From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


Most recent archives
922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941

Meaning of "esp." signifying beginning of partnership[edit]

I believe I asked this a couple of days ago, but I haven't received notification of a reply and so perhaps I didn't, or perhaps nobody picked up on my question. I was wondering for which word "esp." was an abbreviation in e.g. "Partner(s) Sarah Harrison (esp. 2009; sep. 2012)" in the current Julian Assange infobox. I can see what it means, but I don't know what the word is. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy McCoy (talkcontribs) 10:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If you ask a question you need to keep checking back. See /Questions/Archive_938#Meaning_of_"esp.". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy: I replied to this already, but someone deleted my response. It stands for espoused in the Julian Assange infobox, a clunky way of saying married. Please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so we know who you are. I saw your comment on my talk page. If they aren't married, it shouldn't say esp. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: FYI, no one deleted your response, it was archived. Often posts are only visible for a couple of days. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: Odd - I wonder why this question was posted again. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 15:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Timtempleton: Simply because the OP didn't look back for an answer before the question (and your answer to it) were archived (even though you did ping him when you replied). --David Biddulph (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: - thanks - makes sense. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Could I Merge Two 'Suggested Merge' Articles, Despite Me Not Requesting to Merge Them?[edit]

Ahoy! List of Newspeak words has had a 'suggested merge' with Newspeak since November of 2018. It's gotten three supports to one oppose. Should I go ahead and merge the articles, or should I contact the one who initially suggested the merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTeaDrinker (talkcontribs) 13:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheTeaDrinker: You started it, now finish it. The list should be a redirect without navbox, the navbox template shouldn't have an entry for the redirected list, and the discussion should get a {{resolved|by ~~~~}}. – (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I paste my article here to be reviewed by the experts in here?[edit]

Can I paste my article here to be reviewed by the experts in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvic123 (talkcontribs) 15:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Elvic123: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's unnecessary to paste it here, as you can just link to it by placing the page title in double brackets, like I will do for your Sandbox page here: User:Elvic123/sandbox. If that is the page you are referencing, it is currently not appropriate for a Wikipedia article at this time, as it is completely unsourced. I'm also not clear on if this athlete meets the notability guidelines for soccer/football players written at WP:NFOOTBALL. Please understand that successfully creating a new article is very difficult; you may want to read Your First Article and make use of the new user tutorial which will help you learn about the article creation process. You can then submit your draft for a review using Articles for Creation(don't do this now, as it will be rejected). 331dot (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks. How do I add source to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvic123 (talkcontribs) 17:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Elvic123 See WP:CITE for information on citing sources. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you review my sandbox article and suggest what more I need to do? How do I add external link? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvic123 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What you have at the moment in your sandbox are four bare URLs at the end. It's better to use {{cite web |url=…|title=…|author=…|date=…|accessdate=April 18, 2019}} (or similar) and put the references at the end of the statement or paragraph (after punctuation, period, comma, etc.), where they are supposed to show the source of your info. – (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Section : Studio albums[edit]


How can I insert the details of the albums on a band page like I did on this page in french :

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melisane78 (talkcontribs) 16:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Melisane78: Check out {{Infobox album}}, you are not forced to figure out how "fair use" cover images work here. – (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse Melisane78. I took a look at the French version of your article and noticed that no references were used. I am also assuming that you are fluent in French. I really can't help you moving/translating the French version into English because of the lack of references. I have a suggestion: work on the French version of the article so that it has good references and then ask someone to look at it. See WP:NOT to see if the article meets the notability guidelines. Best Regards, Barbara 14:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi: I have been waiting five (5) days , with ten edits, and still waiting for auto-confirmation. Any help with why the delay? Thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by David S. Soriano (talkcontribs) 03:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello David and welcome to the teahouse. This shows that you account was created on April 11. This shows that the only edit you have made is this one. Thus, you do not have enough edits to be autconfirmed at this time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@David S. Soriano: be sure that you are logged on when you make edits, so they are included in your count, and will end up giving you auto-confirmed status.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Special:CentralAuth/David S. Soriano shows you have more edits at Wikimedia Commons but each wiki has its own logs. You need ten edits at the English Wikipedia, meaning at PrimeHunter (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank You![edit]

Thank you, kindly, to the three (3) members who answered my question about obtaining ten (10) edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David S. Soriano (talkcontribs) 19:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

my contributions being deleted on a repeated basis[edit]

On several occassions, I have written additions to a certain article on blood irradiation therapy. I have supported the additions with citations, from sources, including Universities. I have complied with the citation policy. It is unclear to me whether there is simply a predisposition on the part of staff or simply an arbitrariness; however, suffice it to say that I am taken aback by the cavalier attitude being demonstrated toward simple facts. I am a new contributor, but unless I can get some explanation of this, I will be retiring from this very quickly. Until I can get straight answers, I wont contribute toward another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutu0819 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tutu0819: Have you tried directly asking the person who removed it? They may have reasons and be willing to discuss it with you. You are unlikely to find the person by posting here, but you can find them by clicking the "History" tab of the article in question, and then asking on their user talk pages. Another good route is to post on the article talk page (click the "talk" link when viewing the article) and ask there why your additions are removed. People should be willing to explain and discuss. --Jayron32 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Tutu0819, The person to ask is Þjarkur. Their edit summary says they removed your additions because your sources are primary. ~ GB fan 14:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Tutu0819, I've written twice to you on your talk page about what exactly the problem was. We try not to cite primary sources when it comes to medical content because it can often give a misleading view of efficacy. We also try to summarize what is known rather than talking about specific studies. I'm of course willing to help you with the article, I'm going to see if I find some review articles about the topic. – Þjarkur (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please have a critical look at the article discussed (Blood irradiation therapy) (especially this diff). The whole History paragraph is unsourced and starts with a lie: Emmett Knott is not listed for Noble Prize. Maybe it is not by chance when this edit was made... -- Tox (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Having Multiple Sandboxes[edit]

Is that a thing? To have multiple sandboxes so that I can try to publish a couple articles at the same time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlyKiinz (talkcontribs) 17:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SlyKiinz. Yes, multiple sandboxes are fine. Just go to your sandbox, and at the url bar, just add a 2 after sandbox to make it /sandbox2 and then press return. You then just type a few words and press Publish changes (or possibly 'Create page' at that point) and you're sorted. Regards from sunny Spain, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

How to publish article from Draft state[edit]

I've created my first article but it has "Draft" before it. What steps I have to take to publish it correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enespi (talkcontribs) 17:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Enespi: I have tagged your drft as such; this provides a button to submit it for review. Please note, however, that the backlog is very high, and I am not completely convinced your article will pass the test: WP:N could be a useful read. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 17:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ronnie mwebaze, your editing suggestions are on the way[edit]

How can I find updated information or any site with latest information about Naava Grey? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie mwebaze (talkcontribs) 18:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronnie mwebaze. The Teahouse is generally a place to ask about Wikipedia editing or other things related to Wikipedia; it's not really a good place to just ask for general information about a particular person, place or thing. Have you tried googling "Naava Grey"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing Error[edit]

Need help with fixing a citing error, in visual preview the citations are working/look perfect but when submitted a red error appears on the citation section. It is this article here: Could I get some help with this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaunWhick01 (talkcontribs) 19:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

In the error message the words "help page" are in blue. This is to indicate that they are a wikilink to help on that particular error. In this case, the link goes to Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@JaunWhick01: I fixed it for you. Specifically you called a reference <ref name="AFVWW12" /> which was never defined in the text. See WP:REFB. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)



I have a question about uploading to '': I am an artist and upload selected works (mine) which I don't mind placing in the public domain.

Do interested parties have to let me know that they are using my work- and in what type of genre? Thanx, Dave Soriano — Preceding unsigned comment added by David S. Soriano (talkcontribs) 19:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi David S. Soriano. Try looking at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more details. Basically, you're not going to be transfering copyright ownership to Wikipedia, just uploading a version of the work under a free license to make it easier for other people to use. Depending upon the type of license you decide to use, you may place some minor restrictions upon the file's use (i.e. requiring that you be attributed as the artist who created the work), but you won't really be able to place a restrictions on commercial reuse or derivative use; moreover, once you release a file under a free license, you can't undo it at a later time if you have a change of heart. So, if you decide this is something you're still interested in doing, please take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and upload the files to Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia. Commons and Wikipedia are sister projects, but Commons is better set up to host images and the content it hosts can by used by any Wikimedia Foundation project, not just (English) Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I want to thank those that took the time to answer my question- thank you all! --David S. Soriano (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)David. S. Soriano

Uploading image[edit]

Hello, am I able to upload an image which we have the copyright for. If so, could you possibly help me to do this... Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cath1085 (talkcontribs) 19:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cath1085: You may only upload it if you are willing to release it under a license that allows for reuse for any purpose. See WP:DCP. RudolfRed (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Citations and Sources[edit]

Hello! I am working on the page on Preservation Metadata ( and have a few questions on sources and citations. 1. What style should I write my citations in? 2. Do all sources need to link to a digital resource, or can I list books?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlekmoore (talkcontribs)

You should keep the style that is already used in the article. Yes, you can use books (and other sources) that are not available online. Ruslik_Zero 20:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I create a Wikipedia page for a musician/singer-songwriter/producer?[edit]


How do I create a Wikipedia page for a musician/singer-songwriter/producer? This will be the first Wikipedia page set up for the artist. Is there someone that creates the page? Does it have to be verified?

