From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Most recent archives
888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 906, 907

Tracking down items in my Watchlist[edit]

I just found this

20 January 2019
(Deletion log); 04:58  Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of 3 revisions on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: edit summary hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
(Deletion log); 04:57  Drmies (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden and username hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
(Deletion log); 04:57  Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)
(Deletion log); 04:57  Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Teahouse: content hidden, edit summary hidden and username hidden ‎(RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material)

and would like to follow up on what it means, but I haven't found a way to gain access to the material. Have tried various ways of searching the Wikipedia:Teahouse page (by RD2, by Drmies, and by date).

Could someone please give this newbie a step-by-step guide?

cheers Tarkiwi25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarkiwi25 (talkcontribs) 20:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The idea of changing the visibility is so that you can't gain access to the material. Only administrators can see the information which has been deleted. The relevant part of the article history shows that the edits in question took place, but the material which was deemed to meet revision deletion criterion RD2 is now not visible to normal editors. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tarkiwi25. As above, the content is hidden so you can't see it, but if you want a more direct way of viewing the history of revision deletions and other actions taken with respect to any given page, navigate to it logs, e.g., here are the logs for the Teahouse, and here are the logs for it restricted just to deletions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. I can't imagine what was "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" and would never intentionally have written anything of the sort so I'm deeply troubled by those deletions. The idea of making the material invisible seems a bit ominous. I did obviously look at the history of edits, and it seems that these deletions connected with something I added to the page. So I'm still looking for the explanation with regard to the deletions themselves. Fuhghettaboutit, I will try your links. And this time I'll remember to sign my post and complete the publishing process. Tarkiwi25 (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, yes, I had gone to the log, but had no joy of it. I'd tried filling in the blanks but got no response. I'll keep at it, and thanks again for responding. --Tarkiwi25 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tarkiwi25: Hahaha! I'm sorry Tarkwi, but this is hysterical. I hope after reading this you'll find it funny too (maybe also a bit relieved). I – and I'm 99.99% certain David Biddulph also – thought that you asked your question out of curiosity, because if we thought you didn't know how watchlists work, and understood that you were worried about why your edit had been hidden, as flagged as grossly offensive, etc., we would have relieved you of your misapprehension. Tarkiwi25: this had nothing, NOTHING, NOTHING , NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with you! You watchlisted this page, just like me and a few thousand other people have watchlisted it. Every one of us who has this page on our watchlists has the edits that are made to this page pop up on our watchlists when made. Every one of us—the few thousand people mind you—if we looked at our watchlist at the right time, would have seen that revisions had been hidden for "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" edits, just like you did. The edits at issue were made by some bored, likely male adolescent who giggles when bodily parts are mentioned. He added a bunch of vulgarities and sexually explicit nonsense to this page, after choosing a vulgar account name. That user was quickly indefinitely blocked and the vulgar edits hidden. And you've been sitting here all this time thinking that because you saw the revision on your watchlist, the edits in question were somehow about your edits! Sorry, but, LMAO.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, this just confirms my sense that I'm some circle of hell where I'm doomed to be repeating episodes of my earlier life. That is, it is now appropriate for me to say that I am only here to amuse you. (As I once found myself saying in French at the local greengrocer's where the radish was so big that I didn't recognize it for a radish and rejected it saying that I didn't feel like cooking that night. The French family behind the counter, by then many months into finding me bemusing if not amusing, looked at me and started laughing. Recently I have learned that in fact there are recipes that involve cooking radishes. And their greens. So take that, you French grocers!--OK, never mind, that was a longwinded story in an attempt to be both clear and amusing. Or rather to continue to amuse you.)

OK, I know I have some setting ticked for watchlisting. Are you saying that some git messed up the Ann B. Ross page and that's what got picked up? Or is it this teachouse (how's that for an apt typo) that got messed up and some bot/person caught the offensive material? I'm guessing the latter, but if so I don't understand why what I copied at the beginning of all this would have appeared on the Ann B. Ross editing history page.

Either way, yes, I am relieved.

I also understand what "meta" means and the sort of infrastructure necessary for Wikipedia to function. But I'm also finding it surprisingly difficult to navigate the complexities of this infrastructure. Lots of rabbit holes, when what I want to be doing is editing as well as creating a page or two. I'm in New Zealand and we have a Wikipedian-at-large who's trying to boost NZ's representation within Wikipedia.

Erm, could I impose upon you from time to time with direct queries? If I can figure out how to do that? My initial queries in this teahouse went unanswered, so ... well, this looks like too good an opportunity to pass up. (By way of being a thank you for helping me to understand some part of the chaos.)

Btw, given your user name, would you happen to be from/in Noo Joisey? cheers,--Tarkiwi25 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Tarkiwi25: Noo JAW-saY? Fuhgedaboutit! They're just the imitation Brooklyn, where I'm from.
  • Well, what exactly did you think the mutant radish was?
  • Please drop directly by my talk page anytime at all, to ask any specific question you have whatever.
  • I don't know what you mean about Ann B. Ross? Since I see you made some edits to that page, I assume you also have it watchlisted, but none of the hidden edits have anything to do with that page. Are you understanding that edits made to all page you have watschlisted show up in your watchlist together, ordered by the time they were made? I'm guessing that, here, when you looked at your watchlist, you saw an innocuous change to Anne B. Ross in your watchlist, right above or below the hiding of an edit to this page, and didn't notice that they were two separate entries on your watchlist—no edit made to Ann B. Ross by anyone has ever been hidden.

    Anyway, what happened here was that a user who was not an administrator noticed a bunch of spree vandalism being made to this page; they reported the user to WP:AIV for a block and in the meanwhile, reverted their edits a few times; an adminstrator came along and indefinitely blocked the user and revision deleted the history; when you came back to your watchlist, you saw the log of the revision deletions in the history of this page, because you have the Teahouse watchlisted. Though we do try to deny recognition to vandals, because they feed off of reaction – the worst thing you can do to them to defeat their whole purpose in vandalizing is to simply block them with no reaction; when they look for the reaction, their edits are just gone and their account locked; no muss no fuss – but it's no big deal to tell you more specifically what was hidden on January 20. First, here's the log of the indefinite block. See the vulgar username? Now you know why the name of the user was hidden, not just their edits. And the edits were things like adding under the headline "Would anyone like to suck my [0[K?" this darling little post: "Would anyone like to suck on my [0[k tonight? It's getting long and hard." In sum, just a bored 14 year old looking for a reaction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding Images[edit]

How do we add images? I know “fair use” won’t do. How do we add images properly? I’m not used to adding images like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdeaFan128 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

IdeaFan128, what in question are you trying to add? WelpThatWorked (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to add the cover to Mega Man (Archie Comics), but I can’t find a way to do it. I’ve tried sending a release notice and nothing works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdeaFan128 (talkcontribs) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
IdeaFan128, fair use is acceptable in this case: see WP:NFCI and WP:NFCC. Basically, you just need to upload a fairly low-resolution version of the cover and tag it appropriately (the upload wizard will help with this). Eman235/talk 22:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Editorial Intolerance, Lack of Transparency and Accountability - "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit"[edit]

Invited here by Hostbot, thank you. Re: myContribution in the Topic: "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" (now "suspended" by JFG) Complaint Reposted for your response, please: [I have no intention to engage in any "edit war", JFG. As you must know, I have only just begun to contribute to Wikipedia. This initial experience has been very disappointing. Your editing actions - "unsourced" and "off topic" - are totally baffling, arbitrary and untransparent, especially for a Commons encyclopedia. I have some experience in writing and editing for top-class refereed journals. You (and all the purported unknown editors? who?) now decided to delete the entire "Reactions" section of the "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" - why? What's left are just fluff and dry stuff. An encyclopedia should contain much more facts-based, credibly-sourced perspectives - just compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica (assuming you and other self-appointed editors, truly with due respects, would accept it as a gold standard). And you threatened in a message to "ban" me? Sounds very China's and DPRK's intolerance of free speech and diverse thinking, eh? Why/what are you so afraid of in the "Reactions" contents? They provided interesting background information to inform Wikipedia users of the complex issues of the Summit. JFG, you could have simply pointed me to the proper formatting of the contributions instead of brushing it off as "unsourced" (which of course it is not but contained multiple sources) or "off topic" (which indicated that the 'editors' did not read and/or understand the contents and embedded links). And your "best way" to consider the NationalInterest and my materials is to censor/delete them off? Seriously, people? Your latest action WILL discourage other contributions who would have richly added to the Topic in the run-up to the Summit. myEndNote - Wikipedia processes are well-written and respected, but I think they are being abused and misused by "humans" who are knowingly or unknowingly arrogant in their self-importance and un-selfconsciousness of their own bias and prejudice. You DO NOT have to censor or delete multiple & credibly-sourced materials - however disagreeable they may be to you and then some. Just trust your readers' intelligence to form their own conclusions - isn't that's why the Commons and Wiki movements are about? written by: DrMikoWise (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC) ]

Please DO NOT throw me your beautifully written policies or "processes"; I have NO ISSUE with them.

