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


Most recent archives
923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942

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)

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)

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)

@Inca28a: Depending on the table this might be as simple as replacing a class="wikitable" by class="wikitable sortable", folks could then sort the table by its date column or similar. Otherwise oldest first is usual, your idea would be unusual. – (talk) 20:44, 20 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)
In theory IPs can add {{Personality rights}} at the end of the permissions=… line of the photo on Commons for info, and fight it out on the BLP talk page here. Do no harm (on bios) is a policy here, and if you have a better reason than "do not like it" the photo will be removed. Maybe report it on WP:BLP/N, or tell us what it's about. – (talk) 16:45, 20 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)
@TheTeaDrinker: Forgive me for jumping in I waited a couple of days and then cut and pasted this into the article that existed before your revisions. I didn't compare with your version to see if you'd made any text changes. I explain it on the talk page. Cheers, GeeBee60 (talk) 21:02, 22 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)

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)
{{flink}} sounds like something I'd recall when needed (German flink is roughly quick or wikiwiki. ;-). – (talk) 17:06, 20 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)
@John from Idegon: @GermanJoe: Thanks for the valuable advice, proceeded accordingly a couple of days ago on the topic's talk page and on the user's talk page, let's see how it goes! All the best KDEWolf (talk) 13:31, 21 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)

If it's any help, RAClarke, the reason I reverted your edit here is that all your reference demonstrated was that some random person on the Internet—presumably the owner of Nonstop Press—once noted that a bit of dialogue in the film seemed to "predict the future". (Note that the linked section of the Web site is headed "NonstopID Blog/News".) That does not seem to constitute significant information about the film's legacy, nor is the referenced "source" a reliable source for anything except one person's thoughts (see WP:UGC). If you could find a secondary source saying that that particular bit of the film had been noted as prophetic by multiple scholars or commentators, it would be a different matter. Deor (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Deor,

Thank you for expanding on the reasons for your decision. As an infrequent editor, my knowlege of Wikipedia is not as deep as the issues involved. I concede that "NonstopID Blog/News" as a site tag-line justifies your caution. Is it really a show-stopper, though? Wikipedia has innumerable links to sites run by the publishers of newspapers (eg, and sites run by the publishers of television programs (eg, even when they include a section, below the main article, where the reading public posts comments. Can we not add links to similarly formatted pages at sites run by the publishers of books? Nonstop Press may well be a one-man-band. We know only that it is a business specialising in print titles covering the same genre as the page I tried to edit. Do those qualifications not lift it above 'some random person on the Internet'? The news content of the article (that 2017 marked the 50th anniversary of the film's release) was indeed low, but relevant to the 'Legacy' section of the film's page at Wikipedia. Discussion towards concensus on alternative ways to improve it are perhaps best held on the talk page there.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 10:46, 21 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)

I'm aware of {{win}} for green, and {{n/a}} for dark gray, and a few others: There should be a list on the template doc-page(s). Always use preview in tables, these templates have some odd features, e.g., if {{n/a}} works a similar |{{n/a}} might cause havoc. – (talk) 17:17, 20 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)

@Jmar67: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. All comments related to an article, whether by editors or readers, are on the associated article talk page. Every article has a "Talk" tab at the top(assuming you are using a computer), click this to access the talk page. Article talk pages are not for general questions or discussion of the subject, but for discussion related to improving the article. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Otherwise check out the WP:REFERENCEDESK for general questions. – (talk) 17:22, 20 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)

I'd start with {{Infobox person}}, and if that doesn't what I want I'd look for a similar page where folks already figured out how the "embed" feature actually works. There are various examples on {{Infobox person/doc}}. Disclaimer: I hated it. – (talk) 17:31, 20 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)

Hi, Geek gaming, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please don't "make a blank page": instead, create a draft using the articles for creation process. Your first article will tell you how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 20 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)
Hello, Vinix. After your comment above, I took a look at Madonna (entertainer) and discovered that it is rated a Good article and has 392 refererences. If you tell lies on Wikipedia, then people will not trust you. Please be cautious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
#Former featured article, JFTR, I'm still interested to get it back to featured. Never upset those vindictive IPs like me, they could skip "assume good faith" as fast as 1-2-3. – (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Vinix may have made a beginner's mistake. The Lead of Madonna (entertainer does not have references, which is OK, as the body of the article does. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

IOW, some folks handle the lede (lead) like an "abstract", it has to make sense by itself, and everything in the lede has to be covered in the "body" with corresponding references in the body. For completely new stubs that's not required, everybody is glad if there are good references at all.Face-tongue.svg84.46.52.110 (talk) 15:43, 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)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ohanwe Emmanuel .I.. Please read Help:Infobox. Please also be aware that infoboxes are very unpopular among a certain group of editors. It is not worth arguing about infoboxes, so please do your best to avoid infobox conflict. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Dunno, I dislike navbox templates with lots of red links, because that clobbers Special:WantedPages and might offer no new insights above categories, but needs-infobox=yes is a pretty common parameter in lots of WikiProject templates. I even apologized for submitting a draft without infobox to the AfC review today. What's wrong with infoboxes, are they not shown on mobile? – (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you to all who took the time to answer my questions- I appreciate it.--David S. Soriano (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC) David S. Soriano

How Many Wiki sections actually exist?[edit]

How many Wiki sectioins actually exist?

Thank you! --David S. Soriano (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)David S. Soriano

What do you mean by a "Wiki section"? Meters (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia currently has about 5,845,056 articles. You can find more statistics about the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia. If you're asking about something else, please clarify.--Shantavira|feed me 10:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

submitted article was rejected - "Wesley Boudville"[edit]

I'm new to this. I submitted an article "Wesley Boudville". (Yes, it is about myself.) It was rejected by Editor Cassiopeia. The rejection had 2 parts. The 2nd part was about formatting - "Please remove all external links in the body text." Fair enough. I can make those changes.

But the first part said "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

I disagree. The article refers to 12 patents. There are links to each patent at These are all published on the web. By definition, they are reliable. The US PTO decides what becomes a US patent. Under US law, the PTO is the legal AUTHORITY on this subject. And the PTO is independent of the subject (Boudville). The links to the patents are also have "significant" coverage of the subject. I am listed in each patent page as the ONLY inventor. Without me, the patents would never have existed. This surely should count as significant.