Best, Aimee --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Aimeekenik (talkcontribs) 2019-04-16T21:35:21 (UTC)

Hello, Aimee, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, please be aware that writing a new article (which is a much better way to think about what you want to do than "set up a page") is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before they try it. An article doesn't exactly have to be 'verified', but every single piece of information in it must come from a reliable published source, and most of the content must be based on sources unconnected with the subject. Wikipedia is not interested in what you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) knows, and it has very little interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable places (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers). If there aren't such sources, then the subject is not notable (in Wikipedia's special use of the word) and no article will be accepted, however it is written.
I suggest you look at the essay Your first article for more information. Note also, that if the subject is yourself, or somebody you are connected with, it becomes even harder to write an acceptable article, because your conflict of interest is likely to make it hard for you to write in a sufficiently neutral way.
I am sorry if this seems negative; but the fact is that people who come here to promote a subject (which is what "set up a page for" usually implies) tend to have a frustrating time. --ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Burmeister Ginseng LLC and Wisconsin ginseng wiki[edit]

Greetings Gurus of the Teahouse,

The history of American ginseng (Panax quinquefolious) cultivation in Wisconsin is established and I would like to write a wiki about that, and another one about my business. Elsewhere in the country, ginseng is wild-crafted (hunters are lucky to find a couple lbs of this endangered herb in the woods). The Fromm Brothers of WI have a wiki, they were the first to successfully cultivate this tricky-to-grow, sensitive plant. However, they are no longer in the ginseng business. We are. My great-grandfather and grandfather both worked for them. My uncles developed and manufactured much of the custom machinery for cultivation of this plant. My name is Michael Burmeister, a fourth-generation ginseng grower, dealer, exporter and owner of Burmeister Ginseng LLC, the oldest ginseng-growing family in America established in 1909. Our ginseng has been the raw ingredient for Celestial Seasonings (who also have their own wiki) for the last 24 years. Other major American brands also use our ingredient, notably: Rishi Tea, Yogi Teas, Gaia Herbs, Herb Pharm and others over the years. Our signature brand of premium American ginseng products that are available in over 500 stores nationwide are garnering more attention since the Mayo Clinic's recent study that finally established the health benefits of this amazing herb. Bio-chemically, a very interesting plant. The cultivation of the plant is highly specialized and interesting. Ginseng has been identified as one of the most important commodities for balancing America's trade with China. I could go on (I have a book half written)...There's a lot to talk about.

So the question is: Are we 'notable' enough to deserve our own informational wiki (or 2)? Thank you for your consideration.

Ginsengguy (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Michael Burmeister

Hello, Michael. Most of my answer to Aimee immediately above applies equally to you. I would add that if Wikipedia comes to have an article about your business it will not be "your wiki", it will not even be your Wikipedia article, it will be Wikipedia's article about your business, and you will be strongly discouraged from editing it directly. --ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Michael - to add to what Colin wrote above, Wikipedia's notability requirements depend on coverage in reliable sources - this can be books, newspapers or television coverage. It can't be based on what's written on a company's own web site, or merchant sites trying to sell a product. I did a quick search for sourcing for Burmeister Ginseng, and cannot find anything resembling third party coverage or profiles of the company. As such, it will be difficult to write an article that passes the general notability guidelines, seen here. WP:GNG. If there was a source about your family being the oldest family in the Ginseng business, that could be something to add to the Ginseng article, but in a non-promotional way. It would only require one reliable source. Your path of action would then be to put an edit request on the article talk page. Here's info on that: Wikipedia:Edit requests TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I thank you all for the kind greeting! I hope to do my best in keeping with integrity and honest work in all my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcosXavier78 (talkcontribs) 04:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

How to add a cite template?[edit]

Hello, I have edited a few articles over some years in my areas of expertise and would like to see a template for citing national and international standards, such as ISO, IEC, ANSI etc. Unfortunately most are behind a paywall but nearly all represent good consensus of those interested and materially affected by the language of the standard. Has this been hashed out before? Altaphon (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually this is not the case, e.g., Standardization of Office Open XML, and it would be better to quote roughly equivalent free standards (ECMA, RFCs, TUS, etc.), but of course you can use {{cite web|subscription=yes}} for non-free sources. – (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

New thought[edit]

How can I draft a book, I mean write the book and send it to the drafter — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochLi (talkcontribs) 05:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@EnochLi: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is for asking questions related to using Wikipedia. We can't help you with things like how to write or publish a book. Or do you mean a Wikipedia article instead? Please clarify. 331dot (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
i did write but I mean what should I do with my book?Just put it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochLi (talkcontribs) 06:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying that you want to post your book to Wikipedia? That is not what Wikipedia is for. If you have additional comment, do not click "new section" to edit, just click "edit" either at the top of this page, or next to the section header. 331dot (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikibooks or Wikiversity would be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
User:EnochLi If you mean a book in Wikipedia Book space, that feature is not currently working. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

My page is not getting approved.[edit]

I've been trying to submit a page since December but it keeps getting declined. please inform me as to where i am going wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usha Kakade (talkcontribs) 06:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Usha Kakade: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your edit history, the only page I see that you have ever had declined is your blank Sandbox. Did you perhaps edit while logged out? You have written about yourself on your user page, but have not submitted it for review. I would suggest copying your user page content to your sandbox and submitting that- but if you were to submit it for review it would not be accepted as it is completely unsourced; you will need independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of you. Please read the autobiography policy for more information as well. 331dot (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Regaining a lost account[edit]

Hello, Teahouse!

A couple of months ago, I used to edit as Puml, though I've unfortunately lost the password that account (as a temporary solution, I use this account instead). I would like to regain the account, but that proves difficult, as I haven't linked it to my email address, and I have no Committed Identity. In other words, I have no way to prove that I am Puml. My userpage states the above, but that isn't proof, and I could theoretically be lying.

I completely understand if I cannot regain my account — I simply hope it's possible.

Sincerely, Poml (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Poml Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I regret to say that if you did not provide an email address to it, there is no way to regain access to your old account. You were correct to create a new one and identify it as a successor account to your old one; this is fine as long as your old one continues to have no activity in it. 331dot (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for the answer. Poml (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

How to report vandal[edit]

some one just put their selfie on the Elizabeth Acton page, the first picture under Early Life. how to report/change? I'm just the tiniest of gnomes but I am horribly affronted by page vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alayambo (talkcontribs) 09:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It has been reverted, as have a number of subsequent incidents of vandalism. You'll find advice at WP:Vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Alayambo: Thanks for spotting & reporting the vandalism. Acwilson9 (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Unable to lock down editing rights on Godfrey Phillips India Wikipedia page[edit]

Hi Concern,


We have been noticing some unwanted and repetitive mischevious editing on our Wikipedia article - Godfrey Phillips India and we would wish to close the EDIT SOURCE option for the general public. we would request you to kindly help us as soon as possible as such incorrect editing is not required and might mislead our audience.

Thanks Godfrey Phillips India Team— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarun3131 (talkcontribs) 10:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tarun3131 and welcome to the Teahouse. If the article is being regularly vandalised, then an administrator might partially protect it, but you should be aware that it is not your article, and might never read exactly how you would like it. Because you have a WP:Conflict of interest, you should request the changes on the talk page of the article, rather than making them yourselves. Having said all that, if you can point to a reference that confirms the corrections, we will make them for you because we want the article to be accurate. Please also note that user names must represent an individual editor, not a company. Dbfirs 10:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please help approve this article[edit]

Hi, In November 2018, I requested an editor of Wikipedia to submit an article about the career of Dylan Tauber, a well known electronic musician and cyberartist. No payment was offered for this request. For some reason the article is flagged as "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. (November 2018)" If anyone can help get this article approved I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you DolphinPhoto12 (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi DolphinPhoto12. The {{Undisclosed paid}} template was added to the page by GSS with this edit. The edit summary left said this was done "based on evidence". I have no idea what that evidence is, but you can post a message at User talk:GSS asking for clarifiction or you can ask for ask for help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It's possible that the tempate was based on a misunderstanding, but it's also possible that you or the other editor you asked to submit the article might be misunderstanding Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide or Wikipedia:Paid contribution disclosure.
Whether the draft is ultimately approved is going to depend on whether Tauber is deemed Wikipedia notable enough per Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. All the clean up and editing anyone does to the draft will not make any difference if it can't be esablished Tauber is Wikipedia notable for an article to be written about him; sometimes, it's just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Anyway, if you'd like some more specific feedback on the draft, try asking at WT:MUSICIAN. Perhaps someone in that WikiProject can better explain in more detail on what it's lacking and how to further improve it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Document Verification[edit]

