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


Most recent archives
936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955

(Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.)

inexperience with at Templates at baffling issue at Talk:Tom Elliott (radio personality)[edit]

I am confused as how to move forward at Talk:Tom Elliott (radio personality) as a variety of issues appear to be arising. X1\ (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

X1\, that article provides little evidence that its subject is notable. It has four references: one is to an article he wrote himself, two give "404" messages, and one gives a "DNS failure" message. Unless someone can provide better sources to establish that he's notable, the article is likely to be deleted, making that rather incoherent talk page discussion irrelevant. Maproom (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@X1\: I agree with Maproom. I've just spent 15 minutes chasing round the internet to replace one dead link in a rather poor citation about his early life, half of which isn't supported by anything written within the source. If you then can't take enough care to add new sources to further content you want to either add or reinstate about his opinions (which I think Onetwothreeip removed) by supplying links that actually work, I'm not sure we can help you move anything forward. Fix those first. It does look like you've now received a third opinion. Further views on the article as a whole could then be offered if someone wants to put it forward for a Deletion discussion. I'm not sure it merits retention unless you can significantly improve the page with better content and better inline citations to independent sources to demonstrate that he meets WP:NBIO. It seems his claim to fame is as a minor presenter on a small commercial radio station in Melbourne, based upon one story in the city newspaper which originally created that radio station. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)  
@Maproom and Nick Moyes: Well this has never happened to me on Wikipedia before and this is seriously concerning. I was in an editing dispute with X1\ at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and found to my surprise that after I had removed some not notable opinions from Tom Elliott (radio personality), X1\ had somehow found themselves on this completely unrelated article provoking another editing dispute with me. I certainly thought that was odd, especially since this would not normally be an issue of any great contention, but then X1\ sought a "third opinion" on the matter and this was provided by none other than the editor who shares the same views with X1\ on the Russian interference article and who had likewise been reverting my edits there as well, My very best wishes. Unsurprisingly, they agreed with them and disagreed with me.
It would be fairly straightforward to provide diffs for this but this is very clear, and certainly worrying. Is this something that should be taken to WP:ANI? This has simply never happened to me before so I don't know what to do here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes and Maproom: Thank you both for your efforts. It would appear you both agree is there little evidence that its subject is notable, as I have questioned [1][2]. I will consider applying the Template:Article for deletion and attempting that process. Hopefully it goes better than the Template:Third opinion attempt. If it gets deleted then the "incoherent talk page discussion irrelevant"ness would be welcome. A suggestion on the articles Talk page that opinions are often directly requested in the "Active disagreements" section on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page maybe be a better route, if I remember that process. Also, I will consider the WP:RfC process.
@Maproom: regarding the "If you then can't take enough care..." comment, I was attempting to improve the Herald Sun item [3] when it was deleted [4]. I attempted to continue to improve it [5], but for the 3AW item I didn't get to the followup [6] to determine its viability, along with others [7] before the kerfuffle.
@Nick Moyes: the Wayback Machine sounds cool, and I'd like to learn more about its uses.
Well, thank you both again for the input; I'll continue on at the article. X1\ (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes and Maproom: Are you getting these notifications? What I outlined is fairly serious. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip: yes, I am getting the notifications. But I have no idea on what to do about the issue, or on whether involvement of WP:ANI would be appropriate. Maproom (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: I apologise for not responding (perhaps, rather unfairly) in the hope that the other editor might respond first! It looked a complex issue at first sight, and I would have to sit down at a laptop and work carefully through the editing histories and your diffs to properly understand and your concerns, the order of people's edits and then to determine what advice to give you, if any/ANI. I'm afraid I'm unable to commit to that right now, especially as I'm working from a mobile phone which makes complicated investigations a lot harder to manage. As Maproom says, you could ask at WP:ANI for an extra pair of eyes, or could continued monitoring and collating further diffs of unusual editing patterns. I will try and take a look for you myself in a few days time when I can get to a PC, and will say 'sorry' again for not at least giving you the courtesy of the response you deserved from a Teahouse Host. I did remember noting that the third opinion given by another editor did appear to come from one of long standing, and would probably have offered it in all good faith, maybe checking your and the other editor's recent edits and/or disputes, and commenting again there. Following up after resolving one editing dispute by looking at other edits is a common practice that any competent editor might be expected to do, so there's not necessarily anything suspicious, per se, in that. Regards for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I completely understand if others are unable or simply unwilling to read into the details here and I don't presume that I'm entitled to any particular person's attention or effort. I think to be completely expeditious about this, how would you feel to respond to my characterisation of the situation and assume for this purpose that it's correct?
There have been editing disputes on a certain article in which myself, X1\ and another editor who I will call Editor M have been involved in, among others. In this case the other editor has the same views as X1\. I had also edited another article of a completely different topic for the first time. This was subsequently reversed by X1\, who had edited this article for the first time. It appeared at least very coincidental that this happened. An editing dispute ensued and X1\ decided to ask for a "third opinion". This never reached the third opinion noticeboard. The "third opinion" was then provided by the Editor M from the first article, which agreed with X1\. This appears to be too much of a coincidence to be reasonable.
For these reasons I can't believe that this was at all in good faith, or at least without prejudice. They have also been very dramatic on my user talk page, asserting to myself and to an administrator that they have "warned" me many times of spurious issues. If this is an editor of good standing then that would certainly concur with the precedent that to be in good standing only means that an editor isn't currently blocked from editing.
Most of all I am uneasy about initiating a proceeding at WP:ANI if I would otherwise be advised that this should be avoided. I also do not feel that you or anybody in particular is obligated to respond to my query. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Look, you asked for a third opinion on article talk page, and I provided you this opinion - because you asked. You should thank me. That was a reasonable opinion justified by policies. What's the problem? If I was more interested in this subject, I could edit this page or nominate it for deletion (the subject is someone barely notable), and all of that would be just fine. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
That's absurd, and I'm confused why you would lie about something so easily disprovable. I never asked for a third opinion, from you or from anybody. Would you like to explain how you became aware of that article? Furthermore, X1\ three hours ago reversed another edit of mine from January this year on another article that they haven't edited. This is very strange behaviour. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I saw this version of the page and thought it was you who requested 3rd opinion. Was it X1? OK, I am sorry, I did not study editing history of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Width of a frame[edit]

Around the template "Information science"

there is a frame. I would like to make it less wide. How can I do this or better: where can I find the tutorial to do this? Steue (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Good question. You can edit the sidebar via the tiny "E" in the bottom right corner, but I see no obvious parameter for width. Also, anything you do here will effect all the pages this template appear on, and that may not be what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I understand (and understood) what effect a change in there would have. I tried all three (VTE). Now I know what they are for. I never before cared nor dared to touch them. Steue (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
CFCF, do you have any idea? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Steue and welcome to the Teahouse. Before answering you, I'm assuming you only want to change the size of the displayed template on your own userpage and not to change it for every other user on Wikipedia?
Indeed, Nick Moyes, I wanted to change it for all users. Regarding this template "Information science" I left a message on its talk page. Steue (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Please don't attempt to change that template - or indeed any other - without first discussing your proposal on the template's talk page. That template uses another template to create a sidebar - see {{sidebar}} where the documentation shows there is a width parameter which can be included.
When you added the template here, you 'transcluded' it - meaning that it remains 'live' and that any change later made to the original template would appear here and on every other page where it is included whenever those pages are opened or refreshed.
That is how I understood this. Steue (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The method you actually need to deploy is 'substitution' whereby the actual text of the template is pasted into just your userpage; any subsequent changes then made to the template won't show on your page. And changes you make won't impact upon anyone else, either. So, to achieve this, type in this: {{subst:Information science}}, save it and then edit the source code. You can then insert the missing width parameter as |width=
If you add any number, say 50, and preview your page, you'll see it has shrunk just a tiny bit. But the limiting factor is the longest line: the very bottom link to the Library and information science portal. If you delete that line on your own user page (not in the master template!) you can shrink the sidebar even more. Unfortunately, I'm no expert in the finer points of templates - there are probably other parameters one could find to reduce the body font size, but I hope this quick reply suits your purpose. I've made a mockup for you in my own sandbox here, which first shows the original translcuded template, and below it a modified version which I substituted and then edited for you. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I looked at your work. This is exactly what I wanted to achieve. But there is something strange: When I open the sourcecode of your scratchpad (via "Edit sourcecode") then there IS a parameter "width", but when I open the substituted template via its E, then this line where this width parameter would be, is empty. I also tried to play with the width in your sandbox: I could change the value. Then I clicked on preview, but the width had not changed. I even tried a value of 3000. Could that be because I have no right to change anything in someone elses sandbox? Steue (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Steue: You are welcome to copy and edit the code in your own sandbox, but I think you'll find the same issue. I did notice that changing the width value (the parameter for which I had manually inserted into my sandbox version) didn't actually change the width accordingly...but it still worked. I didn't mention it at the time as I did appear to have found a solution, despite not fully understanding what was happening. I assumes there's something else ever-riding it - not sure what. Getting to understand templates better is something I also need to do - and one's sandbox is certainly a good place to do it. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Steue, you said "I also tried to play with the width in your sandbox: I could change the value. Then I clicked on preview, but the width had not changed. I even tried a value of 3000." Try, instead, values like |width=3000px, |width=50%, |width=70em. All of these had an effect when I replicated your 'experiment' in Nick's sandbox. The value is passed as a CSS width value - see this guide (CSS width Property) and this page (CSS Units) for more details. -- Begoon 07:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Aaaaah! Thanks. Steue (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