There is another link in the article which goes to an article in, concerning a company that I co-founded with 2 others. I suggest that this is also published and reliable. And it is independent of the subject. The SEC regulates publicly traded companies. individuals have no authority over the SEC.

But there are other links in the article which might well be considered superfluous, where indeed there is no "significant" coverage of the subject. I wrote links to Caltech and Uni. Western Australia (where I studied). These webpages do not mention me. So I can certainly remove the links to those sites. But I did notice on other wikipedia articles were such links existed - for example for "Valerie Alexander", where there are links to webpages of U.C. and Berkeley, where she was a student. Those pages do not refer to her.

Can I get some help on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesboudville (talkcontribs) 06:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wesboudville. Perhaps you misunderstand what "significant coverage" means. An approved patent application is not significant coverage of you as a person. All it includes is your name. It does not include any biographical details such as where you went to school or what your work history has been, or the commercial impact of your inventions or a critical assessment of your career. Similarly, SEC listings just provide basic standardized information about individuals associated with a company. These are data points. They are not significant coverage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Wesboudville Hi, Pls click on the blue highlighted text on the grey pane and my comments and they will lead you to further information of your questions. You could seek help for Article for Creation here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Secondly, You have a conflict of interest (COI) here since you are the subject of the article. Wikipedia highly discourage editor with COI to edit/create on the arfected page. Pls disclosure your COI on (1) your user page and (2) on the article talk page. See WP:DISCLOSURE for into and template.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Wesboudville, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, you started editing WP with something that is almost impossible, writing an article about yourself. While theoretically possible, my advice in short is "don't even try". Take the time to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and WP:PATENTS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete all mention of patents. Have there been publications about you and your career? If not, may not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. OK to Wikilink in the article to schools you attended and companies you worked for, but Wikilinking does not count as referencing. The problem for many of us in the science fields is that our careers may not be newsworthy. This feels annoying when almost every professional athlete appears to be Wikipedia-worthy. David notMD (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Herbert Former Welsh Darts Captain[edit]

It would seem that information regarding Richard Herbert on the Wikipedia Page is incorrect, Richard was born on the 15 - 06-1969 and he was actually 42 years old when he sadly died,I would appreciate if this could be ammended, Richard has children and grandchildren that will obviously visit this article and would be very confused and distressed at reading wrong information about Richard's birth and death,Many Thanks,Mrs Debbie Herbert and Family of Richard Herbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Birthdate now removed since it was unsourced to begin with. A birthdate can be added if it can be found in a WP:Reliable source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

How can I create another Sub page[edit]

I have already created a Sub page. How can I create another Sub page Sir ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SANKU DIRECTOR & CARTOONIST (talkcontribs) 06:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:SANKU DIRECTOR & CARTOONIST, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your original sandbox has been deleted, but you can create as many sandboxes as you need. Just click on User:SANKU DIRECTOR & CARTOONIST/sandbox 1, User:SANKU DIRECTOR & CARTOONIST/sandbox 2 etc. They don't exist yet but will be created when you type something into them and click "Publish". Please read WP:Your first article and ensure that draft articles that you create are referenced to WP:Reliable sources. Dbfirs 11:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Brian Rosenworcel[edit]

Hello! I have improved and re-submitted my article, Brian Rosenworcel, for the 3rd time. I have added information, and 6 additional references to support notability of this individual. When attempting to add the additional references, I was not able to add them to the reference list in the proper format, or remove the detail from the paragraph. Would someone please look at it for me, and help me to fix it? It is finally on page 1 to be reviewed after several months of waiting. I just don't want it shut down due to formatting issues. Thank you so much! Zuzuroo (talk)zuzuroo —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Zuzuroo, I've fixed the formatting. For further reference, you can find the instructions here: Help:Referencing for beginners. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help and information, Finnusertop! Zuzuroo (talk)zuzuroo —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

where is my content written in sandbox?[edit]

I could not find my writings in the sandbox. Plz help me to find out it so that I can edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamata Padhi (talkcontribs) 15:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mamata Padhi: if you are talking about User:Mamata Padhi/sandbox, it has been deleted for inappropriate content (advertising that's not suitable for an encyclopedia). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see my talk page[edit]

Can an uninvolved editor see this post on my talk page and evaluate this IP editor's and my actions? Thank you. Interstellarity (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd know how to bypass that edit filter (not explained here for obvious reasons), but the info needs a better source than "IP said so on your talk page", and even with a source enwiki isn't forced to support this silly marketing gimmick. – (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Should I tell the IP editor that their content needs to supported by independent reliable sources? Interstellarity (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
If you do you'd have to support the four letter word when it's sourced, because that would be the deal. I'd try "un-encyclopedic", most IPs aren't supposed to know the fine print of WP:NOTCENSORED. – (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

How to change font size in wikipedia editing[edit]

Can change Font type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgingf (talkcontribs) 15:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Georgingf (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Georgingf What is your native language? Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Romorea language from pakista  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgingf (talkcontribs) 15:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC) 
I'm not familiar with that language. Can you type a phrase here in your native language so I might be able to find it and assist you better? Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I can type in english  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgingf (talkcontribs) 15:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC) 
  • @Dusti: Good of you to assume good faith, but you're being trolled.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I figured I was, but it's that good nature in me XD Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

1124 papal election[edit]

Hello, I noticed that the article about Pope Honorius II refers to 1124 papal election as the main article about his election. However, the latter article is virtually empty, whereas the former contains quite a lot of detail about the proceedings. What would be the appropriate course of action ?

  • Move the section to the election page and replace it with a shorter version
  • Copy the section to the election page
  • Keep calm and don't touch anything

Additionally: what about attribution, is there a way to copy part of the history ?

The election page mentions translating the corresponding article in Polish, but I can't do that. Neither am I knowledgeable in any of the subjects, so I'd rather not make up a new text.