Hello there,

I see that there is no page on Wikipedia for 'Document Verification' in specific. The 'Identity Verification Service' references 'Documentary Verification'. Is it possible for a page like that to be created on 'Document Verification'? which can be linked to the 'Identity Verification Service' page. Any suggestions and answers would be much appreciated. thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grevision (talkcontribs) 12:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Grevision. Are identity verification service and document verification service completely separate services or are they just different names for the same thing. New Wikipedia articles should really only be created about subject which are Wikipedia notable as explained in Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, and the fact that a Wikipedia article exists about a subject doesn't automatically mean that an article should be created about something similiar; it could actually mean that there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about either subject. I don't really have any idea about what document verification is other than it seems to have to do with the verification of documents. If it's the name of a particular type of software (like Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Windows), then you're going to have to show that it somehow meets Wikipedia:Notability (software). If, on the other hand, is more of service, then you will have to establish that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services. One thing about Wikipedia is that it's not the same a Wikitionary, so articles are not generally created about a term, even if it's one used quite a lot as explained in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You might try asking about this at a WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security since the editors in those projects might know more about this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @Marchjuly:for responding back with a detailed message. Please allow me to explain, a document verification service is different from an identity verification service, these are not different names for the same service. It entirely depends on the context of the subject, so document verification can be a stand-alone procedure use to verify the authenticity of documents. Which can include how it is done and what is checked during the process. Identity Verification involves the verification of an individual's identity particulars(On an ID document)and matched to the records of proprietary databases to ensure the validity of the identity. For the benefit of the community and Wikipedia readers, to have a separate article on 'Document Verification' made sense, rather complicate an existing article by adding a subsection and reduce article clarity. 'Document Verification' is more than just a term and a complete service, and is very notable used globally to prevent document forgery.
I hope you understand my view. However, mutual consensus, and acceptance would be accepted and followed accordingly. Thank you for considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grevision (talkcontribs) 08:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Lots of articles are added to Wikipedia each and every day. Many of them are kept, but many are also deleted. Sometimes it can take a fairly long time before an article ends up being deleted simply because there are so many articles and only so many volunteers reviewing and assessing them. Some people try to create articles about subjects that are about current events or controversial subjects which end up being noticed by some experienced Wikipedian relatively quickly, while others may be about obscure little-known topics that somebody only comes across by chance, usually when they are checking on something else like an image being used in the article or a formatting error, etc. The reason most articles end up getting deleted is because of a lack of Wikipedia notability, which is something Wikipedia defines in a particular way that might not be the same way as you're defining it above it your post. The subject might do wonderful things or serve a great purpose, etc., but the chance of a Wikipedia article written about it surviving depends on how well the subject's Wikipedia notability is established. My suggestion to you if you think this subject is Wikipedia notable for a stand-alone article to be written about it is to start a draft and when you think it's ready, submit it to WP:AFC for review. There's no guarantee the draft will be accepted, but AFC reviewers tend to be experienced editors with a good grasp of Wikipedia's various notability guidelines and generally won't approve something which is clearly not Wikipedia notable. Even if your draft is declined, the AfC reviewer should explain why and you can then work on further improving things and submit it again. There's really no limit on how many times you can submit a draft as long as you just don't keep submitting the pretty the same declined version over and over again. There's no guarantee that a draft approved as an article via AfC will never ever be deleted, but the odds of it surviving might be a little better than if you skipped AfC and simply just added an article to the encyclopedia yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Need help with Twinkle[edit]

Hello, I was wondering how you would go about reverting vandalism using Twinkle. I've been looking up videos to help with this, but the don't seem to help me.

Any answers will be greatly appreciated!

Hieucapps (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hieucapps,and welcome to the Teahouse. First off, have you looked at WP:TWINKLE, and the associated documentation at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc? That should give you the instructions you need for activating Twinkle, and how to rollback bad faith edits and possibly warn vandals about those edits. I'd be interested to know which videos you were looking at? Regards from sunny Spain, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nick Moyes, sorry for the late reply - I just now saw your reply. I appreciate the answer you have given me.

The videos I have been watching were and

Thank you, Hieucapps (talk) 6:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hieucapps: Thank you for those links-I'll check them out when I'm back home on my PC. Meanwhile, do you need any more support from me or other Teahouse hosts, having gone through the links I gave you? We're here to help. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverting issue[edit]

I have been making changes to the page Ishqbaaaz. Like I have changed the poster of the page.But my changes are reverted continuously by giving illogical statements. Kindly help me in this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by MridhulaSuresh (talkcontribs)

@MridhulaSuresh: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The best thing to do if you do not understand why your edits are being removed is to ask those removing them why; you may do so on their user talk page, or on the article talk page. I am not familiar with Indian television so it isn't clear to me why. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

What should I do if a user removes vandalism messages from their talk page?[edit]

I came across a user removing many vandalism warnings from their talk page ( and I'm not sure what I should do. Should I undo the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin04atschool (talkcontribs) 16:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Merlin04atschool: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Users are permitted to remove almost all content from their user talk pages, including warnings.(one thing that cannot be removed is declined unblock requests while blocked) This is considered an acknowledgement that the warning was read. User talk pages are not meant to be permanent records of warnings; they are stored in the edit history. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


Can't control my own phone get Locked out my passwords recovery emails and personal information changed over and over. Can't stop and really mad and confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:cb80:7d00:914e:e5c4:117e:5ff6 (talkcontribs) 16:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Can I ask if the problems you're having relate to logging into Wikipedia? We might be able to help with that, but if the issue is logging into your phone, that's not something we can help with (although the folks over at Wikipedia:Reference desk might be able to offer advice). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Article protection questions[edit]

Hi all,

I am a relatively new Wikipedian and was wondering about article protections. I understand the protections (None, (Auto)Confirmed, Extended Confirmed, Sysop) but I had a few questions.

1. If I create an article, who can set protections? 2. If the answer to no. 1 is NOT only me, does this mean that I will be unable to edit it even if I created it? 3. Would an appeal to be promoted to EC because I edit primarily on YouTube(rs) most likely be accepted or rejected? (The YouTube area has a lot of protections and in order to properly work I would need higher permissions.)

Thanks in advance!

Muffington (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Muffington: Most Wikipedia articles have no protection at all, and can be edited by anyone. Articles can only be protected by an administrator, and that is only done if there is a high level of recurring vandalism or disruption. Go ahead and create your articles, and don't worry about protecting it. If the article becomes a vandalism target, then you can request protection at WP:RFPP. RudolfRed (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Article without any sources; what to do?[edit]

Here is an article about an Iranian politician without any sources. It is important to know that its Persian counterpart is properly sourced. The article looks not good enough. I want to bring it to the attention of admins and ask for its improvement or removal if it isn't eventually improved. Is that the right thing to do? If so, how can I do that? Thanks! Alireza1357 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome @Alireza1357: I feel good when I see someone trying to fix things that are wrong with English Wikipedia. Yes, you should ask for help, but no, the Admins have nothing to do with it. Since you don't know who can help, which is the usual situation, the best place to ask a question about any article is the article's own Talk Page at Talk:Mohsen Safaei Farahani. There is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran where some may be able to help. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, @Jim.henderson: Sounds good! I'm going to raise the issue on the talk page and see who emerges (some people must be watching since this belongs to a politician). If not, I'm going to raise it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. But just out of curiosity, let's suppose no one responds and I deem the page unsustainable and stock for removal. Am I allowed to do that myself? What is the process in such a case? Thanks! Alireza1357 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Alireza1357: I responded on the talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Alireza1357, I'll respond here. If,as you say the article on this person in Persian Wikipedia is properly sourced, then nominating it for deletion here would never be proper. It isn't the article that is judged in the deletion processes, it is the subject. So if the article in Perdian Wikipedia is well sourced, then inarguably the subject is notable. John from Idegon (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of Democratic (an adjective) vs Democrat (a noun)[edit]

I'm trying to understand why the media of all types and political persuasion will use "Democratic" (an adjective) vs "Democrat" (a noun)when titling the Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, a Democrat fund-raiser, etc. Is it just that it's such a pervasive thing that it's not worth the effort to be correct? New editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHSteve16 (talkcontribs) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@NHSteve16: The term Democrat Party is seen as an epithet because the official name is Democratic Party, used as an adjective. See Democrat Party (epithet). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
But bear in mind, NHSteve16, that the policy in WP:COMMONNAME says that Wikipedia will use the name for something that is found in the majority of the sources, even if that isn't the official name, or some people think that it is wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The media uses "Democratic" because that is the actual name of the party. And the examples you gave are not just wrong (as in, they do not match the party name), they are also ungrammatical. --Khajidha (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please confirm that you will accept drafted article from me about my notable client, rather than from him, after I disclose COI on my user page[edit]

Hi. I wrote in two weeks ago about drafting and submitting an article covering a notable client of mine, about/for whom I have written for many years. In response, you referred me to COI guidelines and gave me a link where I should create the article. My question today stems from my client's need for reassurance regarding your acceptance of the article once I have drafted it: Will you accept the article submission from me, as the author, rather than from him, as the subject of the article, after I disclose COI on my user page? Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueHeron310 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey BlueHeron310. Whether a draft is accepted depends on whether it meets Wikipedia's standards for things like neutrality and sourcing, especially as it pertains to biographies of living persons. We cannot guarantee prior to reviewing the draft that it meets these standards. GMGtalk 20:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@BlueHeron310: (ec) Your above comment is (so far) your only edit from your account, so it is hard to refer to your prior question. However, no one here can promise that something we haven't seen will be accepted. It doesn't matter who submits it in terms of the odds of it being accepted(though if your client submit it they should be clear that it is about themselves) It would be best if you disclosed your COI and paid status before you attempt to create and submit a draft; compliance with the paid editing policy is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I should have included the words "for review" and "possible acceptance"--would you accept it from me, versus from the subject, for review and possible acceptance. I am new to Wikipedia and will attempt to comply with your instructions. Thank you. BlueHeron310 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Ideally, neither you, or the subject should write an article on him or her. But, as others have said, what you submit will be judged on its own merit. A caveat to that however: Due simply to human nature, an article submitted by its subject or by a WP:PAID editor on the subject's behalf, will most likely be looked at much more closely for compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO, two pillar policies. However, as the others have told you, your questions cannot be answered theoretically. We must have a real draft to look at in order to answer you. John from Idegon (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that you should declare a paid relationship on your user page now, and if the article you submit is accepted, on the Talk page of the article. On your User page, naming the person. Whatever the profession of the person you are writing about, look to existing articles as examples. David notMD (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