make a page[edit]

how do i start a article myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmsuf (talkcontribs) 17:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This should help: Wikipedia:Your first article. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Emmsuf, Deciding to start on a brand-new article with no editing experience is sort of like deciding to take up swimming and tackling the English Channel first. Can it be done? Yes, but highly unlikely. Please consider making simple edits to existing articles 1st.
You might also consider starting with Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure S Philbrick(Talk) 21:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

About User:Cacycle/wikEd[edit]

Hello Editors <3

I just got to know about there is full fetched wikitext editor, but I'm not understanding how to use it? can someone explain in local English like the one use to speak, I read the Project page but didn't understand much, so if anyone can explain to me how I can use it to make my editing faster & better that would great for me --WikiLover97 (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Wikilover. Asking that an entire project page be translated into your preferred version of conversational English is a tall order. It would be more productive to ask for the meaning of specific phrases you find hard to parse. And feel free to ask specific questions about the text editor as well.
Are you trying to write an article as your first Wikipedia endeavour? Better to start out by observing the editing behavior of others while attempting your own small copyedits of articles you encounter on WP. That way, you gain fluency.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Archiving tricky URL[edit]

Hello Teahouse! Not really a newbie here, but I have had trouble archiving this website at either or The URL is this redbull music academy article which I have used extensively for the Escape (Whodini album) article. The website seems to feature some sort of loading feature that prevents me from having it properly archived on and webcitation (it constantly hits the loading page without hitting the site). I fear losing this valuable content! Anyone know of any alternative solution? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: have you tried – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 13:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Finnusertop:I have not tried that yet. I am currently at work and that URL seems to be blocked.:) I will try when I get a spare moment at home. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Andrzejbanas, -- Begoon 07:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: Thanks so much for jumping to it for me! I just got back to wikipedia today. Thanks for tackling it for me. Just added it to the article. You just saved a good chunk of potentially lost information. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

What to do if my XFD doesn't get any contribution from other editors?[edit]

What will happen when the closure date comes, after the relisting? Also, maybe, my proposal has characteristics that puts the passerby off from commenting? Is there somewhere I can find editors with (potentially) expertise/interest to RFC? I think the admin could just read my proposal and decide using common sense and/or some research on their part, but it keeps relisting, so I think that's probably not how things are done. Usedtobecool (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Usedtobecool and welcome to the Teahouse. If your page gets removed, you can ask a administrator to restore it and paste the article into your draftspace so that you can work on it some more. You can also ask for this to be done even right now. I have saved articles to my own desktop to work on it some more. Posting here is a good idea because others may help. A Passerby almost always passes your articles/drafts even though your draft/article my have have thousands of readers. That is not unusual. Any other questions? Best Regards, Barbara 14:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Usedtobecool is actually the AfD nominator, not the article creator. Their question was what would happen if there were still no !votes after the second relist. --valereee (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Usedtobecool: AfD is not a very crowdy venue. Your nomination statement was fine, but sometimes it happens that there is no activity for a while. Sometimes, WP:SOFTDELETEs can happen, but in that exact case, I see a couple of editors commented (after the relist) supporting or not opposing a deletion, so it will probably end up "hard-"deleted. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Question About Editing A Page[edit]


There is a page for me on Wikipedia. Years ago (I mean MANY years ago), one of my clients took to Wikipedia to change some things on a few pages. She was actually an academic who used Wikipedia a lot. One of the articles she edited was mine. She thought she was doing me a favor. I don't remember exactly what happened, but there was some sort of brouhaha - I believe the editor thought I was doing it - I know it's against the rules to edit your own page, so - NO - it wasn't me. She was upset, he was upset, I was upset.

There were other editors who were upset with the editor who started the whole ruckus. Some thought he was being way overzealous. There was a bit of commotion among the editors. I have no idea why, but I clearly remember her emailing me that other editors were upset with his decision.

A while later, she tried to edit it when I released new material and it wasn't allowed to go through for some reason. She gave up and told me to tell someone else to update it. That was 4 years ago. The new material absolutely should have been allowed to be added. It's a legitimate, verifiable publication. There was no reason for it not be allowed The page is semi-protected due to whatever it was that went on.

I just left it alone, hoping it would all blow over. Someone who is doing a story on me emailed me about the missing information in Wikipedia. I didn't even want to revisit this, but I've been ignoring it long enough.

Before coming here, I tried to reach out to her to refresh my memory as to what happened (so I could explain it to the Wikipedia Powers That Be), but her email changed and I can't seem to find her. I wanted to get the story before finding someone else to update the page. I am now paranoid about asking anyone to touch it. Because it's semi protected, the only person who can edit is a regular Wikipedia user and I don't know anyone who is. I've been asking around for a while now, but because of what happened, I'm paranoid.

Can someone tell me how to find a regular Wikipedia editor that I don't know - who has ZERO ties to me - a completely neutral 3rd party - to edit it? And how does "semi-protected" affect this search? Is there something I need to tell them? Because it's been 4 years, there's a lot of information missing and I don't want someone else to be thrown in Wikipedia jail.

THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieofalltrades123 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jackieofalltrades123, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you had this bad experience: people often don't understand what Wikipedia is, and plough straight in to editing without realising the possible consequences. Thanks for coming here and asking. It would not be forbidden for you to edit the article about you directly, but it is certainly discouraged. Your best bet would be to suggest the changes you would like to see make: start a new section on the article's Talk page, be as specific as you can (eg "Replace XXX with YYY", or "Delete ZZZ"), and if possible, give a published source for any information you want introduced - if it is a source unconnected with you and your associates, so much the better. Then add {{edit request}} (with the double curly brackets) and it will put your request on a list that some editors look at regularly. In time somebody will come and review what you have asked, and decide what changes are appropriate. See WP:BESTCOI for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jackieofalltrades123: Go to the talk page of the article about you. Start a new section at the page, and at the top of the section post the code {{edit request}}. Below the code, provide the changes you suggest, including independent reliable sources for the information. The code will flag the article as needing attention from an uninvolved editor. Hope that makes sense. --bonadea contributions talk 20:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If a movie was a blockbuster why we should not write that it was a blockbuster.[edit]

Do you think it is an unfair praise of a movie it met astounding success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma.Sydney.aus (talkcontribs)

  • It's not a neutral word. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Just write how it was a blockbuster instead without using that word. In the appropriate sections, you can write how much money it made, what were the audience and critic ratings, how long did it run theatrically, etc. Usedtobecool (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Emma.Sydney.aus. In theory, you can attribute the blockbuster claim to high quality reliable sources, in this fashion: "According to outstanding source A and outstanding source B, the movie was a blockbuster." But the term is so vague and so overused and it lacks a strict definition. Therefore, it rarely adds much of encyclopedic value. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Emma.Sydney.aus and welcome to the Teahouse. If you want the to keep the phrase "astounding success", add the phrase with quotation marks and reference it. Just make sure that the phrase is in one of the references. I hope that helps. If you need more help, leave a message on my talkpage. Best Regards, Barbara 14:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The original definition of the term was to describe bombs dropped from airplanes that were large enough to destroy a city block. Only after WWII did it get applied to large-budget, spectaculars that were expected to be high grossing movies. According to Blockbuster (entertainment) the first movies described as "blockbusters" were war movies. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Emma.Sydney.aus said blockbuster about the 1995 Pakistani film Mushkil.[8] I don't know Pakistani cinema or Urdu and I haven't found box office numbers for it but I doubt "blockbuster" is a good description. I only found [9] which says "Box office: Average". PrimeHunter (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Lone Sailor Award fails to list several recipients[edit] : This page is incomplete, listing award recipients only back to 1993. The US Navy Lone Sailor Award was established in 1987 by the US Navy Memorial, and the recipients of the award which were omitted from the above Wikipedia page are:

1992 President Gerald R. Ford Honorable H. Lawrence Garrett, III

1991 Admiral Arleigh Burke President George H.W. Bush Justice William S. White

1989 Admiral Thomas H. Moorer

1987 Herman Wouk

My information source is: . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please feel free to update that article, citing the source that you mentioned. Thank you for helping to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Linking a Page in Edit Summary[edit]

I am trying to link a talk page consensus in the edit summary but I am not sure how to do it. I did it twice at random and it worked for another page Jack90s15 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC) its this I am trying to get linked in the edit summary rm assistant principals per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Archive_26#Request_for_comments:_What_administrators_to_list_on_school_articles

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 26#Request for comments: What administrators to list on school articles.--Moxy 🍁 21:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you I tested it in sandbox and I have it nowJack90s15 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Good people[edit]

I just started using wiki for the first time and I am having problem creating my own page. I made it 5 days ago but it is still on draft mode and I dont know how to fix it. Any advice would be nice thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behroozmm (talkcontribs)

@Behroozmm: Welcome to Wikipedia. I assume this is about Draft:Rosenkrantz Jewellery. Unfortunately, your draft is too promotional and is also unsourced, giving little indication of the subject's notability. It also appears you have a conflict of interest with your association with the business. I recommend you read the following, in order: WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:GNG and WP:My first article. Please feel free to help contribute to Wikipedia accordingly - there are lots of things that need volunteers. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Cheers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted that overtly promotional draft. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Behroozmm. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not an advertising medium. If you try to use it to promote your business, you will have a frustrating and uncomfortable time. --ColinFine (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Started a few days ago. It seems i contribute, it gets reverted, sometimes in seconds, no explanation. Even while still editing credits and can't figure out why page is different in editor than what shows to me on read. In fact on Single Hitch page, they decided the same old blank page was better as their contribution? Oh but not so quick to answer why. How do we move forward please?Thetreespyder (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The pages you have edited are probably on the watchlists of different editors, hence the quick revert. Please discuss your edits on the talk page of the individual articles. In most cases, explanations were provided in edit summaries. The stub Single hitch contained no references. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners. Not all of your edits have been reverted. Please ensure that you add appropriate references for future edits, then they are less likely to be reverted. Dbfirs 08:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Thetreespyder welcome to the Teahouse. It was yourself who reverted Single hitch to a redirect.[10] We don't write article text after redirect code. Users clicking the redirect are taken to the target of the redirect without seeing the text. An article should have reliable sources satisfying Wikipedia:Notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

i am new, and did put the re-direct back on Hitch after other comment made, and so while editing left the re-direct. Then later someone wiped out the Quoted numbers from Ashleys Book of Knots etc. On Taut Line page, the whole paragraph was quotes attributed to ABoK siting the existing reference to the book most properly i believe. Then while building reference to the very first quoted author everything was wiped out for me as i was going back and forth trying to figure out why editor wasn't reading same as page. This was done during 1st edit of the page, while in action/writing on day_1? i believe the part with Ashley quotes was properly done, especially as read other pages. But if removed, should be able to show the quotes themselves as false. Also, perhaps when someone just started on something, and is in mid stroke might be an untimely point to edit.Thetreespyder (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The Ashley Book of Knots does not appear to have recent edits. Aare you writing about something else?David notMD (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Appears you were referencing TABK, not editing. David notMD (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

New Member[edit]

Hey i'm a new member to Wikipedia. i was just message by another member that told me that my recent edits constitute vandalism. but after i signed up i was ask to do my first edit on Cosequin page. so my question is did i not understand what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeroftheuniverse (talkcontribs) 10:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Makeroftheuniverse, you appear to have accidentally removed references from the article. I don't know why LightandDark2000 sent such a strong message, but please be more careful next time. Eman235/talk 10:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
What Makeroftheuniverse did was copy the article text and paste it in again, reference markers and all (but not the actual references) but with the addition of a spammy promotional link. Removing the refs was probably accidental and due to not understanding how references work, but the spam was clearly intentional and required a strongly worded warning. --bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Makeroftheuniverse did not add any links. He removed references from the lead and VisualEditor automatically moved their code to a later position where they were also used. @Makeroftheuniverse: Your edit removed all references and links from the lead.[11] I also guess this was because you copied the text to another program, edited it and copied it back. That loses all formatting code and many other things when you use VisualEditor. You can only use this method in the source editor. In VisualEditor you can switch to source editing on a pencil icon at the top right. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I was mistaken - apologies. --bonadea contributions talk 10:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia linking to google[edit]


I work for a school called Coleraine Grammar School in Northern Ireand as a teacher and help out with their online presence. However, I am coming across a problem which I am finding frustatingly difficult to fix. I was hoping that someone there could help.

When you search for Coleraine Grammar School on Bing the results work fine with corresponding information about the school in a side panel. However, we I search for it on Google it brings up old information about one of the founding schools. Google appears to link to Wikipedia for this information. I have tried many times with Google to try to get this changed and have tried building a new wikipedia page for the school. However, anytime I try to get it published it gets rejected.

I have been struggling with this problem for about 2 years now so would be greater if anyone could help please.

Dave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcqstewart46a (talkcontribs) 15:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dmcqstewart46a and welcome to the Teahouse. I see what you mean about the Google display, but I don't know how to get them to update their information. If it's any consolation, I've been trying to correct a typo on Google Maps for the past twelve years, but they just ignore me. I suppose they will eventually crawl the article and update their display. The article needs some independent references, and I note that you have not yet declared your WP:Paid status as an employee. Dbfirs 16:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Help Creating Wiki Page[edit]

Hello, I need help creating a wiki page for an official band with lots of sources. Can anyone help me? I would appreciate it very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeinformationfront (talkcontribs) 15:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Freeinformationfront and welcome to the teahouse. You might like to read WP:NBAND first. Most bands are not sufficiently WP:Notable to have an article here, but I haven't checked yours. Can you find independent WP:reliable sources in which the band has been written about at length. If you can, then the article should summarise in your own words what these sources say. If you can't, then perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON? Dbfirs 15:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dbfirs thanks for the welcome. We are a band signed in a medium label in California, we are on We cover all the requirements except winning a Grammy. Can you help me? I would appreicate a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeinformationfront (talkcontribs) 15:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Freeinformationfront. First, you need to realise that telling the world about your band is not what Wikipedia is for. It is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally-written articles about notable subjects, based almost entirely on what indpendent sources have published about the subject. Wikipedia has little interest in what the band or its associates have said about it, and no interest at all in what the band wishes to be said about it. If Wikipedia has an article about the band, the article will not belong to the band, and people associated with the band will have no control over its contents, and should limit their involvement to making suggestions for editing the article.
Secondly, if you are in any way connected with the band, (as I suspect you are) you should read about editing with a Conflict of interest; and if you are in any sense paid or compensated by the band, you must declare this: see WP:PAID.
Thirdly, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia: I always advise new editors to get a few hundred constructive edits to existing articles under their belts before they try it. Creating a new article where you have a COI is even harder. In any case, start by reading your first article, and go from there.
I'm sorry if this sounds discouraging, but (unless I've misinterpreted your intention) it is meant to be. If you are here to help us improve Wikipedia, you are most welcome. If you are here to publicise your band, then you are embarking on what may be a frustrating experience, and I want to prepare you for it. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it at all necessary to title citations?[edit]

Whilst editing pages, I have seen that, when making a citation, the author/editor will sometimes title their citation inside the '<ref>' text. Is this necessary for the citation, or can it be left without a title inside the citation itself? Thanks BigSmithster (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

BigSmithster I think what you're asking is whether a bare URL is okay? It's better than nothing, but we do prefer the ref to be fully expanded. For new users like yourself, we understand that you may not have learned how to do that yet, and a bare URL is fine to start out with. You can learn how to expand references at WP:CITE, including tools you can use to make it much easier, like Wikipedia:ProveIt. --valereee (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
BigSmithster I save time by cutting and pasting existing references in the articles, and overwriting the info with my reference info, and deleting info that doesn't apply. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@BigSmithster: just in case you are asking about putting a name for the reference inside the <ref> tag itself, like so: <ref name="some name">{{cite template}}</ref>, that is only necessary if the same reference is used several times in an article. You'll put the full reference the first time, and then you only need to add <ref name="some name"/> when you use the ref in another place in the article. Hope that makes sense! --bonadea contributions talk 21:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

POwered Skateboard Racing[edit]