I hope to see the "conversations" among the editors who concluded that myContribution was "unsourced" and "off topic", both misconceived and untrue. And why did you accused me of initiating a "edit war" and threatened to "ban" me (like some totalitarian regimes)?

In the 1st instance, myContribution was simply off-format - it should be simply pointed out and guided. And when MULTIPLE sources were properly formatted and introduced, your editor(s?) decided that it was "opinion and conjecture", again without substantiation, and decided to DELETE and CENSOR it altogether with an earlier NationalInterest article. Your editor(s?) now awaits some "Neutral Text" (what this?) so as to restore the unreasonable edits. The ORIGINAL contribution was under the "REACTIONS" heading of the Topic - please explain and elaborate on the oxymoronic "Neutral Reactions".

I hope JFG and other editors involved in this seeming editorial intolerance could kindly educate me, a newbie to Wikipedia but very familiar to well-sourced writings, with SPECIFIC reference to myContribution. Your transparency and accountability are extremely CRITICAL to the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Whither Editorial Intolerance, Lack of Transparency and Accountability - "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit"? DrMikoWise (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi DrMikoWise. It appears that you've found Talk:2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit and have started a discussion about this topic there. That's really the best place for a discussion about the content of 2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit since that it where those interested in the subject matter are likely going to be found. In addition, when you're WP:BOLD and make changes to an article which are subsequently reverted by someone else, the general thing to do is follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and engage in article talk page discussion. Please try and remember that the ultimate goal is to the improve the overall quality of the article, not to try and have the article reflect our own personal viewpoints, etc., and any disagreements among editors as to how to achieve this goal are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. So, you're going to have to establish a consensus in favor of making the changes you want to make by showing how the changes comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're not familiar with how article talk pages work, you can find some more information in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Help:Talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, MarchJuly, for the the sensible advisory reminder to one and all. Your fellow editors should also read AGAIN the Wikipedia Guidelines before rushing to judgement and delete the "disputed" content. Acting contrary to your own Wiki-Guidelines, they DID NOT first attempt to edit or improve on the content but simply dismissing it WRONGFULLY as "unsourced" and "off topic". Neither did any of the arrogant self-righteous editors follow the CONSENSUS guideline to "take into account all of the proper concerns raised, (so as) ... to arrive with an absence of objections ...(or) ... settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached". And since "there is (YET) no wide agreement, consensus-building ...(SHOULD)... involve adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal". In accordance with the Guidelines, I had in fact "DISCUSSED" why I made the Contribution and then "REVERTED" the wrongful edits, before being threatened with a "BAN" for daring to start an "EDIT WAR". Such behaviors by your editor(s) are reprehensible and should not be condoned by the rest of us who feel more ordinary and less self-righteous. How indeed can you build CONSENSUS, as advised by the Guidelines, when the purported "offending" content have already been removed so arbitrarily by a few editors before any Consensus decision, thereby preventing others from viewing them (with their multiple sources which also contained other multiple embedded sources!) so as to adjudge publication suitability. Up to this very moment, the editor(s) involved HAVE NOT even bothered to explain and shared their thinking driving their rush to "delete" instead of building the recommended "Consensus" in the Wiki-Guidelines. Do the said Wiki-Guidelines NOT apply to these "editors"? Did they have special EXEMPTIONS from the Wiki-Guidelines because of some superior "editor" status? Their stubborn refusal and failure to explain their actions denies critical accountability in editorial decision-making and constitutes a DANGEROUS and blatant disregard for basic and decent human respect accorded to every Wiki Contributor. Suggest the edits be restored for others to read and to debate further HERE so as to build the needed Consensus ... in accordance with the Wiki-Guidelines.
The proverbial ball is clearly now in the hands of those few editors (JFG /and others) who are guilty of gross editorial negligence by disregarding Wiki-Guidelines and acting prematurely in haste without first the requisite due diligence and mutual consultations.
DrMikoWise (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@DrMikoWise: Firstly, I'd advise you, strongly, to stop WP:SHOUT'ing. It doesn't help convince anyone of your viewpoint, and only gives the impression that you're throwing a tantrum over this (even if that's not your intent).
You seem to have read a lot of pages, but was one of them WP:NPOV? Even reliably sourced opinions are still opinions, and when not clearly the overwhelming overwhelming majority of opinions, especially on political matters, we should not state them as fact. Therefore, your edits were removed entirely – also because of WP:BRD wherein the burden is on you, not them, to develop consensus for your edit. Any editor has the right to challenge an addition by reverting it, and the other editors in your situation have chosen to do so.
See also WP:NOTTABLOID: paraphrases of opinion pieces do not belong here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear Jasper, thank you for rushing to advise me. Truly appreciated. No, I am NOT "shouting". Yes, read NPOV. And if my "disputed" Contribution could be read in its entirety, together with all the multiple sources and their corresponding embedded sources, you would also discover that they complied largely and squarely with the NPOV Guidelines governing writing from "a (balanced and) neutral point of view". You will see that the supporting sources "represented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on or related to the Topic entitled: "US Holds Key to Korean Peace". The sources which even included admittedly controversial wall street journal ( and politifact, among others, also do not point to any particular editorial bias. I also noted that the "editors" has earlier already allowed an article by NationalInterest whose bias is well-known. I am a deep believer in even handed and balanced perspectives, and to allow my intelligent readers to form their own conclusions. While the Title may suggest a particular stand for effect, the arguments contained therein relied on many "reliable published sources" dating as far back as 2014. True, opinions are not facts; and the facts of informed opinion whatever their degree of consensus can only be taken prima facie, nothing more and certainly not to be equated with scientific facts. The "editors" who first concluded my materials erroneously as "unsourced" and "off topic", and then changed their mind to ""opinion and conjecture" did not clearly ground their conclusion in the material facts. They should be held accountable by explaining their decisions referring to SPECIFIC statements and sources which informed their "factual" conclusions. That when their edits were legitimately challenged in accordance with Wiki-Guidelines, they have been unable or unwilling to do so tarnished all Wiki editors, notwithstanding beautifully written guidelines which they apparently did not apply to themselves and adhere to eg Consensus.
Indeed, Jasper, instead of confining to just a few of us, why not just restore the edits - even temporarily - for others Wiki Readers to weight in and debate @ Teahouse?
Why do you and just a couple of editors object to this? WE must and should have faith in the wisdom of the Commons which FACTUALLY provides the soul to the Wiki movement.
DrMikoWise (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Because this is not the place to debate anything, DrMikoWise. Because the way content disputes are handled is outlined in WP:BRD and that is not it. Because the content you added and another editor rightfully removed is still visible in the article's edit history and there is no need to restore it. And stop shouting. John from Idegon (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@DrMikoWise: Clearly you did not actually click my link, so here it is again: WP:SHOUT. Specifically, your overuse of all-capitals and boldened text, as well as not being concise, makes it very hard for others to want to work with you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear John and Jasper, it is not my intention to hurt your sensitivity with CAPs and bolden text. Pls accept myApologies. They are usually use for respectful emphasis, not rudeness. Will use less of them in future here. Have you et al actually read fully my article together with all the sourcing and their embedded sources? Don't be offended by my question. Let me explain. It usually takes me some time to read thoroughly and referee an article fairly and giving it the due consideration; that is, checking and reading the references as well as lookup the sources and sourcing of quotes, in addition to grasping the thrust and logic of the arguments. From the discussions so far on the "disputed" Topic, it does not seem that the primary editors had actually fully read everything before making their erroneous decision to exclude. I sense the other editors are merely "protecting" the primary editors out of commendable collegiality. I can understand that. Correct me if I were mistaken here. There is no need to "protect" them - they are under no threats of harm from anything. In fact, I think they would become better editors if they were encouraged to fully explain their decisions by referring to specific material statements and facts from my "disputed" article and sources which had informed their final decision. I do that with any author whose article has been rejected, without even being asked. That's being professional, respectful and polite. Can we afford to be less than professional and respectful in Wikipedia? The most impolite and disrespectful is to throw the proverbial book at them, quoting verses and chapters of policies, processes and rules. Again, I must reiterate that Wiki policies and processes are beautifully written and I do not have any issue with them. Your editorial transparency and accountability however leave a really sour aftertaste to this newbie to Wikipedia. Thanks for all your good intention and advice.
DrMikoWise (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have responded to this editor's complaints on talk after reviewing their edit and JFG's reversion. That is the proper place for this discussion, though I'm afraid it's not going to get very far if DrMikoWise doesn't calm down and learn how to engage others without all the hyperbole I've been seeing in their comments so far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear MjolnirPants et al, don't worry. I am very cool and calm. I am not the basic problem focus here. The primary editors who arbitrarily decided to edit off my voluntary Contribution is Wikipedia's main problem for refusing to explain their thinking driving the final decision to exclude. That's accountability and editorial transparency, which should be the key cornerstone of Wikipedia should you value integrity in your media. Why is it none of you fellow "editors" getting JFG (and others? involved) to just respond to my query? Their silence is deafening indeed. And your strange brotherly conspiracy of silence simply emboldens and encourages their irresponsible and intolerable editorial misbehavior. Trust me when I say that I have never encountered such a poor editorial standard, notwithstanding beautifully written Wiki policies and processes. Seriously, I am mulling giving up on Wikipedia as a serious and credible "encyclopedia" given my newbie experience with your "editors" who evidently lack a sense of professional accountability and the value of editorial transparency - both key ingredients of familiar highly professional editorial boards deserving to be taken seriously. Clearly, I am engaging with some of you more mature ones who are responding very positively, except those who first created the issues and seem to lack the personal credibility or professional locus standi to engage and rebut my allegations of their editorial incompetence. I am however prepared and willing to accept their remorse and regrets for admitting being wrong in this instance. Know that Silence is a self-defeating guilty option. DrMikoWise (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Okay, let's try to examine your argument. I'm going to quote your response here. I will highlight false statements in red, logically unsound arguments in green, unnecessarily emotive language in blue and spurious and irrelevant claims which are not verifiable in yellow.
Dear MjolnirPants et al, don't worry. I am very cool and calm. I am not the basic problem focus here. The primary editors who arbitrarily decided to edit off my voluntary Contribution is Wikipedia's main problem for refusing to explain their thinking driving the final decision to exclude. That's accountability and editorial transparency, which should be the key cornerstone of Wikipedia should you value integrity in your media. Why is it none of you fellow "editors" getting JFG (and others? involved) to just respond to my query? Their silence is deafening indeed. And your strange brotherly conspiracy of silence simply emboldens and encourages their irresponsible and intolerable editorial misbehavior. Trust me when I say that I have never encountered such a poor editorial standard, notwithstanding beautifully written Wiki policies and processes. Seriously, I am mulling giving up on Wikipedia as a serious and credible "encyclopedia" given my newbie experience with your "editors" who evidently lack a sense of professional accountability and the value of editorial transparency - both key ingredients of familiar highly professional editorial boards deserving to be taken seriously. Clearly, I am engaging with some of you more mature ones who are responding very positively, except those who first created the issues and seem to lack the personal credibility or professional locus standi to engage and rebut my allegations of their editorial incompetence. I am however prepared and willing to accept their remorse and regrets for admitting being wrong in this instance. Know that Silence is a self-defeating guilty option.
Once one eliminates all the fluff and -frankly- bullshit from your statement, what we arrive at is something like "I'm upset I got reverted."
Well, I explained why you were reverted at talk. JFG used the thank button to endorse that explanation.
If you come here preaching that WP lacks integrity and professionalism, all the while ignoring the people trying to help you, then I'm afraid it is you who lacks professionalism and integrity, and we will quickly stop trying to help you. So go read my response and talk and try to take my advice. If you can't or won't, then you will need to stop complaining about this before an admin decides you've caused enough disruption and blocks you. I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear DrMikoWise, Wikipedia is a complex social construct that has remarkably managed to deliver a sensible presentation of over 5 million topics while relying only on the good will of volunteer editors like you and me. Our five pillars and our core policies were not imposed from high on by capricious dictators, but rather painstakingly refined by the same community of volunteer editors over many years and many disputes regarding content or behaviour. Those rules and guidelines are very, very far from arbitrary, and they are actually designed to welcome and embrace contributions from all good-faith editors, old or young, experienced or newbies, rich or poor, academics or amateurs. Your initial contributions did not by themselves cause trouble, but your attitude after your edits were rejected is the main reason why several people are going out of their way to explain how things work here, in an effort to help you come to terms with the Wikipedian ethos. In my own communications with you, the only sin I will confess to was perhaps coming through as biting the newbies due to my use of standard warning templates on your talk page, and for this I do apologise.
However, when several editors revert your content, point out in their own words how it was not appropriate, advise you on policy, try to engage with you in various forums, and still you remain perched on your high horse, accusing people of "gross editorial negligence" and pretending to teach us how to uphold "editorial transparency and accountability", you do come out as daft, and we have a humorous guideline that may help you come to your senses. Finally, while pondering your next reply here or elsewhere, you may wish to meditate on the First Law of Holes. Rest assured that there is no cabal against you.
Now, if you still would like to discuss the merits of inserting some content into a particular article, I and other interested editors will be happy to debate on the relevant talk pages of said articles. While such discussions are ongoing, the disputed content temporarily stays out, because the WP:ONUS is on the initial contributor to convince his/her fellow editors that said content should remain. Only this way can we ensure the best possible experience for our readers. — JFG talk 21:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow does DrMikoWise understand? A lot of effort was made. This question and answer should be saved and refer future editors to read. Opinion and point of view are hard subject for new editors. Eschoryii (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Internet Archive "site can't be reached"[edit]