-- Kwakeroni (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kwakeroni. This is a great question! Moving and copying are both options here. But I'd say we should copy because the article on Pope Honorius II has been quite stable with such a detailed section, so it's obviously called for.
It's good you asked about attribution. It's not possible to transfer the relevant parts of the edit history, but attribution can (and must) still be done. Here's how it's done. Simply copy and paste the content. In the edit summary, write "Copied content from Pope Honorius II; see that page's history for attribution".
You can see more details at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I've PRODed 1124 papal election and removed the hat note from Pope_Honorius_II#Conclave of 1124. Unless someone wants to actually write something (as against playing with categories and infoboxes) I can see no reason to keep such a minimalist stub. If it is deleted, then it could be recreated as a redirect to Pope_Honorius_II#Conclave of 1124. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: I'll try to do something about it, starting with the proposed copying and expanding from there. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Martin of Sheffield: I was planning on adding a list of cardinals present (based on J.P. Adams, a source used in similar pages) would that add enough value to the article to justify its existence ? (also, I'm actually surprised that one would consider breaking the reference chain in the infoboxes because an article contains only information that happens to be present in another article)
@Finnusertop and Kwakeroni: If the article grows to be worthwhile, then the PROD will fail. I'd slightly query just copying the information, we could end up with multiple identical copies on that route. I'm hoping that the two of you will improve the article. (BTW, Kwakeroni – please ensure you sign your posts with four tildes) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

plz let me clear about my doubt[edit]

If my writing in the sandbox is inappropriate and deleted for the reason of advertising as you answered. then what about "All India Women's Conference" page in Wikipedia? plz, guide me, because I am new. Don't know the rules. I get encouraged by this particular page and wanted to publish such a page about an organization who is going to organize a national women activists; conference at Sambalpur in coming October. Plz let me clear about my confusion.will be grateful forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamata Padhi (talkcontribs) 15:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The All India Women's Conference had its start in 1927 and has been written about. Although I could not find in your Contributions your Sandbox content, it appears you want to write about a conference that has not yet occured. Thus, deleted as promotional. David notMD (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Mamata Padhi. Please read about Notability: Wikipedia is only interested in subjects where people who have no connection with the subject have already chosen to write about the subject at some length, and been published in reliable places. If such sources for your organisation exist, then there can be an article about it (but if you are in any way connected with the organisation, you are discouraged from creating such an article yourself, because of your conflict of interest). --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

approve my article[edit]

How to approve my article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shavinderromana (talkcontribs) 16:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft is in your Sandbox. Someone will advise you how to submit it. However, you have the same content at your User page. Delete all that quickly, or it will be deleted be someone else. User pages are for brief descriptions of your intentions as a Wikipedia editor - not for proposed content. David notMD (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Procedure to change the name of an article[edit]

Hello -- Where do I find the info regarding the procedure to change the name or title of an article? Thanks. --Lubiesque (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Lubiesque, See Wikipedia:Requested moves. Interstellarity (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. --Lubiesque (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Need help with contacting a user please[edit]

I wanted to ask if you could help me contact a user that edited and then submitted a draft that I had just started working on. I think they may have accidentally edited the page while not being logged in: User: I think this because there is no user page or talk page for this User. Can you help me? Was only curious why they submitted it for AfC approval as the article is not really very developed yet. Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown, you can create a user talk page by clicking on the red link that says talk, then adding a section. Many editors consider work created in Draft: space as something that is a public invitation to contribute/collaborate, and that anyone can submit an article for a move to main space whenever they think it's ready. If you'd rather work on an article yourself, you can create it in your own user space instead of in draft space; most people don't edit in other people's user spaces because it feels more intrusive. --valereee (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, It is not a problem but I was curious because I didn't think the article was quite ready... so, I wanted to communicate with the user but if they made these edits not being logged in I didn't think my attempt to have a conversation with them would be successful. So, I was hopeful to know what their real user name was so I could contact them there. Thanks!LorriBrown (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
LorriBrown, they may not have a user name yet -- often when people edit with an IP address instead of a user name, it's because they haven't yet registered a user name. But that doesn't mean you can't still talk to them on the IP's user talk page. Or you can open up a convo on the draft talk page, though they aren't quite as likely to see that because they won't get a notification. If you feel strongly that the article isn't ready, you can also withdraw the submission; it's not a done deal. --valereee (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Some folks have talk pages, e.g., User talk:LorriBrown#Susan Hudson mentions WP:PROF. I'm not aware of any "undo AfC submission" tricks, we could ask the AfC help desk. – (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
valereee Not a problem actually. I suppose the result will be the same... the article will get created. I am just not too confident at this juncture and it is nice to have more experienced editors take a look before it gets AfC approval. It's all good! Thank you for your help.LorriBrown (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
LorriBrown, did you see that the editor answered, above? --valereee (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
--Valereee|valereee No I did not. Thank you for pointing it out and I appreciate your help with this! I get it now! All is well. LorriBrown (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Need Help[edit]

5 Months ago, I made a Mistake!! I DONT KNOW HOW TO EDIT Wikipedia PAGES. I clicked edit and I Randomly placed the news articles links in References on Wikipedia Pages. I'm Extremely Sorry About That and My website is added to Spam list... I Don't Know What to Do... Please help me...

The Links that I added are 'Not Spam links.. It just News article about upcoming Tamil Movies. My website is added to the spam list because I Just don't know the proper way to add the References. Please Help Me to remove my website from the Spam list. I will not do this again.

Next Time, I will do in Proper Way by adding info/Updates about the Movie and add Reference for the Source. I will Help with what i can by updating Upcoming Tamil movie Pages on wikipedia.

Thank you..— Preceding unsigned comment added by JayaMari860 (talkcontribs) 18:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@JayaMari860: was being spammed by Nirmalsite (talk · contribs); see this spam report. An editor requested that it be blacklisted because it was unreliable and being spammed. It is unlikely to be removed from the blacklist if it is a self-published blog that has been previously spammed. However, you can request that it be removed. If you are looking for help on how to add citations, see this guide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank You Sir.. @ NinjaRobotPirate — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayaMari860 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

still I am in doubt[edit]