I posted and article about powered skateboard racing now its deleted why — Preceding unsigned comment added by NAPSR Racing (talkcontribs) 19:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NAPSR Racing. I have had to block your account because it violates our policy as the name of a business or organization. Please select another username. I am not able to find any such previous article. There has never been an article called Powered skateboard racing but perhaps the title was a bit different. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Second error that needs to be fixed is that you put the article-type content in your user page User:NAPSR Racing. User pages are for describing yourself vis-a-vis you intentions as a Wikipedia editor. Your sandbox can be used to work on a draft. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Very embaRrassing error in naming article. How do I correct this properly (Not a redirect)[edit]

I just created a new article for a notable scholar and misspelled the name!!! it has been corrected with a re-direct, but the error is bound to be embaRrassing for the individual concerned as well as for Wikipedia. In my view, very few links to her name would be involved. How can I set things right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by City Bube (talkcontribs) 20:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, City Bube.
I deleted the redirect and moved the article to the proper title of Reeta Chowdhari Tremblay. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

How to nominate someone for an article?[edit]

My deceased father is quite notable in his field for his research and contributions to Air Crew Coordination and Aviation human factors. He held a doctorate in experimental psychology, worked with the US Army and Navy, travelled the world as a guest speaker, was a teacher and author of a textbook still used at Embry-Riddle today. I wonder if he would meet the requirements to have an article written about him and how is this done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stattales (talkcontribs) 20:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Stattales: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It sounds like your father had an impressive career, I am sorry for your loss. Potential article subjects would merit a Wikipedia article if they are extensively written about in independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. You can request that others write such an article at Requested Articles, though there is a large backlog there. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome, @Stattales: your father sure sounds like a useful fellow, but there are rather strict rules (many people think too strict and weird) on subjects of articles. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) can give you some idea. Probably better not to try, but rather mention him in articles on fields in which he made important contributions. Go easy; if someone undoes your work, discuss it in the article's talk page. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Stattales, you can get more topic-specific advice and assistance from WikiProject Aviation, simply post on the project's Talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Spam vs. Vandalism[edit]

What would be the difference between spam and vandalism. And how to know if it really is spam or vandalism or if it’s a false alarm? GummiBear139 { — Preceding unsigned comment added by GummiBear139 (talkcontribs) 22:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@GummiBear139: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Vandalism is any edit that defaces an article; spam is any edit that is advertising something. such as posting an external link to advertisements or commercial websites. See WP:SPAM and WP:VANDALISM for more information and likely better definitions than I have provided here. If you aren't certain about it, you should assume good faith and discuss the matter with other editors. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Capitalize my username[edit]

Hi, I am new here. I am happy to join Wikipedia but want to learn as much as possible. Can I change my user to SAGOtreespirit or SagoTreeSpirit, or am I stuck with Sagotreespirit? Sorry for the silly question. Sagotreespirit (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sagotreespirit: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not a silly question at all. You may change your username in one of two ways; go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest(if you provided an email address to your account in your Preferences) or go to WP:CHUS(if you didn't). 331dot (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: Thank you 331dot! I enjoy the friendly atmosphere here. I am ready to contribute and want to translate many Indonesian articles into English. I am taking a lot time to read all the guidelines to make sure I do not make many mistakes. Success to you. Sagotreespirit (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My first attempt to add a page titled "Progressive Capitalism" has been rejected and I need help responding and resubmitting[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lopifalko was: Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs independent reliable sources with sustained coverage of the subject, not just writing by proponents of the subject.

My Questions: 1) What is the effective approach to addressing the reason for denial above? 2) Do I need to demonstrate more conversation about Progressive Capitalism over time that is favorable? 3) Do I need to demonstrate that there is opposition to Progressive Capitalism by people with alternative economic models? 4) Can I copy some of the relevant material (criticisms) from the entry on Capitalism that may apply here as well (I'll review for relevance)? For example this outline: 10 Criticism 10.1 The profit motive 10.2 Comparison to slavery 10.3 Marxian responses 10.4 Criticisms on the environmental sustainability of capitalism 10.5 Supply and demand 10.6 Externalities 10.7 Counter-criticisms 10.7.1 Austrian School 10.7.2 Ayn Rand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parent55 (talkcontribs) 02:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Parent55 and welcome to the Teahouse.
1) Progressive Capitalism needs to have been talked about significantly in sources which are not closely related to it, and which are considered reliable and trustworthy. This page could help with more information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources
2) Whether the conversation about this topic is favorable or unfavorable is not important: what is important is that it is given coverage. The article should give appropriate weight to the views provided in the sources while remaining neutral in presenting them.
3) This can be included but is not the main issue; see my answer to 2 and this page: Wikipedia:Weight.
4) Generally speaking, content shouldn't be exactly copied from other articles.
Thank you for stopping by and let us know if you have any more questions. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog[edit]

There has seemed to be a problem with the Sonic the Hedgehog page on Wikipedia with inappropriate edits that should be left unchanged. I think it would be a good idea to put a subtitle called memes to explain the recent history of memes that are associated with the recent sonic movie. I hope my senior editors take this into consideration since it would be a fun category of which many people will enjoy writing, including me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪Johnytooshoes‬ (talkcontribs) 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

At Sonic the Hedgehog (film), Talk page, there is already an answer ("No") to making a section in the article for Sonic fans to contribute. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia incorporates published information, not views of individuals. One the movie is released, professional critics will write about it, and those reviews can be referenced. David notMD (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Is There an "Official" Wikipedia Dictionary?[edit]

I'm at that point in my development as an Editor (AFAIC, I'm still starting) where the precise definition of certain words is now a "thing". Rather than start a content dispute using whatever dictionary best suits the purpose of my POV, I've decided to post here and ask, 1) is there an "official" dictionary, 2) Is there a single dictionary that is most common? 3) Is there a group of dictionaries that are considered "acceptable", 4) are there dictionaries that are considered "not acceptable" (with the obvious idea that the "urban dictionary" is not acceptable, so no need to tell me that). I'm hoping there is a single authoritative dictionary, which would then make content discussions clearer, faster and use less words (learning that's important). Also, while I'm bothering you folks, when a dictionary lists multiple definitions of the same word, does the first one listed "trump" subsequent definitions, i.e. are they listed hierarchically, and if so by what standard. For example, say I assert that this word is unacceptable, because by definition #2, it's wrong for some reason, but by definition #1, there is a long, and less-valid connection that someone else can make. Do they "win" because their weak argument is supported by definition #1, and I lose because my strong argument is supported by definition #2? Note too this isn't tactics or strategy, i.e. how to "win", this is to help me to decide if it's worth the time & trouble to make an issue where I'm going to lose anyways. Thanks in advance.Tym Whittier (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

If there is a difference in a definition Wikipedia operates under consensus through the talk page process. Just one answer. Eschoryii (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
No dictionary takes precedence, but I usually consult the OED and Merriam-Webster (and, of course, our sister project, Wiktionary) to get an "official" definition. However, as noted above, a consensus via the talk page is the Wikipedia method for resolving differences. Dbfirs 07:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Source required[edit]

It is mentioned in English Wikipedia that the story for Vichitrakutumbam telugu film is by Sharad Pilgoankar? What is the source? On which Marathi Film it is based? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radhapathi (talkcontribs) 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

courtesy link: Vichitra Kutumbam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Eman235/talk 12:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about merging/redirecting wiki articles... and atomic bombs[edit]

Items involved (WikiData Codes): Q12802 (Nuclear Weapons), Q650051 (Atomic Bomb)

English (Italiano in fondo)

To anyone reading here, I apologize in advance if my English is not the best, as it is not my native language, but I thought regardless to post my issue here, as this problem could very well happen with any language, and here I have also the opportunity to be reached out by more of you guys. I also apologize already for the length, but here is the issue I'm concerned with:

Many languages have merged their version of the Atomic Bomb article within their article about Nuclear Weapons. In the Italian version of the Atomic Bomb article there is a lot of information that, if we merge it in the Nuclear Weapon article, I feel it would be a lengthy article that does need its separate page. It would be also unfairly balanced with the other kinds of nuclear weapons discussed in the article (namely: Atomic Bomb, Hydrogen Bomb, Neutron Bomb, Cobalt Bomb, and Radiologic Weapons).

So, to put it in basic terms, the "nuclear-related" articles in the Italian Language are organized in this way:

Merging the Atomic Bomb article in the Nuclear Weapon article (as well as all others) would make the article really lengthy to read and unbalanced in the amount of information available on each weapon. So there does not seem to me any reason to merge these articles together (unless anyone would like to tell me otherwise?). However, given the way the articles are organized, it is difficult to link these wiki articles with other ones which are not organized this way. For example, the English Wikipedia does not have an article on the Atomic Bomb (only a redirect page to the article "Nuclear Weapons"), and so a link of the Italian version of the Atomic Bomb article to the English one is impossible to add, given that the English page is then redirected to the broader "Nuclear Weapons" article (which is already linked to the Italian version of the article). A similar issue is happening with the German and Portuguese versions (they only have the Nuclear weapons/bombs article, already linked to the Italian article on nuclear weapons).