New users being treated different?[edit]

Picking on newbies seems to be the case in reading some of the comments here, and also going by one of the 2 persons who's been removing all of my work. The main problem I'm having with this one person is his rudeness towards me. Anyway, he keeps removing the updates I made to the page as I only made it easier to read - and my work was removed at first without any reason given, then with a snye remark after I requested a reason for his actions. That's uncalled for and very rude, and if this is how all new users are treated, then that says something real bad about this place. Respect should be the number 1 thing and kindness should be shown to all. I'm new here and I'm gotta make some mistakes at first, that should be no big deal, plus I still got to learn all of the many different rules - so please give me and others who are new some time to learn the ropes without being rude to us. Thing is, I don't feel what I wanted added to the page in question was in any way in error at all, yet it was taken down without a reason given and when I explained why I made changes to improve the page, he ignored me.

Again, the page in question that I edited was changed back twice by this same person. He gave no reason the first time and the second time I counted what he noted and I feel I made my point to him. But now he doesn't write me back. So what am I suppose to do next? If I put my corrected info back up, my guess is he will just remove it again. I'm not saying who he is or what page he keeps changing back, but I will be happy to go into full detail as to who he is and what my reply to him was - if this is the place to do so. Is it? If not, where do we resolve this kind of issue? Kenotoo (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Kentoo, am I correct in assuming you are talking about this? Please realize that article has been here a long time, and that there are standard formats for broad types of articles. Instead of insisting on doing it your way, which isn't working, perhaps you should consider engaging the editor you are in conflict with on how to do it correctly? I'm sure he'd be happy to direct you to the appropriate guidelines to help you understand why what you are doing is incorrect. If you don't understand the links he gives you, come back here and ask for help. Everyone here is a volunteer (across the board. No one who works on English Wikipedia receives any compensation of any kind from Wikipedia for what they do. No one). Most editors want to work on what they want to work on. For many, training newer users isn't necessarily what they want to do. It isn't infrequent that you will receive very direct responses from other editors. That isn't rude. I see no evidence of anyone being rude to you. Article content is decided by consensus. You are editing against long standing consensus on how album articles should be laid out. Every new editor comes to Wikipedia with varying levels of misconceptions on how Wikipedia works. Those who stay lets go of those misconceptions when schooled by more experienced editors. Those who don't do not stay, either because they just don't enjoy working in our somewhat complicated systems or because their editing privileges get revoked. Listen and learn. Experience is the best teacher for most anything in life. This is no exception. John from Idegon (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I can clearly see why many new users leave, as some of you folks don't understand what the word "rude" mean for starters!
Yes, that page has been up for years and it has had missing and hard to read info on it for years. Why is incorrect track info allowed to stand on some pages - like that one, and when a person fixes the page and makes it easy to read - he is made to be the bad guy by another user? Please tell me what I did wrong on this page, since your many info pages - while helpful, doesn't cover this at all. This page in question makes no sense at all - it talks about track numbers that aren't noted anywhere on the page. So I fixed them so the personal info on the page made sense. So why was that removed? What did I do wrong there? Why is hard to understand info on this page being allowed to stand? No, I don get it at all. Please explain. Kenotoo (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kenotoo: Perhaps a consensus for the edits can be made at the talk page of the article or at WikiProject Music or WikiProject Albums. See WP:BRD for more helpful tips related to that. Don't forget to keep your WP:COOL; it's a discussion, not a dance-off. It's not fun when edits get undone, especially ones that are done in good faith. StaringAtTheStars✉Talk 00:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
To StaringAtTheStars.... Thank you kindly for that info. I ran an online message board for 21 years and understand all of that, and the points on that page are excellent. If only everybody else followed that advise! I didn't come here for any of this debating. I've seen so many mistakes at these pages for years that were never fixed - and within an hour of working on some of them, my work is taken down without any explanation - and not explaining why my work was taken down - is flat out rude. If it had to be taken down - fine, but nobody has yet told me what was wrong with what I placed up there. Kenotoo (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kenotoo. You made a number of changes to The Rolling Stones (album) without leaving an edit summary explaining why; your changes were subsequently undone by Dan56 who also failed to leave an edit summary explaining why. Ideally, you both should've left edit summaries explaining why the edits were being made, not only for the benefit of the two of you but also for anyone else who might be trying to figure out what was going on. You then reverted the undo, and left this edit summary. When you describe yourself as an "old insider to the Stones" it makes it seem as if you're adding your own original research to the article; moreover, when you request that another editor email you before making any changes to "your work", it seems as if you're trying to claim some kind of ownership over article content. Neither of those two things are really in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which might explain why you were reverted again. Edit summaries certainly should've been left by Dan56 explaining why your changes were reverted and his not doing so was not really helpful; at the same time, I wouldn't say it was rude per se.
That, however, should not be what we're focusing on though; you were WP:BOLD and subsequently WP:REVERTed by another editor, so now the best thing for you to do would be to WP:DISCUSS the changes you want to make at Talk:The Rolling Stones (album) and see what others think about them. Please not that it's Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, not Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert back, discuss. Anyway, try to show how the changes you want to make are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It could be (as pointed out above by John from Idegon) that Wikipedia articles about double articles number the tracks in a particular way as explained per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Track listing, but these are things you can discuss on the article's talk page or at WT:ALBUM. Now, just for reference, if you look at the "Track listing" section I linked to in the previous sentence, you find that it says the following:

For albums that were originally released on multiple discs, either CD or vinyl, the track numberings should start at 1 for each disc, like this, as opposed to continuous numbering, like this.