Sir, As I got the answer like- "Hello, Mamata Padhi. Please read about Notability: Wikipedia is only interested in subjects where people who have no connection with the subject have already chosen to write about the subject at some length, and been published in reliable places. If such sources for your organisation exist, then there can be an article about it (but if you are in any way connected with the organisation, you are discouraged from creating such an article yourself, because of your conflict of interest). --ColinFine (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)". I need to be clarify that if the newspaper publications can be sources? or what other types of sources are required to publish a new page in wikipedia 2nd thing is how I upload photos in the photo challenge section? because while uploading a new photo after clicking on uploads the existing uploaded photos are seeing. Plz guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamata Padhi (talkcontribs) 18:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mamata Padhi. Some newspapers are usually reliable while other newspapers have poor reputations for accuracy and are therefore unreliable. Start by reading the Wikipedia article about the newspaper looking for indications there. You can also ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard. I suggest that you read and study Your first article as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Mamata Padhi, if you'd keep the conversation in a single section, that would be helpful. When you see a response, look up at the header, it says edit source. Click on that and you'll be able to add a response within the same section. That helps us keep track of the conversation we're having with you. --valereee (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

the good information[edit]

despite that I have good leads of information that anyone don't have but my friend Dodo elmoghazy was removed from wikipedia editing because of false information despite the same leads of information that I also use, I wonder is this will affect of my wikipedia editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodomahmoud (talkcontribs) 18:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Dodomahmoud, the other Dodo got blocked for persistent addition of unsourced (and false) information. You're saying they did have sources, and you're using those same sources, is that correct? If the other Dodo was providing sources, then I suspect those sources must have been unreliable at best, and yes, if you use those sources, and you're repeatedly asked not to, and you still do it, you too could be blocked. Is that what you were asking? If you're unsure whether a source is reliable or not, you can ask for help here or go to WP:RSN where there is a database of information on reliable sources. And if someone removes your content, don't just add it back -- go to the article talk page and discuss. --valereee (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Both are the same Dodo.  Confirmed and blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Berean Hunter, can't decide who's stupider, me or them valereee (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, newbie here, could u show me around?[edit]

Good day wikipedia people, may i know are there hand book or some sort for rookies? Some 1-stop guide containing FAQs that I should know? Any entry level materials that i shud go thru? Thanks. Im quite puzzled with how things work here...FakeMaknae (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, FakeMaknae. I suggest that you participate in The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive learning game. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
FakeMaknae, I added a link to it on your talk page! --valereee (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

ThanksFakeMaknae (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


In the "verify your identity" screen, I accidently entered my password in the log in screen, no one will see it, right? --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And that was not 'accidental' per se. You must enter the password in as much as you want verify the identity. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Brad Keller[edit]

Can someone please edit the Brad Keller page and take off the rude comments people have edited to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suits2bu2 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like that's been addressed by Esquilax13 (talk · contribs). Good for you for spotting this so quickly! If you see vandalism like this in the future, feel free to remove it yourself. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

East European University (Tbilisi)[edit]

Hello there! I'm new to Wikipedia and want to ask a question. Recently I made an article about East European University of Tbilisi. Now it says it is in draft mode. Could someone tell me when will it be reviewed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shengelia83 (talkcontribs) 09:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shengelia83, It has been a draft since the time you published it and it's currently in review queue. You've to exercise patience as there are many articles waiting for review too. In the meantime, you can continue improving the draft. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding to Wikipedia[edit]

I would like instructions on how to add to Wikipedia.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedlagt (talkcontribs) 09:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vedlagt, please read Help:Introduction. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Have any evidence to differentiate Gond from Hindu?[edit]

Today's in our culture we are Hindu, is it right we have other community and religion if it is then how can we expand it. Is it anything doing for awareness of Gond People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:3394:ED81:CA8:2C20:7718:E175 (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we have an article Gondi people. Do let us know if it can be improved. (Most of the editors here on Wikipedia are not from Hindu cultures, but there will be some.) Dbfirs 10:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Vancouver Style Error and General Question about References[edit]

I have been trying to interpret the instructions for a corporate author using the Vancouver style error instructions, but despite trying several different interpretations of the information (I am obviously missing something), I still have a mistake in reference 4 on this sandbox page. I wonder if someone might explain what I am doing wrong? I also wonder, when citing different sections/essays/chapters in a book, if I should create new entries for each one? I am not certain how to reuse a reference but indicate it is to another page or chapter. Thank you. TrudiJ (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, TrudiJ, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not familiar with 'Vancouver' as a referencing style, but this edit appears to have fixed it. It was a case of having two "vauthor=" titles in the same field. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes for catching my error and thus fixing the reference! TrudiJ (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@TrudiJ: You're welcome. I have two tips for you: Firstly you can turn on "syntax highlighting" via the little sloping pen symbol in the editing toolbar to give colour to different types of content. It really helps distinguish text from markup. The second tip is in answer to your question about sections and chapters. You only ever need to give a reference in full just once. By using refname= you can call the reference multiple times. See WP:REFNAME. And to specify different pages in the same book, you can use the {{rp}} template. e.g. reference:27 and reference:436. Hope these may aid your editing. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: These tips are very helpful, thank you again. I've already started to use them! TrudiJ (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed user access level[edit]

Why does the autoconfirmed user access level have to exist? It seems pointless to me. C2A (About | Call | Inspect) 17:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi C2A, the main reason why autoconfirmed exists is because it is one of our defense mechanisms against vandalism and other disruptive editing. Interstellarity (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

How does the autoconfirmed user access level defend that from happening? C2A (About | Call | Inspect) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Certain actions require a user to be autoconfirmed. That stops newly-created accouts from doing those actions. "Casual" vandals don't put in the effort to get auto-confirmed. Also, good-faith editors are prevented from immediately doing difficult stuff that they might not properly know how to do; they'll have to get a little experience before progressing to more tricky tasks. Huon (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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

I just now noticed that Tim Templeton wrote in his previous reply to my question about "esp.": "If they [Julian Assange and Sarah Harrison, in the infobox of the article on Assange] aren't married, it shouldn't say esp." He may have edited that in after I first saw the reply, but in any case the question then becomes what should appear to indicate the beginning of a non-marriage partnership. Also, does this mean that both "m." and "esp." are used for the beginnings of marriages? I assume in any event that if "esp." is incorrect or inappropriate in the Assange article, it should be changed to something else. Thanks. Roy McCoy (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Timtempleton, who might want to respond. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Nick Moyes:. Could you please explain "u" as opposed to ping or Reply to or Talkback. I'm confused about these options and wish there were fewer of them so I wouldn't have to be. –Roy McCoy (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Roy McCoy: Yes, there are a lot of them, and many repeat what others do. 're' and 'ping' place an '@' sign in front of one or more users' names, whereas 'u' just displays the user's name. All, however, result in a message notification displaying on those users' pages, providing the post has been 'signed' at the same time. See WP:NOTIFICATIONS for a fuller explanation, and do check the 'See also' links to the various other templates, including 'Talkback' which allows you to direct one user to a conversational thread on another page. In essence, find just the reply and reply at templates that work for you; stick to them and don't worry about the rest. Regards from a very soggy Spain. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the future of Wikipedia[edit]