How is this issue able to be solved? I don't want to leave the Italian article without an English version, because many Italian people go on the English version of articles to get more information from there, since there is a lot more information online available in English. Do I create an English page for the atomic bomb? Or are multiple articles able to be linked to one in another language? Please let me know if you're able to help, or if you have any hints on how to help. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. --DanielePalladino (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


Mi scuso per la lunghezza del post, ma volevo essere chiaro e completo nella mia spiegazione. Questo è il problema:

Molte lingue hanno fuso la loro versione dell'articolo sulla bomba atomica all'interno del loro articolo sulle armi nucleari. Nella versione italiana dell'articolo sulla bomba atomica ci sono molte informazioni che, se le uniamo nell'articolo sulle arme nucleari, ritengo che sarebbe un lungo articolo che ha bisogno di una sua pagina separata. Sarebbe anche bilanciato ingiustamente con gli altri tipi di armi nucleari discusse nell'articolo (vale a dire: bomba atomica, bomba all'idrogeno, bomba a neutroni, bomba di cobalto e armi radiologiche).

Quindi, in breve, gli articoli "correlati ad armi nucleare" nella lingua italiana sono organizzati in questo modo:

Unire l'articolo sulla bomba atomica nell'articolo sulle armi nucleari (così come con gli altri articoli) renderebbe l'articolo molto lungo da leggere e sbilanciato nella quantità di informazioni disponibili su ciascuna arma. Quindi non mi sembra ci sia alcun motivo per unire questi articoli insieme (a meno che qualcuno non voglia dirmi diversamente?). Tuttavia, dato il modo in cui gli articoli sono organizzati, è difficile collegare questi articoli wiki ad altri che non sono organizzati in questo modo. Ad esempio, la Wikipedia inglese non ha un articolo sulla bomba atomica (solo una pagina di reindirizzamento all'articolo "Nuclear Weapons", Armi Nucleari), quindi un link della versione italiana dell'articolo della bomba atomica a quello inglese è impossibile da aggiungere, dato che la pagina inglese viene quindi reindirizzata al più ampio articolo "Nuclear Weapons" (Armi nucleari, che è già collegato alla versione italiana dell'articolo). Un cosa simile si trova anche con le versioni tedesca e portoghese di Wikipedia (hanno solo l'articolo sulle armi nucleari/bombe, già collegato all'articolo italiano sulle armi nucleari).

In che modo questo problema può essere risolto? Non voglio lasciare l'articolo italiano senza una versione inglese, perché molti italiani vanno nella versione inglese degli articoli per ottenere migliori e maggiori informazioni da lì, dal momento che ci sono molte più informazioni online disponibili in inglese. Creo una pagina inglese per la bomba atomica? Oppure più articoli possono essere collegati a uno in un'altra lingua? Per favore fatemi sapere se siete in grado di aiutare, o se avete suggerimenti su come aiutare. Qualsiasi aiuto è apprezzato. Grazie. --DanielePalladino (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi DanielePalladino. This is a common problem when we try to link articles on the various language Wikipedias. Topics don't get divided up into articles in the same way in each case. There are two main types of nuclear weapons, fission (originally called atomic bomb in English) and fusion (originally called hydrogen bomb in English). In Italian there are articles for each type,it:Bomba atomica and it:Bomba all'idrogeno, and also in French, fr:Bombe A and fr:Bombe H. Here in we have an article on the second type, Thermonuclear weapon, but no separate article on the fission bomb. The information is in the general articles on Nuclear weapon and Nuclear weapon design. I suggest writing an Italian article along the lines of the French fr:Types d'armes nucléaires and using that to link to's Nuclear weapon design to give you the connections you need to the information here. (That's what does.) I am sure at some point we will have a comprehensive article devoted to the fission bomb and can link to it then. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Help me out in creating a artist page[edit]

Really need full steps on how to create a music artist page (diography) thanks as I get help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamemmysmith (talkcontribs)

@Iamemmysmith: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that successfully creating a new article is probably the hardest task on Wikipedia. It's even harder when you want to write about yourself- writing about yourself is strongly discouraged here per the policy written at WP:AUTO. Please understand that Wikipedia is not social media for you to tell the world about yourself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such it is only interested in what others say about you, in independent reliable sources. Those sources need to show that you meet the notability guidelines for musicians written at WP:BAND. Please read them. If you meet at least one of the criteria to merit an article, it is best for you to allow others to write it.
Also understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Is copy-pasting of my own thesis OK?[edit]

Hi, I decided to write a new wiki article about topic, that have not been on Wikipedia yet. I have written whole thesis on this topic and I want to use parts of it in copy/paste manner. The thesis itself does not contain original research, it is compilation of different sources. The thesis has been succesfully defended and can be found on our university website. What should I do? --Dejv06 (talk) • 13:20, 19 May 2019

Hi Dejv06 the key question is; who owns the copyright of the thesis, you or the university? If it is yourself then you need to follow the Donating copyrighted material procedure. If the university owns it, the Fair use rules apply. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Dejv06. I'd encourage you to give this plenty of thought before proceeding. By adding the text to Wikipedia, you will be releasing it under a Creative Commons licence for others to use, and this might have consequences for your ability to publish the material yourself later. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Masters' Theses are not reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Finnusertop aiui Dejv06 wants to copy some text from his thesis which cites other sources, so the thesis is not the original source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure Dodger67, provided that it only summarizes those sources and makes no conclusions. Most theses are more ambitious. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 16:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Good point! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Help Writing Draft[edit]

I am creating a a draft on an online store. How do i link it so other pages that are interested can help writing it? Minty tech (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please, see Help:References. Ruslik_Zero 14:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Two versions claimed, only one cited[edit]

I was reading a Wikipedia article that claimed two versions of an attributed statement, but the footnote only cites one of the alleged two versions. How can this be cleaned up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Emfield (talkcontribs)

What article and what statement? Ruslik_Zero 14:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

COI disclosure not linking to article[edit]

I just submitted a new article for review. I did not try to open it myself because I have a conflict of interest: the topic is my father.

My question: Originally the COI disclosure on the page linked to the name of the article. Now the COI disclosure is blank. How do I get that disclosure re-linked to the article name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GVTeg (talkcontribs)

Hello GVTeg and welcome to the Teahouse. On User talk:GVTeg/sandbox, you can add {{connected contributor|GVTeg|declared=yes}} to show this. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

English page creation[edit]

I creatd an English page :

From the French page :

I want you add the sources like : "Notes et références" in the French page to the English page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I cannot see any references in the French article. Am I missing something? Your English draft needs in-line references as described in WP:Referencing for beginners. It's up to you to find these, probably in French. Dbfirs 16:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

How do I submit a definition of a business?[edit]

I can not find the step by step instructions to add a definition of a current business. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdenaHarmon (talkcontribs) 17:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

AdenaHarmon, I'm not sure whether you're asking how to edit a current page for a business, or create a page for a business? --valereee (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to establish a definition of a business that does not yet exist in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdenaHarmon (talkcontribs) 22:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
AdenaHarmon Are you saying that you want to write about a new business field, or type of business? 331dot (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Advice on submission denial[edit]

Hi, a newbie editor has put a lot of work into a submission, but it has been rejected, a discussion followed but the issue has not been resolved. What should be the next step? In my opinion the grounds on which the submission is rejected are too specific and subjective to justify a rejection. Here are the draft and discussion pages for context Draft:National drinks and Talk:List of national liquors. Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You can ask a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Ruslik_Zero 20:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

New editor in need of a draft to be proofread[edit]

Hi I've been working on my first ever article for a few weeks now and I would really appreciate it if someone could proofread and go through my article before I submit it for review, as I have probably made a few nooby mistakes. The article is: (now hidden)

I have a COI with this person so I would be really pleased if someone could skim through it and let me know if it's all OK and if there is anything missing or in need of adding. Let me know on my talk page if you need further clarification or have any questions. Thanks a lot --HeyitsBen (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

HeyitsBen, if you want it reviewed, submit it to AfC for review. John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

someone keeps deleting my edit[edit]

