it's not. The inappropriate uses section reads "Any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs)", which could apply to what you were wondering about. It's probably better to find a better source than IMDb. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 15:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Depthburg (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

hello, my aricle "Josefina Howard" keeps getting rejected because they say that the person is not notable enough. there are hundreds of newspaper articles in google and i already cited 3. This person was literally responsible for bringing good Mexican food to the united statesAhoward524 (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ahoward524. Your article has three references but two of them are pretty much worthless for establishing notability. The first reference is a reprint of one of her recipes and mentions her only briefly. The third reference is an article about Martha Stewart that mentions Josefina Howard only in passing. That third reference is used to support the statement that her book is rare and collectible but that article says nothing about the book being rare.

Your second reference is pretty good because it is a detailed review of her book in the New York Times and includes some useful biographical information such as her place of birth, marriage and various places she lived. But you have not included these interesting biographical details in your draft article.

Since you say that there are hundreds of newspaper articles about her, I recommend that you delete the first and third references and find four or five new references of the quality of the second reference. Do not make unfounded assertions such as "literally responsible for bringing good Mexican food to the United States" since there has been excellent Mexican food widely served in the U. S. ever since the end of the Mexican American war in 1848.

Think of your draft article as a summary of what a wide range of reliable sources say about her and as a biography telling the whole story of her life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ahoward524, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think if you add just a little more detail about her from the newspaper sources, that should be enough, especially about why her culinary contributions are so recognized. One thing I haven't found from the sources you've provided in the article so far is something supporting the statement Josefina Howard was one of the first Mexican fine dinning pioneers in the United States. If you can find a source that supports that kind of broad statement about her career, that goes a long way toward supporting Howard's notability. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Convenience link for others who want to weigh in: Draft:Josefina Howard I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please remember, Ahoward524, that Wikipedia isn't interested - at all - in what you know, or what I know. It is only interested in information which is published in reliable sources; and preferably in sources unconnected with the subject of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

hey ahoward524,

i hava also tried submitting 3 articles , But all of them got rejected.. Maybe you needed to improve on them. Jaloipolcool (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Is there a way to still access the old history of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Science_and_the_Bible? I was unable to, but remember being able to access the history of some deleted articles before (there may be different delete levels perhaps)? Thanks for your time. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I do have a third-party archive revision, the question was really about the history. PaleoNeonate (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, PaleoNeonate and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are after the article itself, not the deletion discussion because that is still there. The article has been deleted and is not available, although it is possible to have it restored to your user space - see Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was looking more for the edit history, rather than the deletion log or the article itself. But it was also a more general question about the access to the edit-history for deleted articles, which appears to sometimes be available, and sometimes not. Maybe I could try VPT, or rereading on the deletion procedures, for more information about this in the future. If userfication permits to also restore the history, that would be a nice feature too. When reading on usification, I had the erroneous impression that it was to restore an article that didn't pass reviews to the original author's userspace, as an alternative to deletion (and in this case I was not involved with this article before). Thank you very much. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, I'm pretty sure that when an article is deleted, its history is deleted with it. I guess that the history is still visible to admins, as the article is, but I'm not sure. I suspect that your "sometimes" is about articles where the outcome of deletion it to convert to a redirect. In that case, the article is not deleted but edited to contain the redirect - unless an admin specifically deletes part of the edit history, it will still remain. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that those I could access had indeed been moved or "courtesy blanked" rather than deleted. Thanks for your help. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone has poured you tea.

How can I change my username Sarabanabrar (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sarabanabrar. Since you have very few edits under this account, and thus little history to be preserved through renaming, the easiest solution to your problem is simply to register another account under a username you would like to use going forward, and abandon the current account. There is usually no reason to hide or move the contributions of a very new account, since inactive accounts with very few edits are rarely if ever seen by anyone. TimothyJosephWood 15:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Vinod pursuing B.tech CSE. I've been working on creating my own page. I don't want it to be too formal or too casual, can you give me some opinion on how the page should be and what are the things needed to be included to make the page look good? Thanks. Vinod M (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Vinod, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'd say to have a look at our manual of style for how pages should be laid out and written. Please let me know if you have other questions. Thanks! MereTechnicality ⚙ 16:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Vinod M, and welcome to the Teahouse. The manual of style that MereTechnicality refers to is more relevant to articles than to user pages: please see WP:USERPAGE for information about what you may put on your user page; and the WP:User page design center for advice and suggestions on how to format it. Please note that Wikipedia is not social media, or a web host: your user page should be mostly about you as a Wikipedia editor. At present, as far as I can see, you have nothing on it about your current or intended Wikipedia activities. That's fine for now - a limited amount of information about your life outside Wikipedia is acceptable. But if you're intending to work up a personal home page for yourself that is not mostly about what you do on Wikipedia, then please find another site for it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Vinod was talking about making an article. Yes, that's right, you should read WP:USERPAGE for how to make and what to put on userpages. Sorry! MereTechnicality ⚙ 17:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Vista Grove, Georgia is not a community. The article says it is a community extending from Shallowford Road to Toco Hills and to Northlake Mall (Atlanta). Those with an understanding of DeKalb County, Georgia will quickly recognize that the article does not correctly identify a community. There is nothing to reduce to a stub because there is no community by that name, or any other, within the geography described. I've expanded this on the talk page.

In full discloser, in the 1960s my grandfather developed the Vista Grove Plaza shopping center from which the article takes its name. My family has lived in Oak Grove since the 1820s, I am the current president of the Tucker Historical Society, and I was an advocate for the incorporation of the neighboring community Tucker, Georgia. I do not live within the city limits of Tucker nor within the claimed footprint of the Vista Grove article.