You were trying to number the tracks continuously which is probably why you were reverted, but once again it would've been much better if Dan56 had left an edit summary explaining this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
To Marchjuly First, there are already, several pages up on the Stones album pages alone that show the tracks continuously, and they have been that way for a long time. Why is it okay for that to be done on some pages and not on on other pages? Please explain, as nobody has yet. Plus, the "Personal" section to the album in question makes totally no sense as it is written because of this. So I solved that problem so the track numbers corresponded with what was/is written in the Personal part of the same page. I wasn't finished working on the page and I planned to add more info and citations, but when I did return only an hour later, Dan56 had already removed all of my work without any explanation as to why it was removed (regardless of what he is now claiming below, and the timestamps should prove this fact). As I noted, I'm new here and I learned from this that you shouldn't publish anything until you have it all down and finished first.... As far as me being "an old insider to the Stones", I didn't mean what you wrote (or did somebody else write that and not say who they were?). It only meant to say, that my info is good info and not just made up. Also written above is: "it seems as if you're trying to claim some kind of ownership over article content" No I am not, you are assuming wrong. I was only asking for common courtesy there, as I've also been a newspaper reporter/writer for over 40 years now and that's how it's done in the business by newspaper editors. But I guess common courtesy isn't followed here by Wiki editors? Again, I'm still learning the ropes here, but unlike Dan56, I will not be rude to others, especially newbies, who should be helped (as many are doing here, thanks) and not treated differently only because they are new Kenotoo (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I left a message at their talk page—explaining that they were introducing incorrect information into the article—soon after the reverts; see here. And I see it is still not registering. It would have been better if they were not so high-maintenance. Dan56 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Dan56, come on now and tell the truth, as you know your didn't leave that message until after I had to ask you why your removed all of my work and you didn't explain why. Then you had to leave a uncalled for remark to me before you finally did. I did not leave any "incorrect information" on that page. Kenotoo (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Your obsessive interest and hang-up over not being properly coddled in interactions with another editor seems more important to you than rectifying the track numbers in the personnel section of the article you originally edited. There are numerous "newbies" vandalizing articles or introducing incorrect information--which you did; there is no such thing as "track 7 on side two" of the LP record--without an edit summary, yet you expected one from me justifying what you had not yourself in your first edit. You want to be treated as a newbie ("learning the ropes") when you want the niceties, and you want to be treated as an expert and veteran when you want your edits to not be challenged and do not want advice given to you by those who challenge them, or to be proven wrong; this is childish. I think there is a competency issue here, or one of hypocrisy and solipsism (on your part). I have offered a solution, several times before--replace the track numbers with the song titles, for the personnel section--which you have not responded to or commented on once in your repetitive, ramblings-on. So I am backing away from this dead-end debate, because what I value more than proving myself correct or right to others is my time, energy, and peace of mind. And that is my last lesson for you, as a newbie. Dan56 (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
To Dan56: It seems that all you want to do is engage in a flame war with me, state falsehoods about me, repeat yourself over and over again on things already covered, be rude, and make me look like I'm the bad guy here. So I'm "one of hypocrisy and solipsism"? I wonder if John from Idegon still thinks you aren't being rude here (or keeping a flame war going with that statement?)? You are being nothing but a bully. I have asked for advise more than once (here and on other pages), so I'm not going to repeat and defend myself to you anymore. I had already decided to take this to the next level, and will, so we will see what happens there. Kenotoo (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to note and see that Dan56 took my advise that I offered him about his own advise, which he suggested to me a few days ago, and he took the time to solved the issue. Excellent! Believe me, Stones fans will by happy to see this and now the page reads correctly, other than there's just a couple of very minor changes needed that I will be happy to fix. But the main dispute is now solved, and I hope his nasty talk about me will now go away, since I'm not going away myself - and there's now another 5 Stones LPs from the '60s alone that have the same issue with track listings that make no sense. I guess now that Dan56 took the time to solve this first problem, I can take the time to do the rest, maybe doing so in fixing one LP per day so the track listing on these other LPs also make sense. Kenotoo (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I haven't looked into the details of this dispute, Kenotoo, but just to address your question, "Why is it okay for that to be done on some pages and not on on other pages?": it's important to remember that there are almost six million articles on the English Wikipedia and many of those will contain errors or not comply with policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kenotoo: A content dispute (which what this mainly appears to be) is best resolved on the article talk pages per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You made a series of edits, but didn't leave an edit summary explaining why. Your intent might have been to make a change and then come back later and add a citation, but there was no way for Dan56 or anyone else to know such a thing. Moreover, that's not really a good approach to take to editing and it's much better to add content with corresponding sources supporting the content to the article at the same time and leave an edit summary explaining why; otherwise, it runs the risk of being removed or undone by another editor. Every time you click the "Publish changes" button, you agree to the Wikipedia's Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. This means anyone can come along and change what you added and even remove it if they feel it's not an improvement in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and they don't have to wait a set period of time to do so.
Wikipedia is not the newspaper business and how things are done on Wikipedia may certainly be different from how things are done on other websites or by other businesses, etc. What matters with Wikipedia is whether things are done in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia editors don't need to contact others in advance to let them know they are going to be undoing edits or making changes to articles. There are times when an editor probably should be WP:CAUTIOUS, but most of the time Wikipedia wants editors to be WP:BOLD; so, Dan56 kinda did exactly what Wikipedia wants him to do. Dan56, however, would've been better off leaving an edit summary explaining why he reverted your edits even if he thought you were some random editor making random changes because it would at least clarified why the edit was being reverted and possibly prevented the same content from being re-added again by you and avoided any possible hurt feelings. Dan56 did post on your user talk page five minutes after he made his second revert to try and explain things; editors are not constantly online and sometimes get WP:BUSY so responses to posts, etc. may take a little time but five minutes is pretty fast. Ideally, the discussion you two are having would should be on the article talk page and limited to discussing the content you're disagreeing upon and not to discussing each other because things start to breakdown fairly quickly when you do the latter. Perhaps, you both should take the dog for a walk, let things cool down a bit per WP:DISENGAGE, and try to restart the discussion on the article's talk page. You're going to need to show how the changes you want to make are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines because you are the one wanting to make the change. If you're able to establish a consensus that they do, then Dan56 will have no choice but to honor that consensus no matter how much he may disagree with it if he's truly WP:HERE. If the two of you are unable to resolve things through discussion, then try and move to the next step of the dispute resolution process. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Intellectual property rights explanation of Wikipedia[edit]

Did the Wikipedia says "non-free content zone" because I've proven to be editing in the Wikipedia, but I am not sure about this, it doesn't mean necessary? could also strengthens copyright rules in this Wikimedia Foundation, which if I convinced that non-free content, including these foreign works under the URAA, because it restores copyrighted works from the public domain in the United States, so what do I use, or how? Acajenka (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Acajenka. Primarily, all content in Wikipedia needs to be freely-licensed or in the public domain in the United States. You can read about the acceptable exceptions here: Wikipedia:Non-free content. Our sister project Wikimedia Commons, which hosts most of our images, has more stringent criteria: content there needs to be free in both the source country and in the United States, and that's where those URAA rules sometimes become a problem. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 02:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Feedback to Wikipedia[edit]

Contacting you is a really BIG problem. I just heard that you have stricken Brietbart from your list of credible sources. I cannot trust you anymore on certain subjects. I also will probably not send donations in the future. In my opinion you are no longer an unbiased, credible source. You appear to have decided to slide into the liberal camp. I don't know why you would not want to present all the views on a not scientific topic. You don't need to debate that 2+2=4. Opinions are not the same, sources are not the same. Put Brietbart back as a source to be considered as a source, or you will never see another dime from me. Right not it sounds like you sold out to the left. I feel betrayed at this time. I look forward to you response and a rethinking of your recent actions.

Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by M2VF (talkcontribs) 01:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, M2VF. You are free to stop reading or editing Wikipedia anytime or stop donating. The decision with Breitbar was that it is not a reliable source for statements of facts. Its shortcomings in editorial integrity in this regard are well-established. But contrary to what you say, Breitbart can be used as a reference for opinions and points of view. Wikipedia is dedicated to reporting all significant opinions in addition to facts. Insofar as Breitbart reports those, it can be used as a reference. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 02:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This was discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#RfC:_Breitbart. As for the user, who has made no other edits from the named account, threatening to withhold contributions (or the other side of the same coin, trying to bribe us by offering to make a contribution) is not a useful strategy. Meters (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, M2VF. Volunteer Wikipedia editors have absolutely nothing to do with Wikimedia Foundation fundraising. We have no way of knowing how much you donate or if you do not donate, and if we did, we would not care in the slightest. Since the Wikimedia Foundation raises over $110 million a years at this point and has very large cash reserves, I think that they can survive just fine without your donations. If you want to be persuasive and effective here, familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, and base your arguments on those. As for concerns about Breitbart News, the Wikipedia article accurately states: "Breitbart News has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories, including claims that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration supported ISIS. It has sometimes published these misleading stories as part of an intentional strategy to manipulate media narratives via disinformation." Websites that engage in deliberate disinformation cannot be considered reliable sources for any factual assertions on Wikipedia, although such sites can be cited for the opinions of their contributors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Question About Wiki Commons[edit]

Hi! I am an artist and have uploaded a number of images to Wiki Commons for public domain utility. Is ther ea way to see if anyone is using the artwork? Thanx! --David S. Soriano (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)David S. Soriano

Hello, David S. Soriano. There are two possible subheadings that will appear on the file's page to show usage, titled "File usage on Commons" and "File usage on other wikis". These will show a list of pages using the file. JTP (talkcontribs) 03:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@David S. Soriano: Here is a list of your uploads: commons:Special:ListFiles/David S. Soriano. I didn't find any uses in Wikimedia projects which is what the described method shows. You didn't upload them as public domain but as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. This still allows everybody to use them but it requires that they give attribution. Users outside Wikimedia projects are not required to inform of uses. You can make it easier to find the images by adding categories, e.g. subcategories of commons:Category:Art works. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Issues[edit]


If I am the owner of certain publishing contents, how do I avoid copyright issues?

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solviang (talkcontribs) 05:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the note on your talk page covers all the detail.... see your talk page. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


How do I volunteer for wiki media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean that you want to volunteer to be an editor, welcome: You have already become an editor just by editing! It is a good idea to Create an account, as it makes it easier for other editors to interact with you and see what you have done, but you don't have to. If you create an account, you can take The Wikipedia Adventure to learn all about editing.
One caution: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not social media or anything else. Our purpose here is to create and improve our encyclopaedia. There are quite a lot of rules and policies which govern how we do this; but don't worry about making mistakes: everybody does. As long as you are here to collaborate on the encyclopaedia, and communicate civilly, you will be fine. A lot of new editors think that the best way they can contribute is by creating new articles: that isn't the best thing for a new editor to do, as it is really quite difficult to get it right. There are millions of articles which we already have which need some loving care and attention, and some of these are likely to be in areas you are interested in. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

K M Nair Newbie - Need help with improve it, please[edit]

! "I made my first wiki article, Titled K M Nair. It has a improve it and add links message. Can someone help me please?" MonashGreen (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:NACADEMIC. You need more/better sources than if this article is to survive in the long run. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding User Profile[edit]

Hello, How can I change my user name from profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelipeTaylorus (talkcontribs) 08:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@FelipeTaylorus: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you would like to change your username, you may do so using Special:GlobalRenameRequest(if you attached an email address to your account in your Preferences) or at WP:CHUS(if you didn't). 331dot (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

About interlanguage links[edit]

HI, I have doubts about how to add inter language links while translating the articles to Wikipedias other than English such as Kannada Wikipedia. I visited the help page for this cause. Please tell me in detail while translating to other languages, when, where, and how to add the inter language links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VINAY C Hukkeri (talkcontribs)

Hi VINAY C Hukkeri. Save the translated article first. Then see Help:Interlanguage links#Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi when I publish my draft my article always gets deleted, I want to write bio of singer and songwriter Lisa May. Somebody help me out please? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamigirl199 (talkcontribs) 10:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There are many useful links in the feedback at User talk:Wikighos9, and in the content which you deleted from the draft, so look back at this version. You also ought to read what it says at WP:Articles for deletion/Lisa May. Your latest version of the draft has no sources. Read the advice at WP:Your first article, and read what Wikipedia means by notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Your draft have no citations to WP:Reliable sources. Take the time to read Wikipedia:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Notability (music). It's possible that an article about her (that survives) can't be written at this time, see WP:TOOSOON. But the internet is bigger than WP, see for example [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Pius Olakunle Osunyikanmi[edit]

Why my article is not yet approve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olakunle P. (talkcontribs) 11:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Declined 10 April. Reasons given. Resubmitted. Thousands of article waiting for review, so may take months. Meanwhile, you can work on improving the draft. See your Talk page for suggestions. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a larger problem here. Your User page has the same content as your proposed article. This is not allowed. (See Wikipedia:User pages). Expect that your User page will soon be blanked. This will not affect your draft. However, people are advised to not attempt to create an autobiography. An explanation was left on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Invert the chronological order of a Songwriting and Production Credits list[edit]

Hello everyone,

I'm trying to invert the chronological order of a Songwriting and Production Credits list, so the most recent tracks can be show at the beginning of the list.