What's up with the Internet Archive? It's been producing the error message "site can't be reached" for a long time. --Espoo (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Espoo: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This board is for asking questions about editing or using Wikipedia; we can't speak to why another site might not be working. You might try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Espoo: It's something on your side, or your ISP. Internet Archive works for me, also and confirm is up. --CiaPan (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The reason i asked here is because is one of the most important tools used by Wikipedia editors. So i figured someone here would also know the answer to my question or a solution to the problem, both of which would probably take much longer to get straight from the website. At least i got the hint to look and try to find the solution on my device.
In case someone else runs into this problem, one or all of these steps were required to fix the problem in Chrome on Android: 1) turn off dater saver 2) go to site settings > all sites > search for "archive" and remove all permissions and settings for all sites containing --Espoo (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I went to, the main page of the Internet Archive, and it is working again. Since I see you have both posted on the same date as I have, I suggest actually looking at your internet and Wi-Fi and check if it is working. :::If it still does that, then I think it is loading a website that might also be dead. TheSmartPersonUS1 (TSPUS1) (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're saying (especially with "Since I see you have both posted on the same date as I have"), but apparently you didn't understand what i said either :) What i tried to say is that i fixed the problem by adjusting the settings of Android Chrome as described above. And i didn't have a problem with any other website. --Espoo (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex Oates page and IP edits[edit]