I am just curious how Wikipedia is going to survive in the future, all the editors are not paid, how are we going to keep the community motivated? Thank you, guys! Excited to be the part of the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicop33 (talkcontribs) 20:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Wikicop33, and welcome to the Teahouse. I think, frankly, that the question you ask belongs to the past rather than the future of Wikipedia. When Wikipedia started in 2001, your question was on everybody's lips. 18 years have passed and we're still here; but why? Some studies have been done on this. Personally, I'd go with what the book The Wikipedia Revolution says: people are rewarded by both social interaction and gratification of finishing goals involving their interests that they set for themselves: "One person's personal affection and indulgence [with some topic of interest] easily finds a home in Wikipedia's amalgam of topics, where it also feeds into and inspires activities by others". That is unlikely to change in the future. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
A brief answer might be: if it hasn't been necessary to pay editors up till now, why should it be in the future? Roy McCoy (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Roy and Finnusertop, appreciate it! Wikicop33 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism[edit]

JackintheBox posted on my talk page suggesting a change to a certain page. I didn't know why he had posted this on my page, but his proposed change seemed appropriate so I made it and notified him of this on his talk page. Now, however, an anonymous user has come on there and posted inane remarks about tacos and patty melts. These can be edited out of course, either by JackintheBox or myself, but I'm a bit disturbed that anyone can come on anonymously and fool around like this – or worse. Can this kind of thing be properly termed vandalism, and in any event is there something that can be done about it other than editing each individual instance? I'm wondering whether an originating IPP address can be and sometimes is blocked, for instance. Thanks. Roy McCoy (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Roy McCoy. It looks to me like the IP was motivated by the similarity of the other editor's username to the fast food restaurant chain called Jack in the Box. This appears to be immature juvenile humor and JackintheBox is free to remove those comments. If it is vandalism, it is relatively mild. In general, it is best to deny the attention that vandals and trolls seek. Simply remove the vandalism with a brief edit summary like "revert vandalism" or the briefer "rvv" and move on. Warn but do not berate the vandal on their talk page. If IP vandalism of a specific page or group of pages is persistent, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If persistent vandalism originates with one IP address or registered account, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Please be aware that IP addresses are not usually blocked indefinitely since they can be used by multiple people, only one of whom may be the vandal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. By the bye, my username was insired by the toy Jack-in-the-box. When I created my account I had never heard of the restaurant chain Jack in the Box (I live in China and have never been to the US). JACKINTHEBOXTALK 04:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Roy McCoy: I posted it on your talk page because I noticed that you are a frequent editor of WP:Manual of Style and its talk page, and wanted to know if my suggestion is valid according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 05:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

How to add the page title?[edit]

Hi. I have recently written my first full Wikipedia entry in my sandbox. I clicked 'publish' as advised, but the page is still titled as my sandbox. I've looked at the code for numerous other pages but can't see how the page title is actually specified. I know it must be simple, but I seem to be missing something... article with incorrect title shown below.


Many thanks,

--Twirl73 (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The publish button just means "save edit". It is not an article yet, but a draft of one. I see that you submitted the sandbox for review. I moved it to draft space with the title of Draft:Plastic Mermaids and I have reviewed it. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi CoolSkittle, many thanks for comment and quick review. Regarding review comments, one main question - there are several references I would like to have used (eg. Sunday Times, NME et al) that may have fulfilled the 'significant coverage' criteria, but these appeared in print editions only - how do you reference where no online link available?

Also, I've noticed many bands (and other topics) appear as 'stub' articles with significantly less info and fewer or no references. Would what I have submitted be suitable for inclusion like this?

Thanks again.

--Twirl73 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Twirl73: No problem. You can cite print sources, use {{Cite news}} or {{Cite magazine}}. Regarding the second comment, see this. Regards, CoolSkittle (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources don't need to be online. Best to use a citation template such as {{cite news}} and fill in all relevant and available data, particularly the name of the publication and the date of the relevant issue. If there are no references, an article isn't fit for inclusion in Wikipedia; if there is comparatively little information but enough to satisfy inclusion criteria, a reviewer might tag it as a stub. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again CoolSkittle, I'll try and get appropriate national print reference info added. I'll also look at at the {{cite episode}} options for significant radio coverage. The 'other stuff exists' essay made me smile - yeah, I guess I asked for that. I'm still figuring out the Wikipedia world but was puzzled that so many apparently less well-referenced articles exist. Selah. --Twirl73 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I neglected to thank David Biddulph for advice also. Thank you! --Twirl73 (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Material removed[edit]

I provided considerable material in an article only to have most of it removed by another user. I know it was all factual so I don’t understand why it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kb3dad (talkcontribs) 00:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

As was explained in the edit summary of the revert, and when you asked at User talk:Joeykai#Edits, the reversion was because your edit was unsourced. The fact that "you" knew that it was factual is of no use to Wikipedia; it needs to be verifiable by references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

other users with same name[edit]

i recently opted to become a user, in the hope that i can give something back to Wikipedia beyond an annual contribution. I notice my preferred usernames were taken. how can i contact the "other" me to say hello? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucefhyman (talkcontribs) 03:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Brucefhyman. You can reach any editor's talk page by typing "User talk:" into the search box, followed by the username. For example, you can reach my personal talk page at User talk:Cullen328. Please be aware that a large percentage of accounts are inactive. Many people create Wikipedia accounts and either never edit, or edit a handful of times and then disappear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Advice on my first draft article?[edit]

Hi all!