On several occasions i've added content to a page...which is then deleted. the content is factual,non-political or racist. The page is Downpatrick and the content is about the Folk Group "Poteen" having been born there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:8634:c600:a925:65f5:7fa1:8539 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user . If you look at the history of the article Downpatrick, you can see that three different editors have reverted your addition four times, mostly with the comment "unsourced and not notable". Please look at the message that one of them, JimVC3 has put on your user talk page explaining this in more detail. Information which is not cited to a published source is of little value, because a reader next week or next month or next year has no way of checking whether it is correct (it may have been correct when it was inserted, but somebody could have come along later and changed it).
It is normal for editors to disagree about what should go into an article. When this happens, we do not simply keep applying the edit: this is called edit warring, and is regarded as disruptive. Instead, we start a discussion with the other editors, to try and reach consensus under Wikipedia's policies: please see BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Colin....Listen this is all computer-babble to me....Here are the facts 1/Poteen were born and reared in Downpatrick 2/They were one of the most successful folk groups from Northern Ireland. 3/They played with all the heavyweights on the Folk scene i.e The Dubliners..The Wolfe Tones etc. I know all this because it was my brother and I who formed the group. We played in the band until he died in 2001. I came across your page on Downpatrick and felt he should be mentioned. I would create a "Poteen" page, like the one created on Facebook, if only I knew how. I find it terribly irritating that YOU and other EDITORS can dictate to someone born, and still living in Downpatrick, what is and is not notable and unsourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:8634:c600:5d41:e997:b2a4:67aa (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not like Facebook; Facebook is for people to tell whatever they wish to tell. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects; Wikipedia is not interested in what article subjects want to say about themselves. ColinFine gave you some excellent advice above on this matter. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no doubt that what you say is true, but your word is not sufficient, we need reliable sources that are independent of your group. That's how we judge notability. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
See the range contributions of 2a02:c7f:8634:c600::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). 2a02:c7f:8634:c600::/64, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - editing about your own group is highly discouraged here. theinstantmatrix (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, IP-user! What you call “facts” are not known for me. I have never seen the group, I've never been to Ireland, I live in a quite distant country. How do you plan to show me those are true, and not pseudo-facts fabricated by some bored teen...? Who else can confirm what you said? (And when asking 'who', I don't mean your buddy next door. Facts in Wikipedia need →WP:Verifiability, which means citing →WP:SOURCES, which are →WP:RELIABLE and independent from the subject.) Best regards. --CiaPan (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Listen guys and maybe even ladies...who knows..Thanks for all your help and's still all computer-babble to me daughter has a wiki account and she is setting up a Potéen page....she has sourced all the legit verifiable sources..oh CiaPan..I'm 60 years of age and retired from music but thanks for the compliment...anyways peeps once again apologies from a novice....Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmurphy113 (talkcontribs) 12:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Hello, I work for Jean Paul Garraud, a French politician with a Wikipedia page. He requested me to add a photo to his page as the previous one was deleted by a user.

I tried to add on Wikipedia the picture from his official Facebook page but it was deleted twice despite the fact I provided all the legal rights to use the picture : on Thursday and today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2019-05-19T21:37:17 (UTC)

Could you please advise on how to proceed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2019-05-19T21:37:17 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Easiest way to avoid an licensing issue, will be by clicking original photos, and uploading it directly on Wikipedia. You should make sure you don't download any images from internet, and upload it on Wikipedia, even from Facebook. In case you want to use any image, that has been used on Internet, then you need to take permission of the copyright owner. See WP:CONSENT, in case you want to use any online photos. Feel free to reply if you need any further assistance. ML 911 21:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, IP user. I can't find any evidence of anybody adding a photo to the English article Jean-Paul Garraud, so I guess you are talking about the French article fr:Jean-Paul Garraud, where Stellouchou (is that you?) added a photo from Facebook, which was removed from Commons, and then added a different picture, which is also up for deletion from Commons.
If that is what you are talking about, then I'm afraid that the English Wikipedia Teahouse is not an appropriate place to ask: you need to ask at fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux, or at commons:commons:Help desk: these are all separate projects, with their own rules and personnel.
But from what I know of Commons the problem is likely to be that Commons only accepts pictures which are free for reuse - in practice, this means that the holder of the copyright has explicitly released them under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to reuse them for any purpose. But as I say, you need to ask there. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine, I had a similar question (without any French). Please see below Comm260 ncu (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing contributions?[edit]

I have just tried to find an edit I made a few weeks ago by checking my contributions on my Kindle, but when I click on "older 50" the list jumps from 2 May to 10 Feb. I'm the first to admit that I'm not the most active of WP editors, but I made numerous edits between those dates. On my laptop I can see all of my contributions. Is there a known fault with contribution lists on Amazon Kindles? JezGrove (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I am trying it on a PC, and it works there. It shows several screens of edits through April. I can't suggest what might be going wrong for you - perhaps try it again and see if the WP elves fixed it in the meantime?--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Have you run into similar problems with Kindle on other web sites? Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gronk Oz and Liz. I figured out that despite displaying 50 contributions per page and a button saying "older 50" on the Kindle, it was actually jumping 500 contributions at a time (which is the setting in 'Preferences' on my PC). There's no way of adjusting this setting on the Kindle, but setting it back to '50' on the PC fixed the issue. I guess it's more of a glitch than a genuine bug, and not a very important one, but perhaps you could pass it on to the WP elves? Best wishes! JezGrove (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Posting Image of Marathon Logo—NO GO?[edit]

OK, I want to contribute some marathon race logos so they can appear in the info box of the marathon's Wikipedia page (like this one for the London Marathon). Pretty simple, right? Not quite. I make sure to upload a small image to the Wikimedia Commons site, but every time I upload the image, fill out all the information, and publish the image's Wikimedia page, a big red box appears with this message: This media file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion.

So the image can't be "fair use?" Then why do so many other company logos and marathon race logos appear in Wikimedia? I must have something wrong in the upload process.

I've created a "non-free logo" template (using {{non-free use rationale}}); I've tried checking various boxes (CC-licensed and fair use) when uploading. Still to no avail. They continue getting deleted.


Comm260 ncu (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Comm260 ncu, don't upload non-free images to Wikimedia Commons; upload them locally to the English Wikipedia. (The reason for this: Commons serves as a media repository for all Wikimedia projects, some of which do not allow non-free files.) Eman235/talk 22:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Another reason is that Wikimedia Commons aims to provide doubly free media for everyone, not just Wikipedias, and hence should not be polluted by non-free files. (See commons:Project scope.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

How to format/link music artist songs etc[edit]

Hi all, I'm super new to this, so please forgive me if this is explained elsewhere. I'm working on a draft of a musical artist page. Right now, I have their albums, music videos, and singles listed as bullet-pointed text lists with a reference attached to each item. The references link out to either the Apple Store page or YouTube video for each item. Is this acceptable? Or, should each item in the article just be a hyperlink in and of itself?

Basically, my question is, should the links to things like songs/albums be references? Or just regular hyperlinks within the text?

AlwaysMoreMystery (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Enquiry About a page "Wakil Kumar Yadav"[edit]

Hi recently I have edited a new article with valid citation, still it is in deleting category, why? Plz check the article named Wakil Kumar Yadav and solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakuxyz (talkcontribs) 06:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Convenience link: Wakil Kumar Yadav; link to deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakil Kumar Yadav. Maproom (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Can we write an article on a company that does not exist in the wikipedia?[edit]

Can we write an article on a company that does not exist in the wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyankas3010 (talkcontribs) 06:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Priyankas3010: It depends on what "does not exist" mean. If you plan to write an article that says something exists or happened when it did not, please do not do so. If the company does not exist yet but someone plans to start it soon, probably not. If the company lives within a work of fiction (such as Acme Corporation), maybe, but present it as a fictional entity, not as a real company.
In all cases, the relevant test is whether the company has been written about at length by reliable independent sources. (That is a test that must be met by any subject on Wikipedia.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

About Suryavarman II[edit]

I need to know more about Suryavarman II. He is a Tamilian. But i didn't see any lines that mention his clear history. I need to know more history about him. Also "Surya" is not only from Sanskrit. In tamil "Sun" is called as "Suryan". So while keeping it as name it's referred as "Surya" + "varman" = Suryavarman.

Thank you for your response. Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbk2019 (talkcontribs) 06:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Vbk2019: We do have an article about Suryavarman II (assuming that is the same person you are talking about), which contains a fair deal of information.
If you have any additions/corrections for the article, please give them on the article talk page, located at Talk:Suryavarman II. However, it seems unlikely to me that a monarch of Cambodia has much to do with Tamils, so you would need to provide reliable sources for your proposed etymology. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

New article on small startup[edit]

I'd like to try and write an article for a small startup in Silicon Valley but I'm not completely sure if it's "noteworthy" enough. The company is OmniPreSense, is couple years old and has just a hand full of employees however I've seen multiple articles about other startups that match this definition. Would it be appropriate to write an article about this startup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpef0704 (talkcontribs) 07:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Jpef0704: Probably not. The criterion is "notability" (more details in the case of companies at WP:NCORP); it is not about the size, although the bigger companies are more likely to be notable. From a quick search online, I found nothing in the way of notability.
If other startups have articles despite lacking sources that write about them in great detail while being reliable and independent, those articles may need to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for how to nominate them yourself, or just tell us the titles and we will handle it. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Good morning

Thank you for the invitation.