Hi, I just looked at the history for the Alex Oates page and spotted three edits from an IP from the same theatre which is currently running a play by the same playwright. The play has created controversy of late in both media and social media. Am a bit stumped if this page needs more experienced eyes to look in to this. Chricon79 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Helo Chricon79, thanks for raising your concerns. Sorry you didn't get a reply until now. I've only had time to take a brief look at the article, and I agree with you that some strange editing has gone on. I'm not quite sure how you've concluded that the IPs are from the individual theatre putting on this allegedly controversial play, but someone with a personal point of view has certainly been contributing too much content. I have raised my concerns on the article's talk page that there seems to be a danger of the article about the person becoming a 'coatrack' article about another topic entirely - one of his plays. There is far too much detail there, and it does need trimming down a lot, and POV wording removed. I'm afraid I don't have time to do this myself, though realise you might be wary, as a new editor, of diving in causing more problems. Hopefully, other editors might wish to assist in cleaning it up. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nick Moyes I checked the Goelocate for the IP in question (three edits make on 14 Feb)and it came back with the theatre's website URL as hostname. About the POV going on that in part maybe a by-product of current off-wiki debate going on about the play on Twitter and possible culture war going on between two philosophical schools of thought within the Autism community. Chricon79 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, Chricon79. Good spot!. I must have missed that - the IPs I checked looked like generic TalkTalk addresses, but I see you're right. So good detective work - I've slapped a COI notice on one of them. Sorry I can't help further right now. I see the same overly-detailed content has been added to pages about Southwark Playhouse and Charlie Brooks. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes I know both those two other pages, do you what to handle them or should I have a try at them? Chricon79 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Chricon79 Have a try at cleaning them up, as I'm not going to be able to spend time on this now. But do tread carefully - ensuring you leave a clear edit summary of every changes or content removal. Don't reinsert your edits if they been reverted, but discuss on the relevant article page, or on user's talk page. Always be polite and explain why you believe a certain action you've taken is justified. If in doubt, don't make any changes. I noticed wording like 'hypocritical' and 'signed by people who hadn't seen the play' Unless these are quoted in citations, and relevant to the topic of the article, these should all be removed. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

status on article submitted September 10, 2018[edit]

I wrote an article for Wikipedia on September 10, 2018. It was for a group doing submissions on women composers. I have heard nothing since. Apparently the article was not submitted.

How would I learn what the status is?

If by mistake it was not submitted, how do I get it submitted?

here is a link:

thank you,

Mark (justintunes)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Justintunes (talkcontribs) 04:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Justintunes. Draft for articles are not automatically reviewed; you need to actually submit the draft for review. I will add a template to the top of the draft. You can click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button if you feel it's ready to be upgraded to an article. I wouldn't, however, suggest you do that right at this moment because there some issues with the formatting, etc. which might lead to the draft being declined by a reviewer. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Manual of style for some general information on how to write and format articles. You can find some good examples of how this can be done in Wikipedia:Featured articles or Wikipedia: Good articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I have some updates to make since September 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justintunes (talkcontribs) 01:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to This page is about Tasty tibet.[edit]

Hello I am trying to create a page called Tasty Tibet. But my previous attempt on the same was deleted saying it has promotional content. Can you please have a look at the content and references I have complied in this new draft and tell me about any changes this draft needs to be approved. :) Thank You.

[Tibet Draft]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mot1992 (talkcontribs) 07:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I've added some suggestions on the article's talk page. Good luck :) --Cornellier (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

London Skolars 2019 season[edit]

@RHaworth:, please may I request you restore this page I deleted in error yesterday.

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Calder1966 (talkcontribs) 10:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Edited. --CiaPan (talk) 10:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. There is an article London Skolars which Gary Calder1966 has edited, ditto 2019 London Broncos season, but not London Skolars 2019 season. Maybe someone else can solve this, as well as GC's undeletion request. David notMD (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps 2019 London Skolars season? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
If that, then GC created it on 2/15, blanked it on 2/15, then built it up again, but smaller. Still does not address apology for deletion. David notMD (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Prior to the current creation it had been deleted once yesterday and once earlier today: see logs. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fed gov website citing[edit]

what is the best way to cite a Federal Government agency's website if you are using content either directly from their website or paraphrasing their content? The links that were provided were helpful, but I would like to know how to cite something I pulled from the first paragraph on [1]. Thanks - Scott8905 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Scott A-C


Hi, Scott8905, I think I would do it like this:
<ref>{{cite web| url=| title=Mission and Functions {{!}} USAO {{!}} Department of Justice| publisher=US Deparment of Justice| date=December 9, 2014| access-date=February 15, 2019}}</ref>
to get a result like this:
EOUSA was created in 1953 to provide for close liaison between the Department of Justice and the 93 United States Attorneys[1]


  1. ^ "Mission and Functions | USAO | Department of Justice". US Deparment of Justice. December 9, 2014. Retrieved February 15, 2019.
--CiaPan (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
BTW, Scott8905, have you seen Wikipedia:Citing sources guidelines? There's lots of information there, most of which will be helpful sooner of later. --CiaPan (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you do if sources disagree about when/where someone was born?[edit]

I'm working on an article draft, but two sources disagree about when Hughes was born. One source says she was born on November 12, 1876 and another source claims November 20, 1876. The first is an electronic biographical source with copyrights associated with the University of Toronto and the latter is from the media club of Ottawa (a source I haven't yet cited but can be found at I would tend to think that the first source would be more reliable, but Hughes was one of the founding members of the club that wrote the later source. It doesn't make much sense for the latter source to falsely claim that Hughes was born 8 days later than the other source, but I'm not sure which source would be considered more reliable and how I should write about it in the article. The other thing that differs is where she was born - mainly with some sources being more specific than others. The aforementioned sources agreed that she was born in County Line Emerald Junction, Prince Edward Island, Canada but some other sources state Emerald, Prince Edward Island. Clovermoss (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What's more confusing is that the first website acknowledges that she was one of the founding members of the Canadian Women's Press Club (and some of its connections to the media club of Ottawa) in a seperate article found here: Clovermoss (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: The club is officially called The Media Club of Ottawa in both sources, not the media club of Ottawa (my mind rearranged the wording for some reason). Clovermoss (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I dealt with two issues of this stripe through in text attribution at the article on Rudolf Wanderone a/k/a Minnesota Fats. See the second paragraph at this revision of the article (we later found better sourcing and pinned down his exact date of birth and death).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Ok, I'll take a look at it. Thanks for the advice :) Clovermoss (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Some questions following your message[edit]


First, I have a horrible feeling I have two sandbox articles of the same name. I started one ages ago and was contacted by A Haworth in January when I went back to it (New Year's resolutions etc.). I wasn't sure how to restart and evidently got it wrong. Is it possible to delete that edit or is that even necessary, if the edit here is the latest?

Second, I don't want to pester you with submissions while I find proper links to works and mentions and other relevant links, plus I will check in with the tutorials for layout when I have my ducks in a row. Please could you tell me how I can save without submitting, which is the only button offered.

Third, and this is only small, would it be overplaying it to insert a second portrait from his army years in that section, while keeping the elder man for the main portrait?

That's it. Thanks.

Best wishes, Rory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory Fellowes (talkcontribs) 19:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If you click on the "Contributions" link at the top right of any page it will show you all your contributions. You only have one draft; it was moved from your sandbox to Draft: namespace. You can save changes using the "Publish changes" button without resubmitting for another AFC review. The button used to be named "Save changes" but the WMF changed the name of the button and confused everybody by so doing; it doesn't publish the draft to mainspace. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Page going live[edit]

After I submit my draft when will the page go live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielwilliams651 (talkcontribs) 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Arielwilliams651: Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm assuming you're talking about Draft:Dr. Dana Carson? If so, it will be checked by an articles for creation reviewer - if they believe it meets our criteria for inclusion, it will be "approved" (moved from the "draft space" to the "main space"). This could take a while. - TNT 💖 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Already declined. See what reviewer wrote. And resubmitted with minor changes. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And declined again. David notMD (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
And submitted again and declined again. Large sections of the content have no references. Much of the content is the opinion of the creator of the draft: "As his ministry continues to grow, we can only wait and see what more God has in store for him." All content not drawn from independent published citable references has to come out. David notMD (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sending out thank you's after an edit-a-thon[edit]

How do I use wikimedia images in a new section on a user's talk page? I am trying to use images in my thank you's after an edit-a-thon. --Egallaugher (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Egallaugher (talkcontribs) 22:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're thinking of something similar to the box that Fishantena posted on your talk page, you can try the "wikilove message" button — found on user talk pages right next to the watchlist button. Eman235/talk 23:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Egallaugher, welcome to the Teahouse. Images work the same way in talk pages and articles. Which problem are you having? Help:Pictures has general help. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Feature Request[edit]

I was reading an article on the english wikipedia. Then I decided I wanted it in Simple English. I tried to obtain pages "In other languages," where I discovered that, associated with any article, my browser shows a button labeled "{x} more" and clicking it gives a search feature. (It was new to me.) So, typing "Simple" in the search feature returned no good result (when I know the article is available in Simple English). Can this search feature be changed so an end user, like myself, can have Simple English Wikipedia as a result?