Just wanted to pop in to see if anyone can give me advice on my first draft article? I created the article for Draft:Dropout TV recently, for a new subscription media service. I tried to follow the same style as Netflix and Hulu, and put in information on the history of the service as well as original media. Could someone else take a look and let me know if this is appropriate? ChunyangD (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the same situation for me here, I just created a page for my company at Draft:Autospix. How long until this page showed up and published? RichardBravoBoss (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't submitted it for approval, RichardBravoBoss, but it would be pointless to do so as you have not demonstrated the notability (in Wikipedia's terms) of the subject. Please read the advice at WP:Your first article. You say it is for your company, so you need to read about conflict of interest and also make the mandatory declaration of paid editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you David Biddulph, I'll take a look for your reference suggestions. RichardBravoBoss (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia[edit]

The lead mentions that the faith healer Grigori Rasputin "helped bring about the end of the Romanov dynasty". According to his own article, his disreputation might have spread to general disreputation of the Romanovs, but there's no source for that in either article. Regardless, the end of the Romanov dynasty shouldn't be simplified to a single cause in the lead in the biography of Alexei. Clovermoss (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Clovermoss. If you think there is something in an article that can be improved, in most cases you can go ahead and improve it yourself. The worst that can happen is that somebody reverts your change, and then if you want to take it further, you can open a discussion on the talk page, according to BRD. Alternatively, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page as your first step. There's not a lot of point in bringing it up here in the Teahouse. --ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
ColinFine: Wow, I must have been really tired last night. I'm not entirely sure what my thought process was posting here, but I was probably thinking about posting to the article's talk page/possibly writing a note to myself to fix it. I actually completely forgot about this, so I'm going to take another look at the article now. Clovermoss (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Getting my draft approved[edit]

Hi there, I made an article in English about Swedish band THEN COMES SILENCE (, there are already articles in the German and Swedish Wikipedia. My article is an English translation of those that already exist in those other languages. It's been a few weeks and I haven't heard anything but I still can't search for the article, which makes me think it hasn't been approved yet. How can I move forward from here to get it approved?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viikki Saari (talkcontribs) 05:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, that's because you haven't submitted your draft for review! Add the code {{subst:submit}} to do so. Cheers JACKINTHEBOXTALK 05:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you JackintheBox, I added it now. Hopefully it gets accepted soon! Cheers VS Viikki Saari (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Viikki Saari: No problem! The content of your draft looks fine to me. Just some small things: per MOS:PUNCTREF, inline citations should directly follow the text, rather than precede the text. I have rectified that in your draft. Also, according to MOS:DATERANGE, an en dash should be used instead of a spaced hyphen when writing dates, such as 2013–2018, not 2013 - 2018.
Also, please remember to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), and add a colon (:) before your message if you are replying to a message above. If the above message already has, say, two colons, you would respond to that message with three colons (2+1) before your message. Regards, JACKINTHEBOXTALK 05:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help! Viikki Saari (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Viikki Saari: Also, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#To separate parts of an item in a list – it states: Spaced en dashes are sometimes used between parts of list items. For example:
  • James Galway – flute; Anne-Sophie Mutter – violin; Maurizio Pollini – piano.
So make sure you use an en dash in those instances, instead of a hyphen! Regards, JACKINTHEBOXTALK 05:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Viikki Saari:, You should also see Wikipedia:Translation for information on marking the article as a translation. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 Kerry County Council election[edit]

I have just made this page for an election in a few weeks but there are 3000 other articles under review before it. How long will it take to publish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectionHack2019 (talkcontribs) 06:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@ElectionHack2019: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. As you are aware, there are thousands of drafts awaiting review; there is no guaranteed time frame for review, as they are done in no particular order by volunteers who do what they can when they can. It could be reviewed in ten minutes, or in three months. There is no way to know, you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
ElectionHack2019 I think you need to expand the draft a bit more. The draft is full of tables but has few informations as text except in lead. Keep improving the draft and someone will publish it for you. Sincerely, Masum Reza 07:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Ummm - someone will review it, and decide to accept or decline. May be the latter, as you have created an article intending to report on an election that has not yet taken place. David notMD (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I followed the same outline as that of the already published page of [2019 Dublin City Council election] so I assume it should be dealt with quickly as I would love to create all or at least some of the other pages related to the election but I wont be doing that if it turns out not to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectionHack2019 (talkcontribs) 22:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sigma Epsilon Theta Sorority, the Entreprenuers Sorority[edit]

The topic Entrepreneurs Sorority does not exist in Wikipedia. In December 2018 I developed Sigma Epsilon Theta Sorority and it is percieved to be the first Sorority primaraly focused on entrepreneurs. Although it is an Africian American Sorority we except members from all races and ethnicities if they are deemed qualified to be a member. How do I determine if this topic is notable material for inclulsion into a Wikipedia Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erma Covington (talkcontribs) 07:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Erma Covington: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your sorority would only merit an article on Wikipedia if it has gotten extensive coverage in independent reliable sources that show how it meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines for organizations. This coverage would need to be beyond a local or college newspaper. If it does merit an article, it is strongly advised that you not be the one to write about it; please review the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Erma Covington. The primary guideline that determines whether an article is suitable for inclusion is Wikipedia:Notability. Generally, it requires a few paragraphs or more in multiple sources like a well known newspaper or a well reviewed book. There is also a guide for new contributors on how to write a good article at Wikipedia:Your first article. Good luck! Alpha3031 (tc) 07:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Can i give honourary names ?[edit]

Can i give honourary names in vice chancellor's section of infobox university. Can i write prof, dr, major ex... prof Satis dhawan or Dr fatima devi. --Rocky 734 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rocky 734. I believe the answer to your question can be found in MOS:DOCTOR. Generally, Wikipedia articles don't use pre-nominal letters or post-nominal letters when referring to a person by just their name like in an infobox; information about a person's academic or professional achievements, however, can be added to the body of the article if supported by citations to reliable sources and encyclopedically relevant to the reader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

adding a photo to a personal profile[edit]

This is about a wikipedia page on myself. While the contents are accurate, I think it is necessary to add a current photograph.. Reason is that Google gives photo of another person with the same name when you do a general search and this leads to many other websites also using the incorrect photo. If we can add the correct photo to the wikipedia profile this problem should get sorted out to a large extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvind2015 (talkcontribs) 10:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Arvind2015: Welcome to the Teahouse. I can appreciate your concerns. Although you are already aware of your Conflict of Interest in editing an article about yourself, you may certainly upload a photo of yourself, providing you definitely own the copyright and are happy for it to be licenced for use here and elsewhere. So avoid using any official photos that a government photographer might have taken of you as you will probably not have the right to release it for use. (A picture you have taken using a tripod and self-timer is ideal). Here is a link to help you upload and release your photo to Wikimedia Commons, which may then be inserted into the article about you. I would ask, please, that you do declare your connection to the article - and you do this on your userpage, as explained at WP:COI. Do come back and let us know how you get on, or if you need further help. Regards from very soggy Spain, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.--Shantavira|feed me 11:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Shantavira, Arvind2015's post indicates that they already understand this. --ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Dungeon Siege[edit]

I have been playing Dungeon Siege for a couple of weeks but am now trapped. I can go between the "Travelers Camp" and the "Eastern Swamp" but cannot proceed any further. If anyone could help I would be very grateful. Many Thanks Denis — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Whilst we welcome new Wikipedia editors here at the Teahouse, we are here to guide others who encounter difficulties whilst editing this encyclopaedia. We cannot help you, and advise you to search for online gaming fora to get you out of your predicament. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Denis. The Wikipedia Teahouse is really a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Perhaps there's an online forum for fans of the game where you'll be able to find someone to answer your question; so, try googling the game and see what comes up. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

How do you move a picture from Wikimedia or Wikicommons or whatever it’s called to Wikipedia?[edit]

Wikipedia - sit down with a cuppa, and be prepared to read the help pages.