I just need to find out how long will the draft:Collen Khoza page will be live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladoya.James (talkcontribs) 07:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As it stands, that draft is a hagiography of someone that does not demonstrate how that person is "notable" (in Wikipedia's meaning of the term). It is therefore never going to go live in its present state: Wikipedia articles are based on what secondary reliable sources independent of the subject say about it.
Please read Wikipedia:Your first article, and if you are CK, also read our page about autobiographies. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
In general, if a draft is not submitted (or resubmitted) and not worked on, it can stay a draft for six months before being deleted. If seen as solely promotional, it may be deleted sooner. While in draft, it can be seen at Wikipedia, but will not be found if search for the name made at Google or other search engine. This draft may be deleted soon, as the content has nothing which suggests the person, Collen Khoza, can meet Wikipedia's idea of notability. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

How much times it takes to save a draft[edit]

I have created a draft for my practice last week, and am trying to save it but it is not being saved. but its not getting saved and is published. How much time it takes to save? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadilghb (talkcontribs) 07:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Aadilghb: I suppose you are talking about Draft:Muhammad Aadil? It has been saved on the Wikipedia servers, but not yet "published" in the sense that it is not in the mainspace. You might have been confused by the "publish changes" big blue button at the bottom left (it "publishes" changes by the meaning of Wikipedia's license, but it does not actually "publish" them in the usual understanding of the term; the wording is here for legal reasons).
Please note that this draft is unlikely to go to the mainspace unless you can add references that show that person is "notable" (in Wikipedia's special sense), which is roughly "has been written about at length by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject". (Many meritorious persons are not notable, and conversely many awful persons are notable; the job of an encyclopedia is not to pass moral judgement.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

How can I publish an article with a name that is already "occupied"?[edit]

I would like to publish an article with the old biomedical term "Reticuloendothelial system". If I search for the term I will be redirected to "Mononuclear Phagocytic System". I think this is because the original article was published as "Reticuloendothelial system", but 12th November 2010 the name was changed to "Mononuclear Phagocytic System". I think that was a good idea because the article, as it stands now, describe "Mononuclear Phagocytic System". However, for many reasons I think it is important also to write an article about "Reticuloendothelial system". But how can I start publishing an article when the term/phrase (in a way) is occupied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetilhe (talkcontribs) 12:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Kjetilhe: See WP:EDRED—you can simply edit Reticuloendothelial system and write your article there. (See Wikipedia:Your first article for help.) Eman235/talk 12:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjetilhe (talkcontribs) 13:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kjetilhe and Eman235: When rewriting a redirect with a new article contents please check what links to the former redirect with the What links here link from the side menu. It will open the listing Special:WhatLinksHere/Reticuloendothelial_system – this should be checked for the articles, which need re-linking directly to Mononuclear phagocytic system. --CiaPan (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

COI on Zbigniew Blazeje[edit]

I am sorry but I have exactly no idea how to deal with your conflict of interest complaints about Zbigniew Blazeje, an article I proposed. I do run a label called Spool. I have pressed a CD of music by Terry Rusling. I put that article up many many years ago when I had no idea of there was any possibility of releasing a CD. About 2 years ago I tracked down his nephew who inherited his tapes. We got together and selected some material and I released a CD this year. When I put the article up I had only poor dubs from 2 of the studios he worked and very early material of not very high quality.

A few years ago I tracked down his nephew who inherited his tapes. We went through the tapes and eventually released a CD. We pressed 50 copies. There is little hope of ever recouping the costs let alone making a profit.

While researching Rusling we discovered a significant collaboration with visual artist Zbigniew Blazeje as well as poets Earle Birney, Bob Cobbing and Gwendolyn MacEwen as well study with Stockhausen and other European composers. There was information about him in the Rusling interviews on CBC and notices in Toronto papers and ArtsCanada (aka Canadian Art) magazine. So there is an indirect COI of posting an article on Blazeje, in that it might create interest in Rusling. Given the status of the Rusling article's it seems utterly unlikely that this project would generate a profit and will remain a financial loss, though I see it as a charitable act.

Since doing researching on Rusling we discovered much more notable activity by him but I suspect from Wikipedia's point of view the fact that neither entries will unlikely never generate some sort of profit would be an argument against COI, it swings the article into the area of lack of notability, a catch 22, as it were. Knowing we cannot win this argument I have no idea how to extricate myself from being persona non grata on Wikipedia.

I have not intended to break any rules and at best my conflict of interest is laughable for a project which I do think is historically important in tiny Canada's history of experimental music, an area which is in itself without note or significance to maybe a few hundred people. I understand you have requirements for your site and must do what you see as correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielkernohan (talkcontribs) 15:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Danielkernohan. A COI is not an insuperable problem: as long as you are open about the level of your involvement, and invite editors to view what you write critically, you can still edit. A lack of notability (in the special way that Wikipedia uses that word) is an insuperable problem. If you can find substantial reliably published material, wholly independent of the subject, then there can be an article; and with proper disclosure, and using the articles for creation process to get your draft reviewed, then ther is no reason why you shouldn't write it. But if these sources are lacking, then an article is impossible, however important he may have been. --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Hey can i start editing now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editordee (talkcontribs) 16:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Editordee: Yes! Check out the tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE, these will give you a good start. Come back here if you have more questions. RudolfRed (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

CSD A2[edit]

Does A2 applies to Drafts? CptViraj (Talk) 17:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@CptViraj: I wouldn't think so- it seems plausible that one could write a draft not in English to get the ideas down, then go back and translate it for article space. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 18:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Simply not being in English is not sufficient for WP:A2 anyway, even for an article. A2 is only for "articles not written in English that have essentially the same content as an article on another Wikimedia project" - so it must exist in essentially the same form on another language Wikipedia to be eligible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

PAGE Deletion[edit]


My name is John Allen Mollenhauer I have been working with a company to help us put a page on Wikipedia around the idea called "Performance Lifestyle."

We got this message: 15:06, 18 May 2019, MER-C (Talk/Contribs) Deleted Page Performance Lifestyle G5: Creation by Blocked or Banned user in violation of block or ban.

This is an idea I and my team have been working on developing for nearly 20 years and an emerging marketplace term/sector/ big idea. We worked carefully with what we hope was/is a reputable company to make sure we followed all Wikipedia guidelines and the page was approved even though it was changed from our original content. We thought "that where we needed to start" Now the page has been deleted.

Any chance you can please advise on what has happened? Was the company we worked with blocked or banned?

Note: We are registered users, learning how to use Wikipedia the best we can, and supporters.

Warm Regards, JohnAllenJAM (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)John Allen Mollenhauer

Hello, JohnAllenJAM. It sounds as if you have the (unfortunately very common) misconception that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with telling the world about you, your big idea (or your company, your band, your non-profit, etc). It does not. If at some point Wikipedia has an article about one of these, it will not be your article, you will have no control whatever over its contents, and it should be almost entirely based on what people who have no connection with you have chosen to publish about the subject.
This specific deletion was not on any grounds to do with the content of the article, but because it had been created by a user who has been blocked or banned: I can't tell which user, or what they were blocked or banned for; but if you were "working with a company", my guess would be that that company had been breaking Wikipedia's policies in some way. Since promotion of any kind is forbidden in Wikipedia, many companies who offer their services for creating Wikipedia articles are either ignorantly or wilfully editing in a way that is dubious - and any company that represents to you that they can create a page to your liking is lying. (There are some companies who do offer the service in a responsible way, making the necessary disclosures; but they cannot guarantee that the page will be kept as their customer wants). For more information on the deletion, you will need to contact the admin who deleted it, MER-C.
As for the content: please read about notability and verifiability. If you and your associates have developed the idea of "Performance lifestyle", then nothing said or published by you and your associates can contribute to its notability (in Wikipedia's sense), and very little that you and your associates have said or published should go into an article about it. We require that most of the article be based on reliable published material by people who have no connection with you. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The company is banned for hard-core, highly abusive spamming and covert advertising. I explicitly refuse this request for undeletion. MER-C 19:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your insights ColineFine and MER-C. This feedback is both important and appreciated. This was not set up as a promotion, at least as we saw it.