Sorry for posting this just here; I realize this request could get lost in the wind. I just don't know where else to start; Wikipedia's skeleton and nervous system seem so large. I haven't posted this complaint/idea elsewhere, this is my first attempt to make contact with anyone. (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a known bug that Simple English is missing there, both from search and the list. For example, Ashdon should have linked to simple:Ashdon which is included in wikidata:Q1832065#sitelinks-wikipedia. Simple English is listed for registered users if they disable "Use a compact language list" at the bottom of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. This removes the language search feature. The bug is tracked at phab:T210840. A cumbersome workaround for unregistred users using the desktop site: Click "Wikidata item" under "Tools" in the left pane. Then manually examine whether there is a "simple" link under "Wikipedia". Your browser may be able to search for "simple" (or any other string on any webpage) with Ctrl+F. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like developers have worked on a possible fix for this issue, but it's not quite clear when a patch will be finally released. But there's still hope. GermanJoe (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Accidentally moved page to user - not sure how to fix[edit]

I created this page in my Sandbox and accidentally moved to a user, not an article. How do I change it back? I'm basically looking to publish or move to AfD. 05:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Actaudio (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actaudio (talkcontribs) 05:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Actaudio. I have moved the contents to Draft:Paula Fairfield for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I see now it says "Warning: The page Paula Fairfield redirects to User:Paula Fairfield. Please ensure it is not a copy or that this page is located to the correct title." Can you help or advise what I need to do? Actaudio (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Someone tagged the main page for speedy deletion because of the redirect - the draft is still ok - so I think it's resolved... Actaudio (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I have deleted the extra unneeded pages. Continue working on the draft, Actaudio. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

translate an existing page into another existing page[edit]


I would like to add more content to the French page about the Fribourgeois - the language. The Swiss-German version of that page is really rich of information, has many useful tables etc. I would like to use the translation tool to make it easy to see both pages at the same time and to add the same headings, tables, etc in a simple way. However, the information about translation tool suggest to translate one existing page into a language that does not yet have a page for it. This is not my case. So, when I try to create a new translation, it bugs because a French page already exists and it believes I want to create a new one. How can I simply edit an existing page using the translation tool to make it easier and faster?

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Need Help removing maintenance tool[edit] A maintenance template under notability was placed on this article and then removed and again replaced

The placer of the template had left this message,

Greetings Pavankum, I see someone else removed the notability tag per your comment at the Teahouse. After I approved your article for creation, I saw a number of prior attempts to create the article, which caused me some concern. I would propose to leave the notability tag on the article for 60 days to see if any editors disagree with my approval.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I was told to wait for 60 days to see if any editors disagreed with the approval of the article. Now that 60 days are up, i dunno how to contact the placer of the comment to say no one has disagreed with the approval.

Can any other wiki editor verify independently for removal or will it always be vetoed by the placer

Thanks and regards

Feb 16, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talkcontribs) 08:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Pavankum and welcome to the Teahouse.
I suggest that the notability tag should remain in place. The referencing on this article needs work (work which I can't do just now) and the notability is, to me, still questionable. Goodreads is not a reliable source and the Indian Book of Records entries don't look like they are of much better quality. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 15:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Absurd map - expert needed[edit]

Where's the problem?: The article Columbia Wharf, Rotherhithe

What's the article about?: A building in south London.

What's the problem?: The infobox displays a crazy map.

What do you mean, crazy map?: The map shows Ponders End – which is in north London.

Have you checked the coordinates?: Yes, carefully. The numbers are correct.

Then why does the map show Ponders End?: That's what I can't understand.

Has the map always shown Ponders end?: No, for a long time it showed Kiev, Ukraine. See the talk page, "Absurd map".

When did the trouble start?: When an editor created the infobox − on 3 February 2017 at 15:29.

Why can't you fix it yourself?: Because I don't understand how this mapping works. I can't see anywhere in the markup language that even tells it to show a map in the first place.

What would you like the expert to do? Ideally, make the map show the correct geographical area; if that can't be done, remove it.Ttocserp (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I went to Google Maps and changed the coordinates in the infobox in the article to those Google Maps provides for Columbia Wharf, Rotherhithe, but it did not change the display. I wonder if this worked but it needs to rebuild and won't display correctly for a while?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ttocserp and Fuhghettaboutit: I have tried to fix coordinates in WikiData (see here), but then Wikipedia failed to display any map. So I've restored previous, wrong data. Don't know what to do next. Face-sad.svg --CiaPan (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Ttocserp. I suggest that you take this issue to Village pump (technical) where editors with more advanced programming skills may be able to determine the cause of the error. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ttocserp: I think I have fixed this. I adjusted the coordinates in the article a bit (and emended them on Wikidata) and inserted Module:Location map/data/United Kingdom London Southwark in place of the stupid Wikidata map, which indeed wasn't showing up after the coords were emended. Deor (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. It works.Ttocserp (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there an easy place to locate stub articles or orphan articles which need work? Looking to help out when I have free time.[edit]

Pretty much what the subject says. Is there a special location I can find a list of stubs and orphans to expand upon and cite better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfire101 (talkcontribs) 11:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Halfire101, and welcome to the Teahouse! You can find stubs here: Category:Stub categories. They are ordered by topic so that you can find the ones that interest you the most. Orphaned articles can be found here: Category:Orphaned articles, but they are ordered by how long they've been orphaned and not by topic. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey Halfire101. See also the Wikipedia:Community portal (a perma-link in the navigation panel to the left, under the Wikipedia puzzle globe icon), which contains a list of tasks to help out with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about pronouns in service award templates[edit]

Hi Teahouse team,

I have a question about the default pronoun options in the Wikipedia:Service awards templates. I realise they're an opt-in, fun way to self-commemorate one's achievements, and can be very encouraging!

In the template I used on my userpage, it defaults to the text "...he or she..." - is this something I'm able to alter? If the pronoun "they" were the default instead, it would read much more clearly and not have a binary gender stipulation. Or, instead of a single change, is this something that I could ask about applying to the template as a whole?

Thank you for your time and advice. Best wishes, SunnyBoi (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@SunnyBoi: Template:Service_award_progress has some instructions for how to override the default pronouns in the template. It looks like you add the parameter genderoverride and then specify your pronoun. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) Hey SunnyBoi. Per {{Service award progress}}'s documentation, it has the parameter |genderoverride=. Unfortunately, though whatever you insert there will replace the default "he or she", it does not have a parameter to understand that if "they" is the override set, then "needs" must change to "need" to keep the text grammatical. That is, if you use, say, she as the override, it then states: "...she needs to meet the editing requirement", but if you use they, you get the ungrammatical: "...they needs to meet the editing requirement" (uggh). I'm sure someone better at template coding than I am could fix that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@SunnyBoi: I've made an alternate version, User:A lad insane/Gender neutral service award progress that you can use. It's probably not perfect, but I'm pretty sure it works. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Bonadea: @Fuhghettaboutit: @A lad insane:, thank you so much for your help! I’m sorry I missed the genderoverride tag. That is tricky about the “…needs to meet the editing requirement” making grammatical issues.
Thank you -A lainsane for the alternate template! I am drafting an update with it, but it seems to be cementeed on the next level of the award (remaining at 4000 editing requirement as the next hurdle), but that could be because I’m not updating the right information. I appreciate you making this, I’m hopeful that I can figure out how to change the service level so that it can apply to my shorter editing history :) Thank you again! --SunnyBoi (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@SunnyBoi: You're welcome :) and I think I've got it to a place where it works; {{User:A lad insane/Gender neutral service award progress||year=2017|month=1|day=30|edits=1210}} should do it, at least it worked in my sandbox. I've filled in your information based on the editcount tool. -A lainsane (Channel 2) 16:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to ask for help ...[edit]

It's a truism that none of the hosts know it all - and tonight I am really stuck. I need help to understand why I am not receiving notification alerts when someone posts to a talk page of a sub-page of my own user page. That's a bit mind-bending, so let me explain...