So yah, that’s my question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hee hee hooooo (talkcontribs) 12:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hee hee hooooo: Welcome to the Teahouse. We don't move images into Wikipedia from Wikimedia Commons, as such, but we can go to Commons, click the relevant 'W' icon just above the image to use the file on Wikipedia, and then copy & paste the offered text into an article or user page -just as I've done here. See WP:Wikimedia Commons for more help and guidance on this topic. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Hee hee hooooo. A picture at Wikimedia Commons can be used in Wikipedia with exactly the same syntax so there is rarely reason to move it unless it's about to be deleted at Commons for copyright reasons but can be allowed as fair use in a Wikipedia article. The usual method is to just upload it like a new file. Which picture do you have in mind? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

How do you respond to something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hee hee hooooo (talkcontribs) 13:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hee hee hooooo: Like what you just did, but use colons (:::::::::::::::::::::: <- these) to indent as Nick and I have done. Add one colon to the amount the last person used. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Help please![edit]

I just created an article for Judith Schwarz but intended to create a draft article. Can you help me to move this article into a draft please! Sorry, still new and made a mistake....LorriBrown (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - I think you should have been able to move it yourself, see WP:move. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay David Biddulph & thank you for moving it! I'll read up on that. :-) LorriBrown (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Amendments needed to entries on Desmond Patrick Costello and Ian Milner[edit]

I have recently replaced earlier versions of these two entries. The new entry on Costello needs some tidying up. The new entry on Milner attracted a warning about a self-publishing house called iUniverse, from which I quoted a book by Peter Hruby (who is not me and whom I do not know). The book contains many references and sources and I am satisfied that it is genuine. That entry too could do with some tidying-up, which is beyond my limited skills. Even getting the new entries on was a minor miracle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mertonabbbey (talkcontribs) 16:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your contribution. I'm sorry but your edit on the Costello article is not very good--"some tidying up" is an understatement. It doesn't have proper formatting and, worse, I can't tell what source is supposed to verify what piece of information. I wish you had made smaller edits. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Entries on Desmond Patrick Costello and Ian Milner[edit]

Sorry I failed to sign my name on the previous entry: Mertonabbbey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mertonabbbey (talkcontribs) 16:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Mertonabbbey, to sign your posts, type four tildes like this: ~~~~ at the end; it will produce this: valereee (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

revising and resubmitting a draft[edit]

Hi! I recently drafted my first Wikipedia entry and it was rejected so I revised according to the suggestions and I think I resubmitted it, but it does not look the same (the page did not have the same confirmation that it was under review) as when I submitted the first draft. Would someone be able to confirm that "Draft: Duncan Ryuken Williams" is in line to be reviewed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janehisa (talkcontribs) 2019-04-22T18:34:55 (UTC)

Hello, Janehisa. You had not submitted Draft:Duncan Ryūken Williams for review. I have added a header so that you can do so when you think it is ready. I don't advise you to do so yet: the section headings are not properly formatted, and (more seriously) nor are the citations. Please read Referencing for beginners.
I can't work out how you created the draft: your edit summary, and the comment above, indicate that you changed it from a previous draft, but both its history and your own contribution history show that there has only been a single edit to create it (before mine). I guess you must have saved the text of the deleted draft, and created a new draft with it; but if that was deleted because it was a copyright infringement, then it is going to take more than "revising" to avoid that problem.
According to PAID, you should put disclosures on the (draft) article's talk page, and on your own user page: at present you have done so on your own user talk page, which is not the right place.
Finally, in talk and discussion pages (such as this one) please sign any contributions with four tildes (~~~~): I had to go looking in the history of this page to find who you were. It's also helpful to Wikilink the page you are referring to: if you had said [[Draft:Duncan Ryūken Williams]], it would display as Draft:Duncan Ryūken Williams, and I could have gone straight to it. In fact, you need to Wikilink some appropriate words in the draft as well. --ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If a content is sourced to a personal, self-published blog (written by a non-notable writer), should that content be removed from the article?[edit]

When I read WP:RSSELF, about self-published sources, it seems clear to me that those can't be used as sources. This makes sense to me, as anyone can write something about any topic and put it on their blog and call it a source, and that would be disastrous. So I think I understand that policy. Nevertheless, when I removed content from John M. Ford that was sourced to exactly that, a self-published source by a non-notable, I have been reverted, more than once. So I thought I would ask here, as I've gotten help here before. Thank you. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the article in question is not a BLP, and that StramboatPhilly's attention has been drawn to WP:SPS, specifically "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The source in question,, follows these specifications and is explicitly discussed (in relation to an adjacent field) here. Yet SteamboatPhilly continues to pursue an edit war in contravention of BRD norms. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it does not say that they can't be used as sources. It says that they need to be used correctly, and lists several places where self-published sources could be used. It depends on the context of the citation. That being said, when there is a dispute, the correct course of action is to 1) remove the disputed text (the burden of proof is on a person who wishes to include some bit of information) and 2) Discuss the matter on the article talk page to reach consensus. --Jayron32 18:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jayron32, I especially appreciate the part where you mentioned that "the burden of proof is on a person who wishes to include some bit of information", I was not aware of that page till now. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Not exactly. Since this is not a BLP, per BRD we revert to the stable version while the discussion takes place. Newimpartial (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not what WP:BURDEN says. It says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." and does not carve out a special exception for non-BLPs. --Jayron32 18:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
But the material in question is directly cited to a reliable source per WP:SPS. Since the additional restrictions placed on BLPs do not apply, the stable version should remain. In any event, there was no excuse for SteamboatPhilly to exceed 3RR on this non-BLP article. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Should I delete my draft and post the article myself?[edit]