How do I submit for this article to be reviewed for deletion? It seems a complex process. Matthew R. Lee 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrlee (talk • contribs)

Hi, Matthewrlee, and welcome! There are three avenues for deletion: speedy deletion, PROD (proposed-deletion), and AfD (articles for deletion). Speedy deletion is only for use in a few circumstances, which I've linked. Proposed deletion is for articles where the deletion would be uncontroversial; anyone can remove the tag, and that makes it ineligible for PROD again. Then there's Articles for deletion, which you can list there if you believe that the article should be deleted, and it either doesn't meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or someone removed the proposed deletion tag. In that case, the article would remain listed there for at least 7 days, and the community would discuss whether the article should remain.

Sorry if that was a bit confusing, I know it seemed super complicated when I first got here! But it's really your call to determine which one you should use. If you have further questions, you can ask me here, or on my talk page. Thank you! MereTechnicality ⚙ 19:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I was looking at Talk:New Caledonia, and I noticed the archive box didn't list the archive numbers. How do I fix this? The Verified Cactus 100% 20:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Verified Cactus. I have added |auto=yes as documented at Template:Archive box#Automatic links. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I wrote a page about a guy who runs these big conferences. He keeps being interviewed and mentioned in news stories, but there wasn't a place online that I could find that gathered info about him. With a conference coming up that I'm attending (thousands of people expected) and big companies there, I tried to create a page. I got a response back that it read more like an ad, which was not my intention. So I took out anything that sounded complimentary and resubmitted it. Is that right? Thanks Jaylfs (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jaylfs. One of the big things that folks who are new to Wikipedia have to get used to is how to stop writing like a writer and start writing like an encyclopedia, which can be really hard, since likely most everything you've ever read has been written by a writer, writing like a writer, with either a strong personal point of view or an implicit conflict of interest. The current draft seems fairly neutral, but I would encourage you to check out Help:Referencing for beginners, since your reference formatting is a bit...wrong. TimothyJosephWood 16:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Apparently they decided that the news sources I included weren't adequate because there were mentions in the articles, but the articles weren't devoted centrally to the topic.Jaylfs (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Jaylfs: It's likely that "adequate" isn't exactly the problem. Lots of sources are useful for telling whether something is true, but many sources don't "count" toward notability in the Wikipedia sense. On Wikipedia, and for the purposes of notability, sources that are trivial mentions, non-independent, or primary don't help establish whether a person deserves their own article, even though they may still be useful for information, once it's established that an article is deserved. TimothyJosephWood 21:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As you can see, We have pretty much all the science shows in here, but unfortunately, we still have a sort-of famous show, it's called Life Noggin, so, anybody gonna make that page? Thanks124quann (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, if you can prove notability, create it yourself! Or add it to the articles for creations lists.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings 124quann, I think you came to the right place for your question. L3X1 is absolutely correct in saying that you have to provide references from reputable sources to 'prove' that your topic is notable enough to put in the encyclopedia. It is pretty difficult (but not impossible) to find someone else to write an article for you. One important thing you should know is that if you have a close connection or are involved with the organization you want to write about, this called a conflict of interest. Wikipedia (other editors) pretty much frowns (really a scowl) upon those who are trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I noticed that you said, "we have a sort-of famous show...". The 'we' means you. You really can't create that page since it is pretty difficult to prove you are not neutral in writing on such a topic. Sorry about the bad news. Please stay and do more editing, though. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  01:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, good evening! My name is Christina and for the last week (since Monday,13th of February till yesterday, Saturday the 19th) I've been studying the "rules of engagement" of publishing articles on Wikipedia. Today, finally, after long reserach I became brave enough to publish it but - it looks like I failed everything because within couple of minutes the article was declined. So, here I am asking for help - professional editing that will satisfy all the rules and standards of Wikipedia for the benefit of everyone alive))) Thank you very much for understanding! regards, Christina Christinapeskowa (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Christinapeskowa, and welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for contributing an article! Looking at it (Draft:Riccardo Arthur de Wet), it was declined because the subject didn't meet our notability guidelines for people. Try reading WP:BIO for more information on this. Please let me know if you have any more questions! MereTechnicality ⚙ 16:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-ping Christinapeskowa, since the first ping didn't quite go through. TimothyJosephWood 17:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Christinapeskowa, if you go to the page where you have your article submitted and click on the 'Talk' tab at the top of the page, you will be taken to a page that will help you find references to establish the notability of your subject. If you can't find references with the tool I installed on the talk page, then, unfortunately your topic might not appropriate for Wikipedia. Don't be discouraged! We always need new editors to create content and it looks you could help out a lot. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

why cant my edits be saved.. and how do i send wiki love? my friend told me about wikilove. pls disscuss fast and let me know.. thanx, Jaloipol.. and pls visit my userpage and the other page of mine.. and support my campaign Jaloipolcool (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

hey jaloipol, i support ur campaign and i hop others will too. i have sent u a wikilove. just click the heart button on top of the user page and click ok. hope this is useful regds, Jordanben..

Cool Jordan 09:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that writing an article is not usually referred to as 'supporting your campaign'. Articles on Wikipedia are not meant to promotional or for recruiting others to your cause. Seriously, encyclopedias are supposed to just stick to the (sometimes borring) facts. But please stick around and add new, referenced information on topics of your interest. Best Regards,

  Bfpage  _{let's talk...}  01:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)