I've just adopted a new user, Clovermoss, so I decided to create a sub-page for all our activities and discussions. This is something I've not done before, and we've started discussing various subjects on the associated talk page at User talk:Nick Moyes/Adoption/Clovermoss. I had hoped I would receive an alert whenever she posted anything there. (Email notifications are of no use to me as I don't have email access on my mobile, which is currently my main form of editing.)

My question is: why am I not receiving on-wiki alert notifications when they post to that talk page? Are alerts only produced when a person posts to the primary user page and not to a sub-page? I can't see anything in my preference settings that would allow me to enable alerts for this scenario. Wikipedia:Notifications offers no explanation. I have, however, found this open Phabricator ticket], but it's so old and so complicated I can't deduce what, if any progress has been made on it, but it does sound like it might be a known weakness. Any advice or work-around is welcome, or suggestions for the best way to reactivate this ticket.

There's a free cup of tea and some special Teahouse biscuits for anyone who can help me get this working! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Nick Moyes, and welcome to the Teahouse! Smile.gif I don't know if I will be able to solve your problem in full, but I do have a work-around to offer: have you tried adding that page to your Watchlist? Not as good as a notification, but at least it might stop updates from going un-noticed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I have never come across this before, but it seems to be working as designed. According to Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ#What_kinds_of_notifications_can_I_get?, it sends an alert "when a message is left on your user talk page". No mention of talk pages for your user sub-pages. Nor can I find any way to add those pages to the list of what generates an alert. There are preferences (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo) that determine what you get notifications for, and it what form, but they still don't include what you're after. I think the only way to get it would be to raise a change request ... sorry.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: if you decide to request a change, the project page is at Wikipedia talk:Notifications. It appears to be active: the last activity was only a couple of weeks ago.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, Gronk Oz. That would normally work, of course. But I have had to turn off my watchlist since last spring because a) I rarely see emails because of my real world commitments and b) when I do, I'm just swamped with messages on my webmail account, and tend to miss the really critical ones. To make life manageable, I've stopped all watchlist notifications and innumerable Facebook-type notifications altogether. An on-wiki alert notification would be ideal. Wading through two weeks worth of trivial emails and notifications to eventually respond to someone is not fair on them. That's why I'm looking for on-wiki notification alerts, but I thank you for replying with that advice. It's exactly the kind of advice I would have given another user. Your subsequent post does suggest one obvious thing I hadn't thought of - posting at the talk page of WP:Notifications itself. I might well do that, and not worry about Phabricator tickets for now. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I hesitate to suggest it because I expect even if you don't say it in response, you'll probably think "duh", but I'll say it anyway: if there was a singular page that I was especially keen on knowing if there was changes to, wanted the most direct, single click method of checking for changes, and was resigned to the fact that there was no way to have changes to it pop up through notifications, I would save a link to the URL of its history at the top of my user or user talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: It's a fair and sensible comment, thanks, though certainly not an ideal or elegant one. I've taken Gronk's advice and asked at Wikipedia talk:Notifications. As an adnin, may I ask if you were aware of this apparent limitation? It was certainly a surprise to me that alerts don't seem to work by default from edits to sub-page talk pages or, I presume, from sandbox talk pages. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I was aware of it, and I very much agree that having this work would be a great improvement (I really can't think of any downside).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference section Link is broken[edit]

Some early history is reported in Giri L. Agrawal (1997). " — An Overview" (PDF). Publication 97-GT-347. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikip1950 (talkcontribs)

Hello, Wikip1950 and welcome to the Teahouse. It might have helped had you signed your post here and also given a link to the article you are talking about. I guess it must be Foil bearing? May I ask, what is the actual question you have about this? It is possible that whatever your concerns, you might get a more knowledgeable response from editors by posting on the talk page of the article itself. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I understand now. I'll go and fix the link for you. Sorry I didn't follow you at first. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done It was a simple case of the website owners changing the layout of their pages, and thus their old urls no longer worked (a very common issue). It's now sorted, but you could easily have corrected this yourself, simply by editing the page and pasting in the correct url. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia's references. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Question on categorization[edit]

I am currently expanding articles by translating their more expansive French counterparts into English.

I have found the Category:Articles needing translation from French Wikipedia to be a great help in that end, but I have noticed that the category is full of French communes and that the sub-category Category:France geography articles needing translation from French Wikipedia exists.

Should these articles be put in the appropriate sub-category only or should they be present in both categories? Or are communes articles not a type of article that should be put in said sub-category? Sadenar40000 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism - World almanac[edit]

why would the first sentence begin world almanac and book of "judgement" for world almanac (possible vandalism)? Is there not a bot that would spot or check that daily if not hourly — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I have corrected the vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. Please be aware that you could correct the article yourself. As for the bots that revert vandalism, they are very good but not perfect. My hunch is that the bots did not pick up this particular vandalism because the words used were plausible, and not words most commonly used by vandals. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
If a bot was clever enough to be able to, we'd probably have to give it the vote! {The poster formerly knoiwn as} (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Uploading an image[edit]

I don't know what license a screenshot of a game would fall under, could someone please assist me? I'm Unique! :) (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@I found a unique username: Games are generally copyrighted, which means that we can only use the image under fair use. This means that the image should be uploaded to Wikipedia, not commons, and the screenshot should be low-resolution (scale the image down to the size that will be used in the article). You'll want to use {{Non-free video game screenshot}} and follow the instructions there. Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm Unique! :) (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gaelan: I am using the File upload wizard, so... what am i supposed to do? I'm Unique! :) (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@I found a unique username: Looks like if you select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.", then "This is some other kind of non-free work that I believe is legitimate Fair Use." there's a "Game screenshot" option in the resulting popup menu. Gaelan 💬✏️ 05:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gaelan:: Thanks! I'm Unique! :) (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gaelan:: it seems every time i think i'm done, another thing pops up. I got some sort of error saying 'invalid form' or something, then it it said it was uploading, no image came out. now what happened? I'm Unique! :) (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I've been waiting ~3 hours into the night so i don't get my image for my draft hit with every fire possible, which in turn is a work-in-progress for an Already-created false redirect protected to administrator level. I'm Unique! :) (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

────────── Hi I found a unique username. Hate to tell you this but the upload has some problems, sorry:

  • You uploaded the image to the Wikimedia Commons, rather than locally, to Wikipedia. The Commons only accepts free media – material in the public domain or that bear a suitably free license. Non-free, copyrighted images intended to be used under the fair use exception to the exclusive grant of copyright can only be uploaded to Wikipedia. (I will go tag the image for speedy deletion at the Commons, after I post this.)
  • You placed the image on your userpage. You can never do this. We allow fair use images under very limited circumstances, including only in mainspace articles. There, the image and its use must meet every part of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.
  • At the Commons, you made the claim that the image was your "own work". It is not. Please read Wikipedia:Scanning an image does not make it your "own work", which I created to address this common misunderstanding.
  • After claiming it as your own work, you purported to release the copyright, when you have no ownership interest in the image, and cannot affect its copyright in any way.
  • The image is too large, I think, to meet the muinimum extent of use requirement of the doctrine – the file size would need to be reduced.
  • To sum up a bit, if there is to be a valid use here, it would need to be:
  1. only in an article on the game itself;
  2. uploaded locally;
  3. only allowable if there is no free image that could be used (even if the free image is not as good);
  4. the upload was accompanied by both:
i) a fair use rationale – for here, see {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}}; and
ii) details on the license – for here, see {{Non-free video game screenshot}}.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks for the response. I will re-size the image, but I have no Idea how to 'upload it locally', unless you mean in the article editor itself. Apologies for my inexperience W/ copyrights.I'm Unique! :) (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Go look at the image page. See how it says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below"? You may have been shunted there, on the upload, without realizing you were sent to a different website, but you did not upload it to Wikipedia. The excerpted text "description page there" is a link. Click on that to see the actual locatio of the image.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Again, that image is not the one I came about. If there is something I need to do about it as well, let me know.I'm Unique! :) (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: The image you are referring to was a different one. The one I am having issues with at this point is one for (see My sandbox). If that image has an issue as well, I can have it deleted. I'm Unique! :) (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@I found a unique username: @Fuhghettaboutit: Actually, it looks like in this case the game's textures are CC BY-SA, which means they're fine for use on commons (assuming the authors are listed correctly). Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Great! If so, the image needs to be licensed as such (not as currently claimed, own work and under a different license).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gaelan: @Fuhghettaboutit: Ok... but what about the one I came here about in the first place? I have a 600x375 screenshot of Gameplay and wish to add it to my draft.I'm Unique! :) (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
If that's non-free, you can only use it after the draft has been accepted and has been moved to the mainspace. Having an image or not in any draft will be irrelevant to whether it will be accepted. So, work on the content: neutral language; keeping out original ressearch; demonstrating notability; citing independent; reliable, secondary sources; making sure all factual statements are verifiable, etc. That's what will make the draft acceptable. Once moved to the mainspace, then worry about the image.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks. I'm Unique! :) (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@I Found a unique username: Oh, and of course, you do not need to reduce the file size of the other image, because you're not using it under a claim of fair use. (Gaelan has fixed the page to list the correct author of the image and correct license).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
got it. I'm Unique! :) (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Using a WP article verbatim on a website. Kosher or not?[edit]