Whatever had been created by the Wikipedia "Expert" you are saying had been banned or blocked, had been edited by Wikipedia. Even after following guidelines to the best our awareness, it had been edited, substantially by apparently skilled Wikipedia admins prior to being published, so nothing led me to believe we were dealing with an unscrupulous company.

It looks like a Wikipedia "company" whom we spent 3 months with editing this, with a keen eye on what they were telling us were Wikipedia guidelines, had a history that led to being banned or blocked. We knew nothing about this.

I think Performance Lifestyle should be on Wikipedia, but it appears that because I have an interest in the idea, it can't be me who publishes it? Is that my take away? So, someone completely uninvolved with the idea would need to publish it? How then would they even know what Performance Lifestyle is if they don't have any experience in this emerging space or with this concept?

There are many pages for specific people, IE., and specific concept or and then ideas like Performance Lifestyle is like "nutrient density," I have been developing the idea, for years, along with many others who are shaping the space. I provided links to the origin, other authors, etc. If we have gone about this wrong way, then we will accept that as learning and can't dispute your point.

What do you see as a course of action from here, to make this good?

Thank you for your feedback. John Allen Mollenhauer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAllenJAM (talkcontribs) 20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

JohnAllenJAM, when you say that the article "had been edited by Wikipedia", do you mean by Wikipedia editors not working for the company you paid? Wikipedia is writing and maintained by volunteer editors, not a paid staff. When you say "it had been edited, substantially by apparently skilled Wikipedia admins prior to being published", what are you basing that on? Did the company claim to be employing people who are Wikipedia administrators? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry, yes. I think I wish I had read this article before starting this whole process. I do mean Wikipedia editors. The company we were working with, whom we did pay (apparently that's not the way and now I know) because they were there to guide us, did submit original text, but that text was then edited by Wikipedia. Wikipedia Editors changed it dramatically.

Nothing in there was spammy, or rubbish. I tried to represent the space, but our fee-based guides kept cutting it down. So after we wrote up a description of Performance Lifestyle and provided links, (some of which the company edited out including language and links that referenced our own works as well, as apparently, we had bumped up against some Wikiboundares; we accepted that as we learned. So yes, the final article, was far different. In other words, no editors that were being paid by the company. These were Wikipedia Editors.

The newly edited page, linked into established Wikipedia pages on several fronts and was far from the original works. I'm certain there is no way that was done by the company we hired to guide us, and they stated that as such when I brought up the fact that Wikipedia Editors made changes. I was fine with that and liked the integration/influence that Wikipedia admins or editors had on the idea.

From that point, I was in email communication with our professional guides, only to ask how we could contribute to the page since there is so much about the concept and the emerging field of Performance Lifestyle that did not make it in the initial page. I do want to be a contributor to this page, among others. I would have started it myself If had had the Wikipedia confidence at that time. But hey, maybe this experience will change that as I am very much dialed in.

This page is very important.

I hope that answers your question. Thanks for weighing in.

I'm an administrator, JohnAllenJAM, so I can see the history of the deleted article. From that, I can tell you that only one editor made substantive edits to the content, and that was the now-blocked editor who created it. I think you might have been misled about other Wikipedia editors having worked on it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, JohnAllenJAM. I'm sorry you've had this experience. Unfortunately, something like this happens to most people who come here to promote (read: "tell the world about") something, rather than to participate in this wonderful project to create an encyclopaedia. The fact that you say "this page is very important" is an indication that that is your purpose: all Wikipedia articles are important. Why should your view prevail?
In attempting to write about your ideas, you would have a conflict of interest: this makes the already difficult task of writing a new article even harder for you; but though you are discouraged, you are not forbidden from trying. But what can make it impossible to write an acceptable article about the subject whoever writes it is if the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Since any article should be almost entirely based on reliably published material independent of anybody connected with the subject, it follows that if everything published about it is from you and your associates, then it is not yet notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article will be accepted whoever writes it, and whatever they put in it.
If you do want to have a go at writing the article, please read your first article. But if you are truly interested in helping us improve Wikipedia, you will have a more rewarding experience, and probably add more value to Wikipedia, by working on articles that you do not have so much personally invested in. --ColinFine (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi JohnAllenJAM. Wikipedia has articles about topics that are notable in a special sense, already well-known as shown by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. The references that can been seen in in Google's cache of the deleted page do not seem to satisfy this requirement:
  1. "Performance Lifestyle - Live Like a Pro". Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  2. "Getting fit not just for the Holidays - but for life". Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  3. Airton, Dawn (10 November 2017). "Ten Top Tips to becoming a Performance Lifestyle Advisor". Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  4. O'Laughlin, Red (11 December 2016). "Review of John Allen Mollenhauer's 7-Day Water Only Diet". Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  5. "Performance Lifestyle". 11 December 2016. Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  6. "Entertaining program prompts attendees to break free from "energy debt" and recharge". Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  7. "Move Over Diet And Exercise It's Time For Regeneration". Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  8. Schatell, Jackie (19 November 2010). "Former Livingston Football Captain, and Author, John-Allen Mollenhauer, to Hold Book Signing at Sams". Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  9. "John Allen Mollenhauer: How To End Performance Anxiety-Ep.96". Retrieved 20 March 2019.
  10. "The Rise of a New Lifestyle Part 2". Retrieved 20 March 2019.
Significant means more than mentions or a link to your website. Independent means not written by you, not an interview with you, not a republishing of a press release. Have people not connected with you written about Performance Lifestyle? StarryGrandma (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, StarryGrandma, and ColinFine, you are all clearly pro's and I, unfortunately, the greenhorn who meant well in every way, is coming up short here. I appreciate the ideals of who can write an article, but truth is, I am uncertain there will be an article on this any time soon as it takes a great deal of knowledge and awareness to pick up on this space this early in the game. I thought I was doing a good thing. That said, there are many people outside of me, that have written about performance lifestyle, many of those links which I originally submitted were cut out by our paid editor. I was genuinely representing the space, and if I could do that all over would do a much better job at it. I don't care if I'm in it at all, but I am involved in the space and have added many developments to the Performance Lifestyle space. I mean a healthy lifestyle has a page so why not a performance lifestyle? If that means we take everthing related to me off of it, so be it. Unless someone else ads us in, and then perhaps one of you publish it, who are now aware of it, then who will do it? If not me, who? JohnAllenJAM (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

What I mean to say, is this: Can we start again and fully represent the space? I CAN, in fact, represent the space. I am committed to space, I don't need it linking to me. I just want it out there in a good genuine way. Any thoughts on that? JohnAllenJAM (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


If I have changes I would like to make, but while I think that the new content is important I don’t think I could write it as well as an official Wikipedia editor, what should I do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmacat666 (talkcontribs)

@Emmatcat666: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Every article has an associated Talk page; it is meant for discussing changes or issues with the associated article. For example, the page George Washington has a talk page at Talk:George Washington. If you are using a computer, you can access the associated talk page by clicking the "Talk" tab at the top of the article. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


hey youll publish this page for me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editordee (talkcontribs)

@Editordee: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Draft:RichBoi Streeter (rbs), you have resubmitted it, and it will be reviewed in due course, please be patient. Trying to 'jump the line' like this doesn't usually work. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

Hi, I have read that you can suggest corrections by posting to a "Talk" page and getting the opinions of other editors. How long does it usually take for someone to notice an item on "Talk"? Is there an appropriate way to attract the attention of editors to discuss an issue, or is it better to wait for someone who is interested to drop by the page?Urigfethera (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Urigfethera, how quickly someone will come to the page depends a lot on how many watchers there are on a particular page, which you can tell by click on 'page information' in the left column. If you have a particular change you want to make, you can simply make that change; if other editors object, they'll revert. At that point you can start a discussion at the talk page, and the other editor is expected to show up. --valereee (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee: Thank you for the watcher information! That is very useful. I can see there are many watchers on the article I'm thinking about, so I will try to be patient.Urigfethera (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Urigfethera: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It depends on the article involved. If it is an article about a highly visible or controversial subject(say, Donald Trump), it is likely a great many editors are following the article and its talk page. If it is a more obscure subject, it is possible that few editors are following it. There are ways to draw attention to your comments; you can tag one as a formal request for help by putting {{help me}} with your post(as you observe it on this page, not in the edit window where I have coding to prevent it from working here). 331dot (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@331dot:Thank you for the "help me" code! The article I'm considering is semi-protected, so that kind of request (for an editor to make a change to a semi-protected page) perhaps will also draw the same attention. I cannot make those changes myself yet, obviously. However, that code will be useful on another page where I was considering adding to the Talk section.Urigfethera (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)