Could you give me a hand with that?

Thanks xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inca28a (talkcontribs) 12:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Inca28a: First, please use four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~, but no spaces) after your comment- it signs it. Second, depending on the table type, there's little arrows up by the top of the table. If you click the set of arrows in the box where it says "year" it should flip. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 13:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Inca28a (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi A lad insane‬, and thank you for your response. As you can see, I'm new in here and not sure how to respond on the same lead.

How do I modified the table then? Because at the moment, it has those tiles to flip the years over, but what I would like, is that straight away, when you're in the Wiki page without having to flip, you can see the latest tracks to the first one.

Thanks Inca28a (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


I will like to create an article about Sozo Networks and Empowerment foundation a Non governmental Organization in Nigeria, I want to know if its a notable Topic  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oluwaseyi Ale (talkcontribs) 12:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC) 
@Oluwaseyi Ale: Thanks for asking! Many of our new editors just jump right in making an article, only to be disappointed when their topic isn't notable; you've taken initiative on this one. However, I don't know much about this company you speak of, so I can't tell if it's notable; WP:N is our notability policy, and WP:GNG is simpler. Basically, if the organization has received coverage in the news (has it been mentioned by many third-party reliable sources to source information to?) then it is notable, and if it hasn't, it isn't. Welcome to the Teahouse, thanks for asking, and happy editing! -A lainsane (Channel 2) 13:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of other languages in English Wikipedia articles[edit]

Hello. What are the rules for using other languages in English Wikipedia articles? For example, I am writing an English article about a certain subject that concerns Chinese people without English names. Am I allowed to write their names directly in Chinese? Thanks.

Saulnier Mullings (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Always consider the readers first. Most readers of the English WP will not be able to recognise, still less pronounce, Chinese characters. Therefore it is essential that a romanised form is used. It may make sense to use traditional script when discussing name variants. See Sun_Yat-sen#Names for an example of using all forms. MOS:ROMANIZATION and WP:CHINESE give policy in this matter. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few more questions which aren't directly related:
  1. Should I be asking these questions here (replying to your reply, like I am doing now), or should I start a new section altogether?
  2. Is there any way to be automatically notified when someone replies to me? I only found your reply by going to the Teahouse and manually locating my post yesterday.
  3. When editing an article, how often should I "Publish Changes"? If I do it often, I have less risk of losing my edits if my computer crashes, but I will have to write many edit summaries for very small edits, and the edit history will be more cluttered. Is there a strict, official guideline?
Thank you once again.
Saulnier Mullings (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. In general questions should be asked in an appropriate place. If it is a general question about editing WP, then here is fine – conversely a detailed question about a particular page should go to the talk page for the article. I personally would only start a new section if asking about a completely unrelated topic.
  2. If the person replying want's to attract attention then there is the {{ping}} template. This is normally used to alert editors that they are being dragged into a conversation they weren't part of. More generally, if you ask a question then you should check back regularly. Your WP:WATCHLIST may help here.
  3. Over the last 35 years my answer to this question (going back to text editors on files) has been along the lines of: how much re-typing do you want to do? If typing in continuous text, maybe every paragraph or two. Personally I tend to edit sections and save as I leave the section. You won't be wrong if you save too frequently, you may be angry if you don't save frequently enough!
HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!
Saulnier Mullings (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Request to protect my userpage[edit]

Nowadays, there is a lot of vandalism on Wikipedia. So, I request the administrators to protect my userpage, so that only I can edit my userpage, not even the administrators, chrckusers, extended confirmed users, etc.Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#User_pages. AFAICT, there's no current problem at your userpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
And the form of protection you seek does not exist. Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello everyone. I tried to translate a page from German to English. However, after finishing the translation an error occured stating that I have no permission to create new pages. How do I get this permission? Thank you in advance. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judith Otteneder (talkcontribs) 14:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Responded on user talk RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 15:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
More precisely, JO used the {{help me}} template to ask the same question at User talk:Judith Otteneder, and had an answer there. I believe standard practice would be to answer Teahouse questions on the Teahouse page, not on user talk, if the question has not been asked and answered anywhere else. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Photo deletion[edit]

hi, A photo of me has been up on a wikipedi page for some time now, a few years, for personal and professional reasons it is important that it is now taken down, i had no knowledge of it being posted in the first instance and did not give my consent, please you you advise me what the process around thsi is, thank you, Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but since IP's arent able to upload photo's I'm unable to say you what happened/what gone wrong. Please tell us the username you used to edit or at least the name of an article where the image was used, or the file name, if you still know it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Appears there is an existing article about you with a photo you do not like. Identifying the article and the photo may help you get advice here, but be aware that photographs are submitted to Wikipedia Commons by the photographers, and do not require consent of the people being photographed. David notMD (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Can I submit multiple articles for publishing at the same time from different sandboxes or do I need to wait?

Hi SlyKiinz and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you can have as many sandboxes and drafts as you wish, but you might annoy reviewers if you submit a whole batch of unreferenced stubs. Please read WP:Your first article and ensure that each draft has multiple independent WP:Reliable sources before submitting for review. You might also like to read WP:Referencing for beginners. Dbfirs 17:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Edit War" Help[edit]

I was editing Chinese Red Army, and I removed irrelevant clutter and redundant information. (It was two tables listing Organization and the Many Armies of CRA. [| See Here]

The 'copy editing' tag was removed (not by me) after I removed the tables and redid the paragraphs, and I was happy with my work.

Unfortunately, an IP address reverted my changes back to the previous edits with the redundant information. I was agitated by this, and undid his revisions. A few days later, a user "Kdl-sunday" reverted my changes again. I undid his reversions and looked up what I could do. I found the term "Edit Warring," and thought I might've been in the wrong.

However, when looking in the history, it appears that Kdl-Sunday was the one who created the Organization table and Many Armies table. He went back and redid my revisions, which I think means that he started the Edit War. What can I do, and am I in the wrong?

(I'd like it to be kept in mind that I did start open a discussion regarding my deleting of the tables, and it was never discussed on the talk page, nor was it discussed in the 'Edit Summary.)

Thanks! Chinese Red Army

TheTeaDrinker (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@TheTeaDrinker: I'm what could be called a "flyby" editor with no dog in this fight. It is a lot of work creating tables and your wholesale deletion of them, because you think they are clutter, is going to cause some hard feelings. There is a feature that you can add to any table to hide or show them and this seems to be a much more tenable solution. I have to go look up an article before I could do it -- I just posted a tables question myself because of my inexperience. But unless you can demonstrate that the information in the tables is wrong, I don't think that you should delete them. GeeBee60 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@TheTeaDrinker: here it is I will also post in the talk part of the article.
GeeBee60 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@GeeBee60: Thank you! I'll do that instead, because it's a much better solution. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I had submitted info that is going to be useful for sugarcane farmers.[edit]

I am expert in sugarcane farming machine,

 spendung 15 hrs daily about sugarcane harvesting machine, 

last night i try to edit the page of sugarcane harvester,there re may linkins dont even work , but I get a rejection message and my edit page is restored. whats is the problem , I removed the links that dont work any more Iam i wrong, let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbattachment (talkcontribs) 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

HEre is the link that dont work

please remove it from the page , links dont work , is of no use to any our wiki visistors. links below this link also dont woru .

or make me a proper editor for this page may be I can mage it properly

what ever I do some one keeps restoring it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbattachment (talkcontribs) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I assume this is about our Sugarcane harvester article. Yes, the link is dead, so I've added a "deadlink" note. Perhaps someone can find the new location of the pdf, or find it on an archive site? Dbfirs 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Added an Internet Archive link to the archived PDF and the title. GermanJoe (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Arbattachment: Also, to be very clear, Wikipedia is no PR platform to promote your company and its products. Your link additions and promotional edits have been reverted for this reason. Please read WP:COI, if you intend to contribute with non-promotional edits under a new username. GermanJoe (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Manual of Style[edit]