Hi. I'd like to include the content of a WP article in whole on a different website. What are the rules for this? Provide attribution? Don't do it?!? Or do it and no attribution necessary? Thank you.- AWCzarnik (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

AWCzarnik, yup, it's ok, with attribution. See CC BY-SA 3.0. See WP:REUSE. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor did I play one on TV and copyright is a legal issue. Wikipedia does not give legal advice. John from Idegon (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, John. You fully answered my question. And regarding legal advice... sometimes I hear lawyers who give off-the-cuff advice to friends say that the advice is worth what the person paid for it.- AWCzarnik (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

All the things in source editing[edit]

Can someone tell me all the things I can make in source editing? For example taxobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericusername420 (talkcontribs) 09:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Genericusername420, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might want to try out the Wikipedia Adventure to help you get started with editing. Mstrojny (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There are simply too many to list, Genericusername420, but a lot is covered in Help:Wikitext. For instance, the Taxonbar you probably refer to is a template and templates are transcluded by double brackets, thus {{Taxonbar}}. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Create a profile[edit]

Sir, how to create a new wikipedia profile , please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak kiwi (talkcontribs) 15:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Deepak kiwi: Wikipedia does not have "profiles." Instead we have user pages, (yours is at User:Deepak_kiwi) and articles.
If you were planning on creating an article, follow the instructions at User:Ian.thomson/Howto. If you do not or cannot follow those instructions, the article will be deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Hello fellow editors where do you go to sign up to an administrator because I would like to be one. Thanks for any help. TheHelpingHandMan (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheHelpingHandMan: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Being an administrator is not something that you simply sign up for; there is a process called Request for Adminship to go through. It is a community discussion about whether a user merits being given administrator powers. It usually takes years to develop an edit history and other evidence that you understand Wikipedia guidelines and have the right temperament you also need to show a specific need for the tools; the likelihood of a new user succeeding at getting administrator powers is probably close to zero. Keep in mind that you can do 95% of things on Wikipedia without being an administrator. Administrators simply have a few extra tools that would be irresponsible to give access to for all users. Concentrate on working on this project in any way you wish to; after much time others will eventually notice if you merit administrator powers and nominate you. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


I know that an editor's userspace can be redirected to their talk page, but can their talk page be redirected to their userspace? Goveganplease (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Goveganplease: I would think that would be inadvisable, as your user talk page is meant for others to be able to communicate with you. Some notifications are also automatically posted there. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Goveganplease: Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates that add categories, and redirects says: "User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of another account controlled by the same user." PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Messed up coding[edit]


I messed up the coding on the ‘Singles’ section of Melody Thornton really badly. I’m not sure how to rescue the previous coding without reverting all of my edits? I’ve done a lot of beneficial edits to the page and I don’t want to revert it all. Can someone help restore the singles section? – Joesimnett (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joesimnett: How is this? —teb728 t c 21:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new page the same time as someone else[edit]

Hi, all, I'm here to ask a question about creating a page that may already be in the process of being created by someone else. The page I've created is for a sportsperson who is not yet notable because he has't debuted, although he is likely to debut in a couple of months. Seeing how he'll be notable at a certain time, does it mean it's somewhat of a 'race' to submit my page or do editors give it some time to collaborate other drafts?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItChEE40 (talkcontribs) 00:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@ItChEE40: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Users can collaborate on drafts, but even if many do, there is nothing to prevent another uninvolved party from creating the same article first. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, ItChEE40. I would like to advise you not to do this: not because somebody else is doing it, but because I believe this is the wrong way to go about writing an article. I think you realise that an article will not be accepted until the subject is notable; but I don't think you appreciate the whole of the reason for this. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should come from a reliable published source: not from what you, I, or any random person on the internet know; not from social media; and, mostly, not from what the subject or their friends or associates say. If a subject is not yet notable (in the way Wikipedia uses the word) then by definition there is not enough information reliably published to ground an article. If you start writing an article before a subject is notable, then I have to ask where is the information coming from that you are putting into your draft? Once the subject does become notable (which might be when they debut, if they make enough of a splash that several independent commentators choose to write about them, but probably will be considerably later) you may find that the material published about them which will be the only material acceptable as the basis of the article will be rather different from what you have already written, and your draft may have to be completely rewritten. From your use of the word "race", I suspect that you think that it is important to get an article up as quickly as possible: it isn't. (It might be from the subject's point of view, but that is not of importance to Wikipedia, since promotion in all forms is forbidden here. Please see DEADLINE.)
I'm sorry if this comes over as negative, but I don't want you wasting your time going down a path that may be fruitless. --ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please advise me HOW I ‘Apply the Creative Commons license’ to images I wish to accompany my proposed page/s for a new entry on Wikipedia's ‘List of South African women artists’…[edit]

Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Desmond (talkcontribs) 01:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

For more details about my proposed page/s for new entry on ‘List of South African women artists’, see my UserTalk:′Help Me!′ page. David Desmond (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, David Desmond. I am not an expert here, and I may have misunderstood; but I have a feeling that you have also misunderstood. In order to upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons, the pictures must be either public domain, or have been released by the copyright holder under a suitable licence, typically CC-BY-SA. I take it that the pictures we are talking about are not in the public domain - if they are (probably by reason of their age) you can simply upload them and choose that option. Otherwise, Wikimedia Commons requires a statement from the copyright owner that they are released under a suitable licence. Unless they are your own work (which they presumably are not) you are not capable of making this statement. There are then two cases: if the owner has made a public declaration (for example on their website) that they are licensed in a suitable manner, then you can upload them, and refer to that declaration. Otherwise the owners themselves need to communicate with Wikimedia to assert that they have released them: see donating copyright materials.
One further point: not all CC licences are the same. Wikimedia Commons requires a licence that permits reuse for any purpose (including commercial) and the creation of derivative works. Some CC licences permit this (such as CC-BY-SA) but others don't.
If you have further questions, I suggest that commons:Help desk is a better place to ask than here. --ColinFine (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Can I earn[edit]

Can I earn through Wikipedia or it's just a free Lance job? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinfeda (talkcontribs) 01:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Akinfeda Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia does not pay contributors. All of us are volunteers who are here to improve this project. We cannot stop you from offering your editing services to others for pay(off wiki), but this is not encouraged and in that situation you must comply with WP:PAID. You would be unable to guarantee any particular result, however. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Some free advice: if your research and proofreading skills are such that you allow the word "free Lance" to appear in that form you have some work to do before you earn money at this anyway. Britmax (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Linking/uploading image that appears in another Wikipedia article[edit]


I've been trying to use an image uploaded to another Wikipedia entry. Obviously it's fair use? It even has a url on

However, I tried every syntax option I could think of or find online, and nothing worked. So finally I just downloaded the image and uploaded it from my laptop. Of course, the mifterbot (whatever that is) serves me with a warning tag that image will be taken off in 7 days.

Here's the image link:

And here's the part of my article where it shows:

By the way, is it only me, or is the Wikipedia edit interface not so friendly, to put it mildly? I teach programming and know a variety of markup/markdown systems (e.g., Latex), and now I am even more in awe of the type of information people have put on Wikipedia despite its unhelpful interface.