I submitted an article a few weeks ago and it's still under review, which I totally understand given how many drafts there are to be reviewed and everything. But should I just remove my draft article and then submit it as an article without being reviewed, now that my account is old enough? Or just wait it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathyash (talkcontribs) 17:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Apathyash: no, don't do that: what we don't want is the same material in two places in Wikipedia. You may, if you choose, simply move the draft to main space, and remove the {{subst:AFC submission}} template from the top. If you do that, you are taking responsibility for it being acceptable, and if somebody thinks it is not, they may return it, or even nominate it for deletion.
I'm not sure which draft you mean: if it is Draft:We Are The Tigers, then you haven't submitted it for review. You can do that by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top (including the double curly brackets). --ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
hi ColinFine, as David mentioned, I have had the submit yellow box on the page for two weeks, it was just at the bottom before. Is that alright? Should I move the page to the main space myself or is it wiser to wait?Apathyash (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Submit template added, but at bottom. I suggest waiting for the AfC process to take place. IMO needs work. Better a decline, with advice, than you move it to main space and someone starts a deletion action. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


Should I be concerned ive had this message from Wikipedia, to my knowledge ive never edited and don't even think I have an account?

"Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to 888casino— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of feminists. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I did try to find a way to contact Shellwood but don't know how — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

You should be able to post on Shellwood's talk page. However, I will inform you that you're not going to have much luck contesting that, in fact if you continue editing as you have you may very likely be blocked. This policy might be a nive bedtime read for you. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The important part of the message from Shellwood is that back in May 2018, the IP address you have recently edited from was used to vandalize articles. No need to contact Shellwood. Best advice is to register an account. This will give you a clean history. David notMD (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of ever editing nor have I ever edited, so I take it someone has used my IP address at least twice once in 2018 and once recently to match the adresses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:751F:6500:5091:44D2:29CE:85CA (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "someone has used my IP address": depending on how your ISP allocates them, your IP address may change from time to time, and another customer may get given your old one. See the box at the bottom of User talk: --ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

First time considering submitting an article for deletion[edit]

I have run across, from a link on another article, the article Elise Matthesen. It looks to me that this is a non-notable person, as there is no coverage of her in reliable sources. The references in the article are mostly her own work, plus a mention of her in someone else's obituary, a self-published blog-type source, and a source that doesn't appear to mention her at all. I think that deleting this article is the right thing to do, but I've never gone through a deletion process before (the page on nominating an article is a bit intimidating) and I didn't want to be 100% wrong on my first try. I would appreciate if someone could take a quick look and advise me. I also would not be against someone else deleting it, just so that I can follow the process and see how to do it right. Thank you! SteamboatPhilly (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

SteamboatPhilly, You could always use Twinkle to make the nomination. It's a piece of cake :). Adam9007 (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow that is the best advice I've gotten yet on anything. Thank you! I'm trying it out. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolving language links for templates[edit]

I was looking at the template Template:Infobox ski area when I found that the most recent edit was one that added a link to the corresponding template on the Slovene Wikipedia (and that template also includes a link to the English template). This confused me, as I'd never seen this done before, but checking the Wikidata item for the template, it doesn't list the Slovene version in the list of language versions. When I tried to add this Slovene version to it, it errored and said that the Slovene version is already linked to another, unrelated, Wikidata item. What should be done to fix this? I've never dealt with language linking before, and I'd like to know how to fix this. Gary600playsmc (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Gary600playsmc. I've fixed it. I simply removed the link from d:Q1013176 to sl:Predloga:Infopolje_Smučišče, since it was obviously wrong, and then I could add the Slovenian template into d:Q7391497. I've then removed the explicit link in Template:Infobox ski area. (I thought this was going to be a pervasive and troubling problem with Wikidata, where articles in different languages have a different scope, so there are two or more articles in one language which correspond to one in another language. Wikidata doesn't have a solution to this. But it turned out to be easier). --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Kalpana Mohan Page[edit]

Hi, Thank you for your response. I am a fan & not an expert in writing or editing. Initially, I had made changes in the edit but stopped as caution by Oshwah. As ‪Symmachus Auxiliarus‬ mention in his message that "Note that IMDB alone can't be used to establish notability, in the Wikipedia sense of the word. " I agreed fact-checked can be done from the other sources like youtube videos. I can send you the link to verify the credentials of her work. I have edited the extra detail such as directors & co-star. I hope this is fine.

Filmography 1. Pyar Ki Jeet (1962) 2. Naughty Boy (1962) 3. Professor (1962) 4. Saheli (1965) 5. Teesra Kaun (1965) 6. Teen Devian (1965) 7. Biwi Aur Makan (1966) 8. Tasveer (1966) 9. Pyar Kiye Jaa (1966) 10. Nawab Sirazuddaula (1967) 11. Ek Bechara (1972)

Early life: She was also an accomplished Kathak dancer trained under Pandit Shambhu Maharaj. She was a good swimmer & Horse rider too.

Career: Nehru often invited Kalpana, a trained Kathak dancer, to dance at the Rashtrapati Bhavan whenever dignitaries visited. Actor Balraj Sahani and Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai spotted the beautiful dancer and encouraged her to come to Mumbai and try her luck in films.

References 1. The Unhappy Married Life of Actress Kalpana | Tabassum Talkies

2. Pt.J Nehru Favourite Actress |News Filmy Hai

3. The IMDB

Thank you for the invitation to Teahouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talkcontribs) 20:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Good day[edit]

Good day, sir, i want to know how to improve editing skill? Actually i just try to edit one for wiki, i just followed the code and it turned out fine, but i want to learn more editing and how to make page in encyclopedia.

Thank you and regards. Hope you will help me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayekrim (talkcontribs)

@Kayekrim: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A good way to learn more about editing is to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Kung Fu styles[edit]

Hello, I have an idea for Kung Fu style article. What is the rules or the notability guidelines criteria for such articles.

Thanks. (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may want to try seeing if the Chinese martial arts article(where Kung Fu redirects to) either has the information you want to add or not before attempting to write a separate article about it, and maybe what you want to add could go there. Either way, I think the general notability guideline would be what you are looking for; in short, you need to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)