I understand that if an article has strong national ties to a particular country, it should be written in that country's variety of English. I found one caveat. In an article about a person, which variety of English should it be written in if a person was born in a country that they don't reside in? Is there a guideline to this? Should I seek a consensus on the Manual of Style talk page? I am asking this because I was wondering whether I should propose that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex should be written in British English rather than American English. Mstrojny (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There are arguments for both varieties of English in this case, so I would go with the fall-back rule that the variety first used should be retained. This would be American English, dating back to 2007 with "Theater". If you look at the talk page of that article, you will see the advice to use American English. Dbfirs 17:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Dbfirs I understand that on the talk page, it says to use American English. I will not propose a change there. Should I go to the MOS talk page and seek consensus for which variety of English should be used when someone lives in a country they were not born at? Mstrojny (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the manual of style needs to dictate that the variety of English matches the country of residence, though this will usually be the case if there are no other considerations. You could put forward an argument that Meghan is now closely associated with British English, and you will get both support and opposition. Personally, I don't think it is worth the hassle to try to change the status quo. Dbfirs 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
As Mark Twain satirized in Huckleberry Finn, it is possible that Americans are more interested in British royalty and nobility than the British are. Acwilson9 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

How to Handle Possible Plagiarism from Website?[edit]

I noticed an article about an educational institution that has wording and sentence structure that are eerily similar to the institution's website. I am not sure which came first--whether the article copied the website, or whether the website copied the article. I am copy-editing the article, but what is the proper thing to do regarding the editor who wrote those sentences? Is there a proper way to bring the alleged plagiarism to the editor's attention? Thanks. – Kekki1978 talk 17:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess what I'm asking is whether there is a template I should use, or is the expected thing to just mention it on the editor's Talk page, or what. Thanks. – Kekki1978 talk 17:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kekki1978: Check the copyright date on the website and compare to the edit history of the article. Many websites do copy Wikipedia, so good job on realizing that as a possibility! If you do deduce that the website came first, then go to the editor's talk page and leave a message- a rephrasing of what you said here would be great. Thanks for asking, and happy editing! -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Many websites 'borrow' content from Wikipedia, and if so, are asked to acknowledge the source. Some do, some don't. David notMD (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane:@David notMD: Thank you, both, for the guidance! – Kekki1978 talk 19:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Is it necessary for me to have expertise in a topic to edit a page on it? For example, is it appropriate to edit a page on a disease if I haven't studied medicine? I'm sorry if this question is addressed somewhere else, I'm really new and kind of intimidated by Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonOrangeLime (talkcontribs) 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@LemonOrangeLime: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better. No, you don't need to be an expert on a topic to create an article for it. You can learn about that process at WP:YFA. It is not easy to create an article if you are new to Wikipedia, so you may want to spend time improving existing articles until you have some experience. Check out WP:TUTORIAL and the learning game WP:ADVENTURE RudolfRed (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes....but you are not using an accepted referencing format at articles such as Banti's Syndrome. And remember to 'sign' your comments here and at Talk pages by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @LemonOrangeLime: ...also, the Teahouse is a good place to ask any question related to editing Wikipedia. Worst-case scenario, we tell you to ask it at another, better-suited place (but you might not know which before asking!). TigraanClick here to contact me 13:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

biography and article submissions[edit]

Question for Angus WOOF but anyone can respond.

Angus WOOF said regarding biography submission ofMpower2 ( mark L. Power)Biography is rather disorganized and should be sorted better by chronological order. It also needs a lead paragraph to show that his most important Wikipedia-notable achievements are. Need secondary sources independent of the subject.

I am taking on your observations with a resubmit soon. But I will continue to have a problem with citations and secondary sources for the following reasons.The time covered (early 1970s through 2000) and especially the subject covered (fine-art photography in Washington DC) was very poorly covered in the mainstream press at the time. The fine art photography actvities that were covered were written by me for the Washington Post so I have no choice but to cite my own articles. The other difficulty is the age of the citations - the Washington Post archives only go back to 1997 and most of my citations are from the 70s and 80s. Many of the smaller alternative publications did have better coverage but they also don't have accessible archives and in fact most have ceased to publish.

I am currently working on another Wikipedia article which seeks to redress that lack of historical evidence called "Washington DC fine art Photography, 1967-2000" which will have many of the same citation problems. One of the motivations for posting this on Wikipedia is because perhaps others conversant with the period will see it and contribute their own edits to make up deficiencies in the citations as well as the content of the article.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts

Mpower2 - Mark L. Power — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpower2 (talkcontribs) 19:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mpower2: Just an FYI - the older newspaper sources don't have to be online to be used - you can still cite reliable sources that aren't on the web, as long as someone can look at a library archive and check them. The NY Public Library has searchable archives for older issues. [[2]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Prevalent Musical Figures/Artists pages are not approved?[edit]

Hi, How do I get musical artist pages approved? I did two articles for two well-known local artists from Auburn, Alabama, and both were denied. How do I get them approved ? If lesser-known Nashville music artists can have pages, why can't the well-known local artists also have pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover849 (talkcontribs) 21:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Musiclover849: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please review Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians written at WP:BAND. Any musician must meet at least one of the listed criteria, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, in order to merit an article here. Each article is judged on its own merits, see WP:OSE. If you see other articles that you feel do not meet the notability criteria, please propose their deletion at Articles for Deletion. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

A self-demonstrating article about vandalism I created for the laughs[edit]

Here. Should this be a humorous policy page? ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No. You should blank it. It serves no purpose and I personally see no humor in it at all. John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Per User page, AU claims to have retired. David notMD (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe because they went to the supposedly newbie-friendly place and got told their work was shit by a gang of regulars?
Seriously, folks (@John from Idegon and Gråbergs Gråa Sång:). I understand that we cannot always muster diplomacy when it comes to self-promoting SPAs or obvious vandals, but that one was clearly a good-faith attempt at humor. You do not need to pretend something is funny or interesting when it is not, but you need to keep the Teahouse a friendly place. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry one way you are correct, but not the way you are claiming. Especially coming from a supposedly "retired" user, no one should have responded per DFTT. In the future, when you have a complaint with a fellow Teahouse host, take it the talk page and ping them. Doing the laundry in public is much more unfriendly than giving an honest answer. John from Idegon (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Deleted[edit]

Hello, an article I published was deleted and I'd like to get the text back for future use. Can you let me know how to do so? Thanks.Egw1119 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Egw1119: See WP:REFUND for guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


I've had an experienced editor tell me that Wikipedia articles are not allowed to use ISUU as a reference because ISUU is "self published" platform - however, ISUU also seems to be a storage location of a lot of sources which are not "self published" - such as The Washington Informer, a reputable African-American newspaper here in Washington, DC + many others.

The editor also told me that I was supposed to get an automated Wikipedia "warning" if I try to use ISUU (no pun intended) as a RS, but that has never happened ???

Question then: Is ISUU as a platform not allowed in WIkipedia as an RS? - regardless of what ISUU as a platform may carry, or who/what the original source - such as my earlier example may be?

Thanks in advance... --Artdoofus (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Artdoofus: I'm not familiar with ISUU, but if you know what the original source is, just cite that. RudolfRed (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: --- Thank you... that's sort of what I had been doing - citing the original source - but those citations got deleted by editor with comment that ISUU was a self publishing platform and against WP:RS standards - but it seems to me that if the original source is a RS and it's just using ISSU as a platform to store historical data??? --Artdoofus (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Artdoofus:, if you're including an online link to ISUU then that may mistakenly but understandably get treated as if ISUU is the source, but sources don't have to be online, just archived somewhere that an ordinary member of the public can theoretically access, even if that involves taking a plane trip to London and visiting the British Library (for example).
If you can derive the original publication information from ISUU, e.g. journal name, publication date, page number, etc., and enter those in the appropriate citation template (without mentioning ISUU at all), there should be no problem if the original source is a Reliable one. In saying this, I am presuming that ISUU is not open to spurious entries, but if this is possible it might be advisable to cross-check items found there by other methods. {The poster formerly known as} (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@ - Excellent recommendations! Let me try that if/when this comes up again!--Artdoofus (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


I have no idea what to do sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by As241fsazdatry7 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@As241fsazdatry7: Welcome to Wikipedia. To get started, check out the Tutorial or the learning game Wikipedia Adventure. RudolfRed (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I am a newbie[edit]

Hi I am Maaz. I hope every one is having a good time. I want to contribute and i am looking for some one to help me with tips and tricks to learn as quickly as possible.

I hope to have a good time in your community.

All the Best!

Regards Maaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaz47123 (talkcontribs) 08:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maaz47123: Welcome to Wikipedia. To get started, check out the Tutorial or the learning game Wikipedia Adventure. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

My Article is not appearing in search[edit]

I have published my first article lately and its a report about terrorism. Incidents happened in last five years, how do i check if it has been published and its being useful for others? its not even appearing in search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maaz47123 (talkcontribs) 09:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maaz47123: Apart from your questions here at the Teahouse, the only other edits that are recorded for your account are to your own User page, User:Maaz47123. That seems to be where you have put your new article, though it's not where it belongs - that page is for information about you. However, before you pursue that any further, you should check the existing articles at List of terrorist incidents. If you think you have anything to add, you should build on those existing articles rather than starting a new one. I hope this isn't discouraging - it surprises many new editors to discover that writing a new article is one of the most challenging tasks. Instead, I suggest starting out by improving existing articles so your information is made available to readers in the most accessable way.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Maaz47123, Welcome to Teahouse. You did not submit your article (the content is on your user page - see here User:Maaz47123). Pls read WP:Your First Article and referencing to familiar yourself the requirements needed prior submit the aritcle for review. You could use Wikipedia Article Wizard to create your draft page. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

profile pic uploading[edit]

how i can upload my profile on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijay dhanoutu (talkcontribs) 11:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vijay dhanoutu: Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you may have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is - we are not a social medium and we do not have "profiles" of users. Instead, we have volunteer authors who write articles on notable subjects to build an encycolpedia. Each author has their own User page (yours is User:Vijay dhanoutu) where you can put information relevant to your Wikipedia editing (such as what languages you speak).--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

How to get Traffic to your website[edit]

As we all know that making a website is not a big thing, but the main thing is to rank your website in search engine and for which we do SEO. Here is the problem my website is rank on Google or different search engines, but the traffic to my site is low. My question is how to get the traffic to my website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alijaffary (talkcontribs) 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This page is for asking help with editing Wikipedia, so this is not the place to advise on how to get traffic to your website. Having said that, making a website is not a big thing, but building a good website that will attract traffic is a very big thing, on which businesses spend vast amounts of time and money. The website you linked to is confusing and poorly designed, and the English is so bad that it is unlikely to attract any customers. I suggest you seek advice from a professional website designer.--Shantavira|feed me 12:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Image upload[edit]

Good day guys! I am currently working on an article and needed to upload a descriptive image, I had recently uploaded the image successfully at Wikipedia commons and don't how to get it uploaded on my sandbox.