The human "reception committee" could also be a tad more friendly. I spent weeks of editing and adding what I thought was a pretty rich content, before daring to submit my article for first acceptance - only to be slapped with a C by two different graders with zero explanation or detail. I looked up the grade examples, and it seems to be a pretty harsh grading call. Not that I care much about grades, I care that the article is posted; but this community doesn't seem too welcoming (that was not my only experience with this attitude).

Okay, sorry for ranting. Could really use your help about the image. AforBaheer (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

C-class is common. I recently put in 150 edits and a 10X expansion to get Vitamin deficiency to C-class. Rather than trying for B-class, editors may attempt an improvement to Good Article, which incorporates a peer reviewer. David notMD (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Haha, yes kinda confirms my suspicion. Again, I was not complaining about a particular grading I got, but rather about a rather clear whiff of snobbery that welcomes the new editor onboard. Your Vitamin article looks a solid B (at least) to me in any sane 21st-Century grading system.

But I still have my main question about getting an image embedded in another Wiki entry show up on your own. AforBaheer (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe because you have "Image"? Try what shows up here when you click on edit:
your text here
You can probably still size it larger. David notMD (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I changed to 'File', seems like now it does point to the original Wikimedia upload by whoever edited that other page. I guess the trick is to click on the image and see exactly what the image's official Wikipedia name is? AforBaheer (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello AforBaheer and welcome to the Teahouse.
Classes B and C are just some editor's opinion and have no particular force. Only good article and featured article classes are based on a formal review. Ignore the classification for now and try not to think of them as grades.
It appears that the image you were starting from was this one at c:File:Staircase-Verfahren (Transformed Staircase).png and its translation at c:File:Staircase Transformed Up Down English.png You are allowed to use this original image and you are allowed to modify it (such as by translating it), but you are expected to point to the original when you upload the translated version. If you do not supply the attribution, your upload will have to be deleted as a violation of the license which lets us use these images at all. (Or deleted as a duplicate.) This is not a matter of fair use. I wish you had asked here at the Teahouse when you first ran into problems.
You've written a substantial article - albeit aimed at a more technical audience than the general reader at Wikipedia (probably more technical than a lot of admins) - and got it accepted by a reviewer. Congratulations, that's quite an achievement. Creating an acceptable new article is a difficult task. Thank you for your contributions. I'm sorry if your reception came off as snobby. Encouraging new editors is something we try to do here in the Teahouse.
But Wikipedia has a lot of rules, policies, guidelines and customs; nearly all of them emerge from a gradual consensus process involving many editors over several years. While some things should be considered fixed in stone, other parts are still being hammered out. Keep working on contributing and you'll master the parts of those rules that you need and get (gentle, I hope) recommendations if you stray. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Archived Question re List of Thermal Conductivities.[edit]

Hello again Tea House: Thanks for all your help and yet the Analytical List in the List of Thermal Conductivities which lines up in Google Chrome does not line up in Microsoft Edge. The conductivities HAVE TO line up with their corresponding temperatures for the table to make any sense but for example the Ice section and various other sections are out of alignment in Microsoft Edge. That defeats the whole purpose of the list. Would anyone have any advice on how to get the listed conductivities to line up with their corresponding temperatures on every browser? (I don't know the syntax of the table and I only learned how to get things up on it by trial and error). Thank you, Patriot1423 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding a list of articles under category to my watchlish[edit]

Hi I want to add a list of articles all at once that all are under certain category. I don't want to do it one by one! Is there any way to do it all at once! Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@شرعب السلام: I'm not sure if that's possible, but as a workaround you can browse to the category, then click "related changes." That will show you a list of changes to articles in that category, but it won't actually add anything to your watchlist—you'll have to go back there whenever you want to check it. It's not as nice as what you're asking for (which might be possible, but I don't know of a way), but it works. Gaelan 💬✏️ 09:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@شرعب السلام: I think that if you do what is called "edit raw watchlist" you can type in the names of all articles you want to follow at once. If you click edit watchlist, there is then an option to "edit raw watchlist". 331dot (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for your help. I will try what 331dot said. Seems like a good idea! I didn't know there was such an option. Thank you!.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

reg my created page[edit]


i have just now created a page by the name "sri bharat mathukumilli" and even clicked on publish. but i don't find it after that. what's the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialmediacampaign (talkcontribs) 06:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You have created and saved an incomplete draft at Draft:Sri Bharat Mathukumilli. You can find all of your contributions by clicking the "Contributions" link at the top right-hand corner of any Wikipedia page. Drafts (and other non-article pages) are not found in the default options in Wikipedia search. For guidance on how to develop your draft, please read WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Teahouse, I recently made RZB Securities page and it was recommended as a merger page by another editor to the existing Raiffeisen page. "Matthew HK" is recommending deletion and I really don't understand why. IF all the other branches of RZB are listed so should RZB Securities which was a US branch. Please advise. Josephintechnicolor (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Need help in finding reliable sources for my first article[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I'm trying to put this article about XLN Audio together but have run into some issues in finding sources that fulfill the WP:NCORP requirements. I found it odd that there was no Wiki article about XLN as their name and products keeps appearing in interviews with both world-leading songwriters and reviews/product articles in magazines about music plugins. If anyone can help me find some reliable sources on them it would be highly appreciated (this is my first article and I would really like to get it up and running so any advice would be much appreciated).

Link for the article: Draft:XLN_Audio

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlsia (talkcontribs) 09:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Owlsia: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask you if you have any association with XLN Audio. Regarding your question, there needs to be independent reliable sources with in depth coverage of XLN Audio. If the only coverage is brief mentions, name drops, or press releases, this company likely does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@311dot: Hi 311dot, no I am not associated with XLN audio. I keep hearing about them in articles and interviews but could not find any Article on wikipedia about them as I was looking to read more about them. Been looking for a topic to write my first article about for a bit and thought this may be a good subject.
I just find it a bit strange that a company that seems to be widespread and known in the songwriting and music production Industry did not have a Wiki, especially as I could find articles about similar companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlsia (talkcontribs) 09:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Owlsia: I'm 331dot, not 311dot, but I follow this page so it's okay. It is possible for a company to be widely mentioned but still not merit a Wikipedia article. The key to meriting an article is significant coverage. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. Companies do not "have a Wiki" as a Wiki is a type of website, but a Wikipedia article can exist about them. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page posts as instructed on your user talk page. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: Sorry about that, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia on the editing side. Trying to learn as much as possible. For example, when looking into similar companies within the Audio software I found this article for EZdrummer holding no significant WP:NCORP references: . Am i missing something here or are the rules for these types of articles different as they don't fall under the organization cathegory? Thank you in advance. (Also did i get the sign correct this time?) Owlsia (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you did. It seems that EZdrummer may not meet the criteria for an article either. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to exist for some time. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing a template[edit]

I'm new at Wikipedia, is there any way that I could get help editing a template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelyryan95 (talkcontribs) 10:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To get help in editing a template, ask at the template's talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Linking in articles[edit]

Another thing, how do you get the page to have the blue text or link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelyryan95 (talkcontribs) 10:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

For info on links, see Help:Link. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

How do you make a reference or citation needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelyryan95 (talkcontribs) 10:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To add a reference, read Help:Referencing for beginners. To tag text as "citation needed", use the template {{citation needed}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi Protected Pages[edit]

I am new here, please suggest - How can I edit the semi protected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexa0789 (talkcontribs) 10:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You can make a request at the article's talk page, supported by references to published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Alexa0789, welcome to the Teahouse. You can edit semi-protected page in ten hours when your account becomes four days old and has made ten edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Correcting a draft[edit]


I would need to edit a draft article to make it less commercial -like. I would be happy to comply - just not quite sure which parts would need editing..

Would be most thankful for any instructions on this :)

Thank you in advance for all help with this.

Here is the draft: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNPNiemi (talkcontribs) 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


I am asking how to make drafts not drafts and actual articles. The drafts are — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scurvy G (talkcontribs) 12:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Hello! Why i cannot edit some articles? I have only option view source on top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Bookman (talkcontribs) 12:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)