Please how do I upload an image for an article(A draft yet to be reviewed) on my sandbox? Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Just link it like you would for any other picture: [[File:NSE President Otis Anyaeji.png|thumb|caption goes here]]. For more help with images, see Help:Pictures. Eman235/talk 12:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Italics in link[edit]

Why is "Cats" in the link Memory (''Cats'' song) not shown in italics? Jmar67 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I see now I have to apply the italics by piping: Memory (Cats song) Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, otherwise the apostrophes are interpreted as part of the page name. You correctly wrote [[Memory (Cats song)|Memory (''Cats'' song)]] to produce Memory (Cats song). I have made {{formatted link}} to automate this (no documentation yet). {{formatted link|Memory (''Cats'' song)}} produces Memory (Cats song). Consecutive apostrophes are removed when the link is made. It also removes any tags in <...>. {{formatted link|H<sub>2</sub>O}} produces H2O. Maybe the template needs a short name or redirect. {{fl}} is taken. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
PrimeHunter: maybe {{flink}}, or {{fln}}? Eman235/talk 15:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

Hey i am trying to make a page about history please send me direct link so i can make the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsmanpakAli (talkcontribs) 13:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not clear what you need. "History" is a very broad topic, and the article history already exists. Make sure the topic you want to write about is not already covered in the encyclopedia.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Table fix[edit]

Hello Teahouse good and wise folk –

I don't fiddle enough with tables and so I do not see the easy fix. The List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers is missing the closing bracket or something, so that all the article references are piled into the last cell of the table. I made a failed effort to fix this. Sometimes I have the patience to figure it out but not today. Many thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi GeeBee60. It was fixed by [3]. The table end |} must be at the start of a line. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


Hai, I'm new to wikipedia editing. It's been two weeks that I'm here but I don't know what to do. How will I know that I need to edit something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuksanaJalaludeen (talkcontribs) 14:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@RuksanaJalaludeen:People approach editing in different ways. One way is to just making small edits whenever you see an improvement to be made. Another is to specialize in one area (eg. adding references to statements where a citation is needed, researching certain topics, creating tables). But I will say that most new editors get frustrated with having their work removed, often for reasons they don't understand. That is why we sometimes recommend new editors begin with The Wikipedia Adventure, since it will bring you up to speed quickly about the basics of editing at Wikipedia. Happy editing!--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 15:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Needing help[edit]

Hey guys! How can I find and add a reliable source and put a poster in my article? I'm new to Wikipedia and edit sources but I don't put reliable sources. I'm just pcreating a Punjabi movie article and need sources. Can you help me? We are the Great (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by We are the Great (talkcontribs) 14:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@We are the Great:Google is your best friend. You can also use any books, magazines, or newspapers that you may have access to. You may also reach out to the Wikipedia library get access to sources. Once you find a source, however, it is important that you add it to an article in the correct way. Watch the video on the right-hand side of this page to learn how.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 15:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the ideal way to fix this (due) edit that was reverted for allegedly promotional content?[edit]

Hello everyone. I have added one line item to an article about a technical subject and to justify why it is relevant (it is) and why the item added should be there, I added references and external links to major sites w/o commercial purposes. However, somehow that I cannot really understand one (or more?) of these references have been considered promotional and the edit was reverted without any details of why or how to fix or improve it, just marking it as "spam". I of course since then read some of the articles to understand it better but the guidelines are fuzzy and don't really give a practical clue of what may be wrong. I could do trial-and-error with each link until it gets accepted but then that feels spam… Long story short: given that this is indeed content that should be there given its relevance, what am I missing there? Thanks a lot! KDEWolf (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, KDEWolf. The best thing to do would be to post a polite neutral message on the reverting editor's talk page (not advocating for your addition, but merely asking for the specifics for why they reverted it.). If after they explain you still disagree with them, you start a discussion advocating for your change at the article's talk page, giving it a neutral title (such as "My edit on 19 April) and make your arguments based in reliable secondary sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would be a good idea to ping the opposing editor. For what it's worth, if I followed that type article I probably would have reverted you too. First, the very first thing violates WP:ELNO. Second, adding GitHub sourced primarily to GitHub seems pretty promotional. Third, I don't see any secondary sources. Last, GitHub is linked as a see also. Is there an existing consensus to cover it that way?
This is the important thing, KDEWolf: You made a BOLD edit, another editor REVERTed it...per WP:BRD, the thing to do now is DISCUSS. Thanks for coming by and happy editing. John from Idegon (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@KDEWolf:, to clarify a common misunderstanding regarding " w/o commercial purposes": Wikipedia's guidelines against promotional editing and link spamming apply to all kinds of external sites. Aside from commercial enterprises, this includes non-commercial sites like personal blogs, open source projects, NGOs, advocacy and lobby sites, etc. Any kind of advertising and advocacy - commercial or not - is prohibited. Of course you are welcome to contribute to articles in this topic area. But information should usually be referenced to sources that are not affiliated to the given topic (with some exceptions). If you want to write about a specific topic or aspect, you should try to find such "independent" 3rd-party sources. GermanJoe (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

What is a blog?[edit]

Hi WikiWizards,

I understand that citing a blog page is disallowed, but I'm unsure whether to classify a particular web article as such. If all material on a page (though not the site) is attributed to a corporate entity (the site owner) rather than an individual poster then does it count as a 'blog'? Might it be admissable 'news'?

RAClarke (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be considered a Primary source for the site owner. See WP:Primary. Wikipedia policy strongly prefers Secondary sources. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ariconte,

Thanks for your response. Yes, I can understand an objection on those grounds may still apply. However, should my edit have been rejected on the grounds that I reference a blog? It would be of value to have a definitive answer to this question because I imagine similar circumstances surround many other edits.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Formatting/indentation characters[edit]

Where is the use of characters such as ":" and "*" on talk pages described? Jmar67 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see Help:Wikitext. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
And e.g. WP:THREAD or WP:INDENT for more about their use on talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I push my article from my Sandbox for review to be a live article?[edit]

I just finished an article on my sandbox but I don't know how to submit the article for review. Can anyone help me with an answer please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Ani (talkcontribs) 19:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Victor Ani: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for wanting to make it better. Add {{subst:Submit}} at the top of the draft to submit it for review. RudolfRed (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Changing the color in a box?[edit]

I am attempting to edit a draft I've made of an article for an off Broadway show. In many movie/theater/tv show pages, the nominations section features a box with a list of the nominations, what was nominated, and the status of the award (winner, just nominated [lost], etc). The winner cell is colored green and the nominated but lost cell is red. I want to do the same to my draft, but I can't figure out how. I have the box and details all created, but I can't figure out how to color the individual cells. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, look up any oscar winning movie and scroll to the accolades/awards/nominations section. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathyash (talkcontribs) 19:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from WP readers[edit]

Where can WP users see comments/questions provided by external readers of Wikipedia and our replies to them? Jmar67 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of infobox[edit]

Hello guys! It's encouraging the speedy response we get in the teahouse considering the volunteering nature of Wikipedia.

I'm stucked on the use of an infobox for an office holder, how do I go about using an infobox. Thanks in anticipation.

Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

im new with page making can you help me[edit]

so i started wikipedia around 6 months ago and i just started a new account so i can start my own wiki pages but i don't know how to make a new blank page if you see this and you know how to help please contact me on my talk page of the teahouse talk page thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geek gaming (talkcontribs) 23:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced Biography[edit]

I wrote a new article about an Italian singer songwriter which is well known in Italy. All her album are available on, for example. The article was refused because "Most of biography and musical career are unsourced". So I went to the "Madonna (entertainer)" article and I found that here also most of biography and career are unsourced. So please delete this article. I don't know which this "Madonna" is. To me she is only the mother of Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinix (talkcontribs) 23:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vinix: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Madonna article is indeed sourced; you will see numbers in brackets like this: [1] Those link to the sources that support the information; the list of sources is at the bottom of the article. Most of the content in your article does not indicate what the source is for the information. You may wish to read WP:CITE for more information on citing your sources. Don't be discouraged- successfully writing a Wikipedia article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. You may also wish to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
For interest's sake, an article exists at the Italian Wikipedia, it:Naïf Hérin. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi! Please how do I make use of infobox in my articles.  Would appreciate a reply. Thanks